User talk:WiksterPolice

Uptick rule

Hi there. I think the problem is in the policy located at WP:OR.

Please discuss rather than "edit warring" by making constant changes. Also please keep in mind the strictures of the three revert rule, WP:3RR. all the best, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear RegentsPark (or Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?), you have been repeatedly biased in vandalizing the actual FACTUAL data, real chart that visually illustrates the market behavior before the uptick rule elimination, during the pilot study, and after the uptick rule elimination.

Why don't you want people to see the chart and to make their own conclusions? The chart is real and unbiased in documenting the facts – what has actually accrued in the market.

Simply because you do not like the facts, please do not remove them. If you feel that subprime is responsible for high volatility, please provide the data linking subprime to volatility. The actual factual chart is not a research. It is the factual evidence. Everyone can draw their own conclusion after looking at the chart.

In addition, a number of papers has been published before and after the uptick rule elimination with statistically significant results conclusively proving that uptick rule dampens volatility. The subprime problem was well before July 2007, but the volatility has increased dramatically exactly after July 2007. Either you like it or not, but these are the indisputable facts.

For example, a study by Diether, Lee, and Werner (2005) found that the uptick rule is found to (1) narrow the spread, (2) thicken the ask depth, (3) cause a higher execution price, and (4) dampen volatility.

Kind Regards, WiksterPolice

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear JohnnyB256, please discuss before siding with a hedge fund agenda and repeatedly vandalizing work of others.

Kind Regards, WiksterPolice

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear RegentsPark (or Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?), you are the ONLY one who continues vandalizing this article. Other people are making small edits to make the article more informative but you are simply removing large blocks of information because it does not fit with your agenda.

If you continue vandalism, I will be forced to take protective measures against you.

This is my last warning to you. Your ignorance will not be tolerated.

Kind Regards, WiksterPolice

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Dear JohnnyB256, Yes, vandalism can be biased. This is what you are keep doing -- vandalizing (maliciously destroying public property) based on your prejudice and bias (irrational attitude of hostility directed against other than your own point of view).

Vandalism by RegentsPark

Dear RegentsPark (or Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?), you are the ONLY one who continues vandalizing this article. Other people are making small edits to make the article more informative but you are simply removing large blocks of information because it does not fit with your agenda (that you have clearly stated earlier on your Talk Page dated April 12, 2009). ALL the material that you keep removing is FROM reliable sources. If you continue this vandalism, I will be forced to take protective measures against you. This is my last warning to you. Your ignorance will not be tolerated. WiksterPolice (talk) 15:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Madoff exception" is real. Please read two recent articles in WSJ and The Washington Post before vandalizing work of others. WiksterPolice (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am filing an official complaint with Wikimedia Foundation Inc. against RegentsPark for abusing his/her administrative privileges to promote his/her biased agenda. WiksterPolice (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this info. WiksterPolice (talk) 15:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Uptick rule, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:56, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources but you still continue removing the content. Why? WiksterPolice (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Uptick rule. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who have been making personal attacks. Please read your prior posts on your Talk Page dated April 12, 2009. If your posts are not a personal attack on other posters, than what is? WiksterPolice (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Uptick rule. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 14:57, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been courteous to you but you keep your negative demeanor and changing the topic from the "uptick rule" to "personal attacks". WiksterPolice (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for templating you with the above warnings but, as a new wikipedia editor, you are perhaps unaware that you can be blocked for personal attacks (for example, labeling edits as 'vandalism') and for repeatedly assuming bad faith (as in constantly referring to an editor as 'Regent's Park Capital Management LLC' - to which concern, unfortunately, I have no association). You'll find wikipedia a rewarding place if you work with other editors and a frustrating place if you don't. Regards. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue vandalizing the work of others, I will be forced to request for you to be blocked. WiksterPolice (talk) 15:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]