User talk:Pgreenfinch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Archive User talk:Pgreenfinch/2004-2006

Random walk hypothesis[edit]

Someone has created a new Random Walk Hypothesis page, so it looks like some merging needs to be done. --Calton | Talk 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

EU vote[edit]

Salut Pgreenfinch, I noticed your EU contributions. Currently we have a vote for keeping many relevant images in the sections. Would be great to see you voting and commentating there. This is the version to be discussed [1]]. all the best Lear 21 04:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Economics, Economy[edit]

Salut Pgreenfinch, j'ai lu tes remarques sur economics et l'usage du mot economy. J'ai juste publié un nouveau article sur economy et voudrais demander ton opinion la dessus. Bien sur je parles Anglais ainsi. Peut-etre tu pourras participer à la discussion qui va bien sur paraitre? --Jörg Sutter 17:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Viel Arbeit, Jörg :-). L'approche historique me paraît interessante, mais il me semble qu'il faut bien séparer ce qui est history of economics de ce qui est history of economy (or economic history), autrement dit l'évolution de l'activité économique au cours des millénaires, par exemple en détaillant les vagues de Toffler. Voir notamment l'article du wikipedia français "Théorie des vagues de développement" --Pgreenfinch 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgreenfich, you're right. The problem is, that the science Economics started in the early 20th century/late 19th century. I should have mentioned Max Weber by the way. Economic history on the other hand is of course influenced by economic schools. I will have a look at the article in French soon. Your--Jörg Sutter 09:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, Jörg, I appreciate what you do to improve this article. --Pgreenfinch 17:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgreenfich, somebody is deleting my article on economy without any discussion. What can I do?--Jörg Sutter 13:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, you can initiate an History of the World economy article, filling it with your text and maybe a few additions (like those I referred to about Toffler's development waves), and put a summary and a link to it in the economy article as well as in the economic history and World economy articles.
If that other contributor (whom I think is not specialized in economics) deletes that, I will join you in restoring it. I think that wikipedia is lacking food on this economic history theme and that your efforts to feed it has to be supported. But as you may know, there are sometimes "edit wars" in this "cooperative" encyclopedia, but I don't think that, in this theme which is not that "hot", it can go very far ;-) --Pgreenfinch 14:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Pgreenfich. That's a great idea and of course it will take time for me. To my shame I have to say that I didn't knew Toffler until now. Do you know Peter Sloterdijk? Your--Jörg Sutter 07:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No, Jörg, I don't know about him, I would be happy to know more. I'm not an economist by profession, it is just that, as shown in my user page, I accumulated some (theoretical and practical) knowledge of this field in general, and of various related aspects, as it has always been of high interest for me. Let us call it a "violon d'Ingres". --Pgreenfinch 08:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC). PS. I see that there is a Peter Sloterdijk article, but it seems quite vague, I'm not sure it explains clearly his philosophy and even less how it could be practically applied to economic matters.

Joining Wikipedia project Finance[edit]

Some of us were creating the wikipeida project Finance, and we could use some more people who are experienced in this area Let us know if your interested Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance

--DrewWiki 14:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Marketing plan[edit]

Please reconsider your edits to Marketing plan. Please read WP:COI regarding conflict of interest in editing Wikipedia articles. This external link marketing plan basics is apparently something you have written. Please remove the external link from the article. Also, the external link How to Write a Marketing Plan is actually a link to a site about how to write a business plan, not a marketing plan. If either of these links were used in writing the article, please reference them, do not put them in the External links section. Since this is a practical topic, it should use practical references, not theoretical ones.

I'm placing this comment here instead of on the article talk page because I assume you don't know about WP:COI. --SueHay 21:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I just gave a reference to a page I used in writing a part of the article. Please note that no interest is at play as that site is non commercial and purely educational. Also it is highly ranked by Google for the "marketing plan" topic, so I suppose it can be considered as a useful and relevant practical reference. --Pgreenfinch 22:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You used this reference for the 10th item on a 17-item outline? Where did the rest of the outline come from? --SueHay 22:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Most are consistent with other sections of the site, but this one is the most directly linked to an item I added myself. I would not multiply the references to that site, although other items are consistent with it, as it would become promotion instead of references. I can study with you what is the best way to do, and see how to place more references (for example to the Australian site), but I will be able to do it only next week, as I will not have much time and not be available in the forthcoming days. --Pgreenfinch 06:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Please be a gentleman and withdraw your link and outline section from Marketing plan. You originally added that three years ago, and the article's history indicates that you've consistently restored your own link after removal by other Wikipedians, and also kept your own link when removing "linkspam" yourself. Please just withdraw your link with the explanation that you feel it's a conflict. Bowing out gracefully is the right thing to do. Think about it. --SueHay 02:10, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
And what if the link is useful for Wikipedians? And how that would solve the problem of references for that article ? --Pgreenfinch 10:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Greed and fear[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Greed and fear, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Gavin Collins 09:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I responded to your Applied Information Economics comments.[edit]

You seem confused about what AIE is about. AIE is not a descriptive model for prices. It has nothing to do with EMH. It is a normative/optimization decision analysis tool not a descriptive tool for prices. It does not ignore what you call "soft" considerations and, in fact, explicitly models them. Your comment about considering "emotional factors" is mostly irrelevant since its not a descriptive price model. (although it does adjust for some "emotional factors" in regards to the use of human judges for estimating quantities). It helps decision makers optimize decisions by prioritizing information gathering in an economically optimal way. Thats it. Everything you were talking about seems to apply to the economics of asymetric information in markets. This topic is currently discussed under Information Economics. But, like I said, these are completely different topics.Hubbardaie 11:32, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This does not appear in your description. Also you quote the MPT, which is precisely in line with the EMH. Also a normative / optimization model needs obviously to estimate values that fit reality even if the decider has its own - let us say more "rational" criteria - for example related to its risk / return obectives. Maybe you should explain better in the article. Another thing is that if this article has no section about the limitations of the method, it is one-sided and therefore non encyclopedic. As I'm sure you know those limitations, so why don't you express them yourself to avoid as you said a "confusion"? --Pgreenfinch 13:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, MPT doesn't necessarilly make assumptions about EMH but people who use MPT might also make an EMH assumption. It simply uses the "given" risks and returns of potential investments. It never addresses whether those risks and returns are based on information unique to one investor (in violation of EMH) or whether those are simple "market" returns and risks. Although its often assumed that the probability distributions of returns are derived from historical volitility, the actual MPT optimization approach makes no such assumption. It simply computes an optimal portfolio position, regardless of where one gets. Regarding the rest of your comment, I think you make a good point. I certainly don't intend to cause any confusion from my explanation of AIE. Since I have a COI, I'm not going to make direct changes to the article itself, but I'm willing to discuss them in the article's talk page.Hubbardaie 13:42, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please archive your talk page[edit]

Please archive older discussions on your talk page. For information on how to do this, please see Help:Archiving a talk page. --Foggy Morning 01:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi P., if you are interested in keeping the standard term Economy in the EU article consider to reestablish it at your convenience. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 21:00, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

EU Economy, economic policy, ecoomy and economic policy[edit]

Hi, I reverted away your suggestion to change the section title on European union to Economy and economic policy. However, I do think there might be some merit in the suggestion, I'm just not convinced. I like economic policy for several reasons. First, because the section is mainly about economic policy, not about the economy. The material about the economy merely serves as an introduction to the section, giving people an idea what we are talking about.

Second, the EU as an organisation is not concerned with the economy. It does not have policies aimed at boosting the economy, rather its primary aim is to harmonise and free up trade between the member nations. Yes, of course this impacts on the economy, but that is not its primary concern. This article ought to be about what the EU does, not about what accidental things happen in the same place.

Third, I rather like having two sections in the index, economic policy and development policy. Again, this emphasises the fact that the EU is an organisation for making and implementing international rules.

Someone suggested 'culture' should be changed to 'cultural policy' for the same reasons. I think this is more difficult, because the EUs main cultural policy is that it is not concerned with culture, but it is certainly arguable. Also, there is some sense in having some general information about the EU which is not strictly policy but does affect its operation. Though I do think this should be consolidated under one main heading. (ie, with the current demographics). Sandpiper (talk) 11:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the bias is that the EU is considered in this article as just an administration. In reality the EU is first an economic space, which has also an administration that developped its role progressively with various institutions and policies (most of them economic and very few in other fields, I agree there is no real cultural policy). Maybe one day it will be more than an economic space and its administration will (hopefully) have a broader political role, but this is another idea. I think this article is not very clear about the real nature of the EU. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but I don't think that is true. I have commented below also, but I think the EU is an administration which just happens to include certain countries. Any random collections of countries chosen from a list would have an economy, a favourite sport, certain languages, but it would just be random informataion which really had nothing to do with your having chosen to consider them together. The EU can only be considered as one economic space in so far as the countries concerned are members of the EU. It would not be considered as one unit if the EU did not exist, and the area being considered keeps changing as membership changes. Sandpiper (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An article that you have been involved in editing, European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Union member states at the 2004 Summer Olympics (2nd nomination). Thank you. Paulbrock (talk) 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrase European Union applies at the same time to the area and community and to its institutions.[edit]

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve with this line? Is this supposed to be a disambiguation? A very big source of argument on this article is indeed whether there is effectively a country called European Union, and by and large we don't think there is. There is debate whether this article should confine itself solely to the institutions, so for those editors, obviously your line is not acceptable. Even for those who argue we should discuss the region, I am doubtfully they want to explicitly point out the possible difference in the introduction Sandpiper (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I will try to be clear and use a logical approach that seems to be missing in this article. That people argue seems to me precisely a symptom that the article is confusing. Those who consider just the intitutions could make a subarticle (or a section) titled European Union Institutions. If they are interested in policies (which is another level) they could create European Union policies as an article or a section. As to call it a country has no sense it should not interfere in the article. But that it is basically a region with close ties and common aspects, cannot be denied and deserves to be described as such (population, geography, economy...) and is the natural basis of the main article about the European Union. An article normally explain the "what" before explaining the "how". And an article that is not clear from the start about what it deals with is not encyclopedic. Whence edit wars after edit wars about any chunk of flesh, because of a lack of squeleton that help to see what part of the body is involved --Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the way probably I, but also others, would see it is that the economic region you are describing is not the [European Union], but [Europe], and such descriptions belong in that article, not the EU one. The ties are because all those countries are in Europe, not because they are in the EU. Most european countries now are in the EU, (or semi-attached) so the two are becoming somewhat confused, but they have joined the EU because they already had many things in common, they did not suddenly get those things in common from being members. I have noticed some sources arguing that countries cannot become members because they are not geographically within Europe. This always struck me as rather odd. I can quite imagine that as current new members become properly assimilated, people on their borders will again be thinking about joining, whatever continent they are in. This diversity is something of a challenge for the EU as people from increasingly different cultures are joining, who may have rather few things in common. If someone wanted to pursue a foreign policy aimed at peace in the middle east and N. Africa, they might be much better advised to encourage those countries to join the EU, then bombing the hell out of them. But then, that would definitley not suit the USA.

I do not really regard the EU as a place, but a collection of places which have agreed certain things in common. The unique thing about them is not what the sum of each of their GDPs happens to be, but the special rules and institutions they have created. Yes, people do refer to the EU as a place and eg to its economy. It does exist as a defined region and people treat it as one when this is appropriate. Obviously, it has defined borders and measurable characteristics. But nonetheless most people do not regard it as a country. I am british, I think if you asked most peole living within the EU, they would say they are French, German, etc, and if you asked them how the balance of payments is, or some other measurable property of a country, they would automatically think about those things in relation to their own country. I have some idea how the economy of the UK is going along, but much less about that of the EU, which hardly disturbs my consciousness except to argue about it here.

I am still sitting on the fence with regard to your proposal. I think it sits much better next to the primary definition first line, where it serves as a dictionary- style explanation. But it will need slightly re-phrasing as it doesn't read quite right as it stands. having said that, I'm not quite sure how to rephrase. Did you mean"... to the area, and community, and to its institutions" or "to the area and community, and to its institutions" (three things, or two things)? Sandpiper (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Thenks for the question, although I'm still puzzled that you introduce the country notion in that debate. Anyway, it is possible to be at the same time from a town (some urban areas, like the one where I live, straddles two countries)), from a country, from the EU and from this planet, those things overlaps. The degrees of belonging and the types of traits involved will differ with the area covered of course. If you want to rephrase it seems to me that your second wording "to the area and community, and to its institutions", which separates clearly the entity itself and its institutions would be the clearest. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the line, as 4 editors have agreed so on the talk page of the EU article. Please discuss why you think it adds something there first before adding it again; the consensus at the moments is clearly not in favour of this line. Also please keep content discussion on the talk page of the EU article (extensive as it may be). Why I think it does not add anything is because the terms are in practice used interchangably (area, community and institutions); this is in my opinion not an indicator of confusion but rather of context related use of aspects of the Union; while in other contexts other properties are more important; in that sense the line adds little to nothing (cf France refers to its area, its government, its institution and foreign relations..... would be an irrelevant addition to that article). Anyway, please look for consensus first on Talk EU. Thanks Arnoutf (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Entryism by Scientology into AA[edit]

Hi Pgreenfinch. I removed the note in that "The Church of Scientology has also practiced entryism in taking over Alcoholics Anonymous meetings" because I searched for a long time in news sources, blogs and generally on the web and failed to find any evidence for this assertion. You reverted this removal. You may question my motive, but I certainly have no connection to either Scientology or AA; indeed, I am very critical of Scientology. Even though Scientologists infiltrating AA meetings sounds plausible, the statement is unverifiable. If you know of a source to back this claim, please discuss this at I am reverting back to it being removed. Fences and windows (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)



You write:

comments not about economic recession but just stock market tips by just one person

Nouriel Roubini is a distinguished professor and researcher, and his views have been widely cited in the context of the current down-turn.

See Google search [2]

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I know that, but it is only one person, from one country, giving one advice and wikipedia deals with facts and notions, not with predictions by celebrities. I might even share to a large extent his analysis, although I find it a bit simplistic, as is the case for any monoscenario, and missing a few factors. Btw, the article is overfocused on the US situation. I know the US is the source of the mess, but the article topic is not "recession in the US". --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:52, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Nouriel Roubini is not a celebrity. He is an acknowledged expert. Globally acknowledged expert. He is a researcher and has worked hard to be an expert. His analysis identifies some of the key developments in the present crisis.

It would be nice to see more details on the global recession(s). I had added some things, but no one else has contributed anything significant on it.

Truth is, whether you like it or not, USA is the global economic center. Textbooks written in USA are used worldwide. I would like to see someone contribute that will explore the global linkages.

Certainly this crisis has its origin in the USA, as you acknowledge it.

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 18:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Chakreshsinghai I don't think you understand, what you consider an analysis, but which is in fact a prediction, limited to just one scenario, however smart and hard working is the expert who formulates it, has not its place in an encyclopedic article that describes notions and events. WP is not a blog nor the editorial & comments page of an economic newspaper. A link to some article by Roubini would be amply enough, and preferably to a real analysis by him, as we could expect something a bit more academic and more thorough from such an erudite. Some key factors are totally lacking such as those linked to currency market, interest rates, inflation, foreign trade effects and policies, unemployment, standards of living, level of production / consumption / capital spending, public budgets... In fact it is not really a paper about recession. As it would be unfair to say that Roubini has a very narrow idea of what is a recession, better take out an analysis that can give that impression. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 21:50, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This being an encyclopedia, is not the place for the type of detailed analysis that appears in refereed journals. --Chakreshsinghai (talk) 00:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Stock market cycles[edit]


There are quite a few studies on yearly seasonality in countries outside of USA. Can you locate and summarise them, since you are the international expert?

A good source of articles is

--Chakreshsinghai (talk) 03:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe too much in "cycle" regularity. I know it is something quite popular that many academics in various countries have worked in trying to detect them, I know also that some famous theoreticians have mentioned it, but incidently (for example the Arbitrage Pricing Theory uses them as some of its "factors" or baby betas). But I think, and I am not the only one, that this is close to representativeness heuristic - as are also various TA tenets - and I'm not too sure it can be trusted as regularly reproductible. That does not mean it cannot be mentioned in the article but I'm not too keen in entering in a topic I'm not too convinced of. On the other hand I agree fully that "near-cycles" happen, due either to the underreaction - adjustment - overreaction phenomenon, or to economic factors, which lead to (irregular) market "trend-cycles". Well, maybe I will one day develop that. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Toxic debt[edit]

Toxic debt is not worthless; remember there is real property standing behind it. What it is, is illiquid, it cannot be readily valued or sold at a value which reflects its underlying value, whatever that is. Thus when the depositors or investors of a bank withdraw funds there is no way to generate cash. Fred Talk 14:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

OK; I made a small change, you are welcome to find a better wording. Another aspect is that the fair value is not known which lead to attribute them a very low value in the balance sheet. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 16:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think your redirect should work the other way, to illiquid asset. I have written an article under that name on Wikinfo, but it is more a dictionary definition, see It would be inappropriate to copy that here, but that seems to be the term in general use. Fred Talk 17:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Not so sure it is the general use. IMO, better wait to see how the general use will stabilize. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

March 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Global financial crisis of 2008–2009, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. EqualRights (talk) 11:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm bizarrely reproached original research because I tried to relativize and clarify an original research section which title "Political Instability related to the economic crisis" is an unreferenced generalization based on a point of view. Seems to me that the solution, in the absence of reliable source to justify that generalization, is to remove the section, whence the original research. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Global financial crisis of 2008–2009[edit]

This is a comment related to the discussion about the global financial crisis of 2008-2009 thread on the No original research noticeboard.

There are several options you have. As I posted there, it seems, that in addition to the possible original research claims, you think the section has issues with reliable sources and neutral point of view. The appropriate venue to air those complaints is on the noticeboards I linked. I'm not sure that you want me to evaluate those claims because I looked into them when I was writing my post for the NOR noticeboard and didn't see anything major. I admit that I didn't look that thoroughly as I was concentrating on the original research aspect. In any case, I think it'd be best if someone else offered their opinion on the other matters. Of the two, I don't think that the reliable source claim is very strong, and if you wish to pursue this, I'd suggest focusing on the NPOV aspects.

You can also ask for a second opinion on the NOR noticeboard. While others are free to give there own opinion, if you state you are asking for one, it might be more forthcoming. I would not take offense if you did this, nor would I consider it forum shopping.

There are also other forms of dispute resolution. If you haven't done so already, you can ask for a third opinion, open a request for comment, or even try informal or formal mediation.

Kind regards -Atmoz (talk) 16:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Atmoz for your detailed answer. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 18
13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Scientology controversies[edit]

Your edits to the article have been reverted. I invite you to provide a rationale and reach consensus at the article's talk page. Thank you. > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 09:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You kiding? Is the fact that scientology was condemned for fraud this year in France not a rationale against scientologists insulting European democratic countries in WP articles? Can WP accept such propaganda? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 10:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not propaganda. The section is only describing the state of affairs. All statements are atributed to their sources in accordance with policies. I find nothing that says "Germany is evil for not allowing Scientology." > RUL3R>trolling>vandalism 13:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Pgreenfinch, edits like these [3] [4], deleting whole impeccably sourced sections, are beyond the pale. Please have a look at the sources you are deleting, claiming they "libel" Germany: we are talking the New York Times, Washington Post, The Independent, CNN, etc. And you know very well that we have plenty of pages critical of the United States human rights record too; suppressing notable criticism of one particular country isn't the Wiki way. Please stop. --JN466 13:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Scientology controversies. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to leave somebody libeling a democratic country with an accumulation of one-sided sources (from other countries btw) ? I find it of very bad taste to accuse me just because I find this practice as inacceptable and contrary to what WP is. Why don't you block that harasser who is the real disrupter ? --Pgreenfinch (talk) 17:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Multi-speed Europe[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Multi-speed Europe has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No clear topic. The issues raised should be covered in other articles on the general topic under broader, more neutral titles.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jaque Hammer (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready[edit]

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at and, second, email along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:11, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Your Questia online library codes failed to deliver[edit]

We tried to use Wikipedia email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of Special:Preferences. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at Cheers, Ocaasi 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast[edit]

Hello, Pgreenfinch.

You are invited to join WikiProject Breakfast, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of breakfast-related topics.
To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 19:20, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 20:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

"find new deposits to refinance the loan"[edit]

Hi, I'm not at all sure about your recent edit in which you said banks need to "find new deposits to refinance the loan". Do you have a reference for that? Cheers, Mick.

Hi, Mick, Just accounting rules: assets and liabilities should be equal. (In bank Asset liability management, it is a bit more complicated as it must be true for every class of maturity. Of course, if it does not find such deposits, it can borrow on the money market which is also a kind of deposits, not by clients but by other banks. If you find a better way to word it... --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello gents. This article is at risk of turning into an incoherent mess of OR and selective POV narrative. The problem has a long history, which you can see by reviewing both the article revisions and talk page archives. I suggest that until the recent problems raised on the currently visible talk page threads are resolved it's risky to begin adding any new or unsourced material to this article. We are going to get farther and farther away from what was good in the version of, say, a month ago. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 23:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, SPECIFICO, personally I did not add much, but Asset liability management, which also has an article, is at the core of the topic, in facts it is more important that the old notion of fractional reserves. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am not saying that the old content was complete or even that it was good. I'm just concerned that the baby's being thrown out with the bathwater. Most importantly the recent edits violate just about every core WP policy. If somebody has the time and energy to do so, the matter could be brought to ANI to clear the air. See here: [5]. I don't have the time to do so at the moment. SPECIFICO talk 00:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, SPECIFICO, I see what is the issue. --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Invitation to comment on important issue in Fractional Reserve Banking[edit]

Hi, I am just reaching out to a few people that have previously made edits on the fractional reserve banking page. There is an important issue being discussed on the talk page which IMHO needs some neutral opinions. If you could make a comment, that would be much appreciated.

Thanks, Reissgo (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Financial Economics review[edit]

When convenient, please visit Financial economics - I've done a major edit a few months back. Thanks. Fintor (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at List of cognitive biases shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when a proposed contribution gets reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Andrew (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The funny thing is that it seems to me that it is you who started a reversion without dicussion --Pgreenfinch (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi Pgreenfinch. I am not sure if you have failed to follow the article history, or if you are somehow still unfamiliar with WP:BRD. Either way, please see here for the bold original addition, and here for my reversion. Everything else after that has been a failure on the part of, and now yourself, to start discussion on the talk page. Regards Andrew (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I know, the good old WP tradition / reflex to fossilize its articles. Your problem anyway! --Pgreenfinch (talk) 08:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)