User talk:Rjlabs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi all. I use this talk page to prototype and to keep some handy code snips. Feel free to jump in and comment at any time. I'm fascinated with indexing, classification, cross referencing.

Learning about wikidata, sparql, info boxes & templates, but still a newbie.


The 2012 JPMorgan Chase trading loss is a key article I initiated that is very much in process. Please come and add expertise. They are a gSIFI! a/k/a Globally Systemically Important Financial Institution. The 2012 trade loss is as significant as they come. It will be studied in depth. The reach is broad. The problem multifaceted. Again, please stop in and contribute some sharp financial expertise here.

JPM Doubling down[edit]

[RE: Have a loss on Trade#1 not closing the position. Instead putting on Trade #2 which was yet another bet] Just doubling down, increasing your next bet to cover your last loss. People try that at roulette... Just foolish behavior. Everybody knows how dangerous it is, but sometimes it does work, so people try it. My former boss, who is an actual genius, had to be dragged away from the table in Las Vegas. User:Fred Bauder Talk 19:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk[edit]

was Category:Systemic Risk - Behavioral & Social Facets

  • I'm the original author of two category pages
    • Category:Systemic risk This has a related article page Systemic risk that I did not author but could use updating. There may also be key Wikipedia pages that could be tagged with this category. Help from ASIA would be really nice!!!
    • Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk I did not write an article page on this but would participate in a group to write one. See the talk page for more. This is bleeding edge research - 10 toes over the front of the surfboard type stuff. However its very real and have found at least one initial survey article (top quality in a heavily refereed journal) so its undeniably legitimate. Would love help here!!!

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hey Rjlabs,

I've loved your coverage of the recent JP Morgan losses. I have been really interested in the JPM losses and am thinking about researching the trades behind the losses. From reading your edits, it seems like you have a really in depth understanding of complex trades and systematic risk. Are you in finance?

Robmun (talk) 17:43, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Robmun for the barnstar. Very much appreciated. Yes, I have some background: mostly investments, accounting & auditing. Have lectured a long while ago as an adjunct at a law school on the ins and outs of SEC Reg-SK. More recently have researched Systemic Risk, Dodd-Frank, etc. I lack deep experience with bank regulation (Fed rules, OCC, Basel, etc.) Been Series 24 so familiar with "net capital" requirements, margin, etc. Coming up to speed on Swaps and the re regulation of OTC derivatives. JPM touches so many areas. In my mind the Systemic risk aspects are by far the most interesting. Currently the rules and regs are in silos and are very much tattered patchwork.

I put together the category:

I also put together the behavioral and social aspects

I'm interested in a top down look, but not afraid to delve in to the details both in the Rules and Regulation area, and the "deep inside the human mind" aspects too.

JPM for me is a window inside the entire difficult situation. The perfect springboard.

How about yourself? Rick (talk) 18:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeking HELP! Need editor / WikiPedi policy expert[edit]

I'm looking to publish more on investment topics on WikiPedia. My expertise is:

I'm not an academic and have no publishing agenda. I'm not connected or allied with any large firm in the finance space. I see there is some strong competition for investment/finance coverage on commercial wikis:

Looking for editorial help - my knowledge of the very best expression, grammar and syntax is not the best. I'm also very interested in help from a WikiPedi policy expert to help ease me into the rules, procedures, best way of doing things on WikiPedia specifically, perhaps some help using more advanced, polished features, etc. I'd much rather source material and hammer it into relatively plain language for a wide audience. I need help with the editorial polishing, publishing and WikiPedia specifics. Feel free to contact me direct or post on this talk page...


Hi, about your note above (User_talk:Rjlabs#Seeking_HELP.21_Need_editor_.2F_WikiPedi_policy_expert) what did you have in mind exactly? I am also very interested in finance-related topics, including some of the ones you mentioned, but also others (part personally, part professionally), and I have been planning to do more work on Wikiepdia on the topic. I would be happy to edit stuff you write, or rewrite secondary research, or stuff like that. I plan to make some contributions to the investment banking and Facebook IPO pages, which both seemed underdeveloped to me in proportion to the subjects' importance. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Me too![edit]

Hello! Me too! I left a note for you, Rick, on Project Finance page, in response to your request. All your things are my favorite things in Finance. And I do have experience, though outdated now, in risk management. I have an MBA in finance from Wharton, I worked for NSCC now DTCC as director of risk management, and at S&P on criteria development, although I left in October 2000 to get married. Husband passed away though (bless his soul), now trying to drown sorrow in Wikipedia editing. I wish I had found you sooner and we could have worked on some of these articles, and with The Sound and the Fury too, as I need desperately to get a job again, and don't anticipate having much time to edit Wikipedia, much as I love to do so. Anyway, I was noticing the awful IPO page this morning. What with the Facebook IPO... well, not just that, it is important in general, I notice how neglected Finance and Investment is on Wikipedia. I wish all the people who write about garbage bands (I guess that should be garage bands) and Nicki Minaj (although I do like her music very much, unlike the garbage bands) would write about finance and investments and Dodd-Frank and BIS capital adequacy changes and their impact on U.S. banking and such ;o) --FeralOink (talk) 08:03, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Good Thoughts[edit]

Wanted to capture a couple of great thoughts from User:My very best wishes a molecular biophysics / bioinformatics researcher who's since retired from WikiPeda. I had to pull this from his history. Special thanks to User:TheSoundAndTheFury for passing the link on.

"Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, and always perseveres." (1 Cor.)


Love the cartoon (takes a while to sink in) and the Cabal paragraphs here Words of wisdom On Wikipedia and the Cabal.
Another "slice" of it: Collective narcissism

I think of Wilfred Bion Experience In Groups here.

Do not waste your time in Wikipedia[edit]

from User:My very best wishes

While editing on this site one must focus on improvement of Encyclopedia and do not be easily distracted. Here is some advice how to achieve this goal.

  1. Editing on wiki can be very addictive. Plan your visit. Know exactly what you are going to accomplish. Do it quickly and return to your real life business, unless you want to spend all your time here and continue coming back even after your ban.
  2. Do not waste your time in content disputes. It is enough to explain your edits. If your edits have been reverted, leave the article to contributors with strong views, unofficial "editorial boards" and cabals. There is little you can do. Who cares?. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information, and it will never be.
  3. Always comment on content, not on the contributor, assume good faith and ignore all dramas, no matter what others do.

Example Table[edit]

Exchange-traded futures Exchange-traded options OTC swap OTC forward OTC option
Equity DJIA Index future
Single-stock future
Option on DJIA Index future
Single-share option
Equity swap Back-to-back
Repurchase agreement
Stock option
Turbo warrant
Interest rate Eurodollar future
Euribor future
Option on Eurodollar future
Option on Euribor future
Interest rate swap Forward rate agreement Interest rate cap and floor
Basis swap
Bond option
Credit Bond future Option on Bond future Credit default swap
Total return swap
Repurchase agreement Credit default option
Foreign exchange Currency future Option on currency future Currency swap Currency forward Currency option
Commodity WTI crude oil futures Weather derivatives Commodity swap Iron ore forward contract Gold option

Simple Example Table[edit]

Row Head Col Head
col1 Label col2 Label
Row1 Label 1,1 1,2
Row2 Label 2,1 2,2

Some Favorite "See Also" Links[edit]

Electronic trading

Trading Network Protocol

Fixed Income, Swaps and Related

Global Finance Market Structure / Players

Systemic Risk & Regulation

Hyperlink a category[edit]

Prefix and posfix a : to the word Category and add the category name (with no space, use _) eg:
[[:Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk]]
Category:Behavioral and social facets of systemic risk

Some Favorite Categories[edit]

Some Favorite Wikipedia Meta Categories[edit]

Redirect Example[edit]


Note you can combine:
{{redirect|Amir|other persons|Amir (name)|other uses|Amir (disambiguation)}}

Distinguish Example[edit]

{{distinguish|European Market Infrastructure Regulation}}



#REDIRECT [[Global Financial Markets Association]]


Create and tag the page with {{disambiguation}}. Then create a list as in:
SEF may refer to:

Note: you may not link to a disambiguation page from a regular article, even from the "see also" section. I'm not sure exactly why this is so, as it makes sense in several cases, however there may be structural reasons?

Disambiguation Idea![edit]

I've created my share of disambiguation pages, or edited existing ones. The tendency is to feel your end article topic is the very most important, so it's disambiguation entry should be at the top. How about DYNAMIC disambiguation pages, where the most popular entry rises to the top based on click through? No I don't want to program it. However if it worked that way it would end some thrashing squabbles, be entirely democratic (based on "click votes"), and be 100% equitable. Of course it flies in the face of stodgy subject mater experts who like 100% control, but isn't that what a dynamic folksonomy is all about?

Short URL[edit]

To pipe or space...



Template agree[edit]


Cool Tools[edit]

Reference and Research tools[edit]

Note to self... look more at these....

Excel to Wiki[edit]

Page Stats[edit]

Way cool


  • Start by pumping in your specific search term in the general search box. Try all reasonable variations
  • Go to a starter page of interest, then click What Links here Find it in the white box in the left column of any page. Extremely good for cross referencing, help with categories, etc.
  • Very cool tool to find potential other articles that might be edited to contained links in to a standing article.


  • Have not found a category browser tool (where you are searching for possible categories vs. knowing going in just what you want.

Help! Entity Extraction from Free Text to Wikipedia Article Titles, Categories, etc.[edit]

I want to begin with a simple .txt file of free text. Send it to some software and have that software perform "entity extraction" or "term extraction" and map it to Wikipedi a wide assortment of "entities". See list below. Its likely to be a total mess after that, of way too many links. I will hand edit to a manageable level of links.

Might be fun to see the number of page hits to the extracted entities. Might be fun to see a concept map of Wikipedia article titles. (better than I have seen thus far... see [[3]] for a great start however.)

Would like to squeeze more "knowledge" out of WikiPedia with intelligent entity extraction. BTW some of this would be exceptionally handy for overall Wikipedia quality control and improvement.

O.K. here is my starter list of entities to extract from any free text (candidate items to link)

  • Wikipedia article titles
  • Wikipedia disambiguation pages
  • Wikipedia internal links inside an article
  • Wikipedia external links included in the body of an article
  • Wikipedia "See also" internal references
  • Wikipedia "References" to journal articles, books, websites, etc.
  • Wikipedia page hit counts
  • Outside "references" to any measure of "trustworthiness" or academic authority rankings
  • Wikipedia reference to Google Scholar "citations" counts [a rough indication of academic "authority"]
  • Wikipedia tracking studies... Those who searched on "this term", opted for this page first, then visited the following pages (spending at least a few seconds on each...and based on time between page views, spent some time looking at x

There is a lot of info to squeeze out of Wikipedia. I feel like there must be tools already doing most of this. The very best tools would not be "rigid" as a "folksonomy" is in fact fluid.

Mind Map WikiPedia[edit]

[Wiki Mind Map]

Repeat using the same cite[edit]

How do I repeat using the same cite in the main text

Thanks Black Falcon

Thhat can be accomplished by using 'ref naming'. In essence, you assign a name to your citation and, when you use it subequently, you refer to the assigned name. For example:

First sentence.<ref name="Smith, 2000">Smith, John (2000). ''Book Title''. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 1-2345-6789-0.</ref> Second sentence.<ref>Another reference.</ref> Third sentence.<ref name="Smith, 2000"/>

The citation for the third sentence (note the final slash) automatically calls the reference named "Smith, 2000". See Help:Footnotes#Multiple references to the same footnote for additional details and an article such as Nie Fengzhi for multiple examples. Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Broker research notes as sources?[edit]

Hi Rjlabs - I'm still learning how to edit and found your user page via its CFA userbox. I'm very impressed with the work you've done here. I'm also hoping you can help me with a question I've been wondering about with regard to broker research reports: namely, are they are usable source? If so, how should they be cited? If a brokerage house publishes a report with information about a company or industry and they cite an available third-party source (e.g. the company's reported financials, an industry group estimate, government data) then obviously it seems preferable to try to look up and reference the third-party data. But I can certainly think of instances where it would be difficult getting information from a broker report into Wikipedia without referencing the report itself, or where the third-party data source itself might be subscription-only.

So I think current research reports from established firms qualify as valid on most source criteria as I understand them, except that they generally aren't publicly available and I'm not sure to what extent public dissemination of information contained within the report is limited by the terms under which I receive it (namely, as a client). There is also the case of occasional reports that a firm will release to the public via its web site; these seem like complete fair game to me. But I'd be very interested to hear your opinion/advice on all aspects, and if there are any preferred financial data sources you keep a list of anywhere. Thanks! Thomas Craven (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Citing Broker Research[edit]


First off welcome to editing Wikipedia! There is a huge shortage of CFA’s posting on here and coverage of many financial topics is way, way behind. It’s really great to have more talent on the job!

Wikipedia can be unfriendly to downright hostile where things become too commercial oriented. Be prepared to have editors, who know nothing about the subject, assume you are self-promoting, or conducting some other nefarious activity when all you are doing is posting what is important and you have zero commercial interest in it whatsoever. If you can, avoid those types of conflicts as much as possible. Remember to keep the regular articles in encyclopedia format, and try to cite sources familiar to academics.

Remember that it’s the job of the equity analyst to publish original research yet that is absolutely prohibited on WikiPedia. No matter how carefully you do it, it will be perceived as self-serving.

That being said I think major broker’s research works are widely accepted as published and can be cited here no problem. Especially the thick industry reports. To do the citations see: [4].

Many academic libraries provide access to the BD analytical reports thought searchable databases like:

  • Thomson Reuters First Call
  • Thompson Research Investext
  • ThomsonOne
  • Factset data broker research
  • Etc.

Basically if the source document is found in any legitimate library I say it’s citable.

I want you to consider publishing selected “List of xxxx” pages which are NOT considered articles but DO require some referencing. It’s relatively easy to go from Excel to Wikipedia format. See List of systemically important banks for instance you could have a “List of” page for each the industries you cover (tech, media, and telecom) showing the top firms. You likely have all the 10Ks of all the firms you follow so you can just cite analytical data from those published documents. No copywrite trouble there. Avoid republishing proprietary data, especially outside of the scope of your (or your firm’s) subscription. Frankly, I like to have cites to the original data anyway (example right down to the governmental office, etc.)

Also explore category tagging. It can be very useful to pull together collections useful to your own ongoing research. You can also watch selected pages and be alerted to changes.

Do you cover international firms or international technical developments in the industries you follow? If so Wikipedia typically has good (preliminary) data on all the international firms you would like to keep an eye on.

List of preferred financial data sources

I like direct data, direct from the government, direct from the 10Ks, 10Qs, 8Ks, company news releases. Then all that for the competitors. In the econometric area I like that same direct access to the source reports. Love those 10K risk factors (aggregated across the industry) then keeping those in mind as scanning the general news.

Remember the market competitors have every story published on Bloomberg, Business Week, Dow Jones, NYT, WP, AP and all PR newswires fully received and encoded (tagged for all entities, subjects, tickers, cusips, etc) and fully assembled into a homogeneous consolidated outgoing stream inside 20 milliseconds. That goes in consolidated form rapidly to hedge funds running complex event process analytics and firing off trades within milliseconds. At best you will only be in delayed, "reaction" mode after that type of news is released. Rick (talk) 01:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks very much Rick, this is extremely helpful advice! I do follow global TMT (focusing mainly on developed market large-cap), so I've been using Wikipedia as a starting point for research for a long time. It's interesting how making the transition from reader to editor has taken a major frustration about Wikipedia (lack of quality and depth for financial/corporate topics compared to academic and cultural topics) and turned it into something exciting--there's opportunity for my knowledge base and skill set to be useful! I'm still getting to know my way around here and reading up on all the relevant policies/guidelines/discussions re: editing, but I'm sure I'll be in touch more after I start to make more substantial contributions. I'm also hopeful WikiProject Finance and WikiProject Business will be good ways to get involved. Thomas Craven (talk) 01:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Thomas, I thought of one other thing for you especially as a media analyst based on your question about "preferred financial data sources" Take a look at this article News values especially the section Conditions for News. Here you can get the original 1965 research paper [5] To the extent your media companies follow those guidelines they will attract a wide audience that they will be able to monetize to advertisers and marketers. However note the financial analyst tries to assemble unbiased data about companies to issue solid buy/hold/sell decisions. "Financial News Media" is basically just Media.... entertainment that draws an audience. The more "mesmerizing" they can package it the more profitable it can become. As you study those "Conditions for News" points note where they have little or nothing to do with impacting future cash flows. Note how "news value" for media and "news value" for financial analysis are radically different. Rick (talk) 04:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


  • go to the user's page (works even if the user page has not been created yet)
  • Toolbox menu on the left-hand side of the screen
    • User contributions
  • If just an IP click on the link (in history page, watch list...) or put IP into search box

Page hits[edit]


More at Wikipedia:Hatnote Examples:

{{Hatnote|CUSTOM TEXT}}

{{Main|Causes of World War II}}

{{About|title of high office|other persons|Emir (name)|other uses of Emir|Emir (disambiguation)}}

{{redirect|Amir|other persons|Amir (name)|other uses of Amir|Amir (disambiguation)}} shows:

{{For|whatever you want here|User:Rjlabs|Special:Contributions/Rjlabs}}

{{main|ventriculitis|meningitis|hydrocephalus|cerebral hemorrhage|subarachnoid hemorrhage}}

Outdent template[edit]

{{od}} ────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

Full documentation: Template:Outdent

Plain Text[edit]

<nowiki>This is plain text, but it folds.</nowiki>
This is plain text, but it folds.

<code>This is code<code>
This is code

<code lang="cpp">This is code, with a language specified</code>
This is code, with a language specified

<source lang="cpp">This is source, with a language specified</source>

This is source, with a language specified

SPARQL code listings also have a template. This will list the code plus add a "try it" link directly below the listing.

put SPARQL query here

Above lang=xxx Partial list, for more see [[6]]

Code Language
4cs 4CS
cpp C++
css Cascading Style Sheets (CSS)
dosbatch DOS batch file
html4strict HTML
html5 HTML5
java Java
javascript JavaScript
lisp Lisp
matlab MATLAB M
mysql MySQL
php PHP
postgresql PostgreSQL
prolog Prolog
sh Shell Script
sparql SPARQL
sql SQL
vb Visual Basic
vbnet Visual Basic .NET
xml XML

Another barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
Thanks for figuring out the example on Net present value. Of course it was the yearly, not monthly, interest rate. I don't know why I didn't see that. :) EllenCT (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


<ref>Your footnote line</ref>

and then insert at the bottom:


... and so much more at Help:Footnotes#Footnotes:_the_basics

Fair use & Wikipeida policy & Copyrights[edit]

There are apparently no bright line guidance to what is Fair use. The following is however helpful.

17 U.S.C. § 107

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
  2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
  3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
  4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.[1]

  • In L.A._Times_v._Free_Republic the Free Republic web site was hosting full text articles posted by users that were under copyright. After some lengthy proceedings it was determined that hosting full text, including archiving, was a violation of copyright. Publishing excerpts and linking was however specifically permitted. A key finding was the publishing of the full, unabridged text potentially denied the publisher of some revenue.

Free Republic posting policy currently allows re-posting of news copyright material as follows:

  • Full text articles - Not allowed
  • Excerpts and linking - Most sources
  • Very brief excerpts and linking - Associated Press
  • Titles only and linking - USA today and all other Ganette newspapers
  • Nothing -

Work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. federal government, as part of that person's official duties, are not entitled to domestic copyright protection.

Wikipedia appears to have no explicit posting policy such as Free Republic at this time. Lengthy excerpts with attribution links appear to be actively discouraged.

There are broad exceptions of copyright for academic use, and classroom (and possibly distance learning type) instruction, however those exemptions do not appear to currently apply to WikiPedia (More at Fair use)

  1. ^ "US CODE: Title 17,107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use". 2009-05-20. Retrieved 2009-06-16.