User talk:Quantstyle

July 2015

Hello, I'm Glen. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Glen 01:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 5 July

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Slavery in China page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

August 2015

Hello, I'm Flyer22. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Slavery in China because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Intrinsic value (finance)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Intrinsic value (finance), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Materialscientist (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about The Ponzi Factor

Hello, Quantstyle,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether The Ponzi Factor should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ponzi Factor .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

TheLongTone (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Quantstyle", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because usernames which imply they represent a company or organization, etc., such as Quantstyle LLC, aren't allowed per WP:ORGNAME. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest editing

Hello, Quantstyle. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page The Ponzi Scheme, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never made any edits to the page The Ponzi Scheme nor have I mentioned anything personal affiliations with anyone.Quantstyle (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The link I added to the template was incorrect. It should've been The Ponzi Factor, not The Ponzi Scheme. I apologize for this error and any confusion it caused. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marchjuly, No problem. I have no external relations with anyone. The article specifically speaks about the book and facts that are sourced directly from publically available SEC filings. Yes, the book explains why the stock market is a scam and will offend some people, but it's not a mindless rant. Everything stated is backed by first-hand information directly from SEC filings. The ideas in the book (and article) was extremely careful to base the argument on documented facts, definitions, and observable logic, rather than opinions and unprovable (hypothetical) arguments. I published the article because the book was featured on Redacted Tonight ^[1] (International news) in May, and now it has been featured on several radio shows in June^[2] ^[3]. This meets the notability criteria. Furthermore, The Ponzi Factor will also be featured in more articles and programs later this year. Can you help restore the page, or let me know exactly what's wrong with it? Thank you.Quantstyle (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I added the COI template to your page is because the name of the book's publisher is the same your user name. If you are an employee or somehow connected to Quantstyle LLC, then you have a conflict of interest with respect to anything related to the book found on Wikipedia and might also be subject to WP:PAID. Your username is also problematic per WP:ORGNAME and you should probably change it to something else (even you you have no connection to Quanstyle LLC) to avoid your any misundersandings and also the possibility of your account being soft-blocked as a violation of WP:UN. As for the article, the reasons why it was deleted are explained at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ponzi Factor, if you have any questions about this you can follow WP:CLOSE and discuss them with the deleting admin User:Premeditated Chaos. If you feel the deletion was in error, you should look at WP:DRVPURPOSE and see if it applies. I would, however, discuss your concerns with the deleting admin before requesting a deletion review. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification Marchjuly. I'll look into the details on the links you sent. I appreciate the feedback.

Quantstyle (talk) 04:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Marchjuly, can you please contact the author of the Ponzi Factor directly? We just wanted to set up a simple information page about the book because he's been appearing on TV and radio shows and people are looking it up. We're not familiar with this platform, rules, communication, and want to properly consult someone (like you) who is familiar with all this. You can find him at www.theponzifactor.com or contact him through FB and IG, search "The Ponzi Factor." He really wants to speak to someone who is familiar with all this. Thank you. Quantstyle (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry and I'm not trying to be rude, but I've got no interest in contacting anyone at Ponzi Factor about a possible Wikipedia article. Moreover, it's not Wikipedia's purpose to promote the Ponzi Factor or anything/anyone associated with it. If the person behind the Ponzi Factor wants to provide a place (for example, a Wikipedia-type website) where people interested in him or the services he's providing can go and find out more information, he should try a website like Wikia or some other similar webhost provider which would be much better suited for something such as this. Best of luck to you and him. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we want you to contact us is because we're not computer coders who are familiar with this platform or the rules. We just wanted to create a page because the book has been featured on several radio and TV shows and people are searching for it.

Furthermore, there are several issues with other wiki pages where people are stating false information about how stocks, Ponzi schemes, and finance works, and we wanted to find out how to properly address those. We are seeking your help in properly addressing some of these issues, not for promotional purposes. And no, we don't think you're rude. But that is why we want to speak to you.Quantstyle (talk) 07:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel there is false content about these things in other articles, you can state your concerns on the respective article talk pages. Go to the article in question, click on the "Talk" tab, and open a new discussion explaining what information you feel is false and why. This will allow other editors interested in the subject of the article to join in if they want. I don't really know anything about the things you've mentioned so I cannot say what is false and what isn't. You can also try asking for help at specific WikiProjects as well. Look at the top of the talk pages of the articles in question, and there might be some WikiProjects listed. Editors in those projects probably have a better grasp of the subject matter than I do and can provide better assistance. That's the best advice I can give you about this. Finally, you should really consider changing your username per WP:ORGNAME and also stop saying "we" because it might lead others to mistake this account for a WP:SHAREDACCOUNT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This site is ridiculous. I've just been banned by Colpo13 because he's an administrator who believes in the stock market and is against ideas goes against his beliefs. It's clear that Wiki doesn't care about truth and actively bans information that go against the opinions of bias administrators. He says it's because I'm trying to promote. The reality is, I'm not, but I had to cite the sources. I would've been happy to work with him on editing it in such a way where I am not promoting, but he thought the truth was too much to handle so he just banned me. Ridiculous.Quantstyle (talk) 01:16, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

July 2018

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Ponzi scheme. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 15:56, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I"m not trying to promote anything. Just trying to share the simple fact that many stocks fit the definition of a Ponzi scheme. You're clearly taking action because you have a favorable view on stocks, not because you can explain why stocks aren't Ponzi assets with logic or the definition. Please, care to explain why Google class C shares that don't pay dividends or have voting rights are worth anything? Feel free to remove anything you feel is marketing material, but don't remove the facts. Quantstyle (talk) 01:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, I wasn't trying to promote anything, but had to cite the sources. I would've been happy to work with you to edit the information to make it look non-promotional in "your opinion" but you decided to ban me because why? The facts I shared about the stock market, Tesla, Google, etc. are against your beliefs? I'm just wondering why you banned me rather than work to promote the truth.Quantstyle (talk) 01:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cody, the world is going to know the truth about how stocks work, and the scam that I tried to share on Wikipedia. And you will be noted as someone who tried to censor the truth. This is just the beginning. Actually, the beginning was Redacted Tonight Eps 196, which is also censored on Wikipedia... You don't believe in free speech and truth. You're a sad hypocrite.--Quantstyle (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Is the Definition of a Ponzi Scheme (Literally)--Quantstyle (talk) 05:55, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quantstyle, I blocked your account because, as the block notice below states, your username and edits were not in line with Wikipedia policy. Marchjuly and Newslinger identified your edits as promotional and warned you about them above. In particular, you appeared to be promoting a book published by a company that shares your username, which is a textbook case of promotional editing on Wikipedia. Now, if you feel this block was a misjudgement on my part, you can request a block review from another administrator by following the instructions below. I should warn you, however, that casting aspersions about the motivations of other Wikipedia editors in an unblock request is a surefire way to have it declined (see WP:NOTTHEM). clpo13_(talk) 17:57, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not get any warnings. I posted once on the Ponzi Scheme page and you blocked me. As I clearly stated before, I am not trying to advertise anything. However, I need to cite sources, one of which is from the book The Ponzi Factor. It's the only research that points out the difference between hypothetical and observable situations in debates about the similarities between the stock market and a Ponzi scheme. You could've easily reached out to me to discuss how to quote something without citing it (if that's possible), but you chose to censor me. Do you want to do what's right? Give me proper advice on what I just mentioned. Don't just censor me. --Quantstyle (talk) 03:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. clpo13_(talk) 17:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVUyBR_MM6Y&

[2] ttps://barbadamslive.com/?p=12206

[3] ttps://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/audio/conversations-with-peter-solomon/

[1]

[2]

[3]