User talk:Smallbones

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch
There ain't no such thing as a free lunch

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 some pages that you might find helpful:

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:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  SlimVirgin (talk) 00:00, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] New Soros Poll

Hey I wanted to let you know that I put up a new poll over on the Soros page. I appreciate your older poll, but I thought that this other one would more accurately reflect the "compromise" solution that Crockspot and I had been working on. Let me know what you think. |3 E |_ |_ 0 VV E |) 14:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've posted my thoughts about this on the Soros page, in which I hope I've accurately referenced your concerns.[1] Please let me know if I got it wrong. Thanks! Eleemosynary 06:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Apparently frustrated by his inability to build a consensus, Bellowed has decided to resort to untruths. He is attempting to state the 5-4 divided vote on the George Soros Talk page as an overwhelming consensus for including the O'Reilly material.[2]. Please stop by the Talk page; your help would be greatly appreciated. Eleemosynary 00:54, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Bill Moyers

Hi again. Would you mind stopping by the Bill Moyers Talk page and weighing in with your opinion? The same situation on the George Soros page--wherein two editors are claiming that attacks by Bill O'Reilly should be included as legitimate "criticism" of the article subject--is breaking out on the Moyers page. Any thoughts you have on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --Eleemosynary 05:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CarlsonFederalReserve1987.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CarlsonFederalReserve1987.jpg, 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. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] North/East/South/West Jersey

Hi. You reverted my removal of the mention in the East Jersey article of how the East/West Jersey split is "roughly" the same as the North/South Jersey split. The entire northwestern quarter of the state, with the addition of Ocean County, is not an insignificant detail. —Largo Plazo 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Appreciate the feedback on admin candidacy. I have a reciprocal respect for your work as well. Ronnotel 14:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA # formatting

Hi. When adding comments, please place a # before the colons to preserve the number formatting. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why do you remove vamist.com from the Forex article?

It doesn't violate any policy. Is not a forex broker and it doesn't sell anything.. There are just pure informative articles written by Romanian people in Romanian and English language. I will add this link back because I think it was removed without a reason.

Stefanvaduva 11:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page and tell me the final verdict regarding this website. I will respect your decision and I will not add it again if you still consider that http://forum.vamist.com/forums.html link should not be there. I just want you to know that I don't agree with your first decision and you can see the arguments on my talk page. A community where people can talk about forex trading can be a very valuable ressource.

Thanks, Stefanvaduva 06:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronnotel's RfA

I'm limiting thank you spam to just those contributors who made an extra effort on my behalf. I am truly grateful for your support and I hope to live up to your expectations. Ronnotel 13:26, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I regrefully missed participation in your RFA. However, my full support for you, Ronnotel, should be noted. Both you and Smallbones have been valuable and knowledgeable contributors to this project, particularly in the areas of finance. Congrats and thanks--Hu12 14:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I do seem to have scrapped by, but a pass is a pass. Appreciate the support. Please note my immediate action plan. ;) Ronnotel 15:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:TimeCoverSoros090197.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:TimeCoverSoros090197.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will 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. Carbon Monoxide 03:56, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link spammer User:74.94.23.253 blocked

The next time you see someone like this coming along, drop me a note - the admin rollback feature is pretty handy. I also indef blocked as per WP:SPA. Ronnotel 20:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the support in this. User:HU12 does a lot of prevention/cleanup along these lines. But just a warning - this stuff is a bottomless pit - see foreign exchange market for example.
As always, Smallbones 13:34, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you very much

I will take a look at Brandywine Creek in a few days (fairly busy IRL now) and see if there are any suggestions I can offer. Thank you very much for your kind words about Larrys Creek. I appreciate them very much, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your comment on Ruhrfisch's page. Let me know if you want any photos of a particular location along the creek, as I'm within striking range of most of it. (OK, so north of the Main Line gets to be a stretch.) I also have a copy of Henry Seidel Canby's Brandywine, which has some useful cultural information on the stream. Choess 04:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Axe

Thanks for your comments on Battle of Bad Axe (the "there" thing was a typo, I do know the difference:-)). It seems Helena does still exist, see comments on talk page. IvoShandor 21:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mark Twain picture

First, even though the MOS says to the contrary, it is debatable whether or not the lead image of a person must face right or left. This is especially true considering the rising prominence of infoboxes, which are always aligned on the right side of the article. Second, a photograph is nearly always preferred over a painting as paintings have creative license and are not precise representations of the individual. As for the "old man stereotype", I believe what you are saying is that the image I added is how people commonly perceive him; that sounds like a reason for keeping it as the lead as it is familiar. And finally, I'm sure you agree that the image I added is of high artistic quality (unlike the one you replaced, which I agree was poor in quality), and therefore should serve as the "premier" image in the article. At any rate, I re-added your sketch as it does provide a representation of Twain as a younger man, though I put it in his biography section. I think it fits in nicely there. --Tom (talk - email) 14:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to meet common ground. How about the photo to the right? --Tom (talk - email) 15:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Topic ban violation

This edit of yours to Elliott wave principle was in violation of your topic ban from Prechter-related topics. Please make no further edits in this subject area, or you will be blocked. Picaroon (t) 03:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

<from my talk page>

Just to be clear. "Topic banning" was never mentioned before the arbitration. "edit warring" and "incivility" were mentioned by outsiders, but these seemed to be aimed more at Folsom than me.
Thanks for the offer, but I'll contact Jimbo by myself. I'll let you know (in brief) what happens here, and if I think there is anything that you can do. Thanks again. Smallbones (talk) 12:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Perfect (re: Topic ban), that's what I was hoping. :)
Rereading what I wrote below, it occurred to me that you might think I condemn your behavior towards the other editor. I personally don't think you have broken WP:CIVIL, or any of the other allegations, but since the idea of civility is subjective I can't argue effectively against other's perception of what it means to be civil.
It's very important to keep the topic ban totally separate from the incivility debate, because they are two totally different things. Because even if the community feels you were breaking WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA (who knows what they'll say?), any punishment should be regarding how you edit article talk and user pages, not articles themselves.
Whatever happens, good luck. :) Anynobody 23:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finance project

Thanks for the welcome. Don't know about "experienced" or "respected," but am definitely an editor. Will look at the articles/Afd you mention.--Samiharris 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

On the options article, I think the article, now that it has covered call writing, fits the bill on GA. But if you disagree, feel free to remove.--Samiharris 19:37, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Not sure who George is, but thank you. Jayjg (talk) 03:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Thanks!

Am greatly honored! I humbly accept your magnificent award.--Samiharris (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One thing that would help

If you could point me to a template that is usable for creating a "genealogical tree" of a company. I'd like to create a genealogy for JPMorgan Chase.

Roadrunner (talk) 03:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Forex

Thank you for your note. I agree that Wikipedia should not do an article on every confidence artist. However, when the take goes into the millions, and the subject owned and operated a "Forex School" it is a public service to provide objective coverage.

I am a firm believer in not including the name of someone who is just arrested for a crime prior to the trial. I believe that pre-trial publicity makes it difficult to have a fair trial. Those concerns do not apply here. I would also refrain from including the names of victims of crimes, even those quoted in the WSJ saying that they would still trust the convicted felon to win back their money with further Forex training.

What bothers me most is the number of articles that violate WP:COI, where the subject (or his publicist) creates an article about himself and pads his accomplishments. If I had seen a self-generated article about a Forex trader or a Forex trainer, I would have recommended speedy deletion. Racepacket (talk) 19:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Forex scam

An editor has nominated Forex scam, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forex scam and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stock Market Predictions at January 2008 stock market downturn

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. I don't know much about the subject; is the article still a problem? Jayjg (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't think of any specific policies off-hand that would deal with this - other than the usual, WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR. I wish I could be more help. Jayjg (talk) 02:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Samiharris RfCU

Not sure if you care, but I thought this was interesting. Not sure what to make of it. Ronnotel (talk) 18:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I've replied at User:SirFozzie/Investigation/Sandbox#Section 13: Significance of so few overlaps by Cool Hand Luke. Cool Hand Luke 21:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

I hope you don't mind, but I fixed the repeated errors of your spelling of Mantanmoreland, for accuracy. You refered to him as Metanmoreland, while it is really spelled Mantanmoreland. I've corrected these and I thought I would just leave you a note about it. — Save_Us † 00:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you - I was obviously referring to Mantanmoreland. Smallbones (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but same-minute editing is just the start. I have Alanyst's data. Would you like me to compare interleaving editing within half an hour according to the previous definition? These accounts only have four in that period, and some casual checks suggest that hardly any of the other accounts will have so few. What threshold would convince you? Cool Hand Luke 23:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, reply here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#To Smallbones. Cool Hand Luke 01:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scope proposal

I've replied there. I'm certainly not married to it, I just tried to summarise the basic allegations made in the Evidence page which may merit investigation. User:Dorftrottel 18:44, February 17, 2008

[edit] As you requested

At User:Alanyst/Vector space research#Variations I have added results for a run of the topic-filtered VSM algorithm for the Mantanmoreland account, as I did for the Samiharris one earlier. You had expressed interest in seeing the results, so I invite you over for a look. Cheers, alanyst /talk/ 05:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your Edit of Joel N. Ward

You made a comment in reagrd to my editing Joel N. Ward. I am new to this and I appreciate the help. I happen to know him and know the case very well. So, when I saw errors of context in news media comments I feel compelled to correct them. Or, If I know something else I felt it important to put it in. I see what you are saying though about verification. What is the solution to verification? Merely referring to another cite on the web, including the over trusted news media, for facts? Here's an example. The media said that Mr. Ward wrote in a diary that he was a "financial serial killer." I happen to know personally that (1) Ward did not keep a diary, (2) he wrote a confession (I saw it), (3) in that confession he said within the context of suicidal thoughts that he 'felt' like a finaical serial killer, not that he was one (big difference), and (4) Craig Karmin of Wall Street never saw the written confession nor asked Ward about it (according to Ward), as Karmin merely assumed the Government's allegation to those words were accruately expressed so copied them. So now, two things are going on. First, there seems to be an assumption that if it's in print somewhere it makes it truth and is repeated as fact. Secondly, you allowed the edits I put in about the above matter, which clarifies the details more accurately, but you have no true basis or facts to even do that. It's like this whole idea of verasity and honest journalism is now not only lost in biased journalism, but here at Wikipedia too. Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting we get to write anything and everything we want without sourcing it. I'm venting here about the frustration and looking for the fair way to approach this. I guess I will learn more as I go. Thanks for reading my ramblings anyway. By user:jwzoom

[edit] Barrington Hills Townships

See the Barrington Hills talk page for my explanation to the fix I made. — oo64eva (Alex) (U | T | C) @ 04:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I saw your question about redirecting Profitability and just thought I'd let you know that I think you did the right thing. Relata refero (talk) 22:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Heh, didn't see you comment about TA on FT/N till just now. What I meant about MBW was that regardless of who was socking for who, there was no question but people who had some form of CoI were involved. For some reason I hadn't realised till then that financial articles would obviously be extremely vulnerable to that....
Do look over the TA article if you have time and see if any other deletions/re-organisations seem indicated. Relata refero (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electronic trading

Good start at cleaning up. It makes me feel good when my suggestions are supported so quickly! All the best. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:36, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Mark Twain photo on TV

Thanks for the FYI. That's the second time someone has put one of the photos I uploaded on TV, as far as I know (Austin Lane Crothers in his top hat was used briefly in an intro to a few segments on either the Daily Show or Colbert Report... can't remember which). --Tom (talk - email) 14:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Pronovost

Wow, a great start. Let's find more cites and build it up. Bearian (talk) 14:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DYK: Peter Pronovost

Updated DYK query On 18 May 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Peter Pronovost, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why you thanked me for your DYK. But congrats to you and thanks for the pic of Wilimington State Parks. Dincher (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You have deleted Profitability definition

not taking it to a profit article. You are bad boy. Carn (talk) 10:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matvey

For what it's worth, I started an article on Matvey Kuzmin. It'll be up to the hard-core partisan enthusiasts to flesh it out. —Zalktis (talk) 09:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)