User talk:Sposer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Steven,

I saw your contribution to the Elliott wave principle article, and it appeared to be your first-ever edit to Wikipedia, so welcome. Another editor has removed it, however, citing "OR" as the reason. This means "original research," which is a reference to Wikipedia's policy that says you're not supposed to place your own research or opinions into articles. But, since you are a published author and Elliottician, you can use relevant quotes from your book; simply cite and footnote it the way you would another author's.

Click here to see more about the policy I mentioned. I hope you'll continue to contribute to the Elliott wave article, we could really use another editor who understands technical analysis and Elliott. If you want to reply to this message or talk any further about it, please do so on this page and I'll respond here as well. Rgfolsom 21:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Be aware, also, that this article is closely watched, as there is some suspicion in the Wikipedia community that this article and the article on Prechter are used as tools to market Prechter and his interpretation of Elliott theory. Edits in defense of E-wave theory are likely to be subject to especially close scrutiny if they seem to betray partisanship. --Orange Mike 22:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
It has been suggested that I may have inadvertently committed the Wikipedia crime of biting a newbie. While I genuinely don't think I was biting the noob, but rather warning you about the attitude that exists on this topic (so that you wouldn't get bitten by the real piranhas), I do hope I haven't scared you off contributing to this project. And don't limit your participation to your professional field, either! Let all your expertise, quirks and interests flourish in this garden of learning. --Orange Mike 16:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I am sorry if I am using this incorrectly. This is Steven Poser, but I am not logged in, largely because I am on another PC and do not remember my password. If I am doing anything wrong, I do apologize.

I am also sorry; I should have spent a bit more time reading the rules regarding edits of a story. Obviously as an author, I believe that Elliott Wave works.

One thing people need to understand is that defending Elliott Wave is not the same as defending Bob Prechter. I have spoken with Bob more than once, and consider him to be brilliant. However, I am in no way shilling for him. He and I interpret Elliott much differently. When I have a chance, I will add some citations from my book, from a logged on PC, so that you know it is me.

I know all of the people mentioned in the article. Robin Wilkin probably doesn't remember me too well though, we used to speak at times. Jordan Kotick was President of the Market Technicians Association and is still on the Board of Directors there with me. He used to work for Elliott Wave International, and is a good Elliottician in his own right.

A quick question: I have taught classes on Elliott and given presentations that are available via the Market Technicians or on Bloomberg (I get nothing for these.) Am I permitted to cite these? They cover some things that I do not cover in my book. Also, am I allowed to cite articles that I've written on the subject?

I have no agenda here, but some of this stuff may be a bit easier to understand than my book. I just want to help explain Elliott Wave.

Contents

[edit] Explaining Elliott wave

Hello again Steven,

The policy regarding what you can cite, and how to do so, is spelled out in Wikipedia's "Attribution" article, which is the same one I mentioned to you in my first post above. It really should answer your questions about your classes and presentations. The other important policy is Neutral point of view (or NPOV), which means just that -- our contributions must be neutral, and not made as an advocate or adversary of the topic. It's probably just the long version of what you meant by saying you have no agenda.

That said, it's great that you want to contribute here -- you obviously bring a degree of expertise that can help make this a first-rate article. Rgfolsom 14:57, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits

Steve,

Thanks for those clarifications in the MTA & CMT articles. As for listing your book on the EWT article, I think it's 100% okay and obviously on point. Rgfolsom 21:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sicko

I'm sorry you decided to leave. Your edits to the lead section were good, but they probably belong in the Gupta controversy section; I'll see if I can add them to that section. Please come back when you have time, as your opinion and help expanding the article is needed. —Viriditas | Talk 02:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] April 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. As an adherent to a fringe pov and someone who gains monetarily through its promotion, you should avoid editing any and all articles related to the subject. We welcome your contributions on the talk pages. Thank you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

You see I put in a few good words on TA. I think with a bit of work the article could reflect some of the points you are making. I wish I had enough time to help, but I have a pretty high-pressure job and lot of family things to do also. I'll try and do something, perhaps over the holiday period ItosLemma (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)