User talk:Mycroft Watson

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 ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

(computer-generated boilerplate ends here) You know a lot about preferred stock. I would like to introduce you to some Wikipedia policies that you seem unaware of, such as Neutral point of view. You can say things like preferred stock will drop in value if interest rates rise, and preferred stock usually won't rise much beyond the call price if interest rates drop - that isn't controversial. But to emphasize that Smart Money magazine is wrong is obviously controversial, and the NPOV (Neutral point of view) policy applies. I trade those securities (among others) for a living and I tend to agree with you financially, but that isn't how Wikipedia works. You can say controversial things, but you can't state opinions as facts. You can state opinions in the words of a reliable published source, but not just because you say so, no matter how well you argue your case. I'd be happy to help you rewrite it. Art LaPella 22:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Another policy is Avoid weasel words. I think the way to fix it is to try to find others on the Internet with similar opinions, and say "According to..." rather than stating it as a fact. Art LaPella 00:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome aboard. I've been editing your changes to the preferred stock article to try to make it neutral and with the right voice. I echo the comments above: even if you're right, it should not be phrased as advice, and categoricals should be avoided unless documented and supported. That said, that article could use some work, and your help will be appreciated. I would also say the article is too "Anglo-saxon" world focused (US, UK and Canada in particular).--Gregalton 05:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

This was moved from the preferred stock article:

Message to Art LaPella and Gregalton:

Greetings. I am contacting you this way because I don't know any other way. Please tell me how for future use.

Thanks for your guidance. I have made the following changes to your last edit:

I have made the distinction between straight and convertible preferreds and the tax advantage to corporations, not available to individuals. These distinctions are vital: convertible preferreds can be very attractive investments, whereas straight preferreds never are for individuals, altho, for tax reasons, they can be for corporate investors (hence the distinction between corporate and individual investors).

To not include these essential distinctions would be incorrect and misleading. If you don't agree to my inclusion of them, I withdraw my posting and ask that you delete it in its entirety.

I also am at a loss as to how to make my posting less "Anglo-Saxon", nor why it should be.

Lastly, I think I may want to drop my Mycroft Watson nom de plume and use my real name. Please tell me how to do that.

Thanks again.


 * Please contact us by editing this talk page, or by editing our own talk pages User talk:Art LaPella and User talk:Gregalton, or on Talk:Preferred stock (to find the latter, go to Preferred stock and click "discussion" near the top of the screen).


 * Although the article already distinguishes convertible preferreds at preferred stock, I agree that Wikipedia is missing an explanation of the Dividend Received Deduction, although there is plenty of information on that subject on the Internet . As far as I know, the DRD applies to both convertible and non-convertible preferred stock. However, the DRD is more important to non-convertible preferred because the expected return is all in dividends, and not partly in capital gains as in convertibles - therefore the non-convertible should be more sought after by corporations eligible for the DRD, and therefore the resulting demand will raise the price of these securities above what supply and demand would otherwise determine for an individual investor, and therefore his return is reduced.


 * People around the world read Wikipedia. Wikipedia is intended to describe everything, not just the US. I have seen previous requests to make this article less US-centric, and we now have preferred stock, preferred stock, and preferred stock. I'm not sure it's helpful to urge each individual editor to be less Anglo-Saxon - my experience, for instance, is in the US stock market, and I can't write nearly so knowledgably about anywhere else. Maybe we need to wait for less Anglo-Saxon editors.


 * The easiest way to use your real name would be to repeat the same steps you used to register the name "Mycroft Watson", using your real name this time. See Username policy, Help:Logging in and/or Changing username. Art LaPella 17:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

"Anglo-saxon-ness"

 * Just wanted to explain my comment - it was a general comment/suggestion, not meant to be too specific. It comes from a general issue with the business/finance articles that they tend to lack a global perspective, and that any editor who wants to add value could really help with that.
 * Or put another way: users can add a lot of value when they focus on areas where there are obvious gaps, particularly when they're knowledgeable on a subject. I like to try to give suggestions that are examples of holes like that. I'm sure you'll find plenty to fill. Best--Gregalton 19:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

More discussion
As I understand, the page as shown above is OK with both of you and will be put into Wikipedia text. Am I correct? Also, is the best way to reach you thru the editing?

Thanks.

Question: I want to comment on a book (non-fiction) I recently read which is already in Wikipedia. I assume I can do so in the "Discussion" link and express an opinion which will include some criticism involving factual mistakes and other matters--subject, of course, to civility. Am I correct?


 * 1. "The page as shown above" What page? This talk page is mainly yours, and will ordinarily stay if you want it. Will it be put into Wikipedia text? No, unless you mean will it stay here as a form of Wikipedia text.


 * 1a. Or did you mean Preferred stock as it exists at the moment? It is in Wikipedia text, for now. Gregalton has dealt with the worst of my complaints, and I'm not planning any edits. But anyone can edit Wikipedia.


 * 2. Yes, this is a fine way to reach us, as long as Gregalton and I each have this page on our watchlist.


 * 3. Yes, if you mean go to the book's Wikipedia page and then click Discussion. Talk page rules aren't nearly as strict as rules for editing articles, especially if you're new and willing to cooperate. To sign your posts as the rest of us do (but only on talk pages), type ~ and the 4 tildes will turn into your name, time and date. Art LaPella 21:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I am confused re your answers 1 and 1a above. When I go to Wikipedia and key in "preferred stocks", the text we have been working on and editing time after time is NOT there. But when I go down and click on "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia" the text as we have finally edited DOES appear. Is that the final text that will appear when someone goes to Wikipedia and keys in "preferred stocks"? If so, what more has to happen for it to get there?


 * I'm more confused, so let's take this slower to see where we're miscommunicating.


 * "When I go to Wikipedia" - we are in Wikipedia, or I couldn't be writing this and although I'm not sure if you could be reading this, I'm pretty sure you couldn't be answering without being in Wikipedia. Does it say http://en.wikipedia.org at the beginning of the URL window at the top of your browser?


 * "...and key in 'preferred stocks'" - Does that mean key into the box on the left side of this screen labeled "search"? If so, it redirects to the same article you see by clicking this Preferred stock link.


 * "the text we have been working on and editing time after time is NOT there." Yes it is, if we're looking at the same place - it's in a paragraph entitled "Users", with your addition as changed by Gregalton. So you must be looking at some mirror.


 * "But when I go down and click on "This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia"" - I can't, because those words aren't at the bottom of where I'm looking. Those words don't appear on Wikipedia at all (with the exception of 2 obscure talk pages you would be unlikely to find without specifically looking for them with Google). Those words are ordinarily found on several Wikipedia mirror sites like, not on Wikipedia itself.


 * So if you aren't looking at Wikipedia, exactly what steps did you go through to get to what you thought was Wikipedia? Can you get to the real Wikipedia by clicking this ? Art LaPella 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, Art, to paraphrase Henry Higgins: "I've got it! I've got it. I really think I've got it!" All of my travels until just now were in The Free Dictionary (URL: http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/preferred+stocks), where I found the link "This article is copied..." Now, I go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferred_stocks and I see the final edition of my posting included.

So, apparently it is better for a user who is doing a search to go to the "free encyclopedia" URL (en.wikipedia.org), rather than the "free dictionary" one (encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com)

Incidentally, how and when is text moved from the encyclopedia to the dictionary? I see that the preferred stock text in the dictionary is the same as in the encyclopedia, except for my contribution. At some future time will my contribution be included in the dictionary?

Further questions: I am thinking of doing an edit of the John Quincy Adams entry in Wikipedia (I haven't actually looked up the entry yet).

1. Will you and Gregalton be my handlers for any future edits I do? Or, does whoever is available at the time get the job?

2. What instructions should I go to to learn how to insert links to outside reference sources into an article? I have been publishing my blog Rambling Musings of Mycroft Watson (http://www.mycroftwatson.blogspot.com) for over a year, but haven't gotten around to using links.

3. If I should one day aspire to be an editor for Wikipedia, as you and Gregalton are, would I be considered? How would I apply? What qualifications would I have to possess? Is it a paying job?

Thanks for all your help.

Mycroft


 * The Free Dictionary is a completely separate organization. I don't know much about it, except that it keeps popping up when I Google phrases in Wikipedia that I'm looking up in the rest of the Internet. Wikipedia is a volunteer project whose goal is to spread knowledge - so it is consistent with that goal to permit mirror sites like The Free Dictionary to copy Wikipedia without copyright problems. I don't know how often The Free Dictionary copies from Wikipedia, but the name is familiar enough so that my guess is that they copy every once in a while - that would be easy to do for such a well-known site.


 * 1. Whoever is available volunteers - there is no job to get in the sense of orders from above. There is a Mentorship program but I'm not involved with it. I've never been this involved with a new user before. My usual contributions to Wikipedia are to fix things like spelling and wikilinks. If you edit a topic as well known as John Quincy Adams or its talk page, you will attract lots of attention from those who edit there, and I could go look at it. A major edit to such a page (but I don't mean the talk page) is likely to be removed if it doesn't demonstrate more understanding of Wikipedia policies.


 * 2. Instructions for inserting links into a blog depend on the blog software, and I don't have a blog. My wife has a genealogy website, but inserting links there isn't the same as on Wikipedia - I had to study her Ixla software to get it to work. On Wikipedia, we distinguish internal links or wikilinks (to other Wikipedia articles), from external links (that go outside of Wikipedia). See Help:Link.


 * 3. There are 2 ways to answer this question. A: Everyone is an editor for Wikipedia, especially someone like you who has already edited an article and registered a username. Or B: To be like Gregalton and I, you would need a lot more Wikipedia experience. You can read about editing Wikipedia by clicking the 6 links at the top of this talk page, and the endless maze of links they lead to. In either case, there is no one to consider you, nowhere to apply, and certainly no pay. If you're good, your edits will stay. If you aren't, they will be Reverted (removed). Or it might be removed regardless - Wikipedia has everything from experts to blowhards to Vandalism. But vandalism is usually removed quickly, and vandals are eventually banned. Art LaPella 19:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and help. Mycroft

Greetings, Art

I'll appreciate some clarification on a previous question. I want to provide a critique of a recently-published book (non-fiction), for which there is an existing Wikipedia article, in which I want to take issue with the author on several points (including factual errors). The book is about a killing in the town in which I grew up; I personally remember some of the events. I DO NOT want to edit the article, rather, I want it to be more like a critic's review in "Discussion" or "Talk."

When reading thru all the Wikipedia guidelines for posting "Discussion" or "Talk" I see things like "don't criticize someone", "hold to 100 pages", "don't offer personal opinion" etc. So how--if at all--can I do a candid review with all those restrictions? Nothing in my review (if I can do it) will be libelous or in bad taste.

Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Mycroft Watson

Addendum 4/22/07

Art,

I am no longer Mycroft Watson; I have just registered my real name: Marshall H. Pinnix. However, the old "Mycroft" appears everywhere--at the top of the page when I open Wikipedia, in "User Talk", etc. (I tried "Requesting" a user name chage, but couldn't make it work, so I started anew.)

How do I get everything to change to "Marshall H. Pinnix"? Thanks.


 * Could you direct me to the Wikipedia page that says "don't criticize someone" etc.? Talk pages says "They should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views", but that isn't the page you're referring to. In general, there aren't nearly as many rules for talk pages as there are for editing the article, and I wouldn't worry about talk page etiquette unless someone is seriously unhappy - at which point they are usually more than happy to cite policies they think you are violating. "Don't criticize someone"? No personal attacks says "Comment on content, not on the contributor" and elaborates from there - in this case, it means discuss the book and its alleged errors, not the editor who put those alleged errors into Wikipedia. "Hold to 100 pages" isn't any Wikipedia rule I know of - I have never seen anyone add 100 pages of text to a talk page, so is that what it means? I have seen someone get into trouble for droning on and on about his favorite opinions without listening to anyone else and was eventually banned - but he had to ignore many, many warnings of all kinds to get to that stage. "Don't offer personal opinion" - the purpose of the talk page is to help write or change the article, and the article should describe prevailing opinions, not yours, not mine and not any Wikipedian's opinion. If you directly witnessed events relating to the book's subject matter, then maybe what you saw belongs in the article - but it would be better to let others decide to edit that in. Nobody really wants to know who you think killed somebody, but they do want to know (for instance) if you can find a newspaper article reporting on the subject that others have missed. That shouldn't be too serious a restriction because you should expect people to make you prove what you have to say. But if you do make the mistake of offering your own opinion, the worst that is likely to happen is that you will be corrected and/or ignored.


 * When I first go to Wikipedia, it doesn't say Art LaPella at the top of the page unless I have just used Wikipedia as "Art LaPella" in the last few minutes. After that it forgets who I am, and I have to log in again. I usually use Netscape Browser, but when I tried it on Internet Explorer it didn't remember me either. After I log in and say I'm Art LaPella, then my name is at the top of the page, and clicking "My Talk" means User Talk:Art LaPella. So you could either wait a few minutes for the system to forget that you logged in as user:Mycroft Watson, or you could click "log out" in the upper right corner. Either way, you should get a "log in" button you can click. In my case, Netscape Browser automatically fills in my user ID and password, so to log in as another user I would have to change that in Netscape Browser, by clicking Tools, Options, Auto Fill (the help file calls it Form Fill), and then click "wikipedia". But you probably don't have that problem - just log in as "Marshall H. Pinnix". If that doesn't work, tell me what happens and what browser you used. Art LaPella 06:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Art,

Many thanks for your prompt and comprehensive response. I am soon going to do my "Discussion" or "Talk" piece on the book I told you about. The "100 Italic textpages" was my error; it should have been "100 Italic textwords".

I have several other projects in mind. For many years I have been an aficianado of Sherlock Holmes, and have given numerous talks about his adventures to various groups. I am sure that there are many editing opportunities in Wikipedia's article on him.

Best regards,

Marshall