User talk:Cretog8
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Very funny
I thought I accurately answered the question. Congrats on the above, which is certainly impressive. Vivas aren't easy, so I bet you're happy. Well done, and send me an email some time telling me what it was about. Wikidea 23:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for congrats, and yes, I'm very happy! Regarding civility, I can understand the frustration, and I do think that VT pushes the limits of tendentious frequently, but I'd be grateful if you could hold your tongue/fingers, because I suspect it will lead to losing your contributions rather than VT's. CRETOG8(t/c) 11:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Right about my edit being WP:OR
You're right that my earlier edit on economic freedom was [[WP:OR|OR]. But I've got to say it's surprising that no one has pointed it out. I checked on Google Scholar and couldn't find anyone who published that fairly shocking disjuncture between EF indices and HDI scores. Maybe I should write up a journal article. My search did turn up the source for my more recent edit.
I think maybe the problem with the economic freedom indices is that Heritage and Fraser try to sneak in a lot of other aspects of libertarianism into the core concept. In other words, EF may be a useful concept, but those two indices are simply ideological. Academic38 (talk) 23:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- There's some good scholarship around the EF indices, but there's still a selection bias in who does the research, and I think that's part of why the research comes out the way it does. I also admit that I don't understand how they decide to weight various elements in the indices, which seems a really iffy idea (same for other indices which are supposed to give a single number to some broad social phenomenon). I think any idea of "economic freedom" is bound to be ideological, and that's OK with me as long as it's treated honestly and it's acknowledged that there's different ideas of what it can mean. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Inflation move
Yeah, it was a weird technical thing; I did a history merge to make sure that all the edits to the article are in one place. Graham87 03:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] KiK sock
About your reversion of User:TruthAndZealotryDon'tMix on the Krugman page. It's a sock of banned user User:Karmaisking. It's no use suggesting that he take it to the talk page, as he's a completely unreasonable zealot. Best to just revert quickly and label 'rv banned user' whenever you see one of his socks. Regards, LK (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hi LK. Yeah, I could tell it was a sock, but I don't know the ins and outs of tagging it as such, and I want to stay on the right side of AGF, so I was essentially stalling. I need to figure out the sockpuppet stuff so you don't have to do ALL the work on KiK. CRETOG8(t/c) 12:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Krugman
Don't revert my changes on Krugman's BLP article without first discussion on the article talk page. The section your reverting to isn't just wrong, it's a damn lie. You might want to read the cites. Scribner (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Keynes
Im planning to enter John Maynard Keynes as a candidate for promotion to featured article status. If you have time over the next week or so it would be great if you have a look and make any changes you think are required. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
