User talk:Jüri Eintalu

Welcome!

Hello, Jüri Eintalu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Risk aversion. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! GirthSummit _(blether) 00:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - again, welcome to Wikipedia. I've reverted some of your recent additions, partly because your style of writing did not adhere to our MOS, but primarily because your additions were all sourced to publications that you appear to have authored yourself. Per SELFCITE, this is not expressly prohibited, but it would seem prudent for you to engage with other editors on the relevant articles' talk pages and see whether they agree that the material is appropriate. Thanks, GirthSummit _(blether) 00:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Now, I have taken out my name from the caption of my figure. I also made some changes to my text. However, I do not know any others who have investigated the simple utility function u = x/(x + 1). In the present chapter as well, only the exponential utility has been separately mentioned, having a constant risk aversion. A simple example of the utility with decreasing risk aversion was not mentioned in this chapter, before I wrote about it. Unfortunately, I shall not publish my formulas and results here if I cannot refer to the only source I know. Neither will I use some other person to insert references to my book. I hope that the experts can add relevant references that have been unknown to me.

With best regards

--Jüri Eintalu (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above applies to the page "Risk Aversion". In the page "Utility" I had done the following: - I added to the "Further Reading" approximately 5 relevant references, 3-4 of them were important, but missing, 1 of them was my own book. - I wrote a section "Some Simple Utility Functions" with approximately 4 subsections, corresponding to different simple utility functions. The last section "Utility Function u = x/(x + 1)" contained references to my book with the same name. - Finally, I added a reference to my book into the "References". Further plans were: - to remove my name from the captions of the figures. - to remove my book from the "Further Reading" as I already included it into the "References". - to remove unnecessary references to my book, as I already made 1 formal Reference to it. - To move this Reference from the caption of the subsection into the body text. Thus, there would remain only 1 reference in the last sub-section of the section "Some Simple Utility Functions". If I cannot refer to the only text I know where these formulas have been presented - the text of my own - I will not present these formulas in the Wikipedia. I shall not ask someone else to refer to my book. Before I wrote this section, no simple survey of these simple functions existed in the Wikipedia, and the simple function u = x/(x + 1) with diminishing risk aversion was also not presented in the Wikipedia (only the logarithmic function and the exponential function were mentioned). Unfortunately, the new section "Some Simple Utility Functions" has been deleted altogether now.

--Jüri Eintalu (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I have finished editing the new section "Some Simple Utility Functions" I wrote here. It contains 4 sub-sections, the last one is "Utility Function u = x/x + 1". In that section, a reference has been made to my book with the same name. A references to 3 other authors have been made as well. Into the section "Further Reading", I have inserted approximately 5 references to relevant and important texts I have read, but no references to myself. I hope that someone will check my text over one day.

--Jüri Eintalu (talk) 18:28, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reverted some of your recent additions, partly because your style of writing did not adhere to our MOS, but primarily because your additions were all sourced to publications that you appear to have authored yourself. Per SELFCITE, this is not expressly prohibited, but it would seem prudent for you to engage with other editors on the relevant articles' talk pages and see whether they agree that the material is appropriate. Thanks, GirthSummit (blether) 00:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)"

- Actually GirthSummit is slandering me. False accusations have been presented. Before deleting a text, and admin should at least read it. I referring to the false accusations made on the chapter "Utility" and on the chapter "Risk Aversion". I suggest to GirthSummit to leave one's job, because such persons should not work as the editors of the encyclopedias.

Jüri Eintalu (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"I've reverted some of your recent additions, partly because your style of writing did not adhere to our MOS, but primarily because your additions were all sourced to publications that you appear to have authored yourself. Per SELFCITE, this is not expressly prohibited, but it would seem prudent for you to engage with other editors on the relevant articles' talk pages and see whether they agree that the material is appropriate. Thanks, GirthSummit (blether) 00:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)" -

- "... primarily because your additions were all sourced to publications that you appear to have authored yourself."

- Girth Summit is slandering me. It is smearing. The final version of my text, which was today deleted again, without any explanations, is absolutely correct. The earlier version was deleted exactly at the moment when I was discussing with one Wikipedia's admin and asked about how exactly the references should be. Girth Summit intervened at that moment and deleted my obviously unfinished text, without carefully reading it. Now, the finally edited version has been deleted again, despite that the references are in accordance with the rules referred by Girth Summit. So I suggest that Girth Summit should stop working as an admin (or editor) of the encyclopedias. Otherwise, no one knows about how many people Girth is able to stage (set up) us guilty, using the technical problems of the Wikipedia.

--Jüri Eintalu (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Jüri Eintalu - I just noticed these things you'd written above. I am not slandering you or smearing you - I left a single message on your talk page, noting my concerns, and I asked at the relevant WikiProject for a subject-matter expert to review your additions. I have not removed the content again from either article: other editors, upon reviewing the content and nature of your sources, have done that. If you wish to argue for the reinstatement of the content, the relevant articles' talk pages is the right place for you to do that. If you believe that I am guilty of misconduct, you can start a thread at AN, but I honestly don't think that you will gain any traction with that - I have not used the administrative tools at all on either of these articles, I have not tried to push my perspective through on either of them - I made a single revert, asking for talk page discussion, and then left it for others to comment. I'm sorry though that you feel wronged by my actions - that was not my intent. GirthSummit _(blether) 07:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]