Welcome!

Hello, John M Baker, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for joining our community. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. First thing: be bold! Editors are always happy to correct or revert mistakes and discuss changes with which they disagree. Here are some links you might find useful:

• The tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article

And for more detailed information:

• Help pages - the instruction manual, contains everything you could possibly want to know
• The five pillars of Wikipedia - our principles, or how to get on with other editors
• Manual of Style - how to format articles, where to place pictures, and other stylistic matters.

You can also check out the community portal, which has lots of ideas on how you can help Wikipedia.

All of this information can be daunting, but if you have a question and can't find the answer, you can always ask me on my talk page or go to Wikipedia:Where to ask a question. One last thing: please sign your name when leaving messages for others on article and user talk pages using (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you enjoy editing! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello John, I saw you reverted my change to Jazz (word origin) in order to retain the article's title in its first line. I know in most cases there can and will be an exact copy, but I don't think it is required. There are many examples of opening sentences differing from the multi-word title in order to make them sound fluent, e.g. Execution of Saddam Hussein, Responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks, Altamira (cave), and so forth. Nethency 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I looked at some examples of articles that include parentheticals in the article name, and the practice seems to be to exclude the parenthetical in the opening sentence. I have revised accordingly, using your language. John M Baker 22:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On January 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article jazz (word origin), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 00:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On 16 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article The Yale Book of Quotations, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Carabinieri 00:47, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scalping (trading) doesn't need a dablink because all of the links to that page intend that page. Since there's no way a reader will arrive at that page if they're not looking for that page, the dablink is useless. Does that make sense? Ewlyahoocom 06:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

O.K., I've thought about this and don't feel strongly about it. If you delete the dablink, I will not revert this time. John M Baker 13:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting the Cassidy spam on this article. Though Medbh is as far as I know a woman's name, it's hard not to suspect that the repeated attempts to promote Cassidy's publications & theories about Gaelic & Irish-Americans are his own handiwork. (Hard to imagine anyone other than Cassidy himself being so persistent, anyway.) As far as I know his work is pure etymological fantasy/wishful thinking that makes reputable linguists & jazz historians cringe. -- I have placed a note on Medbh's talk page & think that if this goes on it should be treated as vandalism or spam. --ND 04:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And he's currently doing it again, even deleting the legitimate references to replace them with Cassidy's (his?) book. I reverted. John M Baker 16:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've inserted a formal tag on the talk page in accordance with the instructions I found on the Wiki's policy about dispute resolution. I thought that it would be a little too harsh to just declare Medbh's edits spam or vandalism (they're in good faith, it's just that they ride roughshod over the article & introduce dubious claims) so decided that was the way to go. His/her response to my post on his/her talk page is quite remarkable...! -- Sorry to see your hard work in putting the article together jeopardized. --ND 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I added a post on his Talk page, since there's no evidence that he reads the article's Talk page. I don't expect it to do much good, since past observation of Cassidy's listserv posts suggests that he pays little attention to the views of others, but I think it's important to proceed in good faith. John M Baker 03:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, you got your answer..... though Medbh's inability to format things properly makes it hard to decipher. Mostly seems a bunch of press quotes to me. --ND 21:36, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see the revert war's started up again & "Medbh" (who seems ever more likely to be Cassidy, judging by the prose style & the fact that the person can't spell "Medbh" correctly--how many people can't spell their own names??) is posting long garbled retorts on the talk page. What's the next step to take if this can't get resolved? I was hoping that Medbh/Medhb's "You win for now" a few days ago would mean a quiet spell. -- I was interested to see that one of Cassidy's colleagues at New College is David Meltzer, coeditor with Steve Dickison of Shuffle Boil, a poetry + jazz mag which is where I first ran across Cassidy's crackpot etymologies some years ago. At the time I simply thought it was some weird poet's hoax or flight of fancy. --ND 03:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure what to do next; the RFC process doesn't seem to have elicited any more editors into participation. Any ideas? John M Baker 15:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

thanks for correcting my edit in page "You damn kid". I had no intention of vandalism, I just thought that Hugh Hefner was the intended name of the kid in that particular strip (http://www.youdamnkid.com/d/20030417.html)

Gakrivas 11:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I see that you are Greek, so you may not have been aware that Hugh Hefner is a well-known figure within the United States. And, in any case, I've failed to get the occasional joke myself. John M Baker 20:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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 (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed something! TINYMARK 18:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I think you've done a great job with the ETF article. It was a mess and it's looking much better.

Greg Comlish (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Greg, I appreciate the kind words. It still needs work, but I think at this point we're starting to see the light at the end of the tunnel. John M Baker (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very interesting developments in ETF-Land these days. Probably worth incorporating some reference to them into the ETF article in some way, shape or form. Cf. http://www.indexuniverse.com/sections/newsinfocus/4643-fire-sale-bond-etfs-trading-like-closed-end-funds.html userX (talk) 19:07, 19 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23rd 2012

The rebalancing and re-indexing of leveraged ETFs may have considerable costs when markets are volatile.[35][36] The rebalancing problem is that the fund manager incurs trading losses because he needs to buy when the index goes up and sell when the index goes down in order to maintain a fixed leverage ratio.

is not an accurate reflection, and simply states one side of a double edged sword. Adding more after the index goes up will benefit if the index subsequently rises even higher as more exposure to that gain would be apparent (amplifies upside). Reducing after the index declines will benefit if the index subsequently continues further down as you'd have less exposure to that loss than not having rebalanced (attenuates losses).

If there were such drag for a leveraged ETF, then you might reasonably expect to see such a drag also apparent for smaller amounts. Take for instance over the last year BIL (3 month treasury ETF) has more or less moved nowhere (0% gain or loss). A weighting of 50% SSO (2x S&P500), 50% BIL bought and held from a year ago (so more or less just half the amount in the 2x), compared to 100% in SPY indicates very similar tracking. This link shows the total return (including dividends/income) of such a comparison.

http://www.jfholdings.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/w.png

Generally half in a 2x leveraged ETF (or a third in a 3x ETF), half in cash (two thirds if a 3x), will compare well (track) with the 100% in the non leveraged underlying. No such rebalance drag that you imply exists. Simply because fundamentally a 2x ETF will borrow a similar amount again as deposited into that ETF in order to buy twice the exposure to the underlying (more usually however that's achieved by using derivatives, but the effects are much the same). If there were a drag effect, you'd expect that half in the 2x would lag. 50% in the 2x, 50% in cash, where the cash earns a similar rate of return as the cost that the ETF incurs to borrow will tend to produce similar overall results to that of 100% in the non leveraged underlying. If little or no drag is evident at that level, then its unreasonable to state that there is a drag.

Any drag effect that might be observed is a consequence of borrowing in order to invest. Borrowing twice as much as what you have in order to buy twice as much stock combined with daily rebalancing, will compound out over time quite differently to not having borrowed to invest, but only invested what funds you actually had. If you buy as much 2x as you would have invested in 1x, you're borrowing to invest - a practice that is generally widely discouraged. If you buy half as much of a 2x as you would have invested in the 1x, deposit the other half in cash (safe/treasury's) then you'll generally achieve similar overall results, especially if you rebalance back to 50-50 equal weightings of 2x and cash periodically (you can however often rebalance just once a year with relatively low overall tracking error).

Many investors who actually utilise leveraged ETF's for mid to longer term holding periods are well aware of the characteristics and will typically use the leveraged ETF's to gain similar reward (loss) to the 1x, but do so by holding less exposure to risk. Instead of perhaps 60% stock, 40% bonds, an investor might hold 20% 3x, 80% bonds, perhaps reviewed and rebalanced once each year. That might provide similar gain (loss) to the 60-40, but has the added benefit that the worse loss is limited to -20% (assuming bonds to be risk-free) during that year.

Shorter term speculators are the ones that are more likely to hold as much in a 2x (or 3x) as they might have bought of the 1x. Borrowing to invest in that manner however is more gambling than investing.

I would suggest that the Leveraged ETF section would be better with just the first paragraph and omit the second and third paragraphs (as I previously edited the article), as the second and third paragraphs are incomplete (add-high/reduce-low implied cost only whilst ignoring the other edge of the sword) or representative of bad practice (targeted more at speculators (borrow to 'invest') rather than investors). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.69.181 (talk) 18:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I wanted to invite you to become a member of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. I think this might be a good fit and your contributions would be welcome. This is intended as an inter-project task force to focus on private equity concepts, firms and investors. If you are interested, please visit the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force project page.

Also, please feel free to add the following banner to your user page:

((Userbox/privateequitytaskforce))

I look forward to working together, if you are interested. Let me know if you have any questions.

|► ϋrbanяenewaℓ • TALK ◄| 15:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure how much time I'll have for the project, but maybe I can help out now and then. John M Baker (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know a good source or introduction distinguishing the powers and authorities of the various holding company authorities? I'm especially interested in discriminiating between the powers of the Federal Reserve and the Office of Thrift Supervision. What can the Fed undertake in relation to savings banks holding companies that the OTS cannot? I assume if the FED desired, it can use the "we can do what's necessary" law (for example used in the AIG credit facility), but I'm interested in a more routine set of responsibilities and authorities.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nothing comes to mind in terms of a source or introduction, though I guess you could try nosing about their web sites. The OTS has a more limited and conventional portfolio: Its mission is to supervise savings associations and their holding companies. The Fed is both a regulator and the nation's central bank, and its regulatory portfolio is not limited to the entities it primarily supervises (larger state banks and bank holding companies), because it has broader regulatory authority in some areas. These tend to be pretty well defined vis-a-vis the OTS; the Fed can't just go in and start regulating thrifts. Its emergency powers are on the central bank side. John M Baker (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. I responded to your statement in hopes of learning about its support. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 01:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I'm generally in agreement with your comment on my talk page, but I don't think these issues are insurmountable. Such a blow to the commercial paper, goods, and shipping/transportation sectors will not be seen as evidence that the Fed needed to be deregulated. Commercial paper is one of our bedrock finance industries. Maybe the government can do it more efficiently than the private sector, but that certainly remains to be seen. Halting shipping was really stupid, and will make whomever figures out how to resume shipping real goods look really smart. GetLinkPrimitiveParams (talk) 21:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(There are some factual issues with your edits on this page which should to be addressed.)

The belief that Friday the 13th is a particularly unlucky day is a modern amalgamation of two older superstitions: that thirteen is an unlucky number and that Friday is an unlucky day.

(This is a theory, not a fact. Nor is there an academic consensus to back up your claim. In addition, why did these two ancient superstitions converge only recently?)

It is not an ancient superstition, and it does not refer to any particular historical Friday the 13th.[3][4][5][6][7]

(This is not factual. The subject of folklore and superstition is primarily an oral tradition, therefore, one of your own sources [urban legends] declares that this subject is "mostly guesswork". Not only that, the quote at the bottom of this page [urban legends] states that "some scholars" believe that it is a modern phenomenon. Not all, nor a majority. Therefore, your sentences are inaccurate. As it is, wikipedia already lacks credibility. However, perhaps your goal is to further sabotage the reputation of this website...)

Despite the reputation of the two separated elements, there is no evidence for a "Friday the 13th" superstition before the 19th century, and folklore historians state that Friday the 13th was a convergence of the superstitions about "Friday" and "13".[6][5][3]

(This sentence should read "some folklore historians". This is being generous considering the lack of academic sources. Many of the sources you cite are website articles written by amateurs.)

This is a modern-day invention.[2][7]

(Once again, you are stating a theory, not a fact. And your own sources do not make this claim, some of them only propose it as a theory. Did you actually read them?)

As discussed in one serious account:

(Your so-called "serious account" is written by an amateur. Specifically, a freelance journalist. Do you actually have some academic sources? Finally, what exactly do you have against the Knights Templar theory? Remember, this is folklore and superstition. Historically, these subjects are oral traditions. Therefore, the lack of documented evidence argument is circular logic. Not only that, many scholars believe that the suppression of the Templars is the actual origin of the superstition. Yes, the legendary Knights Templar. The defenders of the Holy Land and Christendom. So revered throughout Europe that Wolfram von Eschenbach declared that they were the protectors of the Holy Grail. Don't you think this warrants a mention? In case you are blissfully unaware, this idea didn't originate with Dan Brown.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.186.60 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um, no. The article cites both folklorists and well-respected generalists. If you have any folklorists who take a different view, please cite them. I have, however, revised the article to delete the reference to the "serious account," which actually was a weaker source than the other cited sources. John M Baker (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the good catch on Bernie's correct middle name. I had put it in as "Leon" because I saw that somewhere, in some article. But his FINRA license is obviously the final authority - good catch. Thanks for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betathetapi545 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings, John! I appreciate the story you shared on the Humanities Ref Desk about Mary Alice "Allie" Smith. Please understand that the remark I added was meant with all due respect, for the sake of qualifying what was and has been the lot of many women marrying or otherwise entering into a household due to considerations of physical and economic security, whether or not they got stuck with "domestic drudgery." Thanks for giving such an informative response, and I look forward to reading more from you on the Ref Desks. -- Cheers, Deborahjay (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Deborahjay. I'm not sure how many impoverished servant girls could hope for marriage to men of means, but at least as a young wife a girl could hope for a better lot as mistress of her own household, however small, rather than a life of servitude. I suspect that the lot of an orphan servant often was not a good one. John M Baker (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your answer to my question about Depression-era apple sellers. I appreciate it! --Lph (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

71.236.24.129 (talk) has given you a fresh piece of fried chicken! Pieces of fried chicken promote WikiLove and hopefully this piece has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot piece, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of fried chicken by adding ((subst:GiveChicken)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

Enjoy! With all the bad rep lawyers get one is always pleasantly surprised just how many exceptions there are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.24.129 (talk) 23:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On a personal note, your use of the phrases "factually incorrect and has no reliable sources", "conjecture", "speculation" in the face of references from the New York Times and the Online Etymology Dictionary show a clear lack of appreciation for the guideline assume good faith. Fine, you're the slangmaster. Without good references, that and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee. - JeffJonez (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(from WP:RDH) When will banks weigh the amount of interest they are losing from customers against their 0.25% reserve interest? The fact that the latter is zero risk seems to be affecting their ability to maximize profits. Do bank shareholders have a case? 99.27.201.226 (talk) 11:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response on WP:RDH. John M Baker (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Please be sure to read this

And thanks for raising this issue. I did a good article Stray Cow Problem in India, but some devout Hindus had it snipped away with the flimsiest legal-excuses that even your most novice ambulance-chaser will be ashamed to put across the bench ! I have kept it safe here for good guys like you. Enjoy

Regards  Jon Ascton  (talk) 18:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John! I just wanted to take a moment to convey my strong gratitude for the benefit of your lights concerning the question I posted to the reference desk about the nature of the findings of an investigation conducted by a U.S. Inspector General.

I've expressed my thanks there, but since your effort seems pretty extraordinary to me, a more personal note of appreciation seems in order, as well. You've been generous, and very helpful, so thanks!. I know very little of the law, but I'm sensible of the difficult and intellectually stimulating problem it takes on in trying to translate values into rules, a sense of "right and wrong" into a stable, actionable body of specific codes. I'd like to say, too, that I could wish that more attorneys were as articulate in explaining unfamiliar and complex issues to the uninitiated.

Also, I'm always pleased to "meet" a philologist ... I almost wrote "another philologist", but I can't really make that claim. All I really do is spend too much time with the Oxford English Dictionary, letting its etymology entries lead me very far afield, indeed. Great fun, though; perhaps I'll undertake to actually develop it into a full-blown hobby, at some point, too, although messing about with the rudiments of mathematical philosophy does keep my leisure hours pretty well spoken for. I suppose you do have online access to the OED yourself, btw? My local public library provides remote access to it without charge, and its a wonderful resource. If you'd like to reply at all, feel free to do so here, as I've temporarily "watchlisted" this page. Thanks again for your extensive help. Best regards,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:32, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're very kind, and I'm glad you found my responses helpful. I'm not really a philologist, but I do take an interest in words and participate on the American Dialect Society's listserv (today they're talking about "jazz," "baseball," and "wear the ruby slippers" - the last one is new to me). I get OED access through the Mid-Continent Library, which for a modest annual charge gives me that and many other databases online.

I took a couple of courses on symbolic logic in college and was the student assistant to a philosophy professor, but haven't done much in that area since then. John M Baker (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I took a look at the listserv: I don't know anything about gay culture, but I'd have guessed "wear the ruby slippers" might have been a more apt description for a relatively innocent woman who gains power by some kind of association with a ruthless one. Maybe if Imelda Marcos were to designate a corruption-free protegé, for example, and she were to rise to power after Marcos' demise? I love symbolic logic, myself, in part because it reflects and informs the structure of reasoning, as natural language does, but in a different idiom. Most introductory books on the subject are worse than worthless, though, imo. Thanks again for your help, and for the pointer to the ADS' listserv, too. Fun stuff: I'll have to look in there more often. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hope you don't see this as spam, just drawing your attention to [1] Egg Centric 00:15, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

John M Baker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

66.151.103.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Anakin421". The reason given for Anakin421's block is: "Vandalism-only account".

• Blocking administrator: Edgar181 (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: See below Jayron32 01:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, I have granted your account the WP:IPBE user right to avoid autoblocks like this. You're a longstanding, trusted, and well respected editor, so I have no reason to suspect you may abuse such a right. Please read WP:IPBE for conditions which go along with this right, if you feel you cannot abide by these conditions, let me know and I will remove the right. Otherwise, this should stop these problems with autoblocks. --Jayron32 01:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, I was just reading through the RSN page, making sure I didn't have anything new to add anywhere when I saw your comment about Lexology.com not being RS for the reasons stated as well as being password protected (I'm paraphrasing). Unless I've misunderstood what you meant, I just thought I'd let you know that WP doesn't disallow articles because of membership required, or any other reason it may be hard to corroborate, as per WP:PAYWALL. If I did misunderstand what you meant there, ...never mind! :) -- Despayre  ^{tête-à-tête} 16:07, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm suggesting that a paywall-protected site should be disfavored, when the same article is available for free at the source. John M Baker (talk) 16:56, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, John. On the same approximate subject: I've made a few more changes and posted another comment at WP:CO-OP, including a note that I'd be happy to continue developing the articles after they are live. Looking forward to your feedback. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just left a note of thanks on the WP:CO-OP project page, but I'ld like to say here, too. I realize you'll be busy for a bit here, but if you don't mind I'll let you know when I have an update ready re: definition changes. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, thanks again for your recent help. I've now followed up on your suggestion about adding a detail to the CTA and CPO articles on the changes to their definition under the Frank-Dodd amendments to the Commodity Exchange Act. On the Talk pages for each article and again at Paid Editor Help I've posted notes with suggested wording. Please have a look, if you have the time available. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, on Monday of last week I posted a thorough reply to your comments (and others') with another revision of the Hedge fund structure section that I hope answers the outstanding concerns. My reply (see here) is admittedly long, however I'd like to ask if you're willing to look at it again and offer your feedback to this version. Let me know back on that Talk page if you're able. Thanks, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 17:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to see you over on Talk:Hedge fund. I've just posted a reply on the thread, with a new suggestion about how to clarify the wording, in case you're interested in reviewing again. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, John. I'm a little surprised to find I'm following myself up on your Talk page all these months later, but I wonder if you'd be willing to weigh in on a content disagreement between myself and Wildfowl at Talk:Hedge fund#Systemic risk. As you may surmise, our focus is revisions I've proposed to Hedge fund#Systemic risk; another editor had agreed to weigh in on the issue recently, but he's become busy and decided to hold off. Would you be willing to share your thoughts? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again—just saw your note on my page and figured I'd reply here rather than post there and ask you to follow a Talkback. No problem, though; if you have the chance and feel that you have some knowledge about the matter, I'd still welcome your input. Since you hadn't responded I have sought out a few additional editors, and at least one has said he'd look sometime soon. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 21:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John.

Firstly, thank you for your pro-bono legal advice on insider-trading laws, in your answer to my question on the reference desk in September last year. MUCH appreciated. :-)

I have another securities-law question on the humanities reference desk, regarding releasing false news about a company. IF you happen to feel in a particularly generous mood, I'd love you to go there, read it, and post an expert opinion. :-) I have no connection to the case, so fear not, I won't be acting on your advice - it's for information purposes only. 203.45.95.236 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, thanks for talking through the chart with me, and apologies for my absence. I've just responded to your questions and Wildfowl's on the Talk page; I hope you'll have a chance to take a look at it soon. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:26, 14 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if you saw, but I replied to your questions on the Hedge fund Talk page last week. I'd be very interested to hear if I've answered them satisfactorily, or if you still have concerns. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

reply to your query continued at my user page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.48.114.143 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've now left a second reply there. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

		The Reference Desk Barnstar
		For your thoughtful & thought provoking contributions at the Reference Desks. Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 15:26, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, John. Last Friday I posted a response to you at Talk:Hedge fund citing some concerns with changes to the introduction. Will you have a chance to consider my suggestions and reply soon? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, slipped my mind. There's a response there now. John M Baker (talk) 19:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 05:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know the title that appears on the document? There's a chance I can get it (way less than 100%). Zero^talk 08:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see it is "Correspondence and Report from His Majesty's Consul at Boma Respecting the Administration of the Independent State of the Congo". I'll give it a shot... Zero^talk 08:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploaded to the Internet Archive, see here. Zero^talk 12:30, 19 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

And thanks in advance! Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 05:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Nikkimaria (talk) 20:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John. I have a WP:COI with Diners Club International. The article is currently under-developed and I'd like to eventually bring it up to the GA rank as I have done with other articles where I have a COI. However, I usually need a little nudge staying neutral and I follow COI best practices by leaving content decisions up to non-conflicted editors. I saw that you were active in WikiProject Finance and I thought you might have some familiarity with them and maybe an interest in collaborating on the article. CorporateM (Talk) 02:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John M Baker, I'm getting in touch because I see you have an interest in hedge fund articles - unfortunately, you're a rare breed on Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help out on the Brevan Howard article? They're one of the largest hedge funds in the world, but their Wikipedia page has a number of factual inaccuracies in it. I've made a list of all of this on the talk page and have backed it up with sources.The user page of the previous editor who was helping out says he is taking a long break from Wiki, and the page hasn't attracted any new editors since October 2013.

Would be great if you could lend a hand. --DanJay000 (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John. Just reassure me you have no conflict of interest pertaining to Hedge fund. I am getting a feeling that the article is drifting more and more towards what the hedge fund advocacy position, more specifically the MFA, would like it to be – all sweet-smelling and nice and anodyne. Wildfowl (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I'm new to the wiki community and would like to start working on editing the Property Insurance page with the help and collaboration of more experienced contributors from Project Finance Participants. There is also a recommendation the Chartis article be merged with AIG's page. I think the Property Insurance page could be strengthened with parts of AIG's page since it shows how current events and emerging trends effect it's regulation by the government. Hurricane Sandy and updated payouts of the WTC are not on the Property Insurance page either - which to me seem to be relevant. Do you think adding more information would be beneficial to the Property Insurance page? If so would you be interested in collaborating what facts should be included? Any response would be kindly appreciated. Thank you.Lgkkitkat (talk) 16:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

--Sunrise (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just responded to you at WP:RX but I happened across another post of your talking about not being able to send emails. I happen to have had this issue recently and thought you might be having the same problem, especially if your email is through Yahoo! See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 125#Wikipedia email not working when I send but works when others send to me. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is copied from Talk:Joachim. I left it there in case others have a similar question. However, there does not seem to be one "right" answer. As I see you have an interest in philology, perhaps this is more in your bailiwick than mine. Cheers.

There appear to be regional variations. In places with a significant Jewish population it would probably follow the Hebrew pronunciation, which would be something like Yo-a-CHIM, with the accent on the third syllable, and a guttural "ch". In German it would be Yo-ACH-em; Massachusetts and parts of New York are closer to the German: Jo-ACK-em. The "j" is different in French: zhwa-KIM. In the US it is most often found as a popular name among Spanish-speakers: wa-KEEN. I think it may depend on where you grew up. I'm not sure how one would explain the various versions for the article, however. Mannanan51 (talk) 01:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey John M Baker, make sure to respond to the query at WP:Newspapers.com, Sadads (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just to refresh your memory, test edits are when a new user adds something like "HI!!!!!!1!" to an article. Vandalism is when they follow it up with "Pooppooppoop" or the like. Adding an infobox is neither. So removing it as either (as you did to Paul Bunyan) comes across as rather Bitey. Don't worry, I've restored the infobox, and changed it to a more appropriate one, ((Infobox character)).--Auric talk 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, I love that sentence. I'm hearing it spoken by Orson Welles or someone of like gravitas. --Viennese Waltz 15:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John, thanks for the Time article. I was wondering if you'd be able to get this one too. Looks useful for corroborating sources at September Morn. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Crisco 1492: The article has been emailed. John M Baker (talk) 17:16, 27 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you right kindly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. You have new messages at Shrike's talk page.
Message added 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.Reply[reply]

Shrike (talk) 03:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you know other website where I can make requests for pdf copies of scientific studies?Whereismylunch (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was reverted because the IP is a serially disruptive block evader. All the IP's edits are routinely reverted, usually by admins. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello John M Baker,

You are receiving this message because you have a one-year subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library. This is a brief update, to remind you about that access:

• Please make sure that you can still log in to your Newspapers.com account. If you are having trouble let me know.
• Remember, if you find this source useful for your Wikipedia work, to include citations with links on Wikipedia. Links to partner resources are one of the few ways we can demonstrate usage and demand for accounts to our partners. The greater the linkage, the greater the likelihood a useful partnership will be renewed. Also, keep in mind that part of Newspapers.com is open access via the clipping function. Clippings allow you to identify particular articles, extract them from the original full sheet newspaper, and share them through unique URLs. Wikipedia users who click on a clipping link in your citation list will be able to access that particular article, and the full page of the paper if they come from the clipping, without needing to subscribe to Newspapers.com. For more information about how to use clippings, see http://www.newspapers.com/basics/#h-clips .
• Do you write unusual articles using this partner's sources? Did access to this source create new opportunities for you in the Wikipedia community? If you have a unique story to share about your contributions, let me know and we can set up an opportunity for you to write a blog post about your work with one of our partner's resources.

Finally, we would greatly appreciate it if you filled out this short survey. Your input will help us to facilitate this particular partnership, and to discover what other partnerships and services the Wikipedia Library can offer.

Thank you,

Wikipedia Library Newspapers.com account coordinator HazelAB (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for emailing the article. Viriditas (talk) 20:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello there! I noticed you were one of the few active members of the seemingly defunct WP:Finance. Would you be interested in collaborating to improve the article for Assurant? I have a paid COI, and I've been working with some volunteers here and there with the aim of improving the article and removing the advertising banner. If you've got the time, could you take a look at the page? Any suggestions you might have would be appreciated. Thanks!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 20:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, FacultiesIntact, but as a practicing lawyer who uses his own name I don't usually edit individual companies' pages. John M Baker (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just posted a question on the humanities reference desk regarding plaintiffs and absent parties in class actions. Would MUCH appreciate if you could pay the desk a visit and offer your expert opinion. Thanks 58.164.127.224 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings John, given your background as a member of WikiProject Finance and your interest in hedge funds, I wanted to flag two potential citation issues on the Kyle Bass page.

There is a statement about questionable ethics attributed to a Barron’s article that doesn’t corroborate that statement. Furthermore, the article is behind a paywall making verifying that error for non-subscribers exceeding difficult. Additionally, a statement about CFAD and Celgene cites a WSJ article but the article does not contain that information.

Ethics allegation (Barron’s source doesn’t contain this information) should be considered for removal: "Despite his early successes he has received criticisms for some of his investments both for their performance and for ethical reasons.”

Celgene statement (WSJ source doesn’t contain this information) should be considered for removal: “Celgene also told the patent office that the CFAD had threatened to challenge its patents unless Celgene paid CFAD an unspecified amount.”

I have flagged this on the Talk page for Kyle Bass and the BLP noticeboard but wanted to reach out to you, as well, given your stature in the community.

My name is Steele and I work at Hayman Capital Management, L.P., which was founded by J. Kyle Bass in 2005. My goal is to serve as a resource in support of Wikipedia’s three core content policies. I will not be making edits, but rather participating in the community discussions. SteeleatHaymanCapitalManagementLP (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Someone asked a question on the humanities refdesk regarding how courts deal with elderly defendants (his example was Bill Cosby, but the issue is obviously a more general one), and if it makes them speed up the process. I gave an answer, but, since I, unlike you, am not a lawyer, it's something of a guess. I'd love for you to go there and offer your $0.02 on his question and my answer, if you can spare the time. In particular, I'm not entirely sure of jurisdictions' arrangements for "pre-recording" of testimony - but any element of my answer you take issue with (or agree with), do say so. Judging by your talk page you are one very-much-sought-after wikipedian. Thanks. Eliyohub (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added a reply on the refdesk to yours. Would be curious if you know the answer to my question. Eliyohub (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

John M Baker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. I'm editing through my employer, a law firm. Note that I was granted an IP block exemption in 2011; apparently it was removed as unneeded at some point since then. John M Baker (talk) 14:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Accept reason:

You should be able to edit now. Mike V • Talk 14:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mike V: I am pinging the admin who removed your IPBE. They will know better about the situation than me. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 14:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, HighInBC. Although a return of the IP block exemption would fix the problem, at least for me, perhaps the broader issue is that my employer is not a web host. John M Baker (talk) 14:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I can't really tell much without knowing which IP range is being blocked, and you don't have to reveal that for privacy reasons. I will suggest that many companies will use commercial internet providers that are also used for web hosting. Often people will evade their blocks by getting a cheap server with a commercial provider and use it as a private proxy. This is why a lot of commercial internet connections are blocked. HighInBC ^{Need help? ((ping|HighInBC))} 14:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to check and give you that information by email, but since I'm no longer blocked I can't tell. Anyway, my thanks to both you and Mike V. John M Baker (talk) 14:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. Instead of giving [Power of Attorney Documents] to Madan, should Vishwanath have Locked up [Power of Attorney Documents] in a [Secret Locker]?

2. Why did Vishwanath give [Power of Attorney] to Madan? Is it becuz Vishwanath had No Idea that Madan planned to Become a Traitor?(76.20.88.33 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)).Reply[reply]

I haven't seen Baazigar and am not in a position to answer these questions. John M Baker (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've generally taken the position that it's usually rather pointless to ask why fictional characters acted in a certain manner. Putting forward a hypothetical scenario that might realistically occur in real life, (or asking for an opinion on an actual real-life occurrence) is probably a better approach, I would think, when talking to a lawyer such as John, than asking what a fictional character should have done. Fictional characters do what the scriptwriter wants them to do, for whatever makes an exciting movie. (I honestly don't mean to attack you, just expressing my view, when similar questions have popped up on the refdesk, we've usually taken a similar approach) Eliyohub (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

THANK YOU for your at times pro-bono advice on my legal questions, previously often on securities law (which is your speciality). My previous questions which you offered a genuine legal opinion on involved evading insider trading laws, and laws relating to false information about companies (you quoted Rule 10b-5). MUCH appreciated! This time, no advice needed as such - just asking if you'd be familiar with the rules of recusal for judges in the kind of situation I refer to - see my q on the humanities refdesk. I know it's not your speciality, but since you're a lawyer, I would ask if you have anything to offer. MANY THANKS. Eliyohub (talk) 10:31, 27 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You HAVE answered my questions VERY well. Thank you SO much. If I was a paying client of your law firm, how much would I need to pay for such advice? I am SO appreciative of you contributing your legal knowledge and skills to Wikipedia gratis. Eliyohub (talk) 17:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are welcome, Eliyohub. It's probably not helpful to think what my billing rate would have been, because then I start feeling guilty for posting on Wikipedia rather than working. John M Baker (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Er, it's YOUR time, you're free to do with it as you see fit. The tradition of lawyers working for the social good pro bonois an ancient one, to my understanding, and there's not a lot of "social justice" work in securities law, I would think. Though if that environmental activist charged under Australia's equivalent of Rule 10b-5 (for publishing a false press release claiming that a bank had withdrawn its loan facility for a controversial coal mining company due to "corporate responsibility concerns") has occurred in the United States, I might have approached you asking you to represent him - that would be your area of law. As you noted, in the USA, his conduct would likely not be illegal, as it was not "connect(ed) to the sale or purchase of any security". But my point stands - your time, you choose what to do with it. As long as you deal with it by taking a smaller caseload, rather than giving your clients poorer service, you're doing NOTHING wrong at all. (Not sure about that to be fair - the right to a speedy trial only applies in criminal cases. In civil cases, the wheels of Justice can grind awfully slowly).

I am studying financial planning, and we have a lot of "compliance requirements" around "best interests of the client". I don't mind them (paperwork and record keeping is not fun, but I understand why we need to do it), I just hate when institutions (like big banks, who want to push the stuff that makes them the juiciest commissions, or their own products on which the bank earns the most profits) repeatedly breach them. Yes, they've paid tens of millions in compensation (essentially limited to restitution!) for inappropriate advice. In the US, they would likely have been hit with punitive damages for their conduct. It is inevitable, when they have a business model so inherently riddled with conflicts of interest. I plan to work for an independent firm, unconnected with product providers (so it makes no difference to my own or employer's income what I recommend to the client), and not take commissions, just negotiate fees instead. Our insurers do not understand the lower risk we have of being sued as result of such a business model, and will not give us a cut on our indemnity insurance. Grumble. Has the US encountered any similar issues in the "financial advice" sector of self-interested advice (any juicy payouts?), and is there a regulatory regime? Or does it vary from state to state? Eliyohub (talk) 15:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliyohub, I don't get involved with actually buying liability insurance, so I don't know what the rates are for that or what factors the carriers take into account. In the United States, stockbrokers are required to arbitrate claims if customers so desire (and most stockbrokers include contractual provisions requiring arbitration, to keep things bilateral). Investment advisers that are not also stockbrokers are not subject to mandatory arbitration, and there is only a very limited private right of action against them at the federal level, so they face relatively less litigation risk, although clients can bring suit under state law for breach of contract or breach of fiduciary duty. Customers may also get the benefit of litigation brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission or other regulators. John M Baker (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just spotted your mention of your interest in philology. Quick question: other than (obviously!) latin, are there any non-english languages whose terms are still used in the legal profession in the english-speaking world in the current day, be it civil law systems, or common law ones? I assume they would be VERY distant to latin, which is obviously used en masse, but does any language notably feature? Philology is a field I know zilch about, I'm just curious. Eliyohub (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eliyohub, I know about this more because I know a little about legal history than because of my interest in philology: French is also an important language to the law. You may recall that when the Normans came to England, they spoke French, and they continued to speak French for some time, even as their French gradually diverged from the language spoken in France. Norman French died out in general use around the 14th century, by which time the divergence had become something of an embarrassment, commented on by Chaucer. However, it continued to be the working language of the courts until the 17th century, and Professor John Baker (not me, but a prominent legal historian) has called it the most important language in the development of the common law, beating out Latin and even English. If you look at our article on Law French, you will see some of the terms that survive. John M Baker (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello John, I've recently begun editing articles in the WikiProject Finance category, particularly from the operations perspective which is my background. My first article is entitled Securities Market Participants (United States). I'm now trying to sort out the difference between a clearing house and a CCP, as well as preparing articles on securities trade settlement and securities trade allocations. Would you mind were I to flag my articles from time to time for your review? Thanks WikiDorset (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Go ahead and ping me, WikiDorset, although I won't always have time to review them. Your article on Securities market participants (United States) is an excellent start, although I do notice some omissions. If I get a chance I'll give you some comments in the next few days. John M Baker (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey there! Im currently rebuilding the WikiProject Investment.

Since your a member of the project/were one I wanted to ask if you were interested in helping me re-start the project.

I already am pretty much finished with updating the project page.Take a look at it.(I created a userbox too) Ping me if you want to help! Thanks. WikiEditCrunch (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Hi, WikiEditCrunch. My Wikipedia time is fairly limited, so I try to focus my edits where I can be useful as a subject matter expert. There obviously are many topics within this project that would greatly benefit from attention, but there don't seem to be enough editors who have the time and interest to focus on this area. I applaud whatever you are able to do. John M Baker (talk) 21:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alright.Thanks WikiEditCrunch (talk) 08:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

I noticed you're a member of the Wikipedia Private Equity Task Force. I wonder if you'd be willing to help me out by reviewing Draft: Fifth Wall Ventures for publication. It's a VC-firm focused on real estate with about $200m under management.

Although I am an experienced Wikipedia editor and always try to abide by the five pillars, in this case I have a conflict of interest (disclosed on the Talk page), so Wikipedia policy requires that all my work be reviewed by an independent editor before it's published. I'd be glad to do any additional work you think the article requires.

Thanks for considering this!

BC1278 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)BC1278Reply[reply]

[2]: "John Baker is granted an appointment for life as one of the King's Serjeants-at-arms"  :) —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 11:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the articles that you sent me. They were helpful in writing this article. StudiesWorld (talk) 11:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alice Guy-Blaché, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Fool and His Money (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, John. Was wondering if you could give some explanation and/or clarity around why you undid my edit to the Black Friday page. Was my citation insufficient? More references needed? The sentence prior to my edit referred to "some websites" which seems really vague, so I thought an example would be helpful. No? Just want to make sure my edits are good, and was disappointed to see it undone without explanation. Thanks! William (talk) 02:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, William. Sorry, I should have explained. Unfortunately, the Black Friday article is a long-time target of linkspam, so the practice is to revert all links to advertising tip sites. John M Baker (talk) 03:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John, thanks very much for the explanation. Given that my edit did not even contain a link, was helpful, and cited a well known and trusted news source. May we keep my edit? (Revert your reversion?) William (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 4 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William, even though there is no link, it's still just puffery for a single advertising tip site, Slickdeals, which itself is apparently non-notable, since it does not even have a Wikipedia article. John M Baker (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John M Baker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 204.148.27.94. This is for edits made through Internet provided by my employer, Stradley Ronon Stevens & Young, LLP, www.stradley.com. John M Baker (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

Special:Contributions/204.148.27.94 That IP address is not blocked, not even via a range block. If you're still unable to edit, please make sure to give us the complete message that you see when blocked, including the IP that is blocked or the auto block ID that is affecting you. ST47 (talk) 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

John M Baker (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by a colocation web host block but this host or IP is not a web host. My IP address is 104.129.192.0/20. In the request just above, I used the IP address provided by https://www.whatismyip.com/, but that is not the IP address given by the actual block notice, which says that "Editing from 104.129.192.0/20 has been blocked (disabled) by ‪ST47‬ for the following reason(s): The IP address that you are currently using has been blocked because it is believed to be a web host provider or colocation provider." John M Baker (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Decline reason:

That IP address belongs to the zscaler proxy. Disable your proxy and the block should clear within 24 hours. Yamla (talk) 16:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

---

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.

ST47 and Yamla: Unfortunately, I cannot just disable the zscaler proxy, as it is imposed by my employer, a law firm. Are there any other alternatives? I don't understand why this apparently long-standing block suddenly applied to me for the first time yesterday. (Perhaps it became applicable slightly earlier: I hadn't tried to edit from work for a few days.) A similar request was successfully addressed in 2016, see this talk page link. John M Baker (talk) 16:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:IPBE may be an option for you. --Yamla (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have Draft:Billable hours underway, a topic that you might have some insight into. Any thoughts? BD2412 T 23:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi John. I'm undoing your reversion. Why? You recommended a quotation. Valid point if the edit had interpolated a new term. Instead, the edit applies a recognizable term that's articled here and referenced in the edit. Please look again and notice that the Misuse of the term section includes a non-cited value-laden pronouncement (e.g. "this is not a valid way of identifying the passive") and numerous instances of non-cited analysis (e.g. "Not every expression that serves to take focus away from the performer of an action is an instance of passive voice;" "'There were mistakes'" and 'Mistakes occurred' are both in the active voice;" and "The intransitive verbs would end and began are in fact in the active voice..."). Despite being non-cited, I'd say the analysis is valid and generally useful. Yet, applying your logic per my edit, I suggest you similarly delete the abovementioned Misuse of the term verbiage for its lack of quotations. Alternatively, I recommend leaving my (internally referenced and analytically sound) edit restoration, as is, within the the corpus of the non-cited analysis. Cheers. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S. in linguistic circles, ergative verb seems to be a more prevalent term than labile verb, but I have no objective proof of that. If you do, by all means substitute the latter for the former in my edit. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 02:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kent Dominic·(talk): Sorry, I misread your edit as an alteration of a quotation, which was not the case. My apologies. John M Baker (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. But, on subsequent reading, the entire Misuse of the term section smells more like a term paper than an enclopedia article. I'm neither so endeared to the section nor so enamored of my edit to argue keeping them, but I'm also not so invested in the topic to clean it up accordingly. If you have the means to set a "This section need improvement" kind of flag, that might be a proper remedy. Just a thought. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 03:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, John M Baker. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((You've got mail)) or ((ygm)) template.Doug Weller talk 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Sir Why did you undo editing the scalping(trading) article? Phacker1 (talk) 05:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Phacker1, I just moved your new language. It’s still there. John M Baker (talk) 05:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Phacker1 (talk) 05:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place ((subst:Dobos Torte)) on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment April 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the April newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our first regular newsletter and has plenty of exciting announcements. You have received this because you added yourself as a participant to the project, but will only receive future newsletters if you sign up for the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to do so. April Drive: The month-long April Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! New layout: The layout of the WikiProject has been greatly improved, with a navigation bar being added to the top of every page and separate pages for assessment and edit requests, templates, resources, and news. Come take a look! Signing up for the newsletter: To sign up for future newsletters about upcoming drives, recent promotions, and other miscellaneous topics, add yourself to the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance & Investment/Mailing list. You will then receive them in your talk page regularly. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 22:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	On April Fool's Day, it is good to memorialize your contribution to Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) on the main page. Your words of informed wisdom at the nomination page helped make it possible. Cheers. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:39, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment May 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the May newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our second regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. April Drive finished: The month-long April Content-creation Drive has now concluded. Our first content drive was a great start for what will be a regular feature of our Wikiproject. We will be doing them every other month, so there's none for May, but I look forward to seeing you sign up for the June edition. The drive's target was to improve Wikipedia's coverage of financial markets. Awards were given to those who participated. June Drive topic for discussion: We're currently brainstorming topics for our June Content-creation Drive. Join the discussion here. Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Real Estate Bank of Arkansas was created and nominated by Hog Farm and Ranchlander National Bank was created and nominated by Sammi Brie. They're currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to them! UBS has been nominated for a Good article reassessment. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Finance & Investment June 2022 Newsletter Hi! Welcome to the June newsletter of WikiProject Finance & Investment. This is our third regular newsletter. You have received this because you have been added to the mailing list; see below for instructions on how to unsubscribe. June Drive: The month-long June Content-creation Drive is now underway. The drive's target is to improve Wikipedia's coverage of stock exchanges. Awards will be given to everyone who improves or creates at least one article in the topic area. Sign up here! Content work: Two articles in our purview have received DYK nominations. Google Wallet was created and nominated by InfiniteNexus and George D. Gould was created and nominated by Ktin. Ktin is currently running in the WikiCup, so good luck to him! UBS's Good Article Reassessment is still ongoing. If you wish to help, leave comments in the nomination. Cheque was selected as an Article for improvement on May 16 for one week. You can see the improvement during that period here. Thank you for participating in the WikiProject. — — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 07:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply] To unsubscribe to this newsletter please go to the mailing list page.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:01, 1 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leo Liu has been nominated for deletion a second time. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leo_Liu_(2nd_nomination) Banks Irk (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]