User talk:John Quiggin/archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(William M. Connolley 22:04, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)) Hello, and welcome to wikipedia. I guess that you are the John Quiggin as referenced by Tim Lambert. Usually these welcome notes are written by people who have some nice boilerplate to hand, but I don't. But anyway, its all clear enough... feel free to ask (here will do) if you have any questions. You might want to edit your userpage, mind.

Hi, I'm the same John Quiggin. I set myself up as a user last year as you noticed. but didn't get around to doing anything about it until now - pressure of blogging and all that. I'd appreciate any guidance you can give me, if you get this

(William M. Connolley 15:52, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Hello then (yes I got your mail too). Well, advice number 1 is pile in and do some stuff on a few pages of interest, but be prepared to back off and talk if people object. You're welcome to join the Great Global Warming War if you like... best intro to that would be to look at my user contributions... (should be a button on the left side, in the default skin).

I might work on my skills a bit before I jump in. I made a series of changes on economic rationalism where I was already cited. I'd be interested in any suggestions on things I did right/wrong as far as Wikipedia goes (if you have any substantive thoughts on the entry, they would be interesting too).

Welcome

Hello John Quiggin/archive1,

Although you've been around a while, I would still like to welcome you to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I had a look at your blogs and was most impressed - they're now firmly affixed to "My Favourites".

For Wikipedia-wide involvement, visit the Communtiy Portal and the Village Pump. To help you with your contributions, you might like to review the Manual of Style and our Policies and Guidelines.

Be sure to check out Australian resources, like The Australia Wikiportal, Australian Wikipedians' Notice Board, Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight, New Australian Articles and Australian stub articles. You can list yourself at Australian Wikipedians.

Also, seeing as though you're an Adelaidean (although possibly not residing there?), have you considered participating in WikiProject Adelaide? Even if you don't wish to be actively involved, the WikProject indicates areas in need of coverage - some of which you may wish to help in. Which reminds me, thank you for making a start on the Adelaide Festival of Ideas.

By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the Village Pump or ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome.-- Cyberjunkie ^TALK 9 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're welcome. The bibliography was a bit haphazard; I included the last two entries at randomn to show variety in your work (and something more recent). I hope it's representative to some extent. By the way, we've just set up a guideline for biographies of living persons (in response to recent controversy) you may wish to look over. Oh, and Happy New Year indeed!--cj | talk 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Henry Farrell

I've done some copy editing, changed some formatting, etc. I've also removed a few links. I know that that seems perverse, I asked for them and then I remove them, eh? There is method to my madness, I swear. The guidelines I hold dear are Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The CV, for example, we really can't link to. He could be claiming that he's invented hair or anything. Instead, we should take anything from the CV that can be WP:Verified per a source above and move it into the article.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 01:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

As to linking to the blog a few times, we generally don't do multiple deep linking like that. I'm not going to suggest for a moment that it would be spam in this instance, but that's why it is discouraged. An acceptable way would be to provide some excerpts as prose, with the link to the blog as the reference. Oh, and I know a few others welcomes have come through, but here's another: Welcome!

You've come in on the rough end of the pineapple, as AfD can be pretty rough, and blog related AfDs leave entrails on the floor about 85% of the time. So it's good to see that you've been calm and kept working toawrds a solution. Hope you'll keep contributing, and if you want some wiki-work to do that's not so close to this, just ask!

brenneman ^(t)^(c) 02:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realise blogs were so controversial here! I've been editing entries like DDT which are absolutely explosive topics in the blogosphere, and managing to avoid any big fights. The blog entries were just a lighthearted idea for the Xmas holidays, and caused all this fuss. Anyway, I've learned a lot about the processes, and some of the different schools of thought in Wikipedia. Fortunately, blogging has given me a lot of practice in keeping cool.

Anyway, thanks for the welcome and for pointing me to the guidelines. I've got a few ideas for contributions and if I find any spare time, I might put up my hand for some wiki-work! BTW, is it appropriate to reply here, as I've done, or on your talk page?JQ

The sword fight continues

I have been impressed with you so far. The E.H. pages are yet another regretable incident, and you've once again kept moving toward a solution. I am sorry if I seem obstinate, or destructive, or even *shudder* deletionist. My standards of citation are high, and when people act silly over something so easy, I sometimes dig in my heels.

I should have simply added the citations in myself, thank you for doing so. I already spend so much of my time cleaning up after people, I get cross when someone has time to argue with me instead of just {{sofixit}}. I still have to work more on my WP:COOL.

As to "where to reply" I don't think anyone has a 100% system, unless you consider ad hoc a system. The best method I've seen is to keep the conversation where it starts, but ping the other person when you reply on your own page with "replied" or somesuch. Most people simply put their replies on the other person's talk page, but that leads to awful split conversations, and can make you look like a buffoon at times. Some people copy all of every conversation onto each talk page, but that seems like a terribly redundant system to me. I change every minute.

Keep up the good work, brenneman ^(t)^(c) 08:58, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation on John Brignell

Hello, I'm responding to the mediation request on John Brignell made by User:Engjs. Before discussing where to do the mediation: Are you willing to procceed with this? I have already contacted Engjs. I'll keep your talk page in my watchlist, so answer me here if you want. Also, if you prefer, my email address is imaglangATyahooDOTcom --Neigel von Teighen 15:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I must admit, I don't know what's involved in a mediation. I'm not incredibly hopeful about coming to an agreed position with Engjs, but if the process is not to time-consuming I'll give it a go.

Mediation is to try to get both parties together and make them discuss the topics while the mediator (me, in this case) tries to make them reach consensus. In Wikipedia, there is official mediation made by the Mediation Committee (see Requests for mediation and Mediation Committe's page) and informal mediation made by the Mediation Cabal or independent users willing to help. Engjs posted a request in the Mediation Cabal, so this is informal. The main difference between formal and informal mediation is that the last does't count as an "official" way to reach a solution when going into arbitration (before you get there, it is necessary to pass through the MedCom). But, the MedCom is very busy the most of the times, so the MedCab is a suitable "alternative" way to help to clean the "official" path of cases that aren't as grave as others.

If this is too time-consuming, it will depend on how much are you willing to try to reach consensus rather than attack each other. But, anyway, if you don't want to accept mediation, you are free to just say no. Yours! --Neigel von Teighen 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll give it a go. I can give you a statement of my position on the issues, if that would be helpful.JQ 23:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Engjs says he'll be not available until Tuesday (I'll contact him). Let's begin on that day. The best would be to do it in a subpage of Talk:John Brignell, something like Talk:John Brignell/Mediation. What do you think? --Neigel von Teighen 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, fair enough

Meanwhile, I've been hacking the article. I don't nkow whether that will help or hinder. William M. Connolley 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Abu Bakr

Seems to be under control. Regards, Rich Farmbrough 15:10 26 February 2006 (UTC).

Mediation begins!

Hi again! The mediation has started on Talk:John Brignell/Mediation. Please, take a look in there! I'll contact Engjs. --Neigel von Teighen 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Relative risk

Hi John, Do you have some references for the assertions of John Brignell and Steve Milloy? I think the relative risk article could use some more clarity and I think their writing is important to consider so that the fallacy of their arguments can be understood in detail (and thoroughly discredited). Nephron 05:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

For Brignell, the best is [1]. This seems to have got lost from the Brignell article in the process of edit war and mediation that's been going on there. For Milloy the best is [2]. BTW, I've found your work on Relative risk very helpful. JQ 05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[3] is a curious mix of insightful and sloppy. It's wrong to confuse RR with hazard or odds ratios (and the odds in ORs are exactly the same as in racing). Indeed, the fixation with RR is mistaken, since the argument is about effect size and RR or OR or whatever are just choices of effect measure. His five problems are real, and well understood in statistics (though on point 2, note that longitudinal data analysis can deal with unobserved heterogeneity, i.e. unidentified confounders), and it is clearly the case that experimental data (when they can be had) are more powerful than observational. The big problem is jumping from the critique to a naïve claim that raw effect size should be the primary criterion, with no consideration of significance (or of quality of theoretical model, amount of corroboration from other research, etc.). Is he ignoring, or failing to observe, that a RR of 1.3 with p=0.0005 is rather more persuasive than an RR of 2 with p=0.05? Is his focus on the Poisson distribution as an example making him fail to see that effect size and signficance are orthogonal? BrendanH 11:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice to hear that you've found my work helpful. :) I posted in the clinical medicine project about this in connection with passive smoking... perhaps that will get a few more hands on this. Nephron 07:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That would certainly be helpful. There is a huge set of spurious factoids circulating in the sound science (ahem!) sections of the Internet, and they keep finding their way into various bits of Wikipedia

JEL classification

Hey John. Yeah I'm the same guy who occasionally comments at CT. I think your idea is a good one - I'm not sure how to get it started though. Perhaps float it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics? Also there's an article on JEL classification codes and the guy behind it would probably get on board. Some other ideas - create a template or easy link thing that can be generically slapped on econ articles. I'll try to do something along these lines.radek 07:40, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Industry codes in Wikipedia

It is laudable use the encyclopedia as an educational tool to explain particular industry practice, in this case the Association's classification codes. However, it is a bit much to try to organize the encyclopedia, or a portion of it, using these codes. Wikipedia is in the process of evolving and exploring various techniques for bringing good organization to the vast number of articles that it collects. However it must be remembered that any system proposed for organization, to be useful, must be a general sytem applicable to all areas of the encyclopedia, and this is where the JEL fails as proprietary and unsuited to the task. It will increase confusion rather than reduce it as people come across the arcane (to them) categories that you are beginning to spread across Wikipedia. The key here is that Wikepedia is a general use encyclopedia. The system you seek to implement would be an excellent idea for an Economics wiki, which you may wish to pursue. Pleas reconsider your endeavor and use the existing methods rather than bringing further complexities to Wikipedia. Best Wishes. --Blainster 03:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied at Talk:JEL_classification_codes JQ 09:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration on John Brignell

I've listed the matter for arbitration. You can find it here [4]. You need to add a 500 word or less summary of your position. Then we wait to see if they'll take it up. Engjs 06:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi John. I can't find any evidence of you being blocked in the logs and I see you've edited subsequent to the posting of the request. You must have momentarily been caught in a IP block. Happy editing, --cj | talk 03:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking out for me, cj. It was a temporary IP block, maybe due to someone else at UQ JQ 03:47, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Economics categories

The way to do this is to tag all the categories for renaming and post them at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. The entire process is described on that page. Every page has to be tagged with {{cfd}} but you can list all the entries together when posted at WP:CFD, along with one explanation of what this is about. After a week at CFD, if there is consensus they will be renamed. -- Samuel Wantman 07:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Relative Risk, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

Labor and Demographic Economics JEL:J

I am well aware that a category renaming effort is underway, as I have left a supporting comment at wp:cfd. However, this article is not a category. It is just an empty article. What possible use is it? Why keep it? Cleduc 05:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought this was the category. I'm travelling and on intermittent dialup at present. So I guess the empty article may as well be deleted until I get around to creating one JQ 06:56, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Finishing out the economic rename.

Yeah. The categories are now in the massive To-Do lists at the bottom of the CFD page. The actual work of moving is horribly backlogged currently, and any assistance in clearing the backlog would be wonderful.

There are several step to actually enacting the rename. Categories cannot be moved automatically, and so all work to move them must be done manually.

1) Cut & paste the actual category data from the old name to the new name, creating the new category in the process.

2) If any of the old categories had talk pages, those can be moved into place behind the new names.

3) Now comes the tedious part. Every single article and subcategory of the original ones needs to be edited to change the category name to the new name. We used to have a bot to do this, but it died about a month ago, which is in good part why we are backlogged.

4) Once the move is done, move the line from the work list to the To-be-deleted section at the very bottom of the Working page. An admin will spot it there at some point and do the one step in this that requires admin powers, actually deleting the old category. - TexasAndroid 23:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I tackled Category:Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics JEL:Q, incorrectly creating Category:Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics before correctly, I hope, Category:Agricultural and natural resource economics; environmental and ecological economics. I'll wait for your confirmation that I've done all the steps right, then go on to the others. JQ 03:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism/Blanking by 125.255.16.233

I'm not an admin; I can't block, try WP:AN (or WP:AN/I, I can't remember where this stuff goes). --Rory0 96_(block) 03:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have taken it upon myself to block the IP for edit warring on John Brignell. I'm sure your convinced already that this IP is the same person as User:Engjs. Let me confirm it for you. It is in fact the same user. Please let me know if this user continues his sockpuppetry ways and/or continues to edit war. Pepsidrinka 17:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I'll keep you posted JQ 20:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

JEL codes

Hi John - Thanks for all the work on JEL codes, I think this is a really good addition to wikipedia. In order to improve the aesthetic appearence of these codes I made a template: {{JEL code}}. I have added it at Category:Game theory so you can see what it looks like. What do you think? --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 01:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Kevin,

That's really great! I'm still a novice regarding templates, so it's marvellous to have some help. I'll definitely use this from now on, and go back and do the others when I get some time. JQ 01:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, templates can be a bit mysterious at first. Let me know if you have any problems or have any suggestions. Maybe, if I get some free time I'll help out with adding the classification to categories. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 02:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

A bit of an education for me too on the Wiki-JEL codes. Thx for your help on Social Choice and Individual Values too. Hope it's clear, but the real test is how others regard it.

Thomasmeeks 19:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

P.S. So you're the brain behind the Wiki JEL listing. Wow. Double ditto on your publishing record. And you still have time for fun.

JEL codes JEL: D3

Congrats on the great success of the codes in sorting out Econ categories, Prof. Q. Concerning JEL: D3, on that page Income distribution is the main-article link. I'd like to suggest that Distribution (economics) replace Income distribution because of its more general description of the subject in line with JEL usage. I already did this for the subject title on the same line (subject to change of course). If you agree, would you consider making the change? If not, that's OK too. Thx. BW, Thomasmeeks 18:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, thx. Done. Thomasmeeks 22:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that that Distribution (economics) is a much more appropriate article. I'm travelling about now, so I'm not doing much in Wikipedia. If you want to make changes along these lines, I'll endorse them. Thanks for paying attenting to this. JQ 19:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Executive agency

Hi. I've just left this on the executive agencies discussion page, where you commented in April 2006 about the relationship with quangos:

I don't know whether executive agencies are really a worldwide phenomenon. The significance of UK executive agencies (the majority of civil service staff; and the majority (?) of central government services) means that it deserves more content to balance the article Departments of the United Kingdom Government. I'd suggest moving most of the existing content to Executive agencies of the United Kingdom and leaving a shorter global article here. --Mereda 16:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Bioeconomics

Dear John Quiggin, In my opinion it is obviously wrong to categorise Bioeconomics as Heterodox economics, as Bioeconomics builds directly on classical Welfare economics and applies a classical capital theoretic approach. Therefore I urge you to remove the Heterodox economics tag. Thank you. --- Arnejohs 18:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

The article gives two definitions. The first is the one you describe, and the second referring to a paradigmatic shift towards a holistic synthesis of economics and biology. This latter definition seems to be assumed in a number of the links to bioeconomics, and it's for that reason that I added the Heteredox economics tag. Maybe you could expand the article with some references to clarify all this. JQ 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Development topics

Hi John - I've seen a couple of your articles in the past, which I've read with interest... Anyway, great to see you contributing so actively here.

I don't know how interested you are in development issues, but I wanted to ask you to have a look at a some things:

Development aid. Someone has been suggested that Official Development Assistance, International development, Foreign aid, Aid, Tied aid, Aid effectiveness & Output-based aid be merged into Development aid - not sure if I agree, but these articles could certainly do with some attention. I'm happy to help where I can with these articles, but it's a bit daunting for me as a non-economist - it seems there's a lot to do and I don't know where to start.
The WikiProject International development might possibly be of interest to you, though a lot of the emphasis so far has been on engineering-related issues (which is my own focus). We could probably benefit from an economics perspective; you may also wish to flag issues there for attention by project participants.
Not sure if you're into the fuzzier non-economic social issues surrounding development, such as gender. I've added a bit on development in Gender, and I'm hoping it can be expanded (and used in or linked from the International development article) - it would be great if you could have a look at that section in Gender.

Cheers --Singkong2005 01:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi,and thanks for your kind comments. I'll try and take a look at this on the weekend. I'm not an expert on development, but I'm certainly interested and it sounds like the structure could do with some work JQ 21:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Social Choice and Individual Values

Thx. Prof. Quiggin. That was queek. I figured out only after my first edit of today what the bolded "edit this page" meant. I took out some phrases in the interest terminological nonproliferation (though I admire Condorcet) and brevity, but you (or I) might have reason to put 'em back (possibly elsewhere). I like what you have there. Rounds out the lead. A nice way of working in cyclicity too. Further edits welcome.

BW, Thomasmeeks 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll come back to it when I get a spare moment. The article is looking good, especially from a new contributor.JQ 21:14, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Thx for your most recent fix. I'm glad you're into it too. The change in Condition 2, 2nd para. last sentence brings it in line with Sen's example ch. 3.4. I didn't mention it the first time, but I did like your mentioning restraining preferences in the lead. I think the article is on schedule.

BW, Thomasmeeks 00:20, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

corrected no of possible sets: Well, I was going to say. . . I'm glad I did some cleanup, thereby possibly averting some (very understandable) disgust. In the next day or 2, I plan to incorporate notational statements of the conditions after their verbal statements (unless you beat me to it ; }.

BW, Thomasmeeks 12:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

While I sympathize with your intent in Proof, I edited out (1) last 3 sentences of Proof [below in brackets] and consequently (2) deleted the preceding reference to transitivity (changing to capture another point that your edit prompted), b/c:

it'

(1) does not establish the 3 voters prevailing (being decisive in Arrow's terminology) in the example cited. For them to be decisive for the 3 pairwise rankings (which is what your formulation suggests), all 3 would have to vote in the same way, which violates your specification. What you're saying is majority rule should be decisive, but that's not Arrow's usage.

[The second step can be seen, for the case of three voters by considering any set of orderings that gives rise to the voting paradox. For example, suppose voter 1 ranks xPyPz, voter 2 ranks yPzPx and voter 3 ranks zPxPy. To avoid dictatorship, the majority must prevail in each pairwise ranking, so we require [the social choices to be] xPy, yPz and zPx, violating transitivity.]

Can you clarify? (1) establishes that, if a given voter is decisive for any pair, they must be decisive for all pairs. So that (+unanimity) means that if only one voter prefers x to y and the others prefer y to x, y must be chosen, for otherwise the one voter would be decisive for this pair. But with three voters, that's a requirement for majority rule. JQ 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the first part does state that. I intended the (1) above to refer to your insertion. You can tease your result from the first part, but it requires steps such as you have presented. And Arrow does not invoke majority-rule intransitivity in his proof. That might be a better reason for not invoking it in the Proof section. Thomasmeeks 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

BW, Thomasmeeks 15:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Likely I'm missing something, but 19 might be the correct number of for the 3-social-state case?

Strict ties (all-tie orderings): 1

Strict orderings (no ties): 6

(from top- to bottom-ranked):

                              x y z

                              x z y

                              z x y
                              
                              z y x

                              y z x

                              y x z

Partial ties per strict ordering: 2

Total orderings: 1+6+2*6 = 19

BW, Thomasmeeks 18:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you tie say x & y, the orderings xyz and yxz are the same. So you have to divide the number of partial ties you have by 2 JQ 20:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right. Thx. I'll get to a nice, simple demo (if you don't get there first). Thx for other changes too. Looks & reads better.

I think everything needed for Arrow's notation for the conditions is now in the preceding section. So, I'll work on that, possibly tomorrow.

I tend to overwrite, fearing misunderstanding. If you come across instances where you think you can clarify or save words without loss of meaning, go right ahead. (Of course, editing ain't over till it's over.)

BW, Thomasmeeks 01:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC) (9:23 p.m., Richmond, VA time)

Boxes mostly done. I see that this got edited out of the end of the Proof:

[Each voter has an ordering (by attribution). Yet a set of orderings used as an argument of the voting rule does not carry over to a social ordering.]

You no like?

BW, Thomasmeeks 02:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The bracketed material just seemed out of place JQ 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Right. Brackets were not in the original, but the original got edited out. The content was OK by you?

As a general thought, it's desirable to add some value relative to what's in Arrow's impossibility theorem. It would be good to have things that are specific to the book, including sticking to Arrow's original notation, and maybe summarising some of his discussion. JQ 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You read my mind on the notation. I stuck to Arrow (but was more explicit on the conditions). On Arrow's discussion, I'll give some thought to that. What a relief to get over what I believe is the last big hump.

Your sentence could have several interpretations:

A decision rule must give a well-defined choice for each of these orderings.

Is this one?:

A well-defined decision rule would determine the relation of the decision to each of these orderings.

BW, Thomasmeeks 00:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

- Thx for the prompt on "value added". Last section, 2nd para., amplifies a point that Arrow made. Also reintroduced an (edited) postscript to the theorem. I would not have believed how much more there was to do. It is quite possible that it would not have occurred to me without your helpful edits and prompting.

BW, Thomasmeeks 20:13, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of help. JQ 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Spent good part of afternoon working specs for your explicit, lovely example (mostly formatting). Edited your sentence: A decision rule must give a well-defined choice for each of these orderings.

as (after many attempts):

A well-defined social-decision rule selects a social state (or states) corresponding to each of these sets of orderings.

Hope that works. I think article is very close to ready and plan to make links to related articles early next week.

BW, Thomasmeeks 20:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The example looks excellent. You have done very well with the formatting. I still think the example can be used to prove the result for the case S=3, as I claimed, but arguably this belongs in the article on the theorem and not on the book. It's a very nice contribution you have made Best JQ 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

On the proof, as my father might have put it, I'm too weak to protest.

That caution on the "value added" helped. I racked my brain (to recall if there were interesting omissions) before adding material on collective rationality, an "official," & Arrow's remarkable assertion identifying social values with social choice rather than directly with individual values.

(I'm still doing thought experiments of my own on social choice theory, but what will come of it remains to be seen.)

My plan is to see how stable the article is before proceeding with peer review (perhaps in a month or 2). I'm confident, but the intellectual marketplace should be a good test.

For the last week, Google searches of: arrow "social choice and individual values"

have put the article behind only the Amazon.com site for the book, but I'm figuring 99.99% of that is my edits.

It was a spur to know that someone with high standards, qualifications, imagination, and editorial good sense cared. You made a difference.

Thanks again. Onward.

BW, Thomasmeeks 03:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

natura progression on GLM

back in Talk:Binomial_regression, you mentioned a natural progression, I'd like you to explain that in more detail. Failure to plan at this level keep wikipedia from being a great encyclopedia (in my mind) so I'm trying to encourage some discussion here --Pdbailey 03:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

My idea would be to have a hierarchy of articles, starting with a top-level article on the General Linear Model, which would include results valid for the GLM and a brief taxonomy, including discussion of discrete v continuous dependent variables. Each element of the taxonomy would be linked to a more detailed article. In the case of discrete regression, there would be a general discussion, and a taxonomy linking to logit, probit and so on. JQ 10:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bruce Hall

Hi Prof Quiggin. I'm currently working on thr Bruce Hall page and would like your verification on you being a former resident here. thanks. --Khing 13:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC) (NB edited signature, forgot to log in before)

I was a resident in 1974 and 1975. I'll take a look at the page JQ 17:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A PS, I was a contemporary of Rosie Braidotti, Philip na Champassak and Malcolm Gillies - I don't know if this counts as a suitable citation JQ 17:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ping

Long time no chat, how's the wiki-ing, etc. - brenneman ^{L} 07:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Everything wiki and blog related has been on hold for the last few weeks as I've been travelling, but I hope to get back into things next week. Talk to you soon JQ 09:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)