User talk:Smallbones
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
What should go on a user's discussion page?
Welcome!
Hello, Smallbones, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Spot price
Moved the discussion from my talk page to Talk:Spot price
[edit] Soros, Black Weds, Malaysia
Its well known history and disclosed in publicly available documents. There are already links from the Bank Negara and Black Weds pages in Wikipedia.
[edit] Options
Yeah.. I'd love to help but would need to sit down with a textbook and a towel around my head before I could really help with covered call. What's htere now seems fine at a first glance. The Land 16:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hedging (finance)
No, go right ahead. You can't make it any worse and you could make it a lot better. See [[Hedge (pruning)]] :-)
[edit] Disputed English grammar
You recently added a Fats Waller comment to the "Generic you" section of disputed English grammar. I would like to know why, and why you reverted my edit without discussion. I've posted on the article's talk page. Please let me know what you think. -Phoenixrod 08:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Dicks
Seeing the work you've been doing to James Dicks, I changed my opinion on the AfD to weak keep. I would probably have withdrawn it if it wasn't due to end so soon anyway. My change of opinion should result in a keep unless there is some sort of late rally. --GraemeL (talk) 17:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Rule Based Trading
Hi! Seemed to me Rule Based Trading was created mostly to advertise the Timetotrade software (which I tagged for deletion). I just removed the ad link from Rule Based Trading.
To delete articles there are three processes:
- Speedy deletion. An article can be "speedied" if it fits in one of a handful of categories: patent nonsense, attack pages ("Jim Smith is stupid and smells"), blatant copyright violation, ... Insert one of the tags at the top, e.g. {{nonsense}} and an admin will check your proposal and delete the article.
- Proposed deletion. Things you consider uncontroversial deletions but don't fit speedy deletion criteria. Advertisements, non-notable products / companies / web sites, ...
- Articles for deletion. It's educational to read current discussions to learn how AfD works. When in doubt take an article to AfD so others can help decide.
Non-article stuff (images, redirects, ...) have their own processes, Wikipedia:Deletion policy lists those.
When you tag something for deletion you usually need to "baby-sit" it. If someone deletes a "speedy" tag you can re-insert it (unless they give a good reason why the article should be kept). If someone deletes a prod tag you can't re-insert it, you should AfD it instead.
In the case of Rule Based Trading we have another common way to deal with it: instead of deleting, merge it. If there is any salvageable content in the article copy it over to technical analysis. Then clear the entire Rule Based Trading article and replace it with the line:
- #REDIRECT [[technical analysis]]
That works well when the article title is something that someone might search for, but the subject is best covered in another article. Googling for "rule based trading" returns a number of pages so it's conceivable someone might search for the term on Wikipedia. If the TA article is what they should find then go for it! Weregerbil 13:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Soros Article
Thanks for your help. We seem to have kept some really ugly insinuation out of an important piece. --Christofurio 19:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Day trading
I reverted your changes to Day trading. We are not here to warn readers, we are here to inform them. Putting warnings in the introduction makes this seem like a manual, not an encyclopaedia entry. In much the same way that Nazism doesn't have a "this is a very dangerous philosophy" warning in the intro. Yandman 09:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Always happy to help :)
Hi, hope you will find my additions adequate for the foreign exchange article and I will try to do my best. I agree with you on the forex brokers but I must say that some sites have great information about forex in general, which will fit well into this article. The only downside is that we might need to cite them in the references. The way I see it is that most of those sites want to be listed in the external links because they might get traffic from wikipedia, but maybe it will ok if we put some resources who might be brokers in the reference section but have good informational sites and do not strongly endorse the forex gambling as you referred to it. I would like to hear you opinion on this and maybe even let me know of the major spammers so we might be able to do something about that Davidoff 16:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] James Dicks
Hi Smallbones (fab username, BTW)!
Thanks for asking for my help. I've done no research and not looked deeply into the article in question, as I don't feel anyone involved needs someone to make a decision: I think you sensibly want an outside element to mediate and find out what problems editors have with the article.
On that basis, I've written a nice, if over-long, message to the anon editor giving them advice on things they can do as a first step without causing an edit war.
Going forward, I'll watchlist the page in question (that doesn't mean "police the page") and try to advise the anon, should s/he contact me as requested.
I'll say similar to you as I did to the anon: I'm not making judgments and am staying deliberately ignorant of the article history. I'm interested in what all "sides" have, concisely, to say and do here. If there are "sides", of course: I haven't really checked.
I'm going to work on the basis that all "sides" are acting in good faith, and we can all improve Wikipedia by working together! ➨ ЯEDVERS 20:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
PS: if the anon gets an account and nominates the article for deletion as requested, please be gentle with them on AfD! ➨ ЯEDVERS
[edit] Delta neutral
Thanks for the updates to the delta neutral article. I think they make it more readable. Ronnotel 16:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Robert Prechter
Could you check out Robert Prechter and the associated Socionomics? Smallbones 19:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- I fear there is not much that I can help. If an individual like Folsom or an organization like his "Socionomics Institute" will gain a lot financially by having a favourable treatment of their fringe theories in Wikipedia and by pushing a positive POV on them, then no amount of arguments from disinterested Wikipedians short of an RfArb will stop him, as he can dedicate a massive amount of time to revise and revert "his" articles and to restate his fair few points on the talk page ad nauseam. This is one of the fundamental weaknesses in WP. -- Marcika 14:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] I like your style
Smallbones, I like your style. Keep it up. The more you keep throwing at the socionomics "cult of believers", the more they will just keep getting nasty and hissy and resorting to their normal psychological attacks of people. Socionomics and the Wave Principle are not without merit - just not the way they are conventionally sold. There are few places where the "dissenting view" can be heard (as in, would a newsletter called "Elliott Wave Fearist" get many subscribers?) so WP and Yelnick remain the pre-eminent forums for engaging in debate. They need to shut up, or raise their game basically, and it's pressure like you exert that will maybe get them to do it. Punanimal 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Request for Arbitration
This is to notify you that I have named you in a request for arbitration. You should shortly find the request here.
--Rgfolsom 20:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:TaysirAlluniAljaz.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:TaysirAlluniAljaz.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 10:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shorosh again
Dear Marcika,
I took your name in vain on the George Soros talk page. Actually quoted you as an expert. There seems to be some chance now to fix up this article to FA status, or maybe just GRADE A biography, with out the usual SPAs interupting. Smallbones 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Well, getting it polished up to FA status will be hard work with an article on a controversial person like him; but we should give it a try... Your fixes yesterday helped quite a bit - especially your adding of proper references and removing the unsourced rumors. -- Marcika 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
AS far as the Robert Prechter RfA [1], it's still on hold after 1.5 months. I've got no idea what's happening with that or why. Socionomics has been deleted. Elliott wave is undergoing contested editing with some outsiders involved - it doesn't seem to be worth the effort - but somehow it seems like Wikipedia must ultimately go down the tubes if somebody like User:Rgfolsom can just push and yell until he gets everybody to quit. Smallbones 20:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow - I looked through the evidence and the workshop page, and I must say that the amount of evidence to wade through for arbitrators is overwhelming... Folsom must have spent days on his twelve pages of "evidence" alone! I guess you'll have to wait a bit for results, since the ArbCom is being shuffled around currently, but I think you have presented the case quite well, and there is no reason for worry about that. Plus, you will achieve getting the attention of a lot of impartial people onto the articles, and ultimately that is what you want and what will fix the issue - an ArbCom ruling against Folsom would be beneficial as a precedent, but might no longer be necessary... Cheers, Marcika 20:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert Prechter
This arbitration case has closed and the final decision is available at the link above. Smallbones is banned indefinitely from editing articles that relate to Robert Prechter, including talk pages. This notice is given by a Clerk on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. Newyorkbrad 01:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Is not Was
All creative works (TV shows, movies, books, and the like) STILL exist even though they're not being continued, unless those creative works-every single copy-are somehow misplaced/lost/destroyed, like the Doctor Who lost episodes.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
