User talk:Mydogategodshat

Thursday

25

April

07:09 UTC

Welcome to my talk page.
My name is Paul Gallienne. I Have been writing business and economics articles for Wikipedia since early 2003 under the name Mydogategodshat.

Welcome[edit]

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149 27 May 2003

For your information[edit]

Just so you know, an easier way to write [[market segment|market segments]] is [[market segment]]s. For more helpful hints, take a look at Wikipedia:How to edit a page. Keep up the good work! Kingturtle 03:14 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Development of the business section[edit]

Are you also going to do product churning about which I know almost nothing.... ??? -- David Martland 13:57 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for the idea about churning. I might get to it eventually, but first I want to do all the marketing basics. If you're not familiar with churning, you're obviously not a stock broker.

So far I've edited most of the existing marketing articles, about 15 of them (some of them were quite well done,but most of them were not), I've reorganized the marketing section on the root 'business' page, and I've contributed about 30 marketing articles. I think it will require about another hundred articles before the marketing section of this encyclopedia becomes really useful at the university level. I am currently doing the product management topics. Next I will do the pricing, and then marketing research areas. - - user:mydogategodshat

Good work. These were neglected areas. You are probably right about needing a many more articles about marketing, but, a hundred seems a lot. Perhaps there should be an article on sales force and brand management and service marketing as a start, and then, it may start to become more obvious where more fillers are required. For various reasons those three, along with commodity markets, are more fundamental than product management as such, so they should be written first. EofT

At this stage I have writen about 100 articles. The marketing section now has about 120 articles in it. I've finished (at least for now) product management, marketing fundamentals, and pricing . Next I think I'll finish marketing research. You mention I should do brand management. It is done. Service marketing needs a lot of work. Sales also needs work. It has a couple of articles, but needs one on sales technique, and one on sales force management. As for your claim that commodity marketing is more important than product management, I don't know if that is true. I agree that some commodities like oil, gold, and wheat have important political and strategic aspects to them. But the product management area is huge. It includes virtually all consumer products and most industrial products. I guess it depends on how you define "important". - - - user:mydogategodshat

In mid September 2003 I compiled lists of business topics. They give us a good indication of the state of the Wiki business section. Here is the count:

accounting - 69 articles
business ethics - 39 articles
business law - 59 articles
economics - 248 articles
finance - 149 articles
human resources management - 48 articles
information technology management - 58 articles
management - 71 articles
marketing - 192 articles
production - 25 articles

The most developed sections are economics and marketing. The least are HR and production. IT and HR have a lot of stub articles. We have made an incredible amount of progress in the last 4 month, but we have a long way to go. Keep up the great work everybody. mydogategodshat 03:41, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Maybe I've got the terminology wrong, but a colleague mentioned product churning when I queried why so many ink jet printers have completely incompatible ink cartridges. I had the feeling that, if he was correct, the term had something to do with creating very small differences in products in order to give an appearance of user choice, while at the same time ensuring that products are needlessly kept incompatible. I'd be interested to see what you write when you get around to it. -- David Martland 15:06 9 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Your colleague is right. The strategy used by these printer manufacturers could be considered a form of churn. Churning in general terms is just selling more product than is benificial to the customer. The classic example is a stockbroker that regularly buys and sells securities in your portfolio. You may or may not gain, but the broker sure piles up commissions. I can see how a strategy of selling the basic product at a loss, but charging outrageous amounts for refills (printers), useage time (cell phones), blades (razors),or prints (photography), can be considered a form of churning. user:mydogategodshat

Absolutely. EofT

You might want to take a look at Razor and blades business model. -- Anon

Blocked again[edit]

I did not and probably never will block you. What may have happened is that I blocked a user once, and on occassions, your service uses an ISP address that is similar to that of the blocked user. Or maybe there is another explanation that I don't know about. but i did NOT block you. Kingturtle 09:24 29 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I didn't block you. You must've been assigned an IP address used by a vandal. Are you on AOL by any chance? -- Notheruser 04:35, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes I am with AOL.

mydogategodshat 04:37, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I just unblocked the addresses I blocked yesterday. You shouldn't get that notice any more. :) -- Notheruser 04:39, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, I just saved an edit and it worked fine.

mydogategodshat 04:44, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I am not blocking you. but the system might think so once in a while. What probably happened is that I blocked a vandal once, and sometimes when you log in, your service uses an IP address close to the one the vandal used. We can ask at the "Village Pump" to figure out how to get around this, if you like. Kingturtle 16:44 12 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed the stuff in section 2 about you being blocked. I see that you were using IP address 64.12.97.6 back on 29 Sep when you added a comment to User:Jimbo Wales/Pushing To 1.0. That IP address has been associated with vandalism now and then, see User contributions. So that's probably what happened. Tualha 01:02, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Several AOL proxy IP addresses were blocked earlier for being User:Michael. I have unblocked them. Sorry for any inconvience, Maximus Re x 01:32, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks mydogategodshat

What's in a name?[edit]

Hi, I was just wondering, what does your username mean? I assume it is meant to be read "my dog ate god's hat," but is there anything significant to that? It's just a very interesting name :) Adam Bishop 04:13, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

If you can figure out what it means, you tell me. I wanted to come up with something more interesting than a normal name. The first pseudonum I tried was MonadsExcrescent but after about a month I started to think that was too pretentious. Only philosophers new what it ment. Most people thought it had something to do with shit. So I changed it to something nonsensical and humorous (or so I thought). For about a week I used Mydogategodsbone, but I quickly realized that some religious people would read negative connotations into it and be offended. So I changed it to Mydogategodshat. Hopefully no one will be offended and some people might get a chuckle out of it. mydogategodshat 05:02, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I thought it was "my dog ate, god shat." Which has something to do with excrement and might offend religious people. ;-) --Nate Silva 23:49, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Thats what I thought when I first saw it also :-) Interesting that it was changed to this because some people thought the other one had to do with excrement also :-) You just can't win sometimes.Ark30inf 23:57, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I find this username could be offensive. I suggest it be changed. { MB | マイカル } 14:16, Aug 26, 2003 (UTC)

...presumably because someone might parse it as "my dog at god shat". -- Cyan

That would have to be "my dog, at e-god, shat." And while God may be worthy of worship, E-God seems, like E-Commerce, to simply imply an increased level of fraud and charlatanry - fully worthy of being shat at by your dog I am sure. I propose you simply ignore these silly fellows and keep your name, as you have gathered a good reputation with it. Don't invent problems where none exist.

That was a typo. It was supposed to be "my dog ate god shat", which, I admit, doesn't make a lot of sense. At least one person (me) saw "god shat", not "god's hat". (But when I looked at your contributions, I saw that they were all made in good faith, so I figured that the problem was me, not you.) Cheers, Cyan 22:30, 10 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I thought it is "My dog ate god-shat". I don't know which is more weird. --Menchi 22:41, 7 Nov 2003 (UTC)

And I thought it was "Mydo gate. Go Dshat!" -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 00:22, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

The funny thing is that the user could have avoided all this confusion by changing the username to MyDogAteGodsHat or My Dog Ate God's Hat. And if he doesn't want to lose edit histories and the such it would be a simple matter to ask a developer to make the DB change. But minor acts of subversion are what make a society healthy, no? --The Cunctator 06:32, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The even funnier thing is that the developers could have avoided all this confusion by giving people random numbers as usernames instead of letting people choose. Or, possibly, people could have avoided all this confusion by asking extra politely for changing name as a favour, rather than a duty or demand - who knows... Κσυπ Cyp 13:10, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Did anyone ever attempt to VfD your user handle? Don't worry i 'm not going to either, tho i find its imagery disturbing, obviously your intention !! Thanks again. I have just now looked a litle more carefully at your user handle and realise that i too need professional help for misreading it, your intention perhaps to trigger Freudian repressed thoughts? Amazing how the juxtapostion of certain letters of the alphabet trigger certain imagery, your user-name is a true Rorschauh (ink-blot test) of the unconscious.Norwikian 12:36, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Have you considered italicizing or bolding parts of your name in your signature to reduce confusion? mydogategodshat for example. æle ✆ 22:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it as it is - it's funny!!!! ;) Richard n 20:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship nomination[edit]

Hi, I've just nominated you on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. This doesn't guarantee anything, but if other people agree, then being blocked by accident wouldn't be a problem for you any more. Κσυπ Cyp 16:38, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a lot of people are against anyone with your username (I find this odd), but would support you being a sysop after a name change... It's a bit confusing, but maybe people wouldn't object to "mydogconsumedgodsfavouritehat"... Κσυπ Cyp 08:50, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Howdy. Regarding your nomination to become a sysop, it looks like everyone would be unanimous in their support it if not for your name. Any thoughts on this? May I suggest "Mydogatemyhat" or "Mdagh"? The latter makes it clear that no word is "shat" and could be expanded to "My dog ate god's hat" in signatures. Daniel Quinlan 03:12, Nov 21, 2003 (UTC)

I have decided not to change my name. mydogategodshat 05:41, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I would like to express a heartfelt thanks to: Κσυπ Cyp , Cimon Avaro on a pogostick, snoyes, Adam Bishop , Secretlondon, Hephaestos , 207.189.98.44 , Jamesday, Pakaran for nominating me and supporting me. It is encouraging to know that my efforts over the past 6 months have been appreciated. I prize your actions all the more knowing that many of you were not familiar with my work and had to do some research to decide whether to support me or not (because I limit my contributions to the 750 business/economics articles) . Thank you for the time, the effort, and the confidence.

There was a minority that did not support me because of my name. It seems that half have a problem because they read “shat” into it and half because of the word “god”. I find this amazing. The people that read “shat” into the character string had to ignore the commonly used word “hat” and pick out a word that has not be in common use for more than a century. My spell checker is currently telling me that the word dosn’t exist. One complainant insisted on converting “Monad” into “gonads” and “Excrescent” into “excrement”. Another saw “a dog eating a bone” as a sexual act. All I can say to these people is “Get professional help”.

As for changing my name, I have decided not to do that for two reasons. One is a philosophical reason. For an explanation, read The Crucible, particularly where John Proctor declares the importance of your name. The price of adminship is too high. The other reason is a practical one. I find it useful to use the same name on all my online activities. It is interesting that two universities and several commercial sites don’t have a problem with my name. Maybe it is not all that surprising since they are not inhabited by trolls trying to forward their cause.

Hope to see you around the business/economics pages in the future. mydogategodshat 03:02, 22 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I'm one of those who said I would support your nomination for sysop only if you were to change your name (I suggested spaces between words or capitalisation to make the words clearer). I've just read your message on Cyp's talk page. I understand and respect your decision not to make any change to your name, I would probably feel very similarly if asked to change mine. I can't help but be a little annoyed by the suggestion that those objecting to your name are "trolls trying to forward their cause" and should "Get professional help", although perhaps I am being oversensitive (again). I hope you will believe me when I say my reaction was genuine and my intentions good. I will no doubt continue to be uncomfortable with your name but, as I said, I understand your reasons for not changing it. So, I withdraw any objection to you becoming a sysop and will support any future nomination. Regards -- sannse 13:58, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Please do not take my comments personally. They were not directed at any one individual; nor were they intended to apply to all those that wanted me to change my name. They refer more to a general tendency that I have noticed during my time here at WP. When I compare the peer review process here to the peer review process in academia, I notice an important difference. In academic circles there is an understanding that the basis of any review process is solid logical reasoning backed up by ample empirical data. The WP review process seems to be closer to "this is my opinion and because this is a democracy my opinion is just as good as anyone elses, irrespective of any evidence given". The structuring of the VFD page is a good example of how this culture has permeated WP. People vote with a single word, or at most a sentence. Rarely do you see a well reasonsed argument why they voted the way they did. One draws the same conclusions looking through most of the talk pages. Most of the edit wars that waste so much of contributors' time result from the internalization of this epistimological criterion. This "one-person-one-vote" review process seems to attract trolls that are out to further their cause. I drew, what I thought was a reasonable conclusion that some (or even many) of the people that wanted me to change my name were acting out of teleological aspirations rather than a deeply felt sense of offense. Of course, I cannot see inside their psyche so I will never know their actual mix of motivations. I am sorry that you thought I was directing my comments specificly at you. That was not my intention (unless of course they do apply to you in which case I am aiming them directly at you). mydogategodshat 06:33, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Heh! that's the first time I've needed to use my dictionary twice to read a message on Wikipedia ;) You are right that there are a number of problems with the decision making process around here. I tend to feel that they are more to do with the limitations of the medium than any bad intent - but that's me, the eternal optimist ;) As to your name, I know my views are down to genuine feelings of disquiet and I'm sure that's also true of at least some of the others who commented. But I feel I made mistakes in the way I expressed those views. I apologise for that. I doubt we will bump into each other much around here in the future, unless you have a sudden urge to swap your interest in economics for a passion for dog breeds and the Grammy awards, so bye for now. Regards -- sannse 21:09, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Adminship nomination for the second time[edit]

Some time when you have a few hours to spare, you might want to read the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship...

~~Last I counted, about 12 support, 6 oppose, 4 ambiguous.~~
Last I counted, about 14 support, 5 oppose, 2 ambiguous. (Think I counted wrong the first time.)

Absolutely no negative comments that aren't purely based on your username... I must admit I find the objections to your username somewhat... odd... $\ _{\ _{\mathrm {K} \sigma \upsilon \pi -{\sqrt {C^{2}+y^{2}+p^{2}}}}}$ 17:50, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello again. You may consider changing your nickname into something which will not rise objections. It will be better for everyone, including you, since you will not have to defend yourself against those who get offended. It is also dangerous for our policy about offensive nicknames; some people will criticize us that we don't enforce the policy. I don't find the nickname offensive, but some people do. Just to live in harmony with everyone. Why create controversy when you can avoid it? So be smart and change your name for the sake of harmony and peace:) Friendly, Optim 04:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Just to say that while I fully understand your decision not to accept the adminship nomination, I personally consider it to be Wikipedia's loss. Bmills 11:51, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Same here, my thoughts too.

\ _{\ _{\mathrm {K} \sigma \upsilon \pi -{\sqrt {C^{2}+y^{2}+p^{2}}}}}

16:46, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Business Philosophy[edit]

I challenge the assertion that there is a legitimate field called philosophy of business, but, if you write on that topic, I will review and be fair to it. I think it is wrong to consider the current business philosophy article to be pointless, but perhaps, it is ultimately a marketing ploy to call such models a "philosophy", and maybe this is popular management theory (if indeed here is such a thing as philosophy of business). The article could be expanded however, and establish how well or poorly the models discussed live up to being actual "philosophy". That might be fun. EofT

The philosphy of business is a legitimate subject (or at least that is what they tell you when they teach it to you in MBA courses). It deals with the philosophical, political, and ethical underpinnings of business and economics.

I think that is called political economy by both classical and post-neoclassical economists. I imagine Islamic banking would be included for instance. And by that definition both Natural Capitalism and perhaps even Experience Economy qualify, as they have robust positions on these things. EofT

Political economy is quite different. Political economy is economics. It teaches the princples of economics, but not in a technical manner like economic theory courses. There is no calculus or complex mathematical models. The approach is more thematic and historical. It is broader in scope and brings political considerations into the picture. This makes it quite different from the philosophy of business and economics, which uses philosophical and ethical techniques to examine the fields of business and economics. user:mydogategodshat

It asks questions like what the social role of business should be, if indeed it should have one at all. It deals with questions of individualism vs collectivism, freewill, enlightened self interest, and natural rights. Some philosophers, like B Manderville, Butler, Shaftsberry, and F Hutcheson (Adam Smiths Professor at the University of Glassgow), were major contributors. - - user:mydogategodshat

Definitely political economy. It seems a special name was invented for this by the MBA schools to avoid encountering the left's anti-business arguments, or even those of classical economics. EofT

Try taking some courses in political economy and/or the philosophy of business and you will see the differences. One is economics , the other is philosophy applied to economics.user:mydogategodshat

I suppose I do not accept this distinction at all. Philosophy is "metas on anything", and is prone to infinite regress and ignorance of bodily impacts. I would say that this distinction is a false one, and shows some real errors of thought. But then I tend to agree with the Catholics, Greens, Communists or Muslims that both philosophy and business must be subordinated to certain limits arising from human limits, as interpreted by something that is variously cognitive science, theology, ideology, fiqh. All f those, globally a majority, would probably agree with me that the distinction you make facilitates no end of mischief. Given that, we can have fun arguing out each point. But I am unlikely to accept this distinction you make, or th your professors make. Wikipedia being global, we must deal with diversity. EofT

The relationship between political economy and the philosophy of business/economics, is analogous to the relationship between history and the philosophy of history. One is history. The other is the philosophical analysis of history, that is, it is philosophy. It is also analogous to the relation between sports and the psychology of sports. There is also the relationship between music and the psychology of music. There is sports and the business of sports. Do you deny all these distinctions (and many more). Or is it just the role of philosophy that you want to deny? As for your claims that philosophy "is metas on anything, is prone to infinite regress and ignorance of bodily impacts", they are unintelligible without further explanation and are given without any supporting evidence, so I am forced to give them the attention that they deserve (ie. ignore them). As for your claims of support from various groups, I think you might find it to be considerably less broad than you think. Of all the Catholics, Greens, Communists, Muslims, or "global majority" that I know, not one of them wants to deny the role of philosophical thought the way you appear to be doing. In fact many of the great philosophers of the last 1500 years have been Catholics or Muslims. Marx wrote almost as much on philosophy as he did on politics and economics. Environmentalists have contributed significantly in the field of philosophy of law.- - - user:mydogategodshat

As for your assertion that I said the article was pointless, what I actually said was that the article was highly subjective. And we know what the Wikipedia policy is on subjective articles. - user:mydogategodshat

I think it is less subjective even as it is than it would be written from the m:MBA point of view. EofT

My point was I felt that there should be some clear criteria as to how to decide what management theories to be included in the article. I also suggested there should be an explanation of why each management theory is included. This would make it less subjective, more value to readers, and raise the level of writing to that of knowledge (or even wisdom) rather than mere opinion. I really don't care what perspective the articles are writen from as long as the writer justfies his/her claims. user:mydogategodshat

Recent vandalism to service economy (see page history), service sector, product stewardship, negative commodity market, and even Experience Economy (which should link to service economy) is leaving a mess with many incorrect assertions and open links. You might also look at moral reasoning where an important issue in ethical vs. economic vs. personal choice is raised. As you actually seem to care about the state of these articles, as opposed to having an agenda based on control and the carceral state as some do, you will hopefully take an interest and restore the useful material. Also of interest is a discussion of comprehensive outcome and yield (economics) etc - see User:Cyan/kidnapped for a list of articles that have been selectively censored for reasons that have nothing to do with the best possible economics section. Regrets that the undemocratic Wikipedia Governing Council forbids competent collaboration on the HR and related topics.

Keep up the good work, and by all means, resist and defy the sysops completely.

Yours, trolls.

I have looked at the list of your kidnapped articles. I am competent to discuss only three of them. I have pasted these three into a word processer and will introduce parts of them whenever I can do so in a fair and balanced way. mydogategodshat 19:13, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Experimentation pages are generally titled "Sandbox" or some variation thereof...but in any case, they belong in the User space, not the Wikipedia space. I've taken the liberty of moving your "ZZUK" page to User:Mydogategodshat/sandbox. -- Someone else 00:09 5 Jul 2003 (UTC)

For Discussion on charts see: talk:Wikipedia policy on charts Please do not place headings before the intro of articles - it is non-standard and ugly. --mav 06:02, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Your article on "ways to improve ebay" does not belong on this site, for the same reason Encyclopeadia Britanica doesn't include articles on how to improve buggy-whips. There IS a site where this article would be at home however, the meta-wiki. I suggest moving the content there, and removing it from here. - anon

OK, I agree mydogategodshat 16:17, 16 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Lists merge[edit]

Hi, I merged the List of business people and the List of corporate leaders. You have reverted this for the last. Could you explain to me the difference between a business person that is important enough to have a Wikipedia article and a corporate leader? Thanks, Ap 14:45, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes the difference is important. If you look at the definition of business person on the List of business people page you will find it to be very general. It includes owners of variety stores, self employed plumbers, even anybody that has had a paper route. It also includes researchers that work in the theoretical aspects of business. This makes the list far too broad in scope to be of any value. That explains why it has only had about a dozen entries in more than a year. So what I did was create two new lists, lists that were specific enough to be of value. One was the list of business theorists and the other was the list of corporate leaders. Note the operative word "leaders". Since we've had these more specific lists people have started to contribute to them. mydogategodshat 00:46, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I wanted those two pages merged, because the list of business people was a proper subset of the list of corporate leaders, regardless of the definition at the top of that page. I guess I should have merged to list of corporate leaders to begin with. I strongly believe specialization of lists is good. I also believe this confusion could have been avoided if list of business people had been redirected to list of corporate leaders from the moment of that page's creation. Ap 12:53, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi, I moved Market dominance strategies/temp to Talk:Market dominance strategies/temp because there are not supposed to be subpages in the main article namespace. The talk page for the article can be found at Talk:Market dominance strategies/discuss. Angela 14:20, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Roach bait[edit]

Hello, I'm very green here. I'm still trying to get my bearings. You seem to be the person to talk to about marketing. I've moved the text you removed from roach bait to undercover marketing (a common term recently used on 60-minutes). Does this look good to you?

Okay, I've made some changes to undercover marketing, but I'd like your feedback on them. I'm still getting used to the style guidelines and conventions. Isogolem 22:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC

Thanks for the article on Roach bait. I seperated the marketing part because I don't think this is a term commonly used by marketers. I think a much more common name for the technique is "under cover marketing", so your renaming it (moving it in Wikipedia lingo) was a good idea. Not only is it a more common term, but it is also less biased (NPOV in Wikipedia lingo). We try to present our articles from a "Neutral Point Of View". In practice this usually involves starting an article with generic unbiased language, then as you get further into the article you can add the advantages, disadvantages, criticisms, and other more biased comments. Hope you enjoy your stay here. mydogategodshat 02:20, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Cool, thanks for the help!

Good work on editing the article. You're a fast learner. You have created an informative, unbiased article, which never-the-less expresses your opinion on the matter. I made a couple of changes. I added some links to marketing concepts that you mentioned, and I put the definition right at the top. We have a convention at Wiki that we put the basic definition at or near the top of the article. Keep up the great work. mydogategodshat 05:33, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hello, Isogolem. Sorry if I came off as a little harsh. By not "very well-written", I was referring to the somewhat conversational tone of the paragraphs, when it should be more third-person objective (more boring, perhaps, but more straightforward and encyclopedic). By non-NPOV, I was mostly referring to the use of the phrase "roach bait", which seems like a fairly loaded term. By the way, the undercover marketing article, as mentioned above, it quite well done. So, I'm sorry if I rubbed you the wrong way, and I hope you have fun here. -- Minesweeper 11:34, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for the pushback and help. I've done another revision of it and made again a little more cohesive, but also possibly less straight forward. I've also added to the talk page - some links. Can you guys take one more look at it? Isogolem

The article keeps getting better. You've added more detail and presented a critical perspective without losing the article's encyclopedic and unbiased nature. I added a sentence about stock promoters. I noticed your link to buzz goes to an airline. I think it would be best to either create a new article buzz (marketing) or take the link out until we have an appropriate article to link to. mydogategodshat 03:27, 4 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Like your addition, change made to buzz. Thanks so much for the support and guidance. :) Isogolem

We could probably put the credit info for Credit repair on the Talk page. What do you think? RickK 04:34, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Minor request. Can you please fill in the summary field more often, especially when it is not a minor edit. Thanks (makes it easier for me to remember if I have looked a a particular edit before). Keep up the good contributions. Jrincayc 02:12, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to remember. I tend to get sloppy late at night. mydogategodshat 04:46, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

nice work![edit]

You've done a remarkable job at organizing and re-writing the article. I commend you! Kingturtle 00:39, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Nice work on Production Theory basics[edit]

The article Production Theory Basics looks good. I was wondering where you think that the interaction between prices and mariginal productivity should go? Also, if you like, can you add some support to adding m:SVG image support on the Wikipedia:WikiMoney page to make collaborating on creating vector graphics simpler. Thanks. Jrincayc 16:46, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The interaction between price and MPP is seldom discussed directly, or at least they didn't talk about it when I studied economics. I don't know where it would go. The approach that I was going to take was to start with non-monetary aspects of production (marginal physical product, production possibilities frontier which I just wrote last night, and production functions) then bring costs into it with an article on cost theory and an article on long run cost and production. As you know, pricing isn't usually brought into it until you start dealing with profit maximization and market structures. If you can write an article on the relation between price and marginal product I would like to read it. I presume you would transform MP into costs and read pricing from the industry demand schedules. I will look into the image support page you mentioned. mydogategodshat 17:10, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The short version is that once the marginal productivity of adding $10 of good x to the production inputs produces less then $10 more of the output good, the manufacturer will stop adding good x. I certainly agree that the market structure does matter in that it can become pretty complex when the inputs and the outputs are not part of a competative (i.e. price taking) market. I do think that it might be useful to put some simple examples in the production theory basics page of a competative market to motivate where the whole marginal productivity is actually used. Jrincayc 15:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It sounds like what you are talking about is the pricing and optimum usage of factor inputs: you know, setting Marginal Revenue product equal to the Marginal Resource Cost and all that stuff. It might be too advanced for 99.99% of WP viewers. We might be able to write an article on it, but it won't be light reading. mydogategodshat 03:30, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I have read the m:SVG image support page and maybe I'm not to bright today, but I don't understand what support is being asked for. mydogategodshat 17:27, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Basically, there are two types of graphics formats (and occasionally combinations of the two). The first is raster images. These are composed of pixels and png format is an example of one. However, since they are made up of pixels, they cannot be scaled easily, and since lines and curves are composed of pixels, they can only be modified one pixel at a time. The other type of graphics formats are vector graphics. These are made up of a series of drawing commands such as draw a line from (1,0) to (3,2), or draw a curve connecting the points (1,2),(3,4),(5,2). Vector graphics can be easily scaled since you just multiply all the coordinates by a constant. Also, since the files are a list of commands, it is easy to modify the graphic since lines can be changed by moving one of the coordinates, and so can curves.

SVG is a vector format. So if Wikipedia supported it, then say you could upload the SVG file straight out of Corel Draw. I could then take it and say add a price line, change the units to be dollars and then reupload it as an SVG file to a new name. As it is, the graphics on wikipedia are PNG's which are far harder to modify since to do the same thing I would have to erase the pixels that make the text. For example try makeing a modification to the following images that I have created: fig1.svg versus fig1s.png. The svg is much easier to work with. Hope that helps explain why I want SVG support. Jrincayc 15:52, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

To create my graphics, I use Corel Draw. Although it can save images in about 20 different formats, PNG is not one of them, so I load it into Corel Photo House and save it as a png there. I am not familiar with a SVG format. mydogategodshat 17:37, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Although I support your drive to be able to modify images as easily as we can modify text, I do not feel I understand the technical issues well enough to talk intellegently about it at the page that you suggested. Sorry. mydogategodshat 03:37, 17 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hi, two more lists: List of process management topics, List of theory of constraints topics

Mkoval 22:18, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)~~

See: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists - stand alone lists) -- User:Docu

Thanks for supporting the retention of Sir T.B. on U.S.A. Did anyone ever attempt to VfD your user handle? Don't worry i 'm not going to either, tho i find its imagery disturbing, obviously your intention !! Thanks again I have just now looked a litle more carefully at your user handle and realise that i too need professional help for misreading it, your intention perhaps to trigger Freudian repressed thoughts? Amazing how the juxtapostion of certain letters of the alphabet trigger certain imagery, your user-name is a true Rorschauh (ink-blot test) of the unconscious.Norwikian 12:36, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

Just wanted to say I thought your re-write of fractional-reserve banking was excellent and provided some much-needed clarification. Gandalf61 13:47, Jan 2, 2004 (UTC)

Self-introduction[edit]

Hi. Why you write no info about you on your userpage? Feel free to add a self-introduction, if you like. Optim 00:25, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I was going to give an introduction on my user page but decided that it would be counter productive. Much of what is on user pages is just vanity. I see no reason to list my employment details, my degrees, or even the WP articles that I've writen. None of this is relevent. If you want to know me look at the subjects that I cover in my writings. If you want to judge me, do it based on the quality of the articles that I have writen. To make an assessment based on the superficial contents of a user page is the equivalent of judging a person based on the colour of their skin, their religion, their gender, or their nationality. When, in academia, a submitted article goes under peer review, the names of the submitter(s) are often deleted. This is so the reviewer assesses the paper on its own merits, uninfluenced by spurious factors. Wikipedia should operate in the same way. mydogategodshat 08:04, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Well, here are my guesses: Male, MBA, age 28, German America, Unmarried. ;) Jrincayc 03:21, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Impressive manifesto. You are quite eloquent. And probably your articles are original writings not copied from other sources, something quite rare on the Wikipedia. RCSB 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Social welfare (political science)?[edit]

What purpose is served by moving Social welfare to Social welfare (political science)? --mav 08:39, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Because it containt two topics that need to be disambiged. I have separated the economics parts and put them under welfare economics and with a redirect from social welfare (economics). And I separated the political material and put it under social welfare (political science). mydogategodshat 08:45, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have started to write an article on Welfare economics and "social welfare in economics". It was necassary to take the political material out so as not to confuse the reader with the two very different uses of the term. mydogategodshat 10:54, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

quote[edit]

I placed a quote from you I found here on my user page. I found it both eloquent and insightful. If you want to comment about this, let me know. p.s. I am one of those offended by your name :) Jack 22:57, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words. I am seldom eloquent and even more rarely insightful, so to be said to be both is a bit of a shock to me. You're not being facetious are you? :) mydogategodshat 04:18, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, certainly not (altho I will admit I am less offended by your name than annoyed at its irreverence). You astutely summed up some meta-wiki issues I have been attempting to express in various circumstances here for some time past. Thank you. Jack 09:27, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Added that quote to Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great. Jrincayc 03:24, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Re Urban economics, the original author of the article is not english, and will not be bugged at all by you renaming the article; feel free :-) Anthere

OK, Its done. mydogategodshat 08:54, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

rocks and minerals project[edit]

Since you commented on the original, wanted to let you know that I created a WikiProject Rocks and Minerals if you'd like to join. Elf 19:33, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but honestly, I know nothing about rocks and minerals. I think my time would be better used on a subject that I know something about. Good luck on the project. mydogategodshat 21:07, 4 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You might want to go Here to find other "rock hounds". mydogategodshat

Thanks for the welcome! I hope this is the correct area to reply to you?, I left one in my section too. Still getting use to wikipedia, but it's been very fun so far.

I've been having fun editing topics outside of economics, esp. about anonymous p2p and futurist ideas (i am going to check out if you have anything on the Singularity) too. I'll find my way back to economics soon enough, I'll probably add some more to Political Economy, and Econometrics next.

Laurentian does overlook a lake and is out in the middle of no where so it has lots of forests. There could be a cement teepee, the campus is pretty spread out, I spent 99% of my time in the social sciences section so you probably have seen more of it then I have :).

ShaunMacPherson

Labour Economics[edit]

on the firm side, it's Y^S(L^D), because commidity output is related to amount of workers hired to work. it's opening downward (n-shape). (i tend to mix up concave/convex)

on the household side, it's D(L^S). Ppl get more disutility from work as they work more hours. it's opening upward (u-shape).

This whole thing should be actually be part of the classical macroeconomics model. hopefully i can find time to add more about it. There is a separate field study which deal with the microeconomics of labor market, i think should belong to the labor market entry. --user:voidvector

Yes I think everybody gets confused with convex/concave because it depends on which side of the curve you're looking at. I use the convention of always stating that it is convex or concave to the origin (looking from the line to the origin) or from the origin (looking from the origin to the line). It is much like the ambiguity about a downward sloping curve. I always clarify this by saying downward sloping to the right.

When I have time I also will try to add some microeconomic analysis to Labour economics.

mydogategodshat 20:52, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

i don't know how would i draw it to have it on the computer right now. if you have any advance graphing utility it will be nice. --user:voidvector

I will put together some typical labour economics diagrams that we can use if we choose to. mydogategodshat 23:39, 14 Feb 2004 (UTC)

the graph you made has a little mistake: the max hour is should not be 24, because we cannot possibly work 24 hrs/day. my labor economics book used 16 hrs a day. we can just use a variable if anything.

That is very interesting. Both my references are using 24hrs. I suppose it depends on whether you are thinking of a single day (in which case 24 hrs is correct because it is possible to work for 24 hours in a single day) or multiple days (in which case 16 hours would be correct because it would be impossible to maintain 24 hour work days for multiple days). I can change it if it is really important to you.

mydogategodshat 05:56, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

this applies to eco models: the naming of variable is a problem. cause different ppl literally use different letterings. I am doing mostly macro models in class now. they use N for labor quantities. I remember in my labor class last year, they used L. --user:voidvector

Yes there is a lot of variation in notation. In my labour economics we used N, in intermed macro we used Q^L, and in welfare ec we used L. I don't think it matters if we are not consistent from article to article. But we must be consistent within an article. What I generally try to do with the diagrams is to spell it out in words. This eliminates the problem, and it also make the encyclopedia more accessible to people that do not have a strong economics background. When I write articles I aim for a range of target readers between upper highschool level and upper undergrad level. What this means is that I have to start with the basics and build up the models one step at a time. Except in very rare instances, I always stop before I get to the calculus. That is why I filled in your classical aggregate supply model with a lot of verbiage. To readers at the second or third year level the equations are clear without any words, but to less prepared readers some explanation is important. I think I will do that "income/substitution effects of wage increase" diagram now. Talk to you later. mydogategodshat 05:54, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

Hi! I left a copy of this in the labour market section too, very good article, I like the pictures. I'm glad wikipedia is slowly adding images too it, makes it a much more powerful tool.

This is a very good article on labour economics. I like the split between macro and micro economics too, it is organized nicely. Plus there is room to add the classical and Marxist views of labour too since its categorized in that fashion also.

One thing could be added to the criticisms part and is the neglected role of unpaid labour. Even though labour is unpaid it still can play an important in society, like child raising, but is often neglected in many economic models. Usually it is left out since it is difficult to incorporate it (usually because it is difficult to measure unpaid work), or the best method of incorporating it is disagreed upon. There are a few problems with not including the unpaid labour variable, or any significant variable, in a model. One is that the model’s conclusions might be biased, recommendations cannot be maid on the basis of promoting the good from unpaid labour since it is ignored.

Even though I am not necessarily a fan of Karl Marx, his views are a good contrast to neo classical - classical economics view of labour. A brief excerpt on him might be good, but if being featured on the front page is eminent then I wouldn’t worry about it in the short run. I only have partial notes on Marx / labour from my studies though since I exchanged my Marx class for a class in which the professor didn’t take attendance ;). It’s hard to find unbiased views on Marx or sites that explain his ideas in economic terms clearly.

A brief excerpt could be added on the importance of labour economics since unemployment is the macroeconomic problem that affects the public most directly and severely. You could add that full employment is a goal, i.e. normative economics, of many democracies and one role of labour economics is to try and achieve this full employment objective. That could then segway into a contrast between free market and command economies too since one benefit of command economies is constant full employment.--ShaunMacPherson 10:47, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Relieved and/or Rejected[edit]

Hey, just thought you might want to know, you aren't listed at Wikipedia:Administrators. Cheers, Meelar 04:57, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if I should feel relieved or rejected. :) - mydogategodshat 05:07, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

New economics article at Big Mac index, it used to be a simple redirect to PPP. Please feel free to cast your economic eye over it. It probably needs adding to the appropiate "List of ... topics" articles, could you do that, you surely know your way around better than I do. THanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 11:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

A quick bit of thanks for reformatting and condensing those EH.Net links on Economic History. :) -- Fennec 22:33, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)

You are welcome. mydogategodshat 00:11, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Before u edit communal reinforcement please be aware that this article may be merged with groupthink. By the way, I didn't disagree with your edit. Andries 20:39, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

U are going too far with editing communal reinforcement. Please stop. Andries 20:49, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Every one of the additions I made fit the definition as given at the top of the article. Part of the danger of starting a list is that people will add things that, although they fit the criterion for the list, you might find disturbing. mydogategodshat 20:55, 7 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I added a brief section on social networks to the Labor economics article. I'm an economics student myself, but this is a case where I think a sociological theory bears mention. Feel free to revise, or add to it if you know more than I do about the subject. Isomorphic 06:13, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hi. :) I took the liberty of redrawing your graphs on Labour economics in response to the comment Isomorphic made on featured article candidates. My versions use less colors, so they're not as attractive, but the lines are thinner and the text all black so it's easy to read. Feel free to revert if you want to. :) fabiform | talk 03:46, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Go ahead. It is just a style issue and I really don't care about that. I won't say thanks however because I don't think ugly black and white stick pictures are an improvement. They are the type of diagrams we used to draw with PC Paint back in 1988. However that is just my opinion. mydogategodshat 06:35, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry if my chages offended you. If they are not an improvement in your opinion then you should of course change them back (click (rev)). If you have any constructive requests for chages to the graphs, then feel free to ask me to change them, it wouldn't take long as I have the files in a suitable format. :) fabiform | talk 18:12, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

They do not offend me any more than if you prefer to wear black and white clothes. The fact that one person likes colour and another likes black and white is nothing to get offended over. It is just a matter of personal preference. mydogategodshat 02:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What do you think about having two versions of the same article: one for high resolution monitors and one for low rez black and white? We could put a link at the top of each articles. mydogategodshat 02:25, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just took a look at the diagrams and they are not in black and white. Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were going to convert them to black and white. What I see looks fine. mydogategodshat 02:36, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I just got an edit conflict as I was replying to you. So you hadn't seen my versions when you replied? They were on the article before I first posted here, but you might have seen a cached version I suppose (the caching of images is begining to bug me!). Isomorphic said he found the pale text a bit difficult to read, so I made that black. I've only used one colour as you say, and I agree they're not as pretty as yours were, but look a little more like standard graphs I guess (the thinner lines). If there's anything you would like me to change about them, do say so as messing around with the colours and line thicknesses would not be a problem. I just reread my original comment here, I said I was making the lines thinner, and making the text black, but I ran it together so that's obviously where you got the wrong impression from. fabiform | talk 02:59, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

business law list[edit]

I responded to your comment here: Talk:List of business law topics B 19:50, May 11, 2004 (UTC)

Adminship: 3rd nomination[edit]

You've been nominated for adminship -- again! Please leave a message at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship indicating whether or not you accept the nomination. Cheers, BCorr|Брайен 23:36, May 12, 2004 (UTC)

Request for review[edit]

Hi, I could use another pair of eyes on a couple economics articles. First, could you take a look at the edits being made to market clearing by a new user? I'm not sure he fully knows what he's talking about, and he replaced the entire original content of the article.

Also, you might want to take a look at sticky, written by Mike Church a couple months ago. It strikes me as a bit idiosyncratic. Isomorphic 01:55, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ive done a bit of editing on the two articles. Thanks for the notification. Equal Shape Change Rule! mydogategodshat 17:30, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Strategic management[edit]

I was simply referring to the fact that for an article to be featured on the main page, it needs an image associated with it. A conceptual topic such as this may not lend itself to a photo, so I thought a diagram representing the topic might be possible. Just something representative, certainly not something diagramming the whole subject. - Taxman 20:33, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

What has happened to much of the content of 'Strategic Management' in recent months? If you look back to versions from October, they were much longer. Thegn -7:55, 19-Feb-06 GMT

Hello - economics[edit]

I am not sure if you remember me, I've been around all over Wikipedia but not in economics too much lately. I've come back to economics though at least for a little while to contribute :o). Very good work on the The Business and Economics Forum. I noticed that Open economy had no entry, Closed economy as well. A lot of the trade / exchange articles can be tied up nicely in these articles. I started open economy but if you know anyone else who wants to help please let them know. --ShaunMacPherson 17:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good to see you back Shaun. The WP:BEF is an experiment that I hope people will use and develop : I think it has the potential to become very valuable. mydogategodshat 15:48, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards[edit]

I have drafted a proposal for a new voluntary association on Wikipedia (joining groups like the Wikipedia:The Business and Economics Forum and the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club) to promote discussion of a sort of system of expert review on Wiki. Please take a look and add your ideas. 172 08:01, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. mydogategodshat 21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Factor analysis[edit]

I have finally returned to this article and put in an admittedly hasty description of what factor analysis is. No one even hinted at that before in this article. Is the section I just added the sort of thing that you were saying you disapprove of? Michael Hardy 22:08, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

...and now I've looked at the talk page again. I'm amazed. I have no idea what could have incited you to write "I didn't realize that this encyclopedia was limited to a mathematical perspective" when I had never thought for a moment that the article should be limited to a purely mathematical perspective. All I said was that the article should not be completely devoid of any mention of what factor analysis is. Why did that offend you so much? Is it similarly offensive to suggest that an article about ships should mention that they float on water? Michael Hardy 23:04, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the article. The reason why I made the comment that you refer to is you wrote "The acurately of this article is disputed" at the top of the article and your justification for doing this was there was not enough "actual math" in the article. It seemed to me that those are the actions of someone that wants to limit the article to a mathematical perspective. Someone that wanted a balance between the math and the practical would have simply added the math to the practical material that I had written. I'm sorry if this misunderstanding has set us off to a bad start (I write a lot of articles and I can use all the help I can get from people like yourself checking my math). mydogategodshat 21:16, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Graphic requests?[edit]

Do you do graph requests? The economics graphs you do in Corel (I think) are superb, far better than anything I could do (prob in graphamatica or, shudder, powerpoint). I'm specifically looking for a recreation of the prospect theory value function [1]. As that link shows, it's two exponentials, with the one in the lower left quadrant having a slope approximately twice that of the one in the upper right. If it's possible for you to do this, could you label the origin "reference point", the x-axis to the right "gains" and to the left "losses", and the y-axis "value". This might be awfully presumptious of me, I don't know how time consuming it is for you to do this so feel free to decline my request. Psychobabble 05:08, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will try to do that curve as soon as I have my graphics programmes back. They are temperarily out of service. mydogategodshat 23:59, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Cleanup[edit]

Sure, happy to explain. Basically, as I wrote on cleanup, I think the biggest problem with these articles is that they need context. Look at how I changed the lead for Defensive marketing warfare strategies. For someone who reads the article and wants more general information on marketing, that information is just a click away now. This article also manages to go back to business and explain the metaphor. Out of the four, it's probably in the best shape and just needs a little cleanup.

Compare Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies - there aren't even any wikilinks until halfway through the article. The first sentence says that "Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies are strategies designed to wear-down the enemy by a long series of minor attacks." To someone without a good grasp of business and marketing, I imagine this is extremely confusing. In the context of business, what is an "attack" and who is an "enemy?" I can guess that the intended meaning is something along the lines of marketing campaigns and competitors, but will a random reader be able to? I could just as easily guess that an "attack" means a hostile takeover and end up completely confused by the article. Someone with a dramatically different POV than myself (and, I'm guessing, you), could think of consumers as the "enemies" of business, the basic thinking being that consumers want to save money, while businesses want them to spend it. Similarly, what does it mean when a business goes "into the remote countryside?" Someone without solid prior knowledge could be misled into thinking that a business literally moves its offices to the middle of nowhere. I have to admit I'm not 100% sure what's intended here.

Does that help? - RedWordSmith 01:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:27, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Image tagging[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:Welfare_max_small.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much, hike395 04:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And how about these? Image:Vir cyc man small.png and Image:Vir cyc macro small.png. Did you make them? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:04, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Image:Giffen good small.png[edit]

Could you please provide an image copyright tag for this image? Thanks! --Diberri | Talk 22:57, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

I am not familiar with all these copyright tags so I don't know which tag to use. The image in question was created with Corel Draw specificly for the article in which it is used. It is based on similar diagrams that can be found in any intermediate microeconomics textbook. I have never seen a copyright notice on these diagrams. In fact all the images that I have contributed have similar characteristics, that is, they were created by me for the article in which they are used and are modifications of standard diagrams found in many textbooks.

mydogategodshat 19:43, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, There is one exception. The diagram I used In Porter generic strategies was copyrighted, but I modified it significantly. I mentioned this on the article's talk page.

mydogategodshat 19:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the info — I too just came across another handful of images that you created and have properly tagged them.

If you're not sure about these tags, all you really need to know going forward is to put {{GFDL}} on a line by itself on the image description page of any image that you create yourself. The importance of using the tag instead of just saying that you created it and uploaded it is that the wiki system can recognize the tag automatically. That's important for knowing what can be exported to other projects. For example, the upcoming Mandrake Linux distribution will include a copy of Wikipedia, but only with those images that have been tagged with a compatible license.

Thanks for all your contributions! This will help make sure that they're accessible. Kbh3rd 05:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Unverified images[edit]

Hi! Thanks for uploading the following image:

Image:Isoquant_small.png

I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GNU Free Documentation License, {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know at my talk page where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 05:12, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

P.S. You can help tag other images at User:Yann/Untagged_Images. Thanks again.

See my reply above. mydogategodshat 05:15, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New product types small.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:New product types small.png. I notice it currently doesn't have an image copyright tag. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use {{gfdl}} if you release it under the GFDL, or {{fairuse}} if you claim fair use, etc.) Right now, I'll put it as unverified, but change it to what it's supposed to be when you get a chance. Thanks, Mattingly23 15:55, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See my reply above. mydogategodshat 04:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

Hi,

We don't add articles to a category as well as its direct parent or subcategory. So for example, if an article fits in to Category:Management accounting there's no need to add it to Business or Accounting. That's why I removed the categories from the articles, it's redundant. I'm removing them again using rollback, so I wanted to explain why, because there won't be a useful edit summary. Rhobite 14:06, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

re: Categories[edit]

Good morning. You recently reverted an anon edit to Management consulting. The anon had added "Category:Business" to the page in addition to the pre-existing "Category:Management". I'm not very familiar with how the categories work. Is there a reason that the article could not be in both categories? Rossami (talk)

Until recently I knew very little about the category system also, but for the last week I have spent (wasted) my time adding category tags to business and economics articles. The way I approached it was to create a variety of categories, subcategories and subsubcategories. (There are about 50 of them now). Then I have been going through the articles listed in the old navigation system and deciding which of the 50 or so categories are applicable to each article. It turned out that the average is 2 or 3 categories per article. So far I have added about 1000 tags. I still have 6 of the old lists to go through. In going through this process I have discovered that different people have different ideas about what criterian to use in appending category tags. In particular, I have been in conflict with two other contributers:

One felt that there should be only one category per article and deleted all but the single most relavent tag.

The other felt that an article could not be placed in adjacent categories.

I reject both these criteria. The criteria I use is I try to put myself in the mind of the user who is using the category system as a navigational device. I ask myself, "If I was browsing in (for example) the Finance category, what articles would I expect to find there, and what articles would I find useful there". That is why I included the business category tag to so many articles including Management consulting.mydogategodshat 17:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This conversation continues at Wikipedia talk:Categorization.

Edit summaries[edit]

Hi, when you edit a page, would you please mind putting something in the "Edit summary" box to briefly indicate what you did? E.g. your recent change to queueing theory to add categories, if you'd put "+cat" in the edit summary, that would have been really usedful. Wikipedia:Edit summary legend gives a good list of abbreviations (like the above) which make it easier to say something useful quickly, and your fellow-editors would really appreciate it. Thanks! Noel (talk) 18:36, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

I usually try to provide some sort of edit summary, but for the last week my attention has been diverted from writing and editing to adding category tags. I have added about 1000 so far and have about the same number left to do before the "business section" is finished. In my mind the whole process of converting from the old navigation system to the new category based navigation system is a waste of time, but the decision to use categories has been made and someone has to do it. But I am not going to waste even more of my time with thousands of edit summaries. Please bare with me until I get these category tags finished. mydogategodshat 16:04, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand (and sympathize, trust me :-) with your desire to do it as quickly a possible, but adding "+cat" isn't that much work, is it? And your fellow editors will really appreciate it!

When I'm doing the exact same operation a lot (check out User:Tim_Starling/Redirects_from_:_to_User: for a good example), a ploy I adopt is to give the edit message an unusual prefix (in this case, I might use "++cat"), and then rely on the "prompt" feature of InternetExploder so that I only need to type "++" and it prompts me with "++cat", which I can then click on, and away I go. Noel (talk) 16:13, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You say adding "+cat" isn't that much work, but do the math. It takes one click to get to the edit summary, and four for the message. Multiply this by over a thousand edits and you get about 5000 unnecessary key stokes. My time is better spend doing other Wiki-things. mydogategodshat 17:08, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

philosophy of business[edit]

We've been discussing at Talk: business ethics the fact that some of the material that was there ought to be in philosophy of business instead. But were you aware that phil. of business is identical to this? http://www.e-paranoids.com/p/ph/philosophy_of_business.html ? I don't know off-hand whether this is a copyright vio. -- the e-paranoids might have copied it from wiki rather than vice versa. At the least, its a matter of concern. I think that you and I ought to get busy writing the phil. of business article from scratch, so it can include the foundational stuff that would otherwise rather confuse the presentation of business ethics. --68.9.145.12 00:26, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Two things. First, for what its worth, I disagree with the move of the items on propertty to the phil of business, where these topics were already discussed. The nature of property is central to business ethics. Whether one thinks a business is primarily private property, a social arrangement, a combination, at the sufference of the state, or what have you, is fundamental to having an intelligible philosophical discussion on business ethics and the rights of owners versus others, especially, but not limited to, so-called integrated social contract theory, contract theory, or stakeholder theory. Business ethics from the perspective of the business person might not take such matters into account; but business ethics from the perspective of the philosopher certainly does, and business ethics is a species of philosophy. This is why every major text on business ethics (not the pop stuff) written by philosphers deals with all of the issues moved.

Second, my wife user:Ockham and I wrote nearly all of the PofBus article. The other outfit picked it up, as several other mirror sites have done. The one referenced above gives proper attribution to Wik. icut4u

I suspected that the other sites were copies of Wikipedia. That suggests you have done a good job on the article. I agree that it is difficult to draw a clear line of demarkation between the P of B and B Ethics. This is largely because of the reciprocal nature of the relationship : The P of B underpins B Ethics, and B Ethics is built on philosophical principles. My take on the appropriate categorization is that fundamental principles like the nature of property and ownership, enlightened self interest, the role of business in society, and social contract theory is best handled in a philosophy article. More practical issues like price discrimination, union busting, or bribery are best handled in an ethics article. Of course there is an overlap between the two. Someone proceeding from principles of psychological egoism could arrive at different ethical conclusions that someone proceeding from social contract principles, natural law principles, Kantian deontological principles, utilitarian principles, etc. Because of this overlap, the basics of the philosophy of business should be mentioned in the business ethics article, and the ethical consequences of one's philosophy of business should be mentioned in the P of B article. However what I saw tacked-on the the end of the B. Ethics article seemed more like descriptions of select political perspectives on the nature of property. What the B. Ethics article needs is an explanation of how one's underlying ethical principles, philosophical orientation, and business philosophy impacts one's ethical decisions. At the moment I am working on real estate economics and invisible hand, but I will give a hand with P of B and B Ethics as soon as these are done. mydogategodshat 07:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More on categories[edit]

I like what you said at Wikipedia talk:Categorization. I'd appreciate your support for my recent comments there. (see: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Super Categories). thanks. Samuel Wantman 02:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Information" is a typical manufacturer-based view of a brand. What makes Dove a brand and not just a design system and a series of SKUs, for example, is not what Unilever has in terms of information, but what Dove means to the consumer about her skin. The Dove or Coca Cola or Nokia brand franchise is only a brand because of what is in people's minds. There are countless "brands" that are all the information, but until that is established as an expectation in the mind of a target consumer it is not a brand.

Hi there[edit]

Your continuous output as a (relatively) old-guard user still going strong impresses me a great deal. Thanks for contributing. Ground 14:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

your name and you[edit]

Hi,

I like all of the work you do and am a recently initiated fan of wikipedia. Thats about you.

I was wondering how does your name read is it -my dog ate god shat- or -my dog ate god's hat-?

doles 15:20, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

Your question is answered in the "Whats in a name" section above. mydogategodshat

Help on Template talk:Infobox Company[edit]

A suggestion of mine on how to change the current Template:Infobox Company (adding revenue and industry, for example) was immediately met with a flurry of knee-jerk replies by the person who created the template. I may be wrong in my suggestions, but I really would like an outside opinion, since I was not expecting instant acrimony. As someone else interested in business topics, I thought you could take a look at the last topic on the talk page and give some feedback. --Goodoldpolonius2 21:01, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've marked most of the previously nominated folks (and see that you have been previously nominated, but not for some time). It also looks like you're in the process of adopting a new user name. Feel free to modify the list accordingly. I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list, although there is certainly no guarantee anyone will ever look at it. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:57, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Unexplained revert[edit]

Can you explain your revert on public bad? You deleted quite a bit of text without putting anything on the talk page. Scott Ritchie 06:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. A public good is not to be contrasted with a public bad. They are very different types of concepts. A public good is best contrasted with a private good. You can read the public good article for more details. Further, a public good is not necessarily socially beneficial. I did not explain the change because we have delt with this issue several times before and I thought an explanation was unnecessary: Probably an incorrect assumption on my part. mydogategodshat 06:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

wouldn't removal of public bads, eg pollution, still be a public good then? Clean air is often cited as an example of a public goods problem. Hence it seems like a comparison can be made. Scott Ritchie 19:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of something that one believes to be bad for society would certainly be good for that society. But this is not how the term public good is used in economics, public policy and poli-sci. It is a scientific term, not a value ladden ideological term. It describes a good or service that is non-rivalrous (its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment) and non-excludable (once it has been created, it is very difficult or impossible to prevent access to the good). Clean air is non-excludable because it is very difficult to prevent people from having access to it, and it is non-rivalrous because one persons use of the air does not prevent another person from using the air. Because of these two characteristics businesses are unlikely manufacture and sell it profitablely, that is, it is not a private sector good. mydogategodshat 03:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That I knew. But I see what you're saying now - public bads don't have to be nonrivalrous or nonexcludable, simply "bad". The public bad article could probably use some more clear examples making this distinction, however. Scott Ritchie 21:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would never use the term "public bad" in serious economic discourse. The term is a "red flag" that suggests to the reader that the author has an ideological axe to grind. If one is refering to social costs external to a firm's production function, then call it an externality. If one is refering to a transaction that is Pareto sub-optimal, then say so. If one is refering to an activity that one disagrees with for ethical reasons, then say that. To label it a "public bad" is dysfunctional because it obfuscates the issue. It hides the reason why one feels it is "bad". Further, people become confused because they try to contrast it with "public good", a juxtaposition that does not work. A "public good" does not necessarily need to be "good" for society. It is not about a subjective assessment of what is "good" or "bad". mydogategodshat 00:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economy of India help[edit]

Hi, you have done a great job on writing business and economics related FA articles. I have been involved in rewriting the Economy of India, along with other wikipedians hoping to make it worthy of FA and I thought it would be good to enlist someone to fact check and critically review it even before it goes to Peer review. Can you please review the article and comment on it? Thanks for your time. regards. pamri 12:27, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Its been put up at peer review. Can you please comment on it there? thanks. pamri 17:44, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

I will be very happy to read the article, however I know very little about the economy of India so I don't know how much help I will be. mydogategodshat 04:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. I just wanted a general feedback from you, since you know more about business/economics related topics. pamri 17:43, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

List of Economic topics article[edit]

Hello, I have not chatted to you in a while. Does the economic section have an article like List_of_legal_topics? It appears to be very useful, esp. using the trick of clicking the link near the top of that article viewing related changes, you can review all edits done relating to law.

A similiar List of economic topics would be useful for economics and other subjects I think, should one be created or if it is created would you tell me the link? Thanks, --ShaunMacPherson 06:40, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shaun. Yes, there is a list of economics topics, but it is not used very much now that the category system is operational. In fact, in 18 months we have gone from no effective navigation system to three of them. In addition to the old system of lists, and the category system, there is also a new system of portals. We seem to have gone from too few systems of navigation to too many. mydogategodshat 02:46, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics[edit]

I created a Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics for all related collaborations, etc., Can you please list yourself as a participant? Thanks. pamri 07:11, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Business & economics tasks[edit]

Hi, I thought you will find this useful. You may want to move it to your userpage, thought. Portal:Business/Tasks Pamri • Talk 12:26, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rebate Disambid[edit]

Hi. Not sure what the purpose of your changes were to Rebate and the disambig page I created, now called rebate (disambid), however, if you enter 'Rebate' you now go straight to the marketing/retail version instead of the disambiguation page as I intended. The term 'Rebate' has a wider meaning than something relevant to retailing in the US, so can we put it back? SilentC 06:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was because I neglected to fix all the links, for which I apologise. If we move Rebate back to Rebate (retail) and change all links in retail/marketing articles to point to it, then change the disambig page back to Rebate, would that be acceptable to you? If so, I'll do it on Monday. SilentC 06:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your assessment of my motives are accurate. I have no problem with using rebate as a disambig page. But I did not want to see people burdened with the chore of fixing the 20 broken links. In the future, when you create disambig pages, please fix the broken links that are created. I have been watching the woodworking articles for the last couple months and you contributions are impressive. On a different note, maybe you can give me some advise: I am about to set-up a seperate table saw for light metal cutting (such as roll aluminum, siding, etc.) in my home workshop. It takes too long to change blades whenever I switch from cutting wood to cutting metal on a single machine. I have been told that an alternative to buying an expensive diamond blade is to use a fine vanier blade and install it backwards. Is this true? Do you have any suggestions? mydogategodshat 01:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, apologies. I usually do a 'what links here' on the old page and go back and fix all the links so they point directly to the new one. It slipped my mind on that occasion. Thanks for fixing it up. On the saw blade, aluminium can be cut with a carbide tipped blade. You can buy blades suitable for cutting wood and aluminium. For other metals, I have also heard from multiple sources that you can run a blade backwards but have never tried this myself. I imagine it would make a lot of noise though. We used to cut roofing sheet with a metal cut-off blade (no teeth, just an abrasive disk) in a hand-held circular saw, so maybe that would be an option for you. Cheers. SilentC 22:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mydogategodshat

BEF[edit]

Hi, I have moved the Business & Economics forums under WikiProject Business and Economics. I hope, we can actually work towards formalising what was discussed on those forums and create guidelines/stylesheets. See BEF and BEF talk. --Pamri • Talk 02:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coercive monopoly[edit]

Hi. Since you participated in the AfD for coercive monopoly, you might be interested in the major rewrite I just did. I'm sure there will be considerable discussion ensuing, and a cool head such as yours would be useful. Rd232 11:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

B.C.G. analysis images[edit]

Hi Paul.

Just to let you know that I have converted your two B.C.G images:

from .jpg to png. format - I assume that's why they had 'cleanup' tags on them. The new ones are now here:

BTW, I have changed the links in the B.C.G. analysis page to point to the new ones.

Regards, Ian Dunster 17:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

strategy implementation[edit]

hi I was interested when reading your contributions to strategic management and strategy, I have been searching for articles and information on the successful implementation of strategies and find few, there are quite a number on the importance of stratigic planning and even the failure of implementation or execution, could you help with this? regards Debbie, --Dibdob664 08:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC) dibdob664[reply]

Hi Debbie, I have not written an article on implementation yet. I agree with you that it is an important and under-represented topic. College courses in strategy seldom spend adequate time on it and text books typically append a couple chapters on control, monitoring, and implementation. I think part of the problem is that it is such a broad subject capable of taking the strategist down an infinite number of administrative paths. I will return to this topic as soon as I have time. mydogategodshat 23:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization duplication[edit]

I haven't seen you at Wikipedia talk:Categorization for quite a while. I just wanted to let you know, that after a YEAR of discussion, there are finally new guidelines for categoriztion that include guidelines about some of the duplication you have long desired. Please take a look and let me know if you have any questions. -- Samuel Wantman 23:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Date links[edit]

Since you have taken an interest in links. Please be kind enough to vote for my new bot application to reduce overlinking of dates where they are not part of date preferences. bobblewik 20:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image Tagging for Image:Bodiam_Castle_fromthe_north.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bodiam_Castle_fromthe_north.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 06:11, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Paul Gallienne, an invitation[edit]

I've decided there needs to be a 'savings' article, and thought you would be an excellent choice to get the ball rolling. Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_%28economics%29

I put a kind of invitation in the discussion area, asking for writers. I think it is pretty much self-explanatory.

pearson_cb@yahoo.com is my email. Feel free to remove it if you think it's not wise to leave it here. Brian Pearson

Microeconomics rewrite[edit]

Hi, User:Radeksz has proposed a rewrite of Microeconomics on that article's talk page, in case you care to have a look. dbtfz ^talk 09:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Transfer pricing[edit]

Hoi, I saw your discussion on Transfer pricing, what happened is that somebody has rewritten the whole article from another point of view. Well both versions are correct i guess. is it possible to merge both versionsand make the new version a extension of the version before ? the new part needs a cleanup and rewrite. Reg. Mion 01:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic management[edit]

I have proposed removing Strategic management from the list of featured articles. The prose style is problematic for me. I've posted a more specific critique on the talk page. It's nothing personal with you specifically, but I have issues with the sort of prose that seems too much in evidence on that page, and think it should be recast in less abstract terms. I'm sending this because you seem to have been one of the chief architects of the article. -- Smerdis of Tlön 16:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interview Request[edit]

6/6/06

Hi Mydogategodshat,

I work for a site that's creating an area for people running their own businesses to share their expertise and experiences with each other. We’re interviewing people with small business expertise in order to make our site as useful as possible.

I was wondering if you’d be available to do a short (around 15 minutes) phone interview this week? If you are interested please email me.

Thank you,

Shara skarasic[at]business.com

Unspecified source for Image:Price points.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Price points.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Natural monopoly 2.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Natural monopoly 2.PNG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 10:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptual map[edit]

It would be an improvement if the very nice automotive perceptual map image that you uploaded had "Nissan" spelled correctly. --72.94.150.9 12:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon[edit]

howdy . you're getting this message because you have made a meaningful contribution to Consensus decision-making in the last couple of months. This note is to inform you that i have done a complete rewrite of the article, basically from the ground up, and will be installing the rewrite sometime after 22:00 mst (gmt -7)

i decided to undertake this rewrite because the current article had some notable shortcomings in my opinion, most notably:

lack of references: whole sections of the current article are unreferenced
section balance: the amount of detail on some sections was out of step with the detail level on other sections. for instance 'timing' is as large as 'key principles'
run-on writing: some sections succumb to rambling, while other sections are quite concise to the point of being terse.

all of these problems are inevitable in a project written by a group of people with different areas of expertise and writing styles.

my rewrite is designed to address these issues. most notably i have aimed to make the article more concise -- put more content in less words as it were -- and to make sure that everything is effectively sourced. i have also pretty much completely re-sectioned the article in an attempt to flow from general down to specific.

i have given this notice to you as a 'heads up' that this change is coming. i realize that you have invested a lot of effort into the existing article and i want to make sure that you are ready to make the edits you feel are necessary once my rewrite goes 'live'.

i also intend to submit the new article for peer review shortly after posting it. i think that the feedback will help us all drive this piece forward, hopefully to at least ga status! -- frymaster 23:45, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience Economy[edit]

I just made a bold edit to The Experience Economy, and would like your comments on it as well as possible clarification about your addition of some references there. I've described my edit and rationale in Talk:The_Experience_Economy#.22References.22. Thanks. --Ronz 18:11, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Finance[edit]

Seeing some of your editorial interests, I'd like to invite you to join and help form Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. --Leifern 20:36, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

The article Advertising slogan, to which you have helped contribute, has been flagged as requiring cleanup.

If possible, we would appreciate your assistance in cleaning up this article to bring it up to Wikipedia's quality standards. If you are unsure what the nature of the problem is, please discuss this on the article's talk page.
If you do not want to receive bot-generated messages on your talk page, please consider using the nobots template on your user talk page

Images listed for deletion[edit]

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

Thank you. —Remember the dot (t) 05:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating "Rebate (disambig)" for deletion[edit]

Please note: I am nominating Rebate (disambig) for deletion.
You are shown in the history as having edited this page.
If you wish to object, check the details by clicking the link above.

Regards, JohnI 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Wiki_construction.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Wiki_construction.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marketing warfare strategies[edit]

Hi found myself at Marketing warfare strategies and was moved to write this on the discussion page. "Learning from Napolean

This section is factually wrong, e.g the smaller Greek units was not the cohort but the lochos, and they were not all arms, combined arms units. If anything it is the pre-Marian reform Roman legion which is the all arms force, see Combined_arms#Ancient_warfare. However the early Legion could be all arms because there were 5000 of them not 100. And a cohort was not 100 but something more like 480 or 6 centuries ,and a century was not a 100 men unit but 80.

However I have refrained from editing this article, because the writers of this article may be acurately quoting from a source book or group who rather than try and get the facts right, has opted for big (but wrong) comparisons between military history and marketing. If this is true, given the number of fellow military geeks on wikipedia, I suggest that someone put a lock on this article, and make it clear that you know that these facts are wrong, but that was what it was those espousing marketing war strategies that got the facts wrong, and provide the references of those sources."

After I'd calmed down a little I checked the history, and found that you was the originator of most of the material in the article, I thought I'd ask, is the reason as I thought, and you are quoting a misinformed source. If not I would feel no need to be circumspect in correcting this section.Koonan the almost civilised 11:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with portfolio models[edit]

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Problems with portfolio models, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour economics[edit]

I was wondering if you'd like to throw in a few references to the labour economics page. I think (looking at the history) you wrote it, and therefore you're probably the best person to know where the ideas came from. Can you put notes in for which pages in which textbooks or articles readers can go to for each section? Cheers, Wik idea 18:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Production, costs, and pricing[edit]

I have nominated Production, costs, and pricing, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Production, costs, and pricing. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? FrankTobia (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vir_cyc_man_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vir_cyc_man_small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vir_cyc_macro_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vir_cyc_macro_small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vic_cyc_macro_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Vic_cyc_macro_small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:New_product_types_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:New_product_types_small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding source[edit]

In the early days of the article on the experience curve, the source from wright (Factors Affecting the Cost of Airplanes) was added, I think by you. Since this is an old article I was wondering where you got hold of it, because I am currently doing research on this topic and I cannot find the document. Could you help me out? Ggvanleeuwen (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding source of "private brand"[edit]

Hi, I have checked out your term of "private brand" and I think the definition is interesting because it defines private label from the supply chain's point of view, rather than usually defined from the retailer's perspective. Can you please tell from where you have retrieved this definition (reference article?), so that I can use it in my academical paper? Thank you very much! Xtxt (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ppf small.png missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:Ppf small.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers. If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Price trans-no ext-small.jpg[edit]

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Price trans-comp ext-small.jpg[edit]

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:Price trans-imperf ext-small.jpg[edit]

This file was moved to Commons from English Wikipedia, but some description information may have got lost in the process.

As you are noted as the original uploader, or in the history for the file, it would be appreciated if you could help in reconstructing this information.

Please also consider checking Commons for other media that you may have uploaded locally, but which was subsequently transferred.

Special:Log for uploads can help in this.

Thanks for you assistance and keep uploading 'free' media :)Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:New product types small.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:New product types small.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 05:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ppf small.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Ppf small.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 03:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Product lifecycle[edit]

The article Product lifecycle has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not a how to guide. This isn't an article, it isn't a list, its just an unsourced table with several links. Fails WP:NOT.

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. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Strategic management[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Strategic management, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://books.google.com/books?id=kQKLY0Ki1xEC&lpg=PR5&ots=yyqCsjv948&dq=ohmae%20strategy%20%22creative%20art%22&lr&pg=PA30#v=onepage&q=ohmae&f=false, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author to release the text under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Strategic management and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Strategic management, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0, or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Strategic management with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License and GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Strategic management. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for instructions.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Strategic management saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Λεξικόφιλος (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Competitive advantage[edit]

The article Competitive advantage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:OR. Possibly a copyvio.

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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 23:58, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article notability notification[edit]

Hello. This message is to inform you that an article that you wrote recently, Environmental scanning, has been tagged with a notability notice. This means that it may not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Please note that articles which do not meet these criteria may be merged, redirected, or deleted. Please consider adding reliable, secondary sources to the article in order to establish the topic's notability. You may find the following links useful when searching for sources: "Environmental scanning" – news · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! VoxelBot 01:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Defensive marketing warfare strategies[edit]

The article Defensive marketing warfare strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly made-up terminology that reads more like an essay about marketing-as-war than an encyclopedia article.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Offensive marketing warfare strategies[edit]

The article Offensive marketing warfare strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly made-up terminology that reads more like an essay about marketing-as-war than an encyclopedia article.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Flanking marketing warfare strategies[edit]

The article Flanking marketing warfare strategies has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seemingly made-up terminology that reads more like an essay about marketing-as-war than an encyclopedia article.

While all constructive 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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 {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Korny O'Near (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guerrilla marketing warfare strategies until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Korny O'Near (talk) 16:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Direct-response marketing for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Direct-response marketing is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Direct-response marketing until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Salimfadhley (talk) 23:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of things which are neither production nor consumption listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of things which are neither production nor consumption. Since you had some involvement with the List of things which are neither production nor consumption redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. JZ CL 21:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Industry or market research for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Industry or market research is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industry or market research until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Customer experience management has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Customer experience management, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Marketing strategy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Marketing strategy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing strategy until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC) {{safesubst:#if:|== Proposed deletion of Specialty catalogs ==| Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Subscription business model for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Subscription business model is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subscription business model until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Nightvour (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"List of product failures" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect List of product failures. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#List of product failures until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Packaging[edit]

Hello, Mydogategodshat,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Cielquiparle, and I thank you for your contributions.

I wanted to let you know, however, that I have tagged Packaging for deletion, because it doesn't appear to contain any encyclopedic content. You may find our guide for writing quality articles to be extremely informative. Also, you may want to consider working on future articles in draft space first, where they cannot be deleted for lacking content.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Cielquiparle}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Cielquiparle (talk) 22:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

For your information[edit]

Development of the business section[edit]

Blocked again[edit]

What's in a name?[edit]

Adminship nomination[edit]

Adminship nomination for the second time[edit]

Business Philosophy[edit]

Related topics lists[edit]

Lists merge[edit]

Roach bait[edit]

nice work![edit]

Nice work on Production Theory basics[edit]

Fractional-reserve banking[edit]

Self-introduction[edit]

Social welfare (political science)?[edit]

quote[edit]

rocks and minerals project[edit]

Labour Economics[edit]

Relieved and/or Rejected[edit]

business law list[edit]

Adminship: 3rd nomination[edit]

Request for review[edit]

Strategic management[edit]

Hello - economics[edit]

Wikipedia:Forum for Encyclopedic Standards[edit]

Factor analysis[edit]

Graphic requests?[edit]

Re: Cleanup[edit]

Article Licensing[edit]

Image tagging[edit]

Image:Giffen good small.png[edit]

Unverified images[edit]

New product types small.png[edit]

Categories[edit]

re: Categories[edit]

Edit summaries[edit]

philosophy of business[edit]

More on categories[edit]

Hi there[edit]

your name and you[edit]

Help on Template talk:Infobox Company[edit]

lots of edits, not an admin[edit]

Unexplained revert[edit]

Economy of India help[edit]

List of Economic topics article[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and Economics[edit]

Business & economics tasks[edit]

Rebate Disambid[edit]

BEF[edit]

Coercive monopoly[edit]

B.C.G. analysis images[edit]

strategy implementation[edit]

Categorization duplication[edit]

Date links[edit]

Image Tagging for Image:Bodiam_Castle_fromthe_north.jpg[edit]

Mr. Paul Gallienne, an invitation[edit]

Microeconomics rewrite[edit]

Talk:Transfer pricing[edit]

Strategic management[edit]

Interview Request[edit]

Unspecified source for Image:Price points.jpg[edit]

Unspecified source for Image:Natural monopoly 2.PNG[edit]

Perceptual map[edit]

Consensus decision-making rewrite coming soon[edit]

The Experience Economy[edit]

Wikiproject Finance[edit]

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can[edit]

Images listed for deletion[edit]

I'm nominating "Rebate (disambig)" for deletion[edit]

Image tagging for Image:Wiki_construction.png[edit]

Marketing warfare strategies[edit]

Problems with portfolio models[edit]

Labour economics[edit]

AfD nomination of Production, costs, and pricing[edit]

Image:Vir_cyc_man_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

Image:Vir_cyc_macro_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

Image:Vic_cyc_macro_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

Image:New_product_types_small.png listed for deletion[edit]

Question regarding source[edit]