User talk:Ronnotel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Cal userbox 2 Thank you 3 Volatility arbitrage 4 Implied volatility 5 High frequency computing 6 Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot 7 References validity 8 Nominating articles for deletion 9 Wikiproject Finance 10 Fred Noonan 11 Your Comment on Reza Shah page 12 AFD 13 Mary Bea Martinelli

[edit] Cal userbox

I reverted your edit to the Cal userbox since we don't allow fair use images in template space, but you can add a plain text "Cal" (or "UCB") to it by simply changing the text to {{User cal|Cal}} or {{User cal|UCB}}. The other options are discussed at Template talk:User cal. Best and Go Bears, trialsanderrors 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - thanks - obviously I was unaware of this policy. However, I'm curious why this is so. Ronnotel 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. The provision is here: Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I'm sure it has been discussed to death somewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I read it and I sort-of-kinda-meybee see why 'fair use' is restricted to articles only - not saying I agree with it. However, what if the image is simply an original image with the text Cal in a script-like font. The 'fair use' restriction would not apply, n'est ce pas? Ronnotel 17:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that you copy the source code of the template into your user space if you want to go that way. I'm guessing that most users prefer plain text of a script that kinda-sorta looks like the Cal script. ~ trialsanderrors 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

You're welcome. I checked out your user page and it's amazing to find somebody who accually knows what they are talking about in options +++ a Finn living in Chicago ++ and Cal and MIT +. May I request you look at the main options page and do some clean-up. I think it's more or less ok, but some folks get to running on a bit. Smallbones

Well, I've been working at it, but time is short. I mostly only get opportunities between compile cycles but we do what we can. Thanks for the encouragement. Ronnotel 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volatility arbitrage

It looks real good! I would include a sentence in the lead that explains in plainer language that it is basically trading on the volatility of it instead of the price, kind of like what you have in the Overview section. The version of the lead you have now uses a lot of jargon that can be explained in a simpler way, IMO. Recury 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Implied volatility

Hi Ronnotel. Thanks for the message. Implied volatility seems pretty good, but I'll look in more detail next week. Today, I'm busy building a volatility space, and boy is that fun ☺ Fintor 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High frequency computing

Interesting to see this [1] applied to trading. I contribute to building control systems that processes data coming in at a high-rate (once every millisec) that needs to be processed and an output written with some hard real-time constraints. I wonder if you could elaborate more about the system you use. Perhaps we could see interesting parallels in our work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nkarkhan (talk • contribs).

Well, I guess it isn't generally understood how heavy the volume can get on some financial market data feeds. For instance, the U.S. equity options data feed (OPRA) can top out at 150,000 updates / sec. That doesn't leave a lot of machine operations to process each incoming price tick. There isn't much technology you can buy off-the-shelf to operate in this environment. What does exist is usually targeted at handling stock price feeds, which are roughly an order of magnitude lower in volume. You see firms that trade options having to write technology like this on their own. I've been looking at the market for high-frequency computing for some time and so far it seems like the U.S. options data feed is the highest volume process there is in general use. What's your experience? Ronnotel 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to work in telecomm before. In the early to mid-90s routers would have all their packets interrupt the CPU which would then process the packets. I dont recollect the exact numbers but 100k packets a second was at the high-end. Minimal processing was done on each packet. That all changed when more and more stuff was shunted to custom asics and the thruputs went thru the roof. Lately I see that general purpose HW (wintel arch) has become a lot faster. It is getting possible to send all packets to the CPU at rates approaching gigabit and have some fairly heavy-duty processing done on them. Processing like searching for virus signatures etc. To scale for higher thruputs though the most common architecture I have seen is where all data/packets comein to a central location where a custom asic (generally a network processor) does some minimal processing and then sends it to one in a farm of CPUs. I am working on a control system these days and the idea seems to be easily applicable. The data processing we have for the current product is easily handled in a centralized system. But the next gen system is going to have a whole lot more data being generated. (Still 1000 times a second , but a whole lot more data at every tick) and a distributed architecture seems to be the way to go. On the surface it would seem that the same thing would have to be done to handle OPRA.--Nitin Karkhanis 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Exotic option LEAP financial instrument List of writing techniques Underlying American Empire (Harry Turtledove) Estlander & Rönnlund Over-the-counter (finance) Charles Dow Long (finance) Object writing Korea Exchange Alex Acuña Bond option Option premium John Hull Triple witching hour Volatility risk Interest rate derivative Experimental finance

Cleanup Paired comparison analysis Swaption Equity derivative Merge Decision-matrix method Interest rate swap Short (finance) Add Sources Butterfly (Mariah Carey song) Neoclassical finance Network neutrality Wikify Hare scramble Investing online Imperial Conflict Expand Law clerk Strategic Policy Group Reform of the United Nations

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 13:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References validity

I've noticed a trend with specific pages a user has created and was curious about your opinion on the matter. Take a look at Xcalibus contributions. You'll notice that every page he has created has cited OptionsGuide as a source. See Option arbitrage as an example. Upon looking at the referenced site closer, it appears that the site is an adsense site. Thoughts? GeneralBob 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed him before. Looks like a spammer. Ronnotel 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronnotel. I took out the "two days", because on talk you indicated you don't know the precise timing, and I haven't seen it specifically addressed anywhere myself. I left it as "later", which I have seen specifically addressed. Someone may have removed that as well, I haven't been keeping up. If you can back up the "two days", I have no objection at all to adding that. But, I want to make sure if we make a precise timing statement that it is accurate. Derex 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm too lazy to track down a specific reference. I changed it to something I think we can all agree on. Ronnotel 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nominating articles for deletion

Hello! I noticed that when you nominated Asshat for deletion, you forgot to substitute the {{afd2}} template onto the deletion discussion page and the {{afd3}} template onto the daily log. I've fixed up the problems. In the future, please follow the instructions on the AfD main page to nominate an article for deletion. Thanks! --Slowking Man 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thought I was following directions, but they aren't real easy. Thought I got it right. Sorry. Ronnotel 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Finance

I'd like to invite you to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance and weigh in on its formation, principles, etc. --Leifern 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Leifern, sounds interesting. I'll keep an eye on it and contribute as I can. Ronnotel 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fred Noonan

Hi Ronnotel, I noticed your comment on the Fred Noonan discussion page and I agree that there has to be well-researched and documented information that accompanies the article. Since you have an interest in the story, I would like to introduce myself. See Bzuk I am a historian and author mainly concentrating on Canadian aviation, currently editing a trade journal on aviation and aerospace topics. Each issue has a historical article, and I recall, years ago, writing about the efforts of the TIGHAR expeditions to recover artifacts stemming from the Earhart World Flight. I have, like many others, a few reference sources on AE and when I stumbled upon the Wikipedia articles on Earhart and others swept up in her mystique, I "dabbled" a bit in rewriting some of the obvious misconceptions and errors that have crept into the retelling of what was a remarkable woman's life and career. That's when I encountered the type of editors that merely copy from the various internet sources, set themselves up as experts and then revert anything that they did not personally write. I am afraid there is one of these at work on the AE pages. I was taken aback at the claims made on the Noonan page (and my page) that are more of the speculation and theories based on flimsy or non-existant evidence. When I tried to edit the page to become more fact-based, my efforts were rebuffed and now I feel it may not be worth it to continue to make changes. Whatchathink? Bzuk 13:12 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I know WP can sometimes be frustrating. However, stick with it - the page usually ends up where it needs to be. One good thing is to learn the WP policies and be able to cite them when disputes arise. Ronnotel 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

She can be frustrating at times, can't she? Gwen Gale (AKA Heidi) is a very fastidious editor. In terms of the present kerfuffle, both of you have made very valid points and I was about to intercede but it was too much fun to see where this was going. On her behalf, let me say that she actually is a very fine editor and a "brave" soul that has nearly single-handedly saved me from an excrutiating edit war with bizarre accusations regarding my character, motives, how my mother raised me (well, maybe not that one...) My advice is the same as the piece of wisdom you earlier gave me- ride it out, give your valid and supportable entries, provide citations as much as possible and she will come around. Our friend really does have an abiding interest in making sure the story of Amelia Earhart and all of her compatriots is told faithfully (as do you) and I applaud the two of you for being so polite and objective in your comments. Bzuk 23:46 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bzuk. Yes, it was a little frustrating. I got the feeling she wasn't always reading my comments completely. For instance, the compromise we reached was suggested by me here, 47 edits earlier. I feel like a lot of time was wasted on this. I'm glad someone got enjoyment out of this because it made me question whether WP has a future with me in it! Ronnotel 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now it's not funny! The aforementioned editor has just reverted my statement that Amelia had "pioneering achievements" in aviation and has set up cockamanny arguments to support her uncited declarations other than quoting a TIGHAR spokesperson, Ric Gillespie, one of the least reputable sources on the Earhart legacy. The opinion of the aviation community as well as aviation museums is nearly unanimous in rejecting the TIGHAR claims. Help... I'm going mad!?Bzuk 04:29 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, afraid I'm not much help in this. 'Pioneering' certainly comes to mind when I think of Amelia but I'm not familiar with the issues to say one way or the other. After my dust-up, however, I'd say be darn sure you want this change before you get into it with her. Good luck. Ronnotel 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it took nearly all night and the intervention of an Amelia Earhart scholar before the editor who had reverted the introductory note about Amelia's pioneering achievements in aviation, finally agreed to the same thing that had been there from the beginning and that had been thoroughly cited and sourced. This person certainly can be exasperating! One quote that I have found by Ric Gillespie, the very highly controversial head of TIGHAR indicates that he thought Fred Noonan was more of a pioneer than Amelia?! and who does our friend quote? Of course, Gillespie, who has spent the better part of twenty years chasing shadows in the South Pacific, trying to prove that Amelia crashed on Nikumaroro Island. Reputable aviation historians and curators have always had reservations about Gillespie who along with his volunteers have no background whatever in archaeology, aircraft recovery or archival preservation yet have set themselves up as experts (sound familiar?) and have put forward a series of loopy theories on Amelia and Fred's disappearance, wholly unsupported by evidence. Our erstwhile friend quotes from Gillespie extensively but never identifies a page number which tends to make me suspicious that web page references are all that are being accessed. As for Noonan, Gillespie continues to spout erroneous or unfounded rumours- drinking, lack of ability, etc. Keep up the good fight! Bzuk 17:49 25 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Your Comment on Reza Shah page

Regarding your comment: As an disinterested user... Mershad123 - you, in particular, should try to calm down and make an effort to be more constructive. Ronnotel 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"

"Artaxerxes" (and sockpuppets) is viciously disparaging us with statements such as This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. and This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc; What exactly are you referring to when telling me to "calm down"? If you are a "disinterested" user then what was the point of that besides an attempt to throw fuel on the fire.

sorry, call 'em like I see 'em. Ronnotel 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AFD

thanks for pointing this out.martianlostinspace 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mary Bea Martinelli

Could you tell me if you know how Fred pronounced her first name? MAry or maREE? Thanks. Gwen Gale 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My family has always used the former. I'm curious - why would this be of interest? Ronnotel 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This. I've been reviewing some stuff this evening, is all. Thanks. Gwen Gale 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)