User talk:Mantanmoreland/Archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Mantanmoreland/Archive1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Wikipedia Boot Camp, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here are a few more good links for to help you get started:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- Longhair 23:25, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
Short selling
Not a problem. Let me know if that user shows up again - if it's within the next 18 hours or so it'll be a violation of the three-revert rule and grounds for blocking the user. (ESkog)(Talk) 19:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I will. There seems to be a coordinated effort to vandalize the page.--Mantanmoreland 19:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can't revert any more times today or I would fall under the 3RR - the only time you can "break" the rule is for clear vandalism which this doesn't really qualify for. It seems that we'll be re-reverted right back as long as the page isn't semi-protected. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
- The goal would be to revert to a neutral version then freeze it - which is basically what will happen as soon as an admin processes our request for protection. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Compromise page attempted
Based upon my own research, I have created a first draft of an attempt at an unbiased article at Naked short selling/Workshop. Feel free to contribute in whatever way you can - make sure to carefully cite unbiased sources as this is apparently a contentious topic. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
The existing page already cites unbiased sources and more can be added, such as the SEC Q&A. What you added does not fall in that category. Sorry but I am a student and cannot single-handedly fight a Wall Street lobby with time on its hands. --Mantanmoreland 23:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
That's funny, Mantanmoreland... "Wall Street lobby with time on its hands". We have time on our hands, but we are certainly not Wall Street. Check out NFI Message Board on Wikipedia.
NFI is a sub-prime mortgage Real Estate Investment Trust, required to distribute its taxable income every year, an 18% annual dividend-payer, a long-time resident of the Reg Sho List, and a favorite investment vehicle for thousands of retired people, many of whom pay their bills with the dividend NFI and similar companies pay.
The "pressure group" you are contending with is mostly old-timers (and a few of us young bucks) coordinating their efforts through the Yahoo NFI message board. We consider Wall Street (hedge funds, the financial press, the regulators, etc.) our enemy.
Just a little perspective. Sorry if we trashed your place for a while; that was not our intent. I'm glad we were able to work out a compromise, and I appreciate your patience.
I suspect you won't be a starving student for long. You are an extremely talented writer.
--Errudite (sic) 01:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks very much! I am glad the page as it currently reads is acceptable.--Mantanmoreland 15:12, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Anon edits at Naked short selling
I think you acted appropriately in reverting the anonymous user's edits, and it would be correct to continue to do so. Our discussions on the Talk page have established that this is a good, consensus version of the page, and a complete rewrite should definitely be viewed with some skepticism. I'll revert similar changes if I see them before you get there - do be aware that the three-revert rule still may apply as this is not simply vandalism. If we have major problems again the page may need to be reprotected, but I hope it doesn't come to that. (ESkog)(Talk) 18:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest protecting the page sooner than later. The problem is that this page has been a subject of pressure-group Internet discussion and has been mentioned specifically in some Yahoo message boards. --Mantanmoreland 18:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Re: POV forking underway
I agree that this is a POV fork which should be deleted, and I have gone ahead and nominated it as such. Thanks for the heads-up. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Naked short selling & Tommytoyz
I share your concern about mass unsourced changes to the article as we had before. If those come back, we can definitely request full protection. But an article's talk page is for discussing controversies around an article, not every single change anyone wants to make. I think that Tommy and others have heard the message that major changes need to be discussed first, and I think we have to trust them to hold to that. I'll keep an eye on the page, as I'm sure you will, and we can help ensure that the article's neutrality is maintained. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. See my response on your talk page.--Mantanmoreland 21:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- Fair enough. To be sure, if the previous behavior continues (major unsourced insertions of material without explanation or discussion), I'll be right there with you asking for further action. I think the only place where we really differ is that in my mind, he gets one more chance. We'll see what happens - any problems are certainly easy enough to fix. (ESkog)(Talk) 21:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Naked Shorting
Sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with the following statement made by you.
"Counterfeit" Securities: See the answer to Question 7.1, SEC FAQ. The SEC's answer is a clear and unequivocal no. "Naked short selling has no effect on an issuer's total shares outstanding." Thus the cornerstone of the pressure groups' concerns is simply not true.
Naked short selling dramatically dilutes the target company's capital worth and, in the case of an MREIT, it dilutes the company's attempts to obtain necessary increase in capital by issuing new share offerings to continue growing their business. You have to understand that the SEC does not want the investing public to know how widespread this practice is. They therefore downplay the seriousness and will not allow any transparency as to the true extent of the FTD situation. Also, through naked shorting in which the share sold short are never covered with real shares artificially inflates the total number of shares outstanding with non-existent shares which can not be obtained by the retail investor. A pig in a poke situation.river 20:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Your argument is with the SEC, not me. They say the counterfeit securities issue is bogus. --Mantanmoreland 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but you made the statement. Therefore, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems that you are the one to be corrected. The SEC says many things, not all believable, especially since they won't allow any transparency as to how serious the situation is. No FTD numbers are forthcoming. I have written them under the FOIA asking for a release of the FTD numbers and received an absolute refusal. If you wish to accept their pronouncements, that is your perogative, but I wouldn't take them to the bank. --river 22.11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
{Sigh}. Please don't personalize the discussion. I accurately quoted an SEC paper. I'm sorry it doesn't support your position, but that is something you are going to have to take up with the SEC. Turning this into an interpersonal duel is tiresome and unhelpful. --Mantanmoreland 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
I did not attack you personally; I challenged something you said in the discussion. I used your name one time for attribution only. My only other comment about a person pertained to the ability of Wikipedia contributors to comprehend a complex subject adequately to edit the page. That comment addressed the entire Wikipedia membership rather than any individual person; therefore it was not personal.
Apparently your definition of "personal attack" includes disagreement. I disagree.--Errudite (sic) 23:32, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Help!
The naked shorting page is again being subjected to harmful edits. Be go to the page, as I do not want to be hit by the 3RR. Am posting this on the page of persons who have previously been involved in editing this page in the past. Thanks. --Tomstoner 16:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
