User talk:Ruthiecameryn

Welcome!
Hello, Ruthiecameryn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Walk Forward Optimization, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type helpme on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: 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 have any questions, check out Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  — Soap  —  19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Starting an article
 * Your first article
 * Biographies of living persons
 * How to write a great article
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial

''Am willing to make the proper changes, please give me time, and I am accommodating the changes to make the article conform to your standards.. Please guide me and sincere thanks for your valuable help and guidance...'' Ruthiecameryn (talk) 23:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Walk Forward Optimization


The article Walk Forward Optimization has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * does not explain subject material in a manner accessible to most readers and does not use secondary sources to verify and clarify the information

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.  — Soap  —  19:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Soap..:)

Have made many changes and have tried to make the article conform to the Wikipedia standards. Please continue to review and guide me so as to improve my contributions and sincere thanks for your valuable help and guidance... Ruthiecameryn (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TradersStudio


A tag has been placed on TradersStudio, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Shearonink (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, thanks, Shearonink :) It has been restored to my userspace and shall try to make it an useful one. --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Intermarket Analysis
Please guide me, as I would love to have more reviews and guidance regarding this topic. As this is a valuable topic for the financial world.

 I copied this over from the talk page; please, use here on your own user talk page  Chzz  ►  23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks once more..


 * Frankly, it reads more like an essay than an encyclopedia article.


 * In addition, I have some concerns about the content. You say:


 * Intermarket analysis can be though of as a form of fundamental analysis


 * yet it sounds more like technical analysis than fundamental analysis.


 * The following statement:


 * Hence, intermarket market analysis can be though of as a type of instantaneous fundamental analysis and is not really meant to work on a tick by tick basis. It gives you a general bias and direction.


 * is an assertion, but is not obvious, nor supported.


 * Some statements are unintelligible:


 * There are many approaches to intermarket analysis like mechanical, rule based (while not mechanical via a different angle).


 * Many statements are assertions without a reference:


 * The most widely accepted correlation is the inverse correlation between stock prices and interest rates;


 * (Not to mention that it isn't true. There is a far more widely accepted correlation, that between bond prices and interest rates.)


 * This isn't even a sentence:


 * A really simple concept for Intermarket based systems.


 * I don't feel it is suitable, nor even easily correctable.-- SPhilbrick  T  22:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please read WP:FIRST.  Chzz  ► 23:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Have copied what I wrote on the Intermarket talk Quoted ''Sincere thanks for your guidance, shall look into the matter. Please give a week or so, please.. Moreover, if it is possible to move it back to my own userspace to make it a better article before going live.. please do so.. Sincere thanks and apologies once more.. Ruthiecameryn (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)''

Thanks Sphilbrick :)

Thanks Chzz :), shall do as you say. Please may I know where should I ask for assistance: Please clarify this point, as it causes unnecessary duplication and confusion. Sincere thanks once more. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Others talk page  e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chzz) OR
 * 2) My user page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ruthiecameryn) OR
 * 3) My article talk page e.g. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intermarket_Analysis)?

Help TradersStudio
Please guide me, as I would love to have more reviews and guidance regarding this topic. Sincere thanks once more..

When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured to the right.


 * Again, I moved this from the article talk page to your own; please use right here, on your own user talk page.


 * Please, read the business FAQ. And WP:VRS.  Chzz  ► 23:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Chzz :) I have gone through the links as suggested by you and I agree that I may need to brush the article, and since the article has been moved to my userspace (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ruthiecameryn/TradersStudio), how can I get further help regarding on improving it and to remove any doubt of Conflict of Interest and Advertising intention. --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Walk Forward Optimization for deletion
The article Walk Forward Optimization is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Walk Forward Optimization until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Chzz  ► 23:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Chzz :) I have posted my comments and views in Articles for deletion/Walk Forward Optimization. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Offer of assistance
Hi. I'd like to offer my assistance on Walk Forward Optimization if the article is kept. I know nothing about the topic or even anything related like technical analysis, trading strategies or market simulations. But I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and could help you with how to lay out articles according to our manual of style, deal with citing sources, and try to answer any other questions you may have about Wikipedia policies and guidelines which can be quite daunting to a new editor. I hope your initial experience with having your articles nominated for deletion does not discourage you from contributing. cheers. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your encouraging words, Whpq :) I did get discouraged and even posted my views in another new section on same page . Please do help me and shall be very grateful and more inspired to be a regular contributor. :) Please feel free to point out mistakes etc. as it helps to make Wikipedia a more valuable resource of information. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

TradersStudio
As you have posted on my talkpage, the article was deleted by administrator SmartSE (talk) because of multiple reasons: One way to explain some of this is to refer you to a PRNews article called PR Consultants Should Think Twice... It's not just about PR firms, this article could apply to any editor. If any editor is closely associated with the subject of an article that they are working on, that conflict of interest makes it hard to craft something to Wikipedia standards. A Wikipedia article that explains this issue well is User:Keegan/Butterfly.
 * No indication of importance (A7)' and
 * Unambiguous advertising or promotion (G11)

Ah, I see that Smartse has just pasted the old article into your user space here. Good luck on improving it, while doing so keep some of these other concerns in mind. Shearonink (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks, Shearonink :) I have gone through the links as suggested by you and I agree that I may need to brush the article, and since the article has been moved to my userspace, how can I get further help regarding on improving it and to remove any doubt of Conflict of Interest and Advertising intention. --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for your guidance and sincere apologies for everything
Sincere thanks as you all have been very co-operative and helpful in the guidance... Though, I admit I did feel discouraged when my article got deleted and also regretted for the request of inviting feedback for my articles.

However, I thought of all your valuable contributions in terms of energy and time which is so much more valuable and that did encourage me to come up to your Wikipedia standards and not to lose hope.

You all are correct as if the articles were not conforming to such high standards, the Wikipedia would not have been so popular and I admit that there is a lot of more to improve upon. I might have been hasty and shall surely follow your instructions.

Sincere thanks for your guidance and sincere apologies for everything.

Please do continue to guide me as usual. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Your speedy responses are simply amazing and there are many things to learn form you all.. Honestly, never expected so much activity in a span of few days and I myself am not so regular on my own contributions.. I salute you all for your efforts on making Wikipedia: an important source of reliable knowledge base. :) --Ruthiecameryn (talk) 05:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 20:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for the long gap which is due to family issues, hope to be back by Mid May 2011. Sincere thanks to you all for your support and encouragement.--Ruthiecameryn (talk) 19:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)