User talk:65.11.202.71

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

An editor has expressed a concern that this user may be a sock puppet of Jonkozer.
Please refer to editing habits and/or contributions; this policy subsection may also be helpful.

Account information: block log – current autoblocks – edits – logs

[edit] Technical analysis

Please stop inserting unverified information into Wikipedia articles. If you continue to do so against consensus that it's not well verified your account will be blocked. Georgewilliamherbert 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Technical analysis. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Technical analysis. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert 02:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Nothing in the article is unsourced. If there are specific items that you believe are not sourced, please kindly identify them. 65.11.202.71 02:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


What you are adding is insufficiently sourced to justify its addition. Discuss better sources on the article talk page. Sources have to meet Wikipedia's reliable sources policy and be verifyable, and have to sufficiently support the specific statements or claims made. Georgewilliamherbert 03:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you ignore the warnings and violate our WP:3RR 3-reverts in 24 hrs policy and continue edit warring, you get blocked. You're blocked for 24 hrs. Please re-engage on the talk page when you return and avoid immediately beginning the edit war again: if you do that, you will be blocked for longer. Edit more carefully in the future.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Technical analysis. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Georgewilliamherbert 03:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Sir. I have provided all sources as required by exact Wiki policy. So far you have been unable to cite a single instance, where this is not true. I have engaged you on the talk page, yet you have not cited a single improperly or non sourced entry of mine. What kind of game are you playing. 65.11.202.71 03:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


I'm a Wikipedia administrator uninvolved in the dispute, who has made a review and a judgement about the contributions involved. It's not a game. It's part of our job.
Particularly about the WP:3RR issue, you are not allowed to keep re-making changes repeatedly during a dispute. Edit-warring beyond 3 changes in 24 hrs is a blockable policy violation.
Regarding the sources, I've stated my position. You need to source the claims much, much better. Georgewilliamherbert 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This blocked user (block log | autoblocks | rangeblocks | unblock | contribs | deleted contribs) has asked to be unblocked, but an administrator has reviewed and declined this request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock request while you are blocked.

Request reason: "Georgewilliamherbert has not provided a single instance backing up his claim that I have posted unsourced or improperly sourced materials, making impossible for anyone to refute his claim or defend themself."

Decline reason: "You clearly violated the three revert rule on the page in question. There's no excuse for edit warring, especially not "but my version is the RIGHT version". Discuss it on the talk page, don't edit war. — Haemo 05:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)"

Please make any further unblock requests by using the {{unblock}} template. However, abuse of the template may result in your talk page being protected.

(note to reviewers: block is for 3RR primarily Georgewilliamherbert 04:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC))

Mr. Georgewilliamherbert is being highly disingenuous. I fully confess to exceeding the number of allowable edits within a 24 hour period. And I do apologize. The main problem I have with this however, is that an equally large number of counter-edits have also been made. These edit have distored the content of the article, and are in fact NOT verifiable. Thus Mr. Georgewilliamherbert has reverted my verifiable edits, back to the non-verifiable edits. I have made multiple, curteous requests to Mr. Georgewilliamherbert, asking for explication and asking him to kindly point what specific items he is referring to. Yet Mr. Georgewilliamherbert refuses to point out single instance. As previously stated, I am more than happy to remove any non or improperly sourced material. Please help. 65.11.202.71 04:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The WP:3RR policy does not contain exceptions for "...but they keep reverting me!". Every Wikipedia editor is expected to stop edit warring over an article at no more than 3 identical changes per 24 hrs, and discuss any controversies on the talk page only until it will no longer break 3RR. You engaged in discussion on the talk page (good) but didn't stop the edit warring (bad) and violated 3RR. Between your account User:Jonkozer and this IP address you hit 5RR if I read it right. You were warned about it above and kept going anyways. If you won't listen to the warnings, there's not much else we can do other than block you. Georgewilliamherbert 04:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
You are being very disingenuous, still. If there was ever any problem or "dispute" then why has no one, including you, been so kind as to discuss it with me? Let's discuss the "dispute" and move on. As I see it, the declared but not proven dispute revolves around improper or unverified sources. For the tenth time, please -- PLEASE -- give some explication and please give specific disputed items for discussion. 65.11.202.71 04:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I do understand that I broke the 3RR rule, and will accept my punishment accordingly. However why was the block applied to me, but not to SPoser, who made at least as many counter-edits? It is for this reason, that I detect Georgewilliamherbert has become personally involved this article. 65.11.202.71 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


All of the astrology related market analysis information you have inserted is not sufficiently sourced with reliable and verifyable sources that confirm what you say they do. Every single point you've added requires better and more extensive and more verifyable information. I could go down the list of each sentence you edited, but it seems a little pointless. Is there anything unclear about that?
Sposer does not appear to have violated 3RR. He asked for review and help when he reached that limit, rather than continuing on his own. Georgewilliamherbert 04:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact there is something very unclear about that. Please point out a single piece of material that was not sufficiently sourced. You claim there is a "list" of items. Yet I can count only two items. Which one of those is improperly sourced, according to you? The fact that you will not grant this very simple request, should be evidence enough, that your real agenda is not enforcing wiki policy, but rather pushing your own personal point of view into this article. I have been kind and I have been polite. And I made multiple efforts to engage in a productive discussion with you. Yet you brush off all requests. This is clearly not fair play. 65.11.202.71 05:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute this source? According to Forbes magazine[[1]], Crawford's strategy is "a mix of following the movements of the planets and technical analysis." 65.11.202.71 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Do you dispute this source? Gann was posthumously awarded the Market Technicians Association Annual Award in 1983, for his outstanding contributions to the field of technical analysis. 65.11.202.71 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Those sources are both evidently correct. That does not mean that you have justified putting them and the material in.
On any given topic, one can come up with a world full of data which could potentially could be inserted into a Wikipedia article. Part of the function of an encyclopedia is to accurately report a summary of the totality of knowledge. That necessarily includes editorial and factual judgement regarding what not to include.
There is no disagreement that financial astrology analysis is a real tool used by real people. The question is whether you're adding in sources and links which distort its significance in relationship with the totality of the field and the other methods and techniques commonly used.
You could come up with 100 financial analysts who were dedicated to using it and well documented to do so; if there are 100,000 financial analysts in the US, then 100 using it is not notable. 100 of the richest using it would be notable; 10,000 using it would be notable; it being taught in a large percentage of the business schools in the US would be notable. (these figures for example; I have no idea the actual numbers here)
You need to establish that these (true) pieces of information are proportionally relevant and notable enough to cover in the Wikipedia article. Them merely being verifyably true is inadequate.
Georgewilliamherbert, you originally claimed that my sources were not true and not verifiable. Now you are back-tracking, and now you say that, indeed, my sources are good. That is quite a reversal my friend. Why such the change of heart, I wonder?
How did you arrive at the notion, that two small sentences within this vast article, are somehow not "proportionally relevant" to this article? You have provided a speech about proportionality. Thank you. Something a little more substantial however than your opinion I think is not an unfair request. You claim to know the proper relationship with the totality of the field. Please share the specifics of that relationship with us, so that we can have a disussion. Thank you. 65.11.202.71 06:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Put it in context, and support that the context makes them notable. Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


If Sposer did not violate 3RR, then it was you who reverted my edits without ever giving me a chance to defend them. And without first going to the discussion page to attempt a solution. If that's the kind of "help" you ordinarly give to Mr. SPoser, but not to other editors, then I can not begin to tell you how offended I am. 65.11.202.71 05:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
The edit history is right here: [2]. I discussed with you on your talk page and the article talk page as soon as I got involved. You engaged in discussion in both forums, but failed to stop editing the article well past the 3RR limit despite my leaving you an explicit 3RR warning here. Georgewilliamherbert 05:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Haemo --- I DID discuss it on the talk page. And at no time on the talk page, did anyone ever suggest that my sources were the issue. It was only after the edit war, that Georgewilliamherbert introduced this concept. Had this objection been made in the talk page, then I would have GLADLY complied with any request for further verification. Can't you see what's going on here. 65.11.202.71 05:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Discuss instead of edit warring; this is a pretty simple concept. If people are reverting you, it means to need to discuss more. --Haemo 05:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Haemo, there was every opportunity to discuss. I WELCOMED discussion. I tried at least six times to get some discussion going. Yet I am rebuffed each time. What am I supposed to do, have a one-sided conversation with myself. Would you please intercede, and kindly urge Georgewilliamherbert to point out which specific material of mine he has trouble with, rather than making blanket proclamations without any supporting evidence. Thank you. 65.11.202.71 05:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Mr. Georgewilliamherbert is applying his "proportionally relevant" argument in an a decidely non-proportional manner. For example, under the "See Also" section of this article, Georgewilliamherbert has deleted the reference to Financial Astrology. Yet he has preserved the referene to Quantitative Analyst. The reality is that there are vastly more technical analysts using astrology, than there are using quantitative analysis. 65.11.202.71 06:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
By pure random bad luck, that was a remarkably bad example for you to chose. I am not in the financial analysis business, but I spent much of a year doing some (non-finance) contract work at Barclays Global Investors, and I'm reasonably sure that there are a few tens of large companies full of quants out there in the industry, with at least a few trillion dollars under management.
If your assertion here is that you're unbiased and educated and trying to fairly represent the overall state of the financial analysis field here, I am pretty much convinced you aren't on the up and up right now. Georgewilliamherbert 11:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
This just shows how misguided and biased you are. You are apparently a shill for SPoser and his interests. The section heading, in case you forgot to look, is: COMBINING technical analysis with OTHER forecast methods. The section heading is NOT about TA, or FA, or Quant, or Astrology. Get with the program. There are VASTLY more who COMBINE technical analysis with astrology, than with quant. 95% of all quants, in fact, have nothing but contempt for technical analysis. 65.11.202.71 16:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well. Apparently you decided to ignore the block and went right on editing as User:130.94.91.28. This was rather transparent and obvious, and is a blatant violation of Wikipedia blocking policy.

That account is blocked for a week. I am extending the block on this IP address to 72 hours, and I'm going to block the parent account User:Jonkozer for 72 hours as well as you're clearly all related.

If you want to return to editing Wikipedia, you must not continue to break our rules in this manner. Further violations will just get you permanently banned. Georgewilliamherbert 11:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

[edit] Block evasion

As you have chosen to evade your block with yet another IP user account 70.156.184.44 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log), I am resetting the blocks on all accounts to 1 month duration. Georgewilliamherbert 19:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.