User talk:SPECIFICO

Deflation

Hi Specifico,

I understand and appreciate that you undid my edit on Deflation in Japan - I went off-topic and was too polemic.

However, I see the results in Japan: LONG-TERM persuance of anti-deflationary measures (i.e. propping up prices) in a SYSTEMICALLY, i.e. demographically driven, shrinking market (as opposed to temporary upset) preferently supports today's asset-rich and hurts the asset-poor, whilst being funded by an ever rising national debt that is shouldered by all. This only postpones repayment of todays debts into a further deflated future. Surely, this is not in the interest of competitiveness, a properly functioning market and can only increase wealth inequality and asset concentration?

I wonder whether these important broad consequences could be more explicitly stated in Wikipedia for someone like myself who does not have an economics degree. What edit would you propose?

Greetings, Thomas

@Darouet:

Please stop your revert warring at the Admin's talk page. There's a really important point there -- one that I hope both you and Thuc will consider -- and it has nothing to do with a "personal attack". SPECIFICO talk 17:06, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I hope you will carefully consider the outcome and advice on that thread and refrain from any further disparagement of other editors or their behavior. If you feel anything warrants ANI or AE attention, those avenues are always available to you. However, as is clear from the recent round of complaints, they need to be well-formed and carefully considered with respect to site guidelines and policies. SPECIFICO talk 13:41, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring

You've reverted three times today at Alliance for Securing Democracy. Please self-revert and bring your concerns to the talk page. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Thucydides411 (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Forget it. I've clearly stated why you should not keep reinserting this nonsense into the article. We can't shoehorn whats-his-name into articles about everything on which he's self-published his opinions. Find some strong solid well-sourced content and if you wish to work on this article, you can add that and everyone will thank you for it. SPECIFICO talk 01:26, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Here [1] as luck would have it, there's some real news about the Alliance for Securing Democracy this evening. They've been tracking the Russian interference you insist never happened. Maybe you can find some support for new article content in the latest reports. That would be great. SPECIFICO talk 01:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You didn't respond to the bit about edit warring. The Intercept is a solid source, and you can't just dismiss it with ridiculous edit summaries about "chatter." -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You have exceeded 3RR at Alliance for Securing Democracy in little over 24 hours, and this would very likely be interpreted as gaming the WP:3RR rule. I have left the required warning on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 18:54, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Thucydides411:Another revert. You're racking up more and more revert violations at that article. I am at a loss to understand what good outcome can follow this behavior. Please roll back your violations and let the other editors have a hand for a while. SPECIFICO talk 00:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alliance for Securing Democracy GG section on the TP

ICYMI s/he responded to you. Wingwraith (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for the note. I think it's at the point where nobody pays much attention to that editor one way or the other, per WP:DENY - always personal attacks and never article improvement or thoughtful contributions, so far as I can tell. Keep up the good work with your article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 23:42, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you made this revert? The function of the tag was to qualify his criticism which I would've thought was something that you wouldn't have had any objections to as I was under the impression that we were taking a similar approach with regards to the GG source and content. Unless someone has hacked into your account... Wingwraith (talk) 07:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. The Greenwald bit does not belong in this article. Certainly no opinion belongs in a section that is giving a basic description of the organization -- a section that short be succinct and objective before we build any further article content concerning its actions, possible biases, successes and failures. GG is more or less self-published at "the intercept" -- it's his organ, for which he garnered some vc funding. You may note that on its home page it features him in the menu where one would ordinarily expect a table of contents or the like. I have not seen his opinions seriously presented in secondary RS discussion, so I regard this as tantamount to self-published POV and UNDUE for this article. He is not a significant voice in the public discussion of this topic. Labeling him doesn't solve the core problem, so I reverted it. Unfortunately in articles with few followers, the fanatic POV editors will often prevail until either the article garners more active editors or their POV becomes manifestly untenable and they set sails for other thinly-fished waters. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 18:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to be persistent about including this tag back into the article. I agree with you about virtually all the points that you've raised about the GG source and that ideally this issue would not even arise in the first place, but the problem is that we live in a reality where the discussion is monopolized by a couple of "fanatic POV editors" which makes it impossible to get rid of (as you put it) the core problem; hence my minimalist position that the least that can be done about it is to qualify the criticism. Surely you understand this point? Wingwraith (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I understand your approach. But I think the best solution, in any event, is one I tried that got a knee-jerk revert from Thu-know-who. The best solution for the time being would be to separate the GG opinion/insinuation from the description of personnel and place it in a new section called public reaction or something like that. What do you think of that? You could restore your edit and move the whole thing to a fresh location that makes clear it is opinion and not description. SPECIFICO talk 22:35, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the wisdom of your separation proposal but the problem is that it is most likely just going to get tag-team reverted...again. So I stand by the minimalist position that I proposed which was to put the label in (which makes it clear that GG's description of the ASD personnel are his) and just leave it at that. Surely you would concur to this? Wingwraith (talk) 03:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Can you respond to the immediately preceding post above? If you don't I'll take your silence as consensus. Wingwraith (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I think it would be constructive to put it in a separate section along with some of the other commentary or reaction to this group. I don't think it's a good idea to anticipate that some editor is going to make a bad edit and to compromise policy and sound judgment in order to accommodate any such action. The GG piece is a diatribe that I would say is bordering on crazed. He may have some longstanding political POVs that triggered this, I don't know. He's not a significant expert. If he were, we'd see mainstream independent publication of his statements. So in response, thanks for your note here but I don't agree and I think that eventually GG will either be removed or that mainstream reasoned comments will be placed alongside his in a separate section. His comments are ad hominem disparagement and have nothing to do with the activities of this organization. At best they represent some kind of expectation he may have that only bad stuff's coming out of this. Hard to make any sense of his writing. SPECIFICO talk 22:15, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

With regards to the tag issue I'm going to respectfully disagree with your position and ask that you do not revert my re-addition of the material back into the article. I really cannot see why you would have a problem with that proposed edit as its a criticism of GG's views and in any case doesn't interfere with your proposal to create a reaction section for the article (in which, if successfully adopted, you/we can put his views); just think of the tag edit as a stop-gap measure. In the meantime, perhaps you can raise the issue on the talkpage? I'm confident that what would result from that discussion would be better than the response that you've gotten already a la the tag-team reversions. Wingwraith (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I already split the opinion from the description here [2] leaving GG's opinion in place, but this was quickly reverted. Until there are more editors on this article, motivated POV editors will always have the upper hand. It's best not to get into edit wars in such situations, it's pointless and a waste of time and attention. SPECIFICO talk 23:37, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I am aware of that which is why I kept bringing up the point about the tag-team reversion. But like I said I would still encourage you to start the separation proposal discussion on the talkpage not least because my instinct tells me that there'd be something that could be had for your/our side from that. Wingwraith (talk) 02:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I've already made that point. I didn't see any constructive response to my suggestion. If you feel like pursuing this, that would be very constructive. If it turns out that there's engagement rather than more edit-warring, perhaps I will have some useful further comments. Thanks for the suggestion. Remember, however, that there's no way you can force others to be collaborative, and sometimes it's just not worth the trouble after several attempts have been crushed. SPECIFICO talk 02:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

But my point is that you didn't raise your perfectly reasonable proposal on the talkpage and since you were the one who first attempted to do so directly with your edits on the article content it'd make more sense for you to raise the issue. That said I respect your decision if you didn't want to do that given the history of the tag-team reverts that you've had to deal with. Wingwraith (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Demeaning other editors on Russian election intervention page

First of all, if I want to debate what you call "trolls" on their suggestions to articles, that's my business - you insult me by denigrating that conversation as "dancing with trolls" or "diversionary bullshit". Second, I think you need a lesson on what "assume good faith" means. I assume that editor is earnestly attempting to improve the article, for lack of any evidence to the contrary. Even when I agree with you on content, which is most of the time, your manners sicken me, as you consistently mock and belittle other editors. I cannot believe that you could have been an editor for as long as you are and not realize when you've crossed the line. I'd suggest you revert your comments. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 19:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

That editor has appeared previously with the same complaint[3], and various editors gave him a patient explanation of the issues. But look at what he said. He said we should "include the proof" -- well, that would be easy enough for him to do. But he didn't. He has done nothing to contribute to improvement of the article. Instead he raised a red flag to rehash the tedious discussion as to the nature of the evidence and the mainstream press and other coverage of the events. There are many fine and intelligent, hard-working, and well-informed editors on this article who work very well to sort out difficult and complex issues. A reminder not to feed unproductive, repetitive tail-chasing is not a denigration of anyone, simply a reminder not to fall into the trap of repeating the discussions as to why the discussions are unproductive. It is a diversion and it is BS. Sorry. Fringe POV pushing is a very corrosive element on many articles -- and of course the long history of that in American Politics and related topics is what led to the two Arbcom cases and the current discretionary sanctions. Your statement that I "consistently mock and belittle other editors" is false. There are at most a handful out of the hundreds of editors I've recently interacted with who would ever elicit any sort of negative response from me. "Consistently"? SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Red Rock Canyon: I'm speaking generally here and not necessarily about one specific case. You should be aware that there are conspiracy theorists out there on the larger Internet that advocate for Wikipedia talk pages as a venue to spread their bullshit. They know that getting into high profile articles is difficult, but they also know we have core policies like Assume Good Faith that give them a lot of leeway to "just ask questions" about the mainstream narrative, and "expose the censorship that goes into Wikipedia articles". Talk pages aren't supposed to be free speech zones, but this is a participation trophy that we too often just give them for free. You must be civil, but please don't go out of your way to accommodate their agenda. The "needs a proof section" thing was a fairly transparent political statement designed to draw attention to the fact that the "proof" is all classified and (by implication) that it's fabricated or doesn't exist. Geogene (talk) 00:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If only I were as articulate as Geogene, I'm sure I wouldn't have been hatted and rehatted and so forth. What's also germane is that on this particular article, of all places, editors should be aware of how fake news and fringe POVs are propagated on the internet. Sadly, we have a certain small number of editors who have bought the bacon so to speak and come on to these American Politics articles all fired up to "right great wrongs" and promote non-mainstream POVs. They may be acting sincerely but incompetently -- an unfortunate term, but at least it preserves AGF. Or they may be coming to WP as activists, which is certainly not within our mandate. Psy Ops is an important part of the Russian interference. This isn't to say that we have "Russian Trolls" in our midst here, but we do have folks who have been influenced by non-mainstream "reporting" and discussion on Reddit or other internet discussion boards or fringe websites. We also have folks who are not broadly familiar with mainstream journalism, its practices and standards and limitations.

The policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia community are remarkably and admirably robust in helping to sort all this out. Very often the tipoff to a dysfunctional discussion will be a minority of editors rejecting WP policy, explicitly or not, or claiming that the WP community is "biased", or falsely claiming that rejecting bad content or sources is some kind of "personal attack." Anyway, where there are many editors, the articles end up continuously improving. Where there are few editors, e.g. at Murder of Seth Rich before Fox News went a step too far with it, the goofy stuff tends to persist. In the case of the Russian Interference article, the wind is at our backs, and the fringe POVs have become less numerous and less viable as time has passed. Eventually we will have a clearer narrative as to what occurred and how. Even in the past month or so, the Alien Mind Control thing [4] has been fleshed out with a lot of mainstream reporting as to cyber warfare on mainstream internet sites like facebook. It's generally been best not to get too concerned with the fringe POV editing that pops up from time to time, because the facts continue to marginalize those POVs. But every once in a while, the spectacle of a talk page rehash of basic denials of well-sourced material is just too painful to watch. And I say that as one who posted 2-3 times in that thread, so I didn't exactly resist the bait myself. SPECIFICO talk 01:17, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

• I forgot to give you a real warning, but I see there is already enough commentary here. Drmies (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks we are all trying to sort this out. SPECIFICO talk 02:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring at Casualties of the Iraq War

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. I advise you to stop edit warring immediately. -Darouet (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Welcome to my garden. I've made only a single edit to that article. Perhaps you confuse me with someone else? SPECIFICO talk 01:58, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Nassim Taleb

Why can't people know who his parents and ancestors were? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meg_Whitman If you don't like family history on wiki pages than you have some work to do on Meg Whitman's page.

Hello. Thanks for coming here to inquire. I do not find any significant discussion of his ancestry in WP:RS coverage of Taleb, and I believe that it does not meet the standard of WP:WEIGHT. It's not relevant to his professional work and the fact that WP:OTHERSTUFF is found in other articles is orthogonal to its presence in this one. Maybe it's undue there as well? I don't know. SPECIFICO talk 16:53, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are some sources https://geneticliteracyproject.org/glp-facts/nassim-taleb-financial-risk-analyst-turned-anti-gmo-propagandist/

That appears to be cut and paste from the Wikipedia article we're trying to improve. This happens from time to time. I think that if his ancestry is considered important by mainstream observers of his work, it should be possible to find many Reliable Sources that discuss it. My current impression is that this will not turn out to be the case, but by all means have a look if you think it will be fruitful. SPECIFICO talk 01:44, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Money creation and Bold-Revert-Discuss

I note you undid my title change with the comment "revert POV move without consensus or discussion". This yet again shows your reluctance to adhere to the wiki policy of Wiki Bold-Revert-Discuss. Wiki encourages editors to be bold and make edits without discussion or consensus. Then if it turns out that another editor disagrees, they may choose to revert and then take part in a discussion. Where is your discussion? If you repeatedly revert my edits without taking part in discussions on the talk pages then you are essentially forcing me to seek consensus on all my edits before making them. You should not make it you business to prevent me from following the normal wikipedia procedure. Please will you either take part in the discussion that I already started on the talk page or undo your revert. Reissgo (talk) 22:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Digital goods

Hello,

I think your removal of my content is unjustified. I am simply reporting the contents of the abstract of a peer-reviewed scientific paper that has been covered and similarly interpreted by Discover Magazine and the Boston Globe. If you can point to any error in the content I have reported, I would be very interested as I am a world-renown expert on this topic and would love to learn more about it from other folks with similar expertise.

Thank you.Carey.Morewedge (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey.Morewedge (talk • contribs) 01:17, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please see the above comment regarding your message to me. If you cannot find error in my addition to digital goods, then I do not believe you are justified in removing it.Carey.Morewedge (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carey.Morewedge (talk • contribs) 01:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I identified why I do not believe it belongs in the article and I referred you to the WP guidelines and help pages that would enable you to function within the norms of this community. Please read them carefully and apply their guidance. If you can cite a reliable source that cites your work as a "world renown expert" in the context of a discussion of this topic, that would help. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I did cite such a work. If you would care to read it I believe that you would be satisfied. For your reference, the Boston Globe and Discover Magazine have both written independent and similar summaries of the work described here. I find your editing to be unreasonable in this instance and have made note of it to other editors in the dispute conflict board. Please indicate your own expertise in this area. I have published in peer reviewed academic journals on this topic. I assume you have not. Thank you. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps you could share what you are a Dr of and illuminate me of your expertise. I hold a Ph.D. from Harvard University in Psychology. Carey.Morewedge (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

irrelevant. Done. SPECIFICO talk 04:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

S - On CM's Talk page I and others have been advising to cool off, via trying to explain what Wikipedia is not. From replies, think got it. Sort of. However, in Digital Goods article, some third party dropped in and reversed your deletion. From looking at THAT person's past contributions, not a clue why might have put a hand in here. David notMD (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

The whole thing is a bit strange. He struts his Harvard PhD and then blusters in rather stilted clumsy English, almost as if it were really someone else doing the edits. The appearance of the IP doesn't put the whole thing in a favorable light. In a couple of the articles he visited his contributions seem at least plausible, so I left those alone. The others, including the one reinstated by the IP, seem like low-grade academic nonsense and would not be cited here without his involvement. SPECIFICO talk 21:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm just a (biochemist) bystander, so will leave to you and others to sort this out. I will add in the world of medicine-related articles I often see people waving their credentials around (MD, PhD, ISS (I'm So Smart)), and then departing in a huff. David notMD (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Silly topics anyway. Ciao. SPECIFICO talk 22:49, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Please stop bullying me

Wikipedia asks that editors are civil with each other but you keep on making comments which appear designed to humiliate me. I don't deserve it. Reissgo (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Nobody's bullying you and nobody's supporting your thoroughly unsupported and unwarranted AfD in the topic area you've long disrupted. Wikipedia is a work area and we all can support our colleagues in their work by collaborating with thoughtful adherence to site norms and policies. SPECIFICO talk 19:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What was the purpose of sending me the link to an article on the history of French banking from 1909? Was it genuinely supposed to be helpful to me? Reissgo (talk) 08:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I just thought in case you ever wake up one morning and really want to learn about money and banking issues you could see that there is a real world history and real facts and issues that go beyond your pet theories and ruminations. Good luck. There's a ton more where that came from. Read Mill for starters. SPECIFICO talk 20:18, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

You are a bully, a moron and a liar. Reissgo (talk) 21:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Your Remarks On My Talk Page

You made a series of accusations on my talk page.

• You said, "It's not helpful to repeat your edit with the comment 'I'm right' in the edit summary." I did not make the comment "I'm right" in the edit summary or anywhere else.

• You said, "The references you added are weak - marginal sources and promotional blurb." I cited to New Republic, Townhall.com, the Shreveport Times, MinnPost.com, and Salon.com, among others. None of these sources are fringe. I also cited two sources where Brooks describes himself as a moderate. Are his own words not good enough for you?

• You said, "Mainstream RS refer to [Brooks] as "conservative" and therefore WP must reflect that." Mainstream sources describe Brooks's ideological orientation in a variety of ways, and I included those descriptions--including the word "conservative"--in my edit.

• You asked/commanded me to delete my own edits, which I will not do. I believe that they improve the article, and I will defend them. I have, however, brought up the issue on the talk page.

You are out of line with the accusations you made. Also, I noticed that another user has accused you of bullying them. Please note that I don't back down from that type of behavior.SunCrow (talk) 22:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I warned you politely to stop edit warring. Pretty standard stuff. Thanks for responding by coming to the article talk page. I have replied there. SPECIFICO talk 22:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

AE

You were reverted because you had commented in a hatted/on-hold discussion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh I see. Thanks for the explanation. I guess I had already opened the edit window when the discussion was hatted. At any rate, I think there's no harm leaving it under the hat. Either it will be archived and forgotten there or it will be ready to go if that AE thread is resumed following the resolution of the ANI. Does this seem right to you? SPECIFICO talk 20:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

*shrug* Probably doesn't matter either way. I'm not doing anything with it, at least... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A beer for you!

cheers DN (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Personal beliefs and neutrality

I've come to the point where I tune out your messages. Although you are apparently acting as an advocate for your personal beliefs, I think you can be better than that if you tried. I asked a question previously about neutral editing that you didn't answer, so here's another chance to take a crack at it.

Would you agree that when we work on the Russian interference article we shouldn't consider our own personal beliefs about whether or not there was Russian interference?

--Bob K31416 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't pose leading questions to other users on article talk pages and user pages. If you're interested in communication and article improvement, that is not an effective mode of communication. Thanks for your visit. SPECIFICO talk 19:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

In this context I think that's an improper objection. In any case, maybe the question will be something for you to consider yourself privately in your evolution as an editor. Bye. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

QED. You may have noticed that for all your participation in nearly a year of talk page threads on the Russian interference article, you have not managed to garner consensus for any article improvements. SPECIFICO talk 15:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Article Review

Hello, SPECIFICO! Thank you for reviewing Product based theory of economic cycles. Regarding COI, I can say that I study economics and recently prepared my review of main economic theories of economic cycles. I mentioned that "product based theory of economic cycles" was missed at Wikipedia. If you don't agree with the text it's okay, but at the moment article is looking incomplete. If there is any possibility to reformulate the part of the text you have deleted, I would be glad to do this. Let me know what you think about it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gevlare (talk • contribs) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for coming to discuss. I think you'll find the most knowledgeable folks to advise you on conflict of interest at WP:COIN. I am not familiar with the many ways WP deals with that. With respect to the article, I think the product cycle is a different matter than the Product Based Theory of Business Cycles in general. Is the latter your own original work, or are there others who have written about this? SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Long story short: Raymond Vernon has expanded the initial idea of Theodore Levitt and stated that in different countries the same product can be at a different phase of its life-cycle. Vernon also stated that developed counties are implementing new technologies into production earlier than developing countries, as the result, there is a growing inequality between developed and developing countries. Further studies aimed to provide the evidence of the theory within separate industries like semiconductors (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00036846.2012.697123?journalCode=raec20 is a good example). Georgiy Revyakin empirically proved initial Vernon theory and called it "Product based theory of economic cycles" to differentiate it somehow from previous research, which used "product life-cycle" more as a theory of international trade rather than independent theory, which can explain fluctuations within economy. Considering that, my suggestion on the next version of the article is as below: - Rename "History" into "Conception" - In the end add the phrase "Initial Vernon theory takes its evidence in the research by Georgiy Revyakin, who proved that economic cycles in developed countries overrun economic cycles in developing countries. Within this paradigm, economic cycles with different periods values correspond to the life-cycle of different marketable goods. The financial sector in its turn play a secondary role and distort parameters of economic cycles: their amplitude and initial phase." Gevlare —Preceding undated comment added 18:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Right, but Revyakin does not appear to be a notable theorist nor to have been cited or his work discussed in any secondary independent reliable source publications. Without such citations, it would not be used in a Wikipedia article. As to the theory itself, I'm not sure it's convincing. We do not see large parts of the world using outdated technologies like vacuum tubes or steam engines or even LP records, although all three do still exist in usable commercially available forms. I think that the evidence shows technology diffusion to be rapid and pervasive. At any rate, you still need to deal with whatever COI you may have editing these articles. SPECIFICO talk 19:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Do you think that developed and developing countries are using the same technologies in their production? It is very naively to think that for example USA and Vietnam are producing food and instruments of production using the same technology. It varies greatly. Just take a look at efficiency of different industries of different countries: efficiency of electricity usage, land fertility etc. You will understand that you may be mistaken Gevlare —Preceding undated comment added 20:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)