User talk:Sposer

Talkback
Hi Sposer, Thank you for the edit on the page Elliott Wave principle. FYI, it was not a spam link, just a page that I thought might be useful for the readers. Apparently, it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamir Islam (talk • contribs) 16:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)


 * No worries. In general, commercial pages are frowned upon. I did not read the EW content, which may have been fine, but there are 100s of pages like that and often the "free" content is there to guide you to what they are selling. Sposer (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Not good
Hi there. Your user page claims great authority in financial topics, but it's written in a kind of pidgin English I wouldn't expect of someone with that level of expertise. And you spend a lot of time editing and making comments on articles in which you have a professional conflict of interest, e.g. Chartered Market Technician. It's simply not plausible that someone working at that level would leave himself so open to criticism, or make so many obvious mistakes; that kind of mindset is incompatible with your actions. Assuming you really are an employee of the NYSE Euronext, are you in fact one of the reception staff? Or a network technician with delusions of grandeur? Who are you? At this point it would probably be best to simply stop editing and perhaps concentrate on another outlet. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Wow. You clearly are far more qualified than my editors at Wiley. When they got the galleys of my book, they said it was the best written financial book they had seen in a long time. I guess you know better.


 * As for the CMT, the only edits I made were to correct erroneous statements. You do not need to be sponsored to receive the CMT. You need to be a member of the MTA, for which you do need sponsorship. I put that information into the article. I also updated information so that readers understood the difference between NASD Regulation and FINRA, since at the time the exemption was granted, there was no such thing as FINRA. There is absolutely no conflict in those edits (and besides, I do not even hold a CMT).


 * I have made edits on the Elliott Wave page, which was my specialty back when I worked as a technical analyst. However, I contacted other Wikipedia editors to see if they felt it was COI before I made the edits, once I understood how Wikipedia works. As for my position at the NYSE, I suspect you are not very good with the Internet, if you cannot find out what I do here. I am glad you sent this message though, since I do need to update my page, since the NYSE is now owned by Intercontinental Exchange.


 * None of my editing on anything around technical analysis was done while I worked as a technical analyst. That ended in 2004 and my first edit on Wikipedia was in 2007. I have never actively sold my book (take a look on Amazon, and that will be abundantly obvious). I am not aware of any mistakes, but nobody is perfect and I always welcome corrections.

Have a good day.Sposer (talk) 12:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Privatization of "Trapped Traders"
My contribution was not spam and nor were my references, so there was no need to delete the entire contribution. My comments are a rebuttal to the attempt by a trader to privatize and therefore commercialize the term "trapped traders". Kindly search the Trademark Electronic Search System for "trapped traders" and you'll find an active application for the commercialization of "trapped traders". To my knowledge, Brooks was the first authoritative figure to define and expound the term at length and all subsequent use of the term is simply an extrapolation of his work. The US Patent and Trademark Office will no doubt search the web and it's my desire that if they come across this page, they'll be enlightened by Brook's pioneering work which predates the current trademark application. So next time, before you summarily dismiss a contribution because of references that you think are "spam", you may want to check with the contributor and be certain you're making the right decision.

Carapinha (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I could not leave the additional statements without references, and your prior edit referenced your website, which is verboten, since it is clearly a commercial web site where your are selling trading products. The current edits, without the ads for your site, are okay. Thanks for now making the entry okay as the contribution is no longer spam. To be honest, the whole Price Action Trading article is bogus and I am sure merely a way to drive business to Brooks. Price action trading is a made up term for technical analysis and does not deserve a separate article. If I had the time, I would move to delete it completely or merge it into the TA article. Sposer (talk) 14:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)