User talk:Generalusgrant
Welcome![edit]
Hello, Generalusgrant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Driehaus capital management, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Ducknish (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Driehaus capital management[edit]
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Driehaus capital management requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Ducknish (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
As to Ducknish, I was in the process of creating the entry, hit save so I didn't lose my work, and kabam, he tagged it. Driehaus sits in a gorgeous mansion, is owned by one of chicago's 100 most important people, and is a very powerful money manager/mutual fund. Patience, please...Generalusgrant (talk) 04:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Help with Boutique investment bank[edit]
 |
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, place a new {{help me}} request on this page followed by your questions, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I ran across the Boutique investment bank entry and see a number of quite odd things. One of the companies, Capital Group Companies, is in Investment management, as is noted in its description and which I have confirmed elsewhere. It is not an investment bank, boutique or otherwise. For those that understand the financial sector, this is a huge difference. An investment manager manages money for third parties. An investment bank or Boutique investment bank (size being the difference) brings two parties together in either mergers and acquisitions or capital raising. As an example, the public offering of Facebook was lead by Morgan Stanley. Morgan Stanley wasn't managing anyone's investments. It was bringing public stockholders (party A) to Facebook and its existing stockholders (party B). It was a transaction. Investment management is ongoing. So, Capital Group Companies isn't even in the right place. Second, the degree of neutrality between the listed Boutique investment bank runs the spectrum, as do the tags. Some are clearly advertisements with no tags, and some have tags and appear by all aspects to be neutral. Can someone intervene and assist me with this? I don't want to take it on without support.Generalusgrant (talk) 03:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- While I'd love to help, I'm afraid I wouldn't be much good - my investment experience is quite undeveloped. The best suggestion I have is to go check in with WikiProject Finance and see if they can help - or, if you're feeling adventurous, be bold and make the changes yourself. In terms of neutrality and advertising, I can do a bit more in that regard; if you shoot me a few problem articles which you think shouldn't have articles/are poorly-written, I can check them over and see if they fulfil our criteria. m.o.p 06:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
m.o.p Thanks for the offer to assist. I will outline the page and the issues, and work through with you the issues I see. I am comforatble making basic editing, but changing categories and tagging (appropriately and correctly) I am still a bit rough on. I will get back to you. Generalusgrant (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
m.o.p I’ve reviewed what two most credible sources of lists of boutique investment banks: http://www.sipa.columbia.edu/resources_services/career_services/current_students/career_resources/documents/InvestmentBankingBoutiqueFirms.pdf http://equity-research.com/list-of-top-200-investment-banks-and-boutiques/.
I compared the two lists and found any boutique firms on both lists. Of the seven firms currently listed in Boutique investment bank, only two were in both lists: Piper Jaffray and Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions.
I then found other firms that were on both lists. There were six that were on both lists. I then compared these six to entries in Wikipedia. There were only three matches: the two firms already on the list and one other, Mesirow Financial.
My suggestion is that larger boutiques be segregated out. Piper Jaffray is the only firm currently in this article that is a “Prestigious Boutique Investment Bank” as defined by one of the articles, and which I would agree with. I would add to that list Brown Brothers Harriman, The Blackstone Group, and William Blair & Company, all of which were in the two lists and which have Wikipedia entries.
When we get to the smaller boutiques, we run into a problem. Only one of the boutiques currently listed is also listed in our two most definitive lists: Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions. As a result, my recommendation is to (1) list Piper Jaffray, Brown Brothers Harriman, The Blackstone Group, and William Blair & Company as larger prestigious boutiques, and Mesirow Financial and Pegasus Intellectual Capital Solutions as two examples of smaller boutique investment banks. As for the other firms listed, given that there is no reference in Columbia University's list, or in the work of Equity Research, I would recommend they be delisted. Generalusgrant (talk) 00:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
Generalusgrant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I logged on for the first time in a while to add a tag to Business_broker for lack of citations, and find that I am blocked. I cant believe that there could be any controversy over any of the edits I've made. As a newbie,I've been quite careful to enlist an editor on work that I have done, or to do my best to research the issue. Generalusgrant (talk) 10:37 pm, Yesterday (UTC+1)
Decline reason:
You are blocked for abuse of multiple accounts; see the investigation archive. As your unblock request does not address the reason for your block, I am declining it. Yunshui 雲水 11:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Here are the edits or article creations I have made: CHS Capital,.30-40 Krag, .30-06 Springfield, Probability of default , Pegasus Intellectual Capital, Solutions , Boutique investment bank, Driehaus capital management , Richard Driehaus, Platform company, Mergers and acquisitions, Mesirow Financial, Human Capital Institute, Charles G. Smith, Winchester Model 1894, Business Development Company. I can't believe that any one of them is controversial.Generalusgrant (talk) 22:50, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Generalusgrant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I understand the issue, I have been blocked for use of multiple accounts. That is not so. Please provide with the evidence you are relying on so that I can refute it. As I understand the evidence stated so far, I seem to have walked up on a crime scene and because of this am now a suspect. Generalusgrant (talk) 13:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Decline reason:
As a general rule we do not share checkuser evidence with anyone blocked on that basis. I know this may make us sound like one of those countries that Amnesty International issues special reports on, but a) sharing it would allow those users (and they do exist) who are determined to beat it to better refine their techniques and b) we are a privately owned website, not a government, and therefore we can bar anyone from using it for whatever reasons are good enough for us. Have a nice day. — (talk) 21:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Daniel Case , as I understand the issue, there is nothing controversial about my edits. Rather, I have edited some entries that were edited by a blocked user. Is that a fair summary? Generalusgrant (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
- You asked to review the checkuser evidence. That's what I responded to. Don't change the issue—it makes you look even more suspect. Daniel Case (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Case I did not know what 'checkuser' meant until I looked it up after your reference to it. Even after looking it up, it is still an obtuse description of a fuzzy procedure that is not described in any meaningful detail. Please, if it is humanly possible, please understand the gap between us in understanding the terminology and methodology bantered about amongst the Wiki-centi. Some of your resources, such as 'checkuser' are completely invisible to me. I have no idea what you are checking. Try to turn back the clock to when you were a new user with a few months of editing experience.Generalusgrant (talk) 02:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
- Fine. While I have a little bit more knowledge of how checkuser works than most people who don't have access to it do, per my above explanation I cannot go into it. However, many sockpuppetry blocks are based on more than just Checkuser, and I feel that the non-technical evidence here more than justifies the block.
- As noted above, this account was created within a day of IbankingMM being blocked indefinitely. As noted above, this account began making edits to the same general field of financial topics and financial firms, boutique investment bank being a favorite.
- It seems to me that IbankingMM and you have very similar writing styles (Again, I won't go into the specifics, to avoid tipping anyone off).
- Further, as noted at the time of the block, there were COI issues that had (and have) not been addressed which underlie the sockpuppetry. Daniel Case (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
Daniel CaseLet me repeat back as best I can what I believe I am hearing. My account was created within a few days of the suspension of IbankingMM. I accept that. Unless I am mistaken it was three days. I also edited some entries that the COI/Suckpuppet IbankingMM was accused of modifying to their advantage. There is where the evidence seems to end. I want to apply logic as best I can. I have happened upon a crime scene some time after a crime was committed. I have not been accused of a crime of making entries that are biased in any way. This is a very, very substantive point. The law as I know it is no harm, no foul. I discount that my 'writing style' is similar to someone that made posts to an entry like Boutique investment bank. By definition, we are going to speak a common language and likely are advanced degreed, otherwise we wouldn't have been there. I write at the 16th grade level (Masters) according to the Flesch–Kincaid_readability_test, depending on the day and my mood. And to connect the dots, anyone that is going to take an interest in Boutique investment bank is likely to be interested in similar entries. This is known as auto-correlation, and refers to where the data points are not independent. As a final remark, I do not understand your statement about COI issues that had (and have) not been addressed. I do understand that IbankingMM was accused, presumably correctly, of a COI. I cannot possibly make any remarks about this other than that my behavior, my writing, my content in no way could suggest a COI. To me, that is where the rubber would logically meet the road.
As I understand it, the goal of Wikipedia is to create great content, accurate and authentic. I have done that. Given the powerful tools available to the editors of Wikipedia, including , as I read, a new tool which prevents the posting of new entries from new users until an editor has approved it, its seems to me that Wikipedia is very well protected. I have been nothing but constructive and professional. I respectfully submit that the balance of interest to Wikipedia is to monitor my activity and withhold judgement.Generalusgrant (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
== Unblock Requested ==
Generalusgrant (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
As I understand the issue, I have edited certain pages that had been edited by a blocked user, IbankingMM. I don't know what, if any, other circumstantial evidence is being used to support the allegation of sock-puppetry. I submit that all MY edits have been legitimate, valuable, benign and non-controversial. On the basis of that factual information, request that I be given the benefit of the doubt and unblocked. I submit that there is virtually no risk to Wikipedia in unblocking my account, and has much to gain by it being unblocked. I am a solid writer and researcher with a broad range of interests. I believe that if any administrator would read my actual edits, they would see that Wikipedia would benefit by my continued contributions. Given (1) the scrutiny I am already under, (2) the diligence that editors maintain, and (3) the monitoring tools that I see are at Wikipedia's avail, I believe there is no material downside to a decision to unblock my account, and that the balance of interest to Wikipedia is to unblock my account while it maintains its observation. I believe the following link is worth reviewing and considering: ?UNIQae3e7656c8f916b1-nowiki-00000018-QINU?1?UNIQae3e7656c8f916b1-nowiki-00000019-QINU?
Decline reason:
The issue is not whether your edits are good, it's whether this account is a sockpuppet. The connection between you and IbankingMM is not at all in doubt. If you would like to make contributions to Wikipedia, wait 6 months without sockpuppetry and then make an unblock request from your original account. The commercials are very amusing though. Danger High voltage! 08:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Generalusgrant (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)