User talk:Ronnotel/Archive 1

Thanks for merging delta neutral and delta hedging pages

Thanks for merging the pages! The finance pages on Wikipedia need so much work... Finnancier 13:22, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

ditto Smallbones 21:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Glad to have you helping out on the finance pages. Btw, it's common practice to add new discussion topics at the bottom of a talk page, makes it easier to read. No biggie. Ronnotel 13:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Cal userbox

I reverted your edit to the Cal userbox since we don't allow fair use images in template space, but you can add a plain text "Cal" (or "UCB") to it by simply changing the text to {{User cal|Cal}} or {{User cal|UCB}}. The other options are discussed at Template talk:User cal. Best and Go Bears, trialsanderrors 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK - thanks - obviously I was unaware of this policy. However, I'm curious why this is so. Ronnotel 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know. The provision is here: Wikipedia:Fair use criteria. I'm sure it has been discussed to death somewhere. ~ trialsanderrors 17:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I read it and I sort-of-kinda-meybee see why 'fair use' is restricted to articles only - not saying I agree with it. However, what if the image is simply an original image with the text Cal in a script-like font. The 'fair use' restriction would not apply, n'est ce pas? Ronnotel 17:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I would recommend that you copy the source code of the template into your user space if you want to go that way. I'm guessing that most users prefer plain text of a script that kinda-sorta looks like the Cal script. ~ trialsanderrors 18:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

You're welcome. I checked out your user page and it's amazing to find somebody who accually knows what they are talking about in options +++ a Finn living in Chicago ++ and Cal and MIT +. May I request you look at the main options page and do some clean-up. I think it's more or less ok, but some folks get to running on a bit. Smallbones

Well, I've been working at it, but time is short. I mostly only get opportunities between compile cycles but we do what we can. Thanks for the encouragement. Ronnotel 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Volatility arbitrage

It looks real good! I would include a sentence in the lead that explains in plainer language that it is basically trading on the volatility of it instead of the price, kind of like what you have in the Overview section. The version of the lead you have now uses a lot of jargon that can be explained in a simpler way, IMO. Recury 16:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Implied volatility

Hi Ronnotel. Thanks for the message. Implied volatility seems pretty good, but I'll look in more detail next week. Today, I'm busy building a volatility space, and boy is that fun ☺ Fintor 10:54, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

High frequency computing

Interesting to see this [1] applied to trading. I contribute to building control systems that processes data coming in at a high-rate (once every millisec) that needs to be processed and an output written with some hard real-time constraints. I wonder if you could elaborate more about the system you use. Perhaps we could see interesting parallels in our work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkarkhan (talk • contribs)

Well, I guess it isn't generally understood how heavy the volume can get on some financial market data feeds. For instance, the U.S. equity options data feed (OPRA) can top out at 150,000 updates / sec. That doesn't leave a lot of machine operations to process each incoming price tick. There isn't much technology you can buy off-the-shelf to operate in this environment. What does exist is usually targeted at handling stock price feeds, which are roughly an order of magnitude lower in volume. You see firms that trade options having to write technology like this on their own. I've been looking at the market for high-frequency computing for some time and so far it seems like the U.S. options data feed is the highest volume process there is in general use. What's your experience? Ronnotel 19:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I used to work in telecomm before. In the early to mid-90s routers would have all their packets interrupt the CPU which would then process the packets. I dont recollect the exact numbers but 100k packets a second was at the high-end. Minimal processing was done on each packet. That all changed when more and more stuff was shunted to custom asics and the thruputs went thru the roof. Lately I see that general purpose HW (wintel arch) has become a lot faster. It is getting possible to send all packets to the CPU at rates approaching gigabit and have some fairly heavy-duty processing done on them. Processing like searching for virus signatures etc. To scale for higher thruputs though the most common architecture I have seen is where all data/packets comein to a central location where a custom asic (generally a network processor) does some minimal processing and then sends it to one in a farm of CPUs. I am working on a control system these days and the idea seems to be easily applicable. The data processing we have for the current product is easily handled in a centralized system. But the next gen system is going to have a whole lot more data being generated. (Still 1000 times a second , but a whole lot more data at every tick) and a distributed architecture seems to be the way to go. On the surface it would seem that the same thing would have to be done to handle OPRA.--Nitin Karkhanis 05:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Exotic option LEAP financial instrument List of writing techniques Underlying American Empire (Harry Turtledove) Estlander & Rönnlund Over-the-counter (finance) Charles Dow Long (finance) Object writing Korea Exchange Alex Acuña Bond option Option premium John Hull Triple witching hour Volatility risk Interest rate derivative Experimental finance

Cleanup Paired comparison analysis Swaption Equity derivative Merge Decision-matrix method Interest rate swap Short (finance) Add Sources Butterfly (Mariah Carey song) Neoclassical finance Network neutrality Wikify Hare scramble Investing online Imperial Conflict Expand Law clerk Strategic Policy Group Reform of the United Nations

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

References validity

I've noticed a trend with specific pages a user has created and was curious about your opinion on the matter. Take a look at Xcalibus contributions. You'll notice that every page he has created has cited OptionsGuide as a source. See Option arbitrage as an example. Upon looking at the referenced site closer, it appears that the site is an adsense site. Thoughts? GeneralBob 21:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've noticed him before. Looks like a spammer. Ronnotel 21:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ronnotel. I took out the "two days", because on talk you indicated you don't know the precise timing, and I haven't seen it specifically addressed anywhere myself. I left it as "later", which I have seen specifically addressed. Someone may have removed that as well, I haven't been keeping up. If you can back up the "two days", I have no objection at all to adding that. But, I want to make sure if we make a precise timing statement that it is accurate. Derex 00:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - I'm too lazy to track down a specific reference. I changed it to something I think we can all agree on. Ronnotel 03:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Nominating articles for deletion

Hello! I noticed that when you nominated Asshat for deletion, you forgot to substitute the {{afd2}} template onto the deletion discussion page and the {{afd3}} template onto the daily log. I've fixed up the problems. In the future, please follow the instructions on the AfD main page to nominate an article for deletion. Thanks! --Slowking Man 02:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thought I was following directions, but they aren't real easy. Thought I got it right. Sorry. Ronnotel 05:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikiproject Finance

I'd like to invite you to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance and weigh in on its formation, principles, etc. --Leifern 20:11, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Leifern, sounds interesting. I'll keep an eye on it and contribute as I can. Ronnotel 21:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Fred Noonan

Hi Ronnotel, I noticed your comment on the Fred Noonan discussion page and I agree that there has to be well-researched and documented information that accompanies the article. Since you have an interest in the story, I would like to introduce myself. See Bzuk I am a historian and author mainly concentrating on Canadian aviation, currently editing a trade journal on aviation and aerospace topics. Each issue has a historical article, and I recall, years ago, writing about the efforts of the TIGHAR expeditions to recover artifacts stemming from the Earhart World Flight. I have, like many others, a few reference sources on AE and when I stumbled upon the Wikipedia articles on Earhart and others swept up in her mystique, I "dabbled" a bit in rewriting some of the obvious misconceptions and errors that have crept into the retelling of what was a remarkable woman's life and career. That's when I encountered the type of editors that merely copy from the various internet sources, set themselves up as experts and then revert anything that they did not personally write. I am afraid there is one of these at work on the AE pages. I was taken aback at the claims made on the Noonan page (and my page) that are more of the speculation and theories based on flimsy or non-existant evidence. When I tried to edit the page to become more fact-based, my efforts were rebuffed and now I feel it may not be worth it to continue to make changes. Whatchathink? Bzuk 13:12 5 February 2007 (UTC).

I know WP can sometimes be frustrating. However, stick with it - the page usually ends up where it needs to be. One good thing is to learn the WP policies and be able to cite them when disputes arise. Ronnotel 14:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

She can be frustrating at times, can't she? Gwen Gale (AKA Heidi) is a very fastidious editor. In terms of the present kerfuffle, both of you have made very valid points and I was about to intercede but it was too much fun to see where this was going. On her behalf, let me say that she actually is a very fine editor and a "brave" soul that has nearly single-handedly saved me from an excrutiating edit war with bizarre accusations regarding my character, motives, how my mother raised me (well, maybe not that one...) My advice is the same as the piece of wisdom you earlier gave me- ride it out, give your valid and supportable entries, provide citations as much as possible and she will come around. Our friend really does have an abiding interest in making sure the story of Amelia Earhart and all of her compatriots is told faithfully (as do you) and I applaud the two of you for being so polite and objective in your comments. Bzuk 23:46 22 February 2007 (UTC).

Thanks, Bzuk. Yes, it was a little frustrating. I got the feeling she wasn't always reading my comments completely. For instance, the compromise we reached was suggested by me here, 47 edits earlier. I feel like a lot of time was wasted on this. I'm glad someone got enjoyment out of this because it made me question whether WP has a future with me in it! Ronnotel 00:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now it's not funny! The aforementioned editor has just reverted my statement that Amelia had "pioneering achievements" in aviation and has set up cockamanny arguments to support her uncited declarations other than quoting a TIGHAR spokesperson, Ric Gillespie, one of the least reputable sources on the Earhart legacy. The opinion of the aviation community as well as aviation museums is nearly unanimous in rejecting the TIGHAR claims. Help... I'm going mad!?Bzuk 04:29 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, afraid I'm not much help in this. 'Pioneering' certainly comes to mind when I think of Amelia but I'm not familiar with the issues to say one way or the other. After my dust-up, however, I'd say be darn sure you want this change before you get into it with her. Good luck. Ronnotel 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, it took nearly all night and the intervention of an Amelia Earhart scholar before the editor who had reverted the introductory note about Amelia's pioneering achievements in aviation, finally agreed to the same thing that had been there from the beginning and that had been thoroughly cited and sourced. This person certainly can be exasperating! One quote that I have found by Ric Gillespie, the very highly controversial head of TIGHAR indicates that he thought Fred Noonan was more of a pioneer than Amelia?! and who does our friend quote? Of course, Gillespie, who has spent the better part of twenty years chasing shadows in the South Pacific, trying to prove that Amelia crashed on Nikumaroro Island. Reputable aviation historians and curators have always had reservations about Gillespie who along with his volunteers have no background whatever in archaeology, aircraft recovery or archival preservation yet have set themselves up as experts (sound familiar?) and have put forward a series of loopy theories on Amelia and Fred's disappearance, wholly unsupported by evidence. Our erstwhile friend quotes from Gillespie extensively but never identifies a page number which tends to make me suspicious that web page references are all that are being accessed. As for Noonan, Gillespie continues to spout erroneous or unfounded rumours- drinking, lack of ability, etc. Keep up the good fight! Bzuk 17:49 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Your Comment on Reza Shah page

Regarding your comment: As an disinterested user... Mershad123 - you, in particular, should try to calm down and make an effort to be more constructive. Ronnotel 23:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)"

"Artaxerxes" (and sockpuppets) is viciously disparaging us with statements such as This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race. and This is the ugly side of Persian monarchists. They are always all too ready for exhibiting their unabashedly fascist tendencies, their ugly glorification of Aryan race, and all those paraphernalia of undemocratic and absurd titles like “King of Kings”, “Light of Aryans”, etc; What exactly are you referring to when telling me to "calm down"? If you are a "disinterested" user then what was the point of that besides an attempt to throw fuel on the fire.

sorry, call 'em like I see 'em. Ronnotel 23:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

AFD

thanks for pointing this out.martianlostinspace 13:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Mary Bea Martinelli

Could you tell me if you know how Fred pronounced her first name? MAry or maREE? Thanks. Gwen Gale 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My family has always used the former. I'm curious - why would this be of interest? Ronnotel 20:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This. I've been reviewing some stuff this evening, is all. Thanks. Gwen Gale 20:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

TWAP in VWAP

Any chance you could check the minor TWAP reference I put into VWAP. Maybe even a formula for TWAP?? Actually I was trying to clean up a couple of things before I took on algorithmic trading. I'm not an expert on this, but it's clear I'm more of an expert than whoever wrote it. BTW, it was named after Al Gore, wasn't it? 82.141.187.170

I've never used TWAP so I'm afraid I don't know much about it beyond what it's name implies. FWIW, I think your description is fine. Ronnotel 17:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Straw poll

You expressed opinions on the reordering of Cho Seung-hui's name. Please vote in the straw poll on renaming him in Wikipedia here. --Dynaflow 06:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Cho Seung-hui and "peace-time"

I am. Thanks.

could you look at algorithmic trading??

I may have gone too far on this, but think it's a lot better than it was.

Pdek 09:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop mercilessly cutting information out of Virginia Tech massacre

This is needless, especially as this time! See my comments on the talk page. Thankyou! -Halo 16:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your comments, and no, I will not show mercy. :) Seriously, I see your point regarding the notability - but only by who they are, not what they are saying. The text itself is unremarkable and can be found at the referenced sites. The article is way too long and anything that is non-notable must be cut. Ronnotel 16:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I didn't see anything as being a personal attack(?), sorry if it was interpreted that way and your links don't seem to state anything that could be interpreted as that. I agree with cutting down the article in theory, in particularly merging the "Perpetrator" section into Cho Seung-hui which would solve the length issue, but strongly disagree with outright removal of the section without merging it -Halo 17:19, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Already done, sorry it was interpreted in that eway. I only "singled out" you because you were the only personal doing the removal. -Halo 17:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I wasn't - you also reverted Natalie's well-intended mods to the perpertrator section. Ronnotel 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But thank you for removing your comment, much appreciated. Ronnotel 17:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

User:The Question Mark

I can't say why he had taken this username, but he was permanently blocked about two minutes after I warned him that frivolous complaints to Arbcom may result in a long-term block. Thanks for your concern. - Mike Rosoft 20:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: User:The Question Mark

In general, account names aren't deleted (there's no easy way of doing it cleanly, actually) unless they contain libel, personal information, etc. (It's not like there's any shortage of inappropriately-named blocked trolls, in any case; one more or less will make no difference at all.) Kirill Lokshin 21:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, thx. Ronnotel 21:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Non-English sources no good?

This being English Wikipedia does not preclude the use or citing of non-English sources when they are relevant to an article’s content, or am I missing something? Jim_Lockhart 13:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, isn't that what Korean Wikipedia is for? Ronnotel 15:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy from WP:CITE:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it.

Seems like there more than enough on this topic in the English sources that are available, no need to add non-English, I think. Ronnotel 15:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your stance, because of what the source being cited was pointing to: the reaction in Korea (are there enough English sources for that?), which I believe is both relevant and important for its implications in incidents like this. Moreover, the tone of your comment sounds exclusionary: “This is the English Wikipedia. We don't need no input from yous ferriners!”—an attitude a lot of us who translate articles from other languages have been running into lately. It seems to never dawn on people that sometimes non-English sources are better than those available in English. Jim_Lockhart 15:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's please avoid the accusations and stick with intrepretation of policy. I believe I was acting with regard to the policy cited above. If you disagree, you are more than welcome to take whatever appropriate action you think necessary. I ask that you kindly provide the translation for the relevant sections that make the cite noteworthy. Ronnotel 19:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Times

Yeah, that was a little scary, but I think he wrote a pretty good article. Natalie 14:38, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

V-tech wounded list

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_victims_of_the_Virginia_Tech_massacre&diff=127962786&oldid=127948071

However, there were MANY Virginia Tech victims quoted and reported on in the news media. There is sufficient documentation for several of the victims to be listed. WhisperToMe 20:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank You

I appreciate it. I'm a 3D Graphic Artist (via Alias Maya) and a Web Designer so markup of any kind comes easy to me. --Amaraiel 15:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doomsday Called Off

Hi... you said: I found at least a couple of independent reviews from reliable sources... could you provide them? They would be useful on the article, if it is to be kept William M. Connolley 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks, I'd really rather not get swept up into the GW wars - I spent some time reading the GW page and people play far too rough there. You can google it yourself if you want. Ronnotel 19:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Errrm, OK, though I'm disappointed: I did some googling and failed to find anything significant myself William M. Connolley 20:00, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight

"To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute."

After seeing the argument on the bullet point of the Cho article, I fail to see how that statement borders on undue weight (at WP:UNDUE#Undue_weight) which specifically refers to points of view in debates (e.g. Flat Earth within an Earth article), NOT factual statements within regular articles. WhisperToMe 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

CHICOTW

Thanks for your nomination. Your participation here would be welcome. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The Rookery

You should try to add a citation following as many facts as possible when you get a chance. I will look more closely later today or tomorrow. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I was going to start using {{fact|date=May 2007}} tags in throughout the article. It has come to my attention that you might just be adding one citation at the end of a paragraph for all contestable facts in a paragraph. Confirm if this is the case. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 16:15, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, almost all of my material has come from the citation listed at the end, which is the only source I could find. Some of it has been scanned in and is available on-line if you follow the link to the Google book page. Ronnotel 16:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Opinion

Thanks for helping WP:WPChi here at this week's WP:CHICOTW. We could use your opinion in a few places where consensus is helpful:

1. Voting for new Category:Top-importance Chicago articles
2. Nominating new Top-importance candidates for promotion and demotion
3. Nominating and voting on future CHICOTWs TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 20:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Black–Scholes Trivia

Hi. I can see that you don't want that link in the Black–Scholes page. I want it there. I was surprised and pleased to find the confluence of the two names on the map. I thought other people would be amused. I guess you're not. Can we please use the talk page to find out what other people think, rather than engaging in an edit war? I've already put a request on Talk:Black–Scholes to leave it there. Feel free to leave a note saying that you think it should be removed, asking for other people's opinions. RussNelson 02:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - that's part of WP:BRD. Nothing personal. ;) Ronnotel 02:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

on Option naming convention

Boy are you quick!

I hope I didn't trample any toes on moving it from the main option (finance) article, but thought that it just took up too much space there and was not of interest to most people.

But now I see, it just needed a bit more space! Keep up the good work.

Smallbones 16:18, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Not at all, thanks for moving it. I was thinking about adding the new material for some time now, but your move made me think it was time to put it in. Ronnotel 16:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW - I think it would be nice to have the new fields in a table but I'm not very good with tables so I didn't try. Please go ahead if your table skills are better than mine. Ronnotel 16:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lightcourt.png

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Lightcourt.png, by IvoShandor (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Lightcourt.png fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Fair use doesn't cover existing structures. Access to this building's interior is not restricted.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Lightcourt.png, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Image:Lightcourt.png itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 14:34, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I have every intention to. I am on a sort of Frank Lloyd Wright mission, not sure of the timetable but thankfully there's no deadlines around here. Once I get there I intend to shoot every aspect I can, without disturbing others, obviously the building isn't restricted though. Even if it were, I seriously doubt they would tell someone working on something (school project, Wikipedia article, newspaper story, architectural survey etc.) that they couldn't shoot there, especially if they asked beforehand. I don't think there is any possible way this building is restricted access as it still contains offices and the like, I am pretty sure. Legally, if you can enter, you can take photos, in fact, even if you're trespassing somewhere it is only the trespassing that is illegal not the actual photo taking, and your photos cannot legally be confiscated. IvoShandor 15:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I used to work in the building and security will definitely keep you out (except for some tours) - hence my use of the term restricted. If you can get in there, then that would be great. Ronnotel 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Rookery Building GA

Great picture of the light court. You may want to add the following to you user page:

This user helped promote Rookery Building to good article status.

Wikipedia Questions

Hi,

I am an Assistant Professor of Information Systems at Boston College, and I am researching the development of the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre. You were among the top 2% of editors for that article, and I was wondering if you’d be willing to answer a few questions by email. Please also indicate at the bottom if you’d be willing to participate in a short follow-up phone/Skype interview as well.

All of your responses and your participation will be confidential. Please cut and paste the below questions and respond by email to gerald.kane@bc.edu to ensure confidentiality.

I appreciate your help on this project, and please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Please also let me know if you are interested in receiving a copy of the paper when it is finished.

Thank You, Gerald C (Jerry) Kane, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Information Systems Carroll School of Management Boston College 140 Commonwealth Ave 326 Fulton Hall Chestnut Hill, MA 02478

Questions: 1) On average, how many hours per week do you spend editing articles on Wikipedia? 2) Why do you contribute your time and energy to developing Wikipedia articles? 3) What types of articles to which do you typically contribute? 4) Why did you choose to become involved in the Wikipedia article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 5) What was your primary role in the process of creating the article on the Virginia Tech Massacre (e.g. copy editing, fighting vandalism, contributing news, managing a particular section, etc?) 6) How was your experience with this article similar to or different than other Wikipedia articles to which you have contributed? 7) What were some of the most challenging issues facing the successful development of this particular article on the Virginia Tech Massacre? 8) What do you think were some of the primary reasons that this article was successful (i.e. cited in the press, nominated as a “featured article.”) 9) Is there anything else I should know about the Wikipedia article on the VT massacre? 10) Would you be willing to participate in a short phone/Skype interview to talk more about your experience with the article (if yes, I will follow up later by email to arrange it).

Have e-mailed you a response. Hope this helps. Ronnotel 18:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Please email

Could you please email me; I have a verified email address on file. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuxiuming (talk • contribs) 04:53, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

I would be happy to e-mail you but I don't understand what you mean by 'on file'. Can you give me more detailed instructions on how to reach you? Ronnotel 17:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have sent you an email and signed it as coming from Ronnotel. Ronnotel 20:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ronnotel

Optional question added. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

My pleasure

We need admins of your expertise. I've taken the liberty of contacting 3 good to outstanding editors who should be able to reasonably assess your qualifications and asked them to comment. I think at least 2 know you already. Smallbones 14:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Ronnotel 14:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA number formatting

Hi. When adding comments, please place a # before the colons to preserve the number formatting. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:44, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I tried that, but it results in Smallbones's second paragraph being indented and therefore appearing to be a response. I felt the previous formatting was clearer but I'm happy to use the format you have suggested. Ronnotel 16:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish Inquisition

I looooved that skit on Monty Python! I didn't care for the original reign of terror. Thank you for the props. Bearian 15:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

I owe you a big thank you for supporting me in My RfA, which was successful with 67 supports and 20 opposes. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 23:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No thanks necessary. Call 'em like I see 'em. Well done and congratulations. I hope to be joining you in the admin ranks shortly. Ronnotel 00:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Hi. I came upon this while researching your contributions for the sake of your RfA and decided that I would prefer to address it privately, since at the moment I don't see that it has any bearing on your RfA. You've made no assertion that speedy deletion is part of the adminship you hope to address. :) I wanted to make sure you were aware that WP:CSD is not the same as WP:AfD. You may already know this, but given your proposal of AltLaw.org for AfD in August, when you were the only contributor of the page and expecting an uncontroversial delete, coupled with your express intention to seek speedy delete at Talk:AltLaw and apparent belief you had done so at Talk:AltLaw.org, I just wasn't sure. My apologies if I've misinterpreted your words and you're already quite aware of the difference. :) --Moonriddengirl 14:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, thanks for reviewing my contributions. Believe it or not I do appreciate the scrutiny. Here's what happened - AltLaw and AltLaw.org were created simultaneously. There was confusion among the sources and I mistaken believed that AltLaw.org was the correct name. When I saw that AltLaw was in fact a better article, I suggested that it be moved to AltLaw.org, which however, required a speedy of my article, first. However, after further research, it was clear that I was mistaken, and the correct name really was AltLaw. At that point, I simply turned AltLaw.org in to a redirect and it was done. Yes, I'm aware of the difference between WP:CSD and AfD and I'm aware that I used the wrong template. I have used speedys in the past (do they disappear from history? I can't find a speedy I did for PEAK6 Investments in early 2006 Oct 2005). Hope this addresses your concern. Ronnotel 14:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. This wasn't my expressing concerns. :) As I said, this was just for your information...in case you didn't know. I had originally addressed it parenthetically at your RfA, but yanked it because it wasn't relevant and I didn't want to muddy the waters over there. Incidentally, I appreciate your graciousness in accepting the scrutiny of your RfA. I've recently been through that wringer myself, and I know how uncomfortable it can be. Long week that was. :/ Helps to remember that most of the people evaluating you don't know you and are trying to puzzle out who you are by relatively brief little snippets of text. Or, at least, keeping that in mind helped me. :) --Moonriddengirl 18:48, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but it seems like a fine line. You have to toot your own horn, but if you do it too much, you get slammed for being too argumentative. It's nearly over one way or the other. I have to say I really hope I get it, though, cause if I do, I get to be the Leet admin. ;) Ronnotel 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I did a lot of biting my tongue during mine. :) Good luck! --Moonriddengirl 00:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but you can get slammed for that as well. Can't find it now, but one candidate was criticized for failing to speak up at all during his/her RfA. Long week, indeed. BTW, thanks for the support. Ronnotel 00:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You earned it, I think. :) In my own RfA, I responded only to those comments that seemed to flat out misread something I had done or said. I got a lot of lack of experience comments as well, but because I haven't been here long (I contribute like mad). I'm over here, if you're curious. --Moonriddengirl 00:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RFA was successful

Congratulations, I have closed your RfA as successful and you are now a sysop! If you have any questions about adminship, feel free to ask me. Please consider messaging me on IRC for access to the #wikipedia-en-admins channel. Good luck! --Deskana (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations indeed!! Yayy! - Alison ^❤ 08:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A leet milestone

I checked Special:Statistics and there are now 1337 administrators! Congratulations on being the 1337th admin, and being the subject of a pretty leet milestone! --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, your leetness. :) Since you didn't get the same message I did, let me tell you about Wikipedia:New admin school, which I found pretty helpful in learning how to use the new tools. --Moonriddengirl 11:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please, let's not over do it. Just the simple 'leet' will do. ;) On a less serious note, here's my immediate action plan. And thanks for the support, I really do appreciate it. Ronnotel 12:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

"Delete the Main Page" isn't on that. If you don't revise the list within 48 hours, I'm opening an ArbCom case against you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Duh! And "block Jimbo" is missing. Somone - quick - de-sysop this guy!! ;) - Alison ^❤ 20:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations. I'm sure you'll do fine. This isn't rocket science and you're a sound, experienced editor. My own favorite tips, besides the new admin school is a) consider using the admin scripts, they save you quite a bit of time and b) when in doubt, take the slowest route: WP:ANI when you're hesitant about a block, WP:AFD when you're hesitant about a deletion etc. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 15:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhyming advise rocks. "When in doubt, take the slowest route." I'll remember that one. :) --Moonriddengirl 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Congrats, Ronnotel. Btw: I love point 1 of your to-do list. — [ aldebaer⁠ ] 16:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. But to be honest, I'm actually a little worried. Having to worry about whether the comment I'm about to post is going to be thrown back in my face at my RfA is an amazingly good way to enforce discipline. I'll have to come up with another way to filter the brain to keyboard connection. :) Ronnotel 16:12, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges? I imagine that if RfA is brutal, RfC could be worse. You'll have to save your unfiltered, undisciplined self for outside Wikipedia. ;) --Moonriddengirl 17:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, but don't get a big head!

Congrats! The RfA procedure looks absolutely hellish to me, but you came through with at worst a spattering of mud on your shoes. Note appreciated. Will try to find time on options to justify a "good article."

All the best, Smallbones 17:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Double !vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mtmelendez?

Thanks for the heads up! I typed out the initial support when first looking it over, before deciding to look all the way through Mtmelendez's contributions. Apparently I was asleep at the wheel and hit save... Hiberniantears 15:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Item #5 from my action plan should give you a good sense of the way I post now. ;) Ronnotel 15:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Good one... I think my problem was that I reversed the process! :-) Hiberniantears 13:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks for calling my record "solid," which from you is saying something! Congrats on being admin, too. Were you # 1337? Anyway, thanks for supporting my successful RfA, which closed at 63 supports and 1 opposed. I appreciate it and hope to do my best. I especially want to thank Shalom for the nomination, DGG for the encouragement, and Jokestress for welcoming me. Bearian 01:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your RfA

Congrats on your RFA and wish you all the best as an Admin.I cannot find your name in this list [2]In the list of successful candidates for September 2007.I think they forgot to update you.I do not know whether We can update the list or the bureaucrats do it.Just to let you know for record it needs to be updated.Anyway congrats.Pharaoh of the Wizards 17:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I just went ahead and added myself. Ronnotel 18:20, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck : ) AdamBiswanger1 17:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Template:FOREX?

As an admin, are you able to delete Template:FOREX? I've checked that none of the finance pages link to it. Thanks. Finnancier 11:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the new template is better, but I think a redirect is probably a better way to go with this. If this doesn't work for some reason we can resubmit the tfd. Ronnotel 13:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Warning

About warning you've left on my talk page.
You appear to have violoated WP's policy against reverting text more than 3 times in a 24 hour period and engaged in edit warring. Please discuss issues on the relevant talk page and reach consensus before making controversial edits. If you continue this behavior, you will be blocked. Ronnotel 17:00, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

But what am i suppose to do if another user is unwilling to make any consensus, and just saying that "I will continue to revert your attempted POV-pushing." [3]. And by the way. He started this and violated this 3RR rule first.

• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

( BTW, i cant see any administrative warning on his page ) And after that his friend MalikCarr appeared on the scene and started to follow absolutely the same behavior pattern. See the history for discussed page [8] And Jtrainor has been warned at wikiquette about his behavior, but keep going. As you can see from discussion page, no consensus reached, but both this users continuing to make their changes. And just now Jtrainor did that again [9]. Nothing was added to the talk page, only article was silently reverted. Necator 18:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you take a look at wp:consensus and wp:dr. If you feel another editor has violated wp:3rr you can file a report at WP:AN/3RR. Don't edit war. Ronnotel 19:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm Done

Alright I'll stop messing with Tasc0, even though he's attacked you and me both. I was playing around, but I'm done for the rest of the day because I don't want to get blocked, Tasc0 on the other hand may want to, as he erased your message and attacked you in the edit summary. Later. Eric Miller (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just let Tasc0 serve his time if you unblock him you must not have seen what he has wrote about you, if you did not see what he wrote here it is Tasc0 "What the hell are you doing on Wikipedia? You have sons to feed", "Go get yourself something to play with. Thanks", "I appreciate subliminal messages... go play with your kids Ronnotel...." and he deleted the message, which is not supposed to be done. As someone who has been blocked, it would be unfair if you unblock Tasc0 as he clearly has attacked you and me. Eric Miller (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Eric, best to leave it to the reviewing admins at this point. Ronnotel (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0/Payne2thamaxx/Same As It Ever Was

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Tasc0.2FPayne2thamaxx.2FSame_As_It_Ever_Was. The short version is that I have reimposed Payne2thamaxx's indefinite block for harassment as there is no evidence of reform (a condition of the September unblock). Thank you. --B (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Unpleasnt business, I appreciate your support and your heads up. Your actions are entirely in line. Ronnotel (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0

Well, it looks like I miscalled him. Well, I'm going to claim it as a shining example of WP:AGF on my part, rather than just the idiocy that you might argue it was. Endorse block, obviously, although I don't imagine you were asking me. Sorry for supporting him; I just didn't see that coming. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind words. I will think no more on this sordidness now. Ronnotel (talk) 12:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Tasc0

Thanks for reviewing my earlier block. He escalated from there and I indef'ed him for this little gem. I salted his talk page and prevented email. I just wanted another pair of admin eyes before I washed an editor with this type of history down the memory hole. Ronnotel (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, big-time endorse. - Revolving Bugbear 17:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)