User talk:Stonkaments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please continue to participate in the optimization of the TSLAQ page as it clearly has several ongoing disputes - some more legitimate than others - and we need more voices to be heard. QRep2020 (talk) 12:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Stonkaments, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Stonkaments! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Naypta (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 23:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

“U. S.” In basketball and American football infoboxes.

These infoboxes don’t use US after City, State unless the subject’s nationality is something different (e.g. a German citizen born in New York City). The parameters for infobox person don’t extend to every infobox. The template documentation for Template:Infobox basketball biography states this. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok sorry, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the heads up. Stonkaments (talk) 16:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

On a side note, we typically dont have separate links like [[Merced, California|Merced]], [[California]] per MOS:SEAOFBLUE. Anyone who clicks on the city page can get to the state page, if needed. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Tesla, Inc.

Hi there, tread carefully with the Tesla, Inc. edits. Can you discuss the edits first on the Talk page? QRep2020 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Why do you think it's important to discuss the edits first? Other editors have recommended me WP:BRD, rather than discussing every proposed edit beforehand. I'm trying to be fair and thoughtful with my edits, and I didn't feel that any of them might be controversial--they were all straightforward, well-sourced factual corrections or removing obvious promotional and biased content. Springee, I see that you've been active in related discussions - do you have any thoughts? Stonkaments (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD works best with focused chunks. I'd stop attempting edits for now and instead go on Talk: Tesla, Inc. and address the changes you want to make for each section. The process can be slow and annoying, but at least this way you record what you think the article should say and then if no one addresses particular points, you can keep harping on them so the other editors look as if they're trying to distort the dialog. QRep2020 (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm still not sure I fully understand your concern. Are you worried that I'll upset editors who are pro-Tesla, which would potentially make future editing more difficult? So far all of the edits I've made have been accepted without any controversy (except one quote I deleted that seemed overly promotional, and there we seem to have found consensus by removing the most promotional and irrelevant sentence and leaving the rest in). I'm focused on making minor edits to improve the article's quality and neutrality, so it seems like that should be ok to continue, and discuss any reverts or disagreements if/when they come up? Stonkaments (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Moved Martin Tripp content to TSLAQ

Feel free to supplement the new section I created. QRep2020 (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

How do we determine the market capitalization of Toyota versus Tesla?

Hi Stonkaments,

I see you reverted my addition to the Tesla, Inc. wikipedia page with the comment: "Undid revision 961809225 by ReferenceMan (talk) - Toyota market cap is ~$216 billion, cited source is wrong."

What are your sources for Toyota's correct market capitalization?

How do you know your sources are correct, and the cited source is wrong?

I see two different sets of numbers. One set supports the $185 billion number:

• Yahoo Finance: $185 billion https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/TM/
• Fidelity: $185 billion https://eresearch.fidelity.com/eresearch/evaluate/snapshot.jhtml?symbols=TM
• Morningstar: $185 billion https://www.morningstar.com/stocks/xnys/tm/quote
• Wall Street Journal: $184 billion https://www.wsj.com/market-data/quotes/TM
• Macro Trends: $184 billion https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TM/toyota/market-cap

A different set supports the $215 billion number:

• Google: $215 billion https://www.google.com/search?q=toyota+market+cap
• Bloomberg: $214 billion https://www.bloomberg.com/quote/TM:US
• CNBC: $214 billion https://www.cnbc.com/quotes/?symbol=TM
• Tokyo Stock Exchange: 23,147,704,208,248 yen = $214 billion at today's exchange rate. https://quote.jpx.co.jp/jpx/template/quote.cgi?F=tmp/e_stock_detail&MKTN=T&QCODE=7203

The only phone number I have found for Toyota's Investor Relations is in Japan, and the recording on that phone number is in Japanese, and it's too early for them to answer yet. ReferenceMan (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

To interject here, it looks like different "schools" of valuation are at play. Why not mention this fact about the opposing valuations in the article and then wait to see if one or the other is accepted globally? QRep2020 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The ~$215 billion set is correct.

You can calculate it yourself, per Toyota's official website, they have 3,262,997,492 common shares outstanding - https://global.toyota/en/ir/stock/outline/

3,262,997,492 times closing price of 6905 yen = 22,530,997,682,260 yen, which at current exchange rates is >$210 billion.

Ah yes, sorry, I missed the marcap part, how I can't say. Stonkaments, I would make the edit again and leave a note about it on the Talk page. There are always issues with these "moving target" facts. QRep2020 (talk) 19:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm OK leaving the article as it is (no reference to Tesla being larger than Toyota). I believe the $215 billion is the correct market capitalization based on going to Toyota and Tokyo stock exchange websites. But I am curious as to why there are two sets of numbers. I have spoken with a Toyota Investor Relations person in Japan, and have sent him an email. He will research why there are two different market capitalization numbers, and get back to me when he has more information. I suspect there are preferred shares or some other set of shares which are not available to the New York Stock Exchange. ReferenceMan (talk) 19:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

This article is behind paywall, but it looks like the most in-depth look at the market cap question - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-06-15/so-is-tesla-bigger-than-toyota-or-not-well-it-s-complicated - according to the preview, it sounds like it has to do with whether you count "treasury shares" (Toyota owns 14% of its own shares, worth ~$30 billion). Stonkaments (talk) 16:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Article says: "As of 11 a.m. New York [on June 15, 2020], Toyota's $171 billion valuation less its treasury stock trailed behind Tesla’s $175 billion valuation." So, yes, it appears treasury shares is select factor. QRep2020 (talk) 18:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree it's probably the treasury shares that makes the difference. Yesterday (June 15), I received an email back from Toyota Investor Relations person: "We've been conducting investigation since last week, but please wait for a while for an answer. Probably it seems that there is a difference in whether or not to count treasury stocks, but there is a point to check a little more. We'll get back to you within a few days, so thank you for your understanding." ReferenceMan (talk) 15:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I heard back from the Toyota Investor Relations person. He said:

"Market capitalization is calculated by multiplying the number of shares by the stock price, and the difference in market capitalization displayed on each website is considered to be due to how the number of shares is handled. When calculating the number of shares, two patterns are often used; 1) the total number of common shares issued, and 2) the total number of issued common shares minus the number of treasury shares. We assume that the email you sent uses $215 Billion for 1) and $185 Billion for 2). It should be noted that the slight difference in 2) is probably due to different detailed definitions such as the timing of the numerical values used (quarterly, year-end, etc.).

"Each vendor calculates the market capitalization daily based on the data provided by the stock exchange and the published materials of each company. It seems that the 1) group calculates based on the market capitalization based on the definition of the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and the 2) group independently calculates the treasury stock. Regarding 2), it is based on publicly available information, and it seems that there are cases where treasury stock is not deducted due to disclosure systems and business practices of each country. For example, even for Bloomberg, one of the vendors most used by investors, 1) for Japanese companies and 2) for US and European companies are used in the calculations. In other words, Bloomberg calculates the market capitalization of Japanese companies daily based on the data obtained from the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 1).

"It can be summarized that it is not absolutely correct to use either 1) or 2), but the calculation method changes depending on the disclosure system, business practice, etc. in each country. On the other hand, for the purpose of calculating corporate value such as valuation as so-called acquisition value, it is likely that market capitalization is often calculated at 2). With respect to the reason for deducting treasury stock, it is not necessary to evaluate the treasury stock as a company value because it has no voting right or dividend right and is deducted from the net assets section of the balance sheet in accounting, it is thought that, etc. is in the background.

"In Japan, the acquisition of treasury stock was restricted until the Corporate Law was revised. Therefore, in Japan in the past there was virtually no difference between 1) and 2), so it is not necessary to consider treasury stock in the calculation of market capitalization, and the practice of calculating by the method of 1) continues (there is a possibility)." ReferenceMan (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Protesting Tesla employee

Hi there. Have you seen any follow up information pertaining to the gentleman who got the termination notice from Tesla and thought it had to do with his protesting? Is he still employed? QRep2020 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

He tweeted that he was fired - https://twitter.com/S3LFL3SSALLDAY/status/1273399064793513984

I haven't seen an update anywhere else. Stonkaments (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Important Notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 Doug Weller talk 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

• News and notes: Progress at Wikipedia Library and Wikijournal of Medicine

• Community view: Community open letter on renaming

• Gallery: After the killing of George Floyd

• In the media: Part collaboration and part combat

• Discussion report: Community reacts to WMF rebranding proposals

• Featured content: Sports are returning, with a rainbow

• Arbitration report: Anti-harassment RfC and a checkuser revocation

• Traffic report: The pandemic, alleged murder, a massacre, and other deaths

• News from the WMF: We stand for racial justice

• Recent research: Wikipedia and COVID-19; automated Wikipedia-based fact-checking

• Interview: What is wrong with rebranding to "Wikipedia Foundation"?

• Humour: Cherchez une femme

• Opinion: Trying to find COI or paid editors? Just read the news

• On the bright side: For what are you grateful this month?

• In focus: Edit Loud, Edit Proud: LGBTIQ+ Wikimedians and Global Information Activism

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Black Lives Matter

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Planet Fitness".

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 04:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

Hello, I'm Doug Weller. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Black Lives Matter seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Your post put a swing on what happened that doesn't reflect what the Mayor has said since. It's your responsibility to make sure that you are using up to date information. Doug Weller talk 18:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

3RR

Your recent editing history at Black Lives Matter shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

This is your fourth revert today. Also, it is not "original research/biased language", it's straight from the source which says: "In contrast to previous work that relied on the FBI’s Supplemental Homicide Reports that were constructed from self-reported cases of police-involved homicide, this data set is less likely to be biased by police reporting practices. ".

Please self revert. Volunteer Marek 21:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Black Lives Matter. Template:Z189 Binksternet (talk) 01:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

What vandalism? I removed a single unsourced claim that detracts from the article. Stonkaments (talk) 01:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Bullshit. You removed a very well-sourced comment that didn't hew to your views. Binksternet (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Where does your source say that right-wing commentators used the study to attack Black Lives Matter? And how does that fact add to the article, given that the next sentence already goes on to say that the authors retracted the article due to its "careless" conclusions being misinterpreted by the media?

Please stop with the profanity and ad hominem attacks. Stonkaments (talk) 01:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The whole point of the cited article is that right-wing commentators were misusing the study. The whole reason for retraction by the authors was that right-wing commentators were attacking BLM in a way that was not supported by the study. Binksternet (talk) 02:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

The article mentions one conservative political commentator, Heather MacDonald, citing the study. That does not support the claim that the study "was used by right-wing commentators to attack the Black Lives Matter movement." Stonkaments (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

It's all verifiable, satisfying WP:V. This source says Mac Donald comes from "right-leaning" Manhattan Institute. She's a hard-line police authoritarian and she's fighting against BLM which makes her anti-anti-racist, so where do you think that puts her on the political spectrum? Right. And the PNAS study was cited many times by others after her. Science Mag says "The finding was picked up by major media outlets and rebounded across the internet". Binksternet (talk) 02:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Suggestion

As a new editor you need to be careful around some topics. I do find that at times some Wiki editors are very quick to label something as a heretical idea that's the end of the discussion. I don't know what was said on the BLM page but much like the Trump page I suspect that is a page where many good editors fear to tread. In general on such pages it's always best to propose an edit on the talk page before changing the article. Be VERY cautious about reverting. No one can fault you for a good faith WP:BOLD edit. They can fault you for repeating the same edit once challenged. Certainly some editors have strong opinions and I've certainly seen cases where edits from some editors appear to be to vilify/sanctify vs provide a wider range of opinions on a subject. That's just part of Wikipedia. If you charge headlong into a fight with what it is you will be shown the door. If you accept and work with the system (it helps to just ignore the current, hot politics articles) then you are likely to build some knowledge and understand how to help make things better. Springee (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)