User talk:Financestudent

FinanceStudent: please contact me. I want to know if you'd like a little "side work" for some stock in our private equity group. Go to www.InnerCoreGroup.com and call the 877 number. When you get someone on the phone, tell them you're calling about Algo trading, and they'll put you through to me. Thanks! :-) Please delete this message after you read it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insightfullysaid (talk • contribs) 21:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello,, 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 ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

September 2010
In a recent edit to the page Criticisms of Marxism, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. Alfie ↑↓ © 23:34, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I was doing a spell check of the section, I apologize. Financestudent (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing to worry about; just a hint. ;-) Alfie  ↑↓ © 15:06, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
I take it you'll be working on the financial/business articles?--NortyNort (Holla) 09:18, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Computer Science, Finance, Business, Economics, Math and to a lesser extent applied physical and applied social sciences. I also would like to focus on making Wikipedia more comprehensive by linking articles together that are related but do not reference each other and connecting them in the see also section. This will allow a more logical flow of ideas and hopefully improve both articles and the usability of Wikipedia. After I take a few server side programming classes I would also love to build a bot to do that task automatically once I find a way to calculate the correlation between the two articles. I'm currently a student triple majoring in Mathematics, Computer Science, and Economics. I also have an associates degree in applied science which I think is a good broad general background to science. I love your focus on infrastructure and originally wanted to be an engineer with some sort of focus on emerging / alternative methods of energy generation. The photos of the Dams in the articles you are involved in are quite amazing and I hope you will continue building articles on that and alternative energy up. On a related note you may be interested in the articles Hydroelectricity and Three Gorges Dam. Either way thank you for your contributions and keep up the good work. Financestudent (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds ambitious and I applaud your motivation. See CLT for some navigation guidance. See also is great but they tend to get overloaded with too many links. If a link is somewhere in the article, it shouldn't be in the See also. I try to keep them 'short and sweet'. Dams are cool and look awesome. The way a river can be utilized is amazing. Sadly, they do have adverse social and environmental effects but provide water for the world's largest power plants. A much cleaner bet than fossil fuel and much more powerful than solar and wind. Also, it tends to be much cheaper per megawatt. Overall, I am a fan of hydraulic engineering and hydraulic circuits, particularly hydroelectricity. Three Gorges Dam is on my list for clean-up along with a bunch of other dam-related articles. I hope you enjoy editing here while in school, if you have any questions, just ask.--NortyNort (Holla) 10:51, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

"Criticism of ..." additions as see also's
Hello FinanceStudent, and nice to meet you. Being that nearly all of the economic based articles are on my watch list, I have noticed that you are placing the Criticisms of Socialism, Criticisms of communism, Criticisms of Marxism articles at the top of the "See also" sections on articles that are not articles which deal critically with this material. Of course these would belong on the Criticism of socialism article’s etc, but not every article dealing with any concept of Marxism or socialism etc. For example, it would be the same as placing the anti-capitalist, anti-imperialist, and anti-colonialist articles on the top of the "see also's" on every article dealing with free market economics. The implication would be pretty obvious. I have reverted several of these additions of yours reluctantly, as I don't like giving the impression that I am "following you", however all of the ones I believe were in violation were on my watch list. I understand that you are zealous to edit articles expounding on what you perceive as the evils of socialism, Marxism, communism etc and promote free market capitalism - that is fine - and the project benefits from having people with an array of views (presented within Wiki policy). However, please try and keep the pro and con arguments and their links in their proper places to avoid the appearance of WP:Soapboxing or that the see also's are some sort of ideological battleground. Believe me; anyone looking for the opposing view will easily be able to find it. Red thoreau -- (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice to meet you too Redthoreau, I wasn't linking those specific articles for any specific reason per say I was merely linking articles of relation to each other. I try to find articles lacking in completeness or "connectivity" in the wiki and then attempt to improve both the article's relation to relevant articles and the articles themselves. I'm sorry if that bothers you or if you mistook it as something else. It is unrelated to ideologies as I do this to articles unrelated to politics or ideology in any way. One of my objectives here is to link relevant articles.


 * Fair warning if you removed the links to the relevant articles for no good reason, I may simply revert as is my right to do so. Don't take that personally as I am not trying to have any sort of conflict, I merely want relevant articles linked to other relevant articles. The labor theory of value is not purely related to marxism and you are correct so I did not relink that article, however the articles you removed without sufficient reason (if any at all) I will merely relink unless you have sufficient reason why it shouldn't be there. Thank you for your understanding, I never mentioned anything about evil, never used the word evil, or anything remotely close to that assertion you are accusing me of. Please don't go jumping to conclusions, if for no other reason because it violates Wikipedia's WP:GOODFAITH policy, though I am assuming you knew that already. I will offer a simpler explanation for what happened: I noticed that the socialism and Marxism sections didn't have criticisms sections within their article's unlike the other economics articles. This seemed like a mistake until I added the section and it got removed several times, perhaps by people like yourself acting in good intention I'm sure. I'm not sure if you have any formal economic training but those ideologies are fairly refuted in main stream academia and to remove the criticisms of them for no particular reason is a violation of WP:NPOV. Also I never did anything to promote free market capitalism, nor are the article's you mentioned necessarily related to criticisms of that systems. Again this stems from you purely jumping to conclusions which makes you look paranoid, once again violates WP:GOODFAITH, and is an insult to both of us. I look forward to collaborating with you and not against you in making all of the economics articles both more accurate and more complete as I am sure is your intention as well. Financestudent (talk) 02:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello FinanceStudent, and thank you for your reply. To address some of the points you raised. I believe your statement that you are trying to link articles together, however what I saw was someone --> going to the Criticism of capitalism article and adding Criticisms of Marxism, Criticism of socialism, and Black Book of Communism – but then --> going to the Criticism of communism article and not adding Criticisms of capitalism or the Black Book of Capitalism (which were not present). Followed by you --> going to the Anti-capitalism article and adding Criticisms of Marxism, Criticism of socialism, and Black Book of Communism but then --> going to the anti-communism article and not adding the anti-capitalism, Criticism of capitalism and Black Book of Capitalism articles (which were not present). Thus I would contend that it was a reasonable assumption to wonder why you weren’t being consistent in your linking of "connectivity". If you simply did not recognize that this could appear inconsistently pov then I apologize for casting aspersions, but I would posit that there is a difference between assuming good faith at the outset, and then interpreting behavior to draw conclusions until you learn otherwise.


 * As for the criticism sections you added, I was fine with them being included, however per WP:Undue they should be a brief paragraph or so with the available links for editors to click if interested in learning more (Your trimmed down version was exactly the right ratio in my view). As for a background in Economics, I have a B.A. in the field (along with another one in Political Science), although my M.S. and Ph.D. are in other areas. In regards to "paranoia", I can assure that I have been around Wiki long enough (almost 3 years and 15,000 edits) to be immune to such fears - but possibly that occasionally makes me jaded :o). As for the "see also" sections specifically, I like them and don’t mind them being expanded in most cases, however so you know, there is dispute over this amongst many veteran editors, with many contending that they should not be used at all, or only for articles not already linked in the article’s text. Obviously I think you would recognize there is potential for the see also's to become battlegrounds for pov inferences, for instance if President Obama's first 3 see also's were Islam, Marxism, and Dictator - this would be problematic. With all that said, and I apologize for the length, I am glad we talked this out. If you revert me I won’t revert in kind.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 02:43, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If I was doing something along those lines to Obama's page then I would understand but I thought I was connecting relevant articles. In addition to that articles such as capitalism already linked to and summarized marxism on it's page, as well as a criticisms section last time I checked, and capitalism is not a minority view unlike anti-capitalism. I suppose any part of the article can be used for a POV debate, though I don't feel that was the case. I am glad we discussed this and if you feel I step out of line mention it to me again and I'm sure we will come to agreement I will gladly revert it myself if it is a problem. I appreciate your cooperation, maturity, and understanding. Financestudent (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Your thoughts on our "joint venture"
with my additions shown here? Red thoreau -- (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks good, this article is in need of some work and was pretty neglected. Financestudent (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article is in need of a lot of work. If you were interested in working on a substantial expansion, you could possibly ask for other interested editors at the portal page. I have other interests in my immediate query at the moment, but might be willing to wikignome if the collaborative conditions were right.   Red thoreau  -- (talk) 17:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. I will look into that in the upcoming week. Financestudent (talk) 17:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Rural economics
Thx on your recent Edit above. Turns out that for very short articles like that, its necessary to skip a line after the Econ sidebar template. Otherwise the template moves down content after the heading following the Lead as per here. A space line after the sidebar + getting rid of the columns for "See also" as per this diff fortunately moves the content after the first heading back up to immediately follow the 1st section heading as here. Cheers. --Thomasmeeks (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Perspectives on capitalism
Hi, I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading your article! I hope it will pass! Regards, -- Eisfbnore  ( talk ) 03:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! However it is everyone's article even though I worked extensively on it. Glad you enjoyed it. Financestudent (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

High-frequency trading
You removed many of my edits and citations to the "high-frequency trading" entry, claiming the references either didn't work or they didn't support the statements. First, the references all work, at least when I click on them. Next, they support whatever statements they are used to footnote. If you'd like a detailed breakdown, I'd be happy to provide, though the text itself includes quite a few direct quotations from the citations you say are empty. Finally, you simply can't blast your way through the fact that the SEC and CFTC cite algorithmic and high-frequency trading as both directly contributing to price volatility in the Flash Crash. It's just a fact. The SEC and CFTC say so, the WSJ says so, the NY Times says so...etc. Either support your edits with your own citations or back off. MarketsGuy (talk) 21:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * They were empty refs before. You failed to actually cite anything originally, maybe you made a mistake but it appeared you were making broad unsupported statements then forging refs which didn't actually link back to a web page. Hence I removed what appeared to be vandalism.
 * As for your second unrelated point I don't think HFT was implicated in anything so far as causing the crash goes. It was pretty agreed upon that the sale of the 4.1 billion of S&P500 futures in a 20 minute period was the cause, which if you have ever studied market structure or trades as a percentage of the available liquidity (as a function of the time the shares are bought or sold) that would be obvious that there would be massive price impact. Beyond that wither HFT in any form contributed to volatility anymore then any other active market participant is debatable. Financestudent (talk) 23:01, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You deleted the references when you edited the page, as the revision history for the relevant entry ("high-frequency trading") clearly shows. You then accused me of vandalism. Remarkable. Look at the revision history.  At 23:03 on 30 October 2010 you deleted a paragraph containing the anchor references for subsequent footnotes to text you found objectionable. It's there in black and white. And then without so much as a note to me to inquire about the now broken footnotes - the footnotes you broke - you axed hours of carefully written and documented text, and then you lectured me about "good faith."  Unacceptable.  MarketsGuy (talk) 20:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because I reverted the edits stating that "algorithmic" trading caused the crash in one section I didn't realize they were the same ones used in the other sections and just assumed the generic references that didn't work were fake. My mistake. However ironically if you had assumed good faith and not attempted to launch a site wide attack against me (such as spamming unrelated talk pages with rants about me) then I would of looked at the revision history much sooner to reverse engineer just what happened. I have since removed the sections about me from pages that are not my talk, and they belong on my talk or at the very least only the page where a dispute occured. I appologize for my mistake, but the way you handled it was pretty uncivil. You will notice despite never agreeing with you on the despute I never used personal attacks or attempted to incite you to respond accross several talk pages and things of that nature. I did in fact have good faith in editing the articles and nothing malicious was intended or even done. I have roughly 500 edits and a good portion of them are vandalism reverts, so I suppose at least one mistake was bound to happen. I removed any references of vandalism on your talk page, and cleared your name so to speak. Despite all this I hope we can collaborate constructively in the future. Happy editing. Financestudent (talk) 14:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I broadcast your edits because you broadcast your accusations of "vandalism" in your comments on the revisions history page, which was a very direct and unfair attack on my credibility given your error. You followed that up with a long comment in the entry on "Algorithmic trading" questioning my neutrality and further accusing me of bias - "guessing the person who stated that was the conclusion has some sort of axe to grind regardless of NPOV or factual accuracy."  In light of all of that, it seemed appropriate to respond in the discussion pages there and in the entry for "high-frequency trading."  In other words, Financestudent, you very publicly fired the first shots and you chose the venue for those shots.


 * You've now removed my responses in "Algorithmic trading" - though interestingly you didn't remove your accusations of "axe to grind" and "bias" - and you removed our back-and-forth in the entry for "High frequency trading," no doubt because they don't reflect well on your actions. Once again, as far as "good faith" or "uncivil" behavior are concerned, it should have been obvious to you the work was done by someone who had put a fair amount of time and attention into the effort, and you deleted it anyway and flamed me, accusing me repeatedly of "vandalism," which is the worst thing one can accuse another of on Wikipedia, and doing so in several public venues.  And I'm supposed to sit back and let it go?  Good faith and civility - give them a try some time.


 * Anyway, you explained and apologized. Accepted.  Let's move on.  I look forward to many years of - principled - agreements and disagreements.  MarketsGuy (talk) 18:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a forum to be broadcasting things about editors, I never "broadcast" anything about you I was reverting what at the time I expected was vandalism. I have since made it very clear that was not the case. I also never "flamed you" or anything like that. I followed the standard procedure for vandalism by posting that on your talk, and even then I listed possible vandalism. I have since crossed it out making it without doubt clear no vandalism was committed. I too look forward to moving on, constructive editing, and again happy editing. Financestudent (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Please have a look:User talk:Midnightblueowl, and this kind of WP:Disruptive editing has to be stopped before more damage is caused by him. Arilang   talk  22:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Guidance
Hello. I'm new to the wiki community and would like to start working on editing the Property Insurance page with the help and collaboration of more experienced contributors from Project Finance Participants. There is a recommendation that the Chartis article be merged with AIG's page. I think the Property Insurance page could be strengthened with parts of AIG's page since it shows how current events and emerging trends effect it's regulation by the government. Hurricane Sandy and updated payouts of the WTC are not on the Property Insurance page either - which to me seem to be relevant. Do you think adding more information would be beneficial to the Property Insurance page? If so would you be interested in collaborating what facts should be included? Any response would be kindly appreciated. Thank you.Lgkkitkat (talk) 04:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:27, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Investment
Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 19:26, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!