User talk:Jojojava

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


I am JoJoJaVa and I love cars and buildings. Fun, isn't it ?

Self-promotion of research[edit]

Your edit pattern gives me reasons to believe you are closely related to Jonathan Benchimol, promoting his (or maybe your own) research all over Wikipedia even when it is barely related to the article subject. Such behavior is not acceptable per Wikipedia rules, and I will remove your references after judging on a case-by-case basis. --bender235 (talk) 16:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I was in the industry and since 2 years I am studying monetary economics and money at university of reims.
I read these papers and others and liked them. That's why I shared them in relevant situations.
You do not have to believe me
Bye Jojojava (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
So how come you add articles of this author only? And also, as a matter of fact, you did not shared them in "relevant situations." You prominently added them everywhere. --bender235 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Because I read them exclusively and found them clearly more relevant and recent than others (in this field). Everywhere ? No. If so, delete. But before read the articles I cited to be sure that citations are not relevant. Whatever, I will start citing other articles in few days as I am finishing my dissertation allowing me to find very interesting papers (from other authors) related to this field. Again, you do not have to believe me. I contributing in WP in other fields in the past (industry essentially) and I always provided quality updates to WP.
Just for example, you added an article on DSGE models to Cobb–Douglas production function, when there is close to zero overlap between the topics. --bender235 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Did u read the article ? It's a serious question. Because the paper I added is clearly related to "the technological relationship between the amounts of two or more inputs" By more inputs, money and capital are the more popular in economics' literature. And the most recent paper about that is the one I cited. So seriously, read and understand the cited paper and the WP article before deleting the citation. It's important for the WP project. As I understood, WP needs research references for improving their articles. This work need an investment in understanding and reading both WP article and cited paper. Without such work, WP article's quality will decrease. Jojojava (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Most of all, Wikipedia is a general-audience encyclopedia. A person with no background in economics who never heard of Cobb-Douglas functions before will be totally confused by the article you added, which (yes, I've read it) builds on top of the Cobb-Douglas concept rather than explaining it (why would it? it's a scientific article for an expert audience). The reliable sources we are looking for in Wikipedia (in the economic realm) are undergrad-level textbooks rather than cutting-edge journal articles. --bender235 (talk) 18:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I can understand this perspective, even if I am not agree. For me, the ultimate goal of WP is to increase the knowledge of the reader, whatever it's level. Just to close the debate: I am a girl ;-)Jojojava (talk) 09:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)