User talk:Agent452
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 31 days are automatically archived. Sections without timestamps are not archived. An archive index is available here. |
Contents |
[edit] Merry Christmas!
| A Merry Xmas to you | ||
 |
||
| Music sample | ||
|---|---|---|
JackOfHearts (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!
Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[edit] RE: Hoffman
What I meant was that it couldn't have been John who constructed the traps (he's so decrepit), and it couldn't have been Amanda, as it involved Eric. If she was the one who set the trap up, she'd surely find out that Eric was still alive, which didn't happen. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 23:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] RE: Hoffman article
Even if the article is deleted, once the DVD is released, more info on him will probably be supplied with the commentaries and such, hopefully making the article "notable". As for any other info I get, I learn a lot of it from a forum, House of Jigsaw, which supplies excellent info on a lot of stuff. I'm going to add some stuff that had been removed from the final cut of Saw IV concerning Hoffman's character, but I'm not sure if that's notable enough to avoid the article's deletion... Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Saw IV DC DVD stuff!
I'm not going to add anything to the articles, but I figured I should tell you that some people have gotten hold of the Director's Cut of Saw IV, which includes some stuff, and answers the "Open the door and you'll find me" key. Jack Of Hearts | Miss A Turn 08:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Saw January Newsletter
  Issue III - January 2008 |
|
|
Happy New Year, everyone! Not much of a newsletter for today...I just wanted to report that OfficialSaw.com's website has undergone a massive renovation and has added character profiles and trap descriptions and the like. Why am I telling you this? Because it appears that our Wikipedia articles have been used for the site! (Check out the House of Jigsaw history section for one example). So feel proud, knowing that the articles that you have worked on have garnered notice from the folks at LionsGate... |
|
--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] The Stig
Hi. I see why you reverted. "It is also rumoured that Ben Collins is the Stig" is totally unacceptable. However, Wikipedia is about verifiability. The remainder of the paragraph is verifiable and accurate and does not assert that Collins is The Stig. I think it is acceptable to include this and let the reader decide whether it is relevant or not. Please let me know what you think. Mark83 (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
dealt with Agent452 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] whisper number
you reverted back to changes made by 'unknown' 24.182.143.16, and accuse me of wiki vandalism?? did you bother to then check his original edits to this article (whisper number) back in nov 2007? No sourcing, made up sourcing, and additions to cited articles with calid sourcing. His changes are vandilism - "According to Alexa.com and Compete.com, EarningsWhispers.com is the source most commonly used" NO SOURCE, "On the other hand, EarningsWhispers.com gets its whispered expectations from the analysts following the company and regularly cites the analysts, by name, for the projection. Therefore, EarningsWhispers.com]'s numbers are not susceptible to manipulation and are more likely to get the true expectations of institutional traders and that are spread among trading desks." NO SOURCE, NO PROOF. Don't take one idiots word over another....its all about sourcing, right? Not just the first person to cry vandalism. the article sat fine between 2005 creation and when this idiot added lies that you just re-published - there was no added value. i'm the ip idiot 69.69.74.108 trying to get it back to pre Nov 07 ACCEPTED article.
1/14 follow up per my talk page (not sure where to post): yes, much better things unless it affects your livlihood...(ie pays the bills). Not sure where 'twinkle' comes into play here, i don't see any reference there so I don't understand. its just that the revisions made since Nov 2007 have 'added' content that doesn't exist - actual references to news articles were modified to include earningswhispers when the original article made no such reference. And as the originator of this article (i am asking once again for it to be removed) I was always told I couldn't post 'opinion', and yet the person that has made changes is doing just that. why aren't those edited and corrected and the article reverted back to pre Nov 2007? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.69.74.108 (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hey Agent, look who's back - Any way to block this guy (24.182.143.16)? Just undid everything you 'undid'. I would undo his undo but this will just go on forever. 69.69.74.108 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Agent452,
To make sure I am as thorough as possible I’m going to explain my additions to the page and then address 69.69.74.108’s comments. Hopefully I successfully state my position clearly.
First, you state that my revisions appear to be advertising for EarningsWhispers.com and I can see how you get to that. But really it is just because I’m including commentary about EarningsWhispers.com for the first time. If you review the discussion of the page you will see that it was originally created by WhisperNumber.com and, I would conclude, as an effort to advertise their site. However, there are really only two sites that provide whisper numbers so it is in their best interest to make sure their competitor’s site is not mentioned in a discussion of whisper numbers. In an effort to even things out, I’ve added commentary about EarningsWhispers.com.
Now, the original page (or at least the one before I made any changes) had three major themes: 1) is that whisper numbers are either expectations that are spread among professional traders or gathered from individual investors, 2) they can be useful trading tools, and 3) whisper numbers on WhisperNumber.com can be manipulated because they come from individual investors’ posts on their website rather than from a professional source so you can’t always trust whisper numbers.
Therefore, when I made my additions, I naturally included references to EarningsWhispers.com because the differences between the two sites address items 1 and 3. Including EarningsWhispers.com is important to the discussion because it addresses the difference between gathering estimates from individual investors or professionals and, consequently, whether whisper numbers can be trusted. EarningsWhispers.com gets expectations from analysts rather than individual investors, thus the numbers are not likely to be manipulated. As a result, they are shown to be more accurate than consensus estimates, are likely to be the true expectations of professional traders, and only then can they be trusted to be a useful trading tool.
Before I address 69.69.74.108’s comments, let me first say that I did not remove or change any commentary from any previous post. Furthermore, every single item I posted included a valid reference from a leading financial publication such as Bloomberg News, Barron’s, the Wall Street Journal, or a published book.
Ok, so now 69.69.74.108 claims I vandalized the page (rather than his deletions and vulgar comments) and first said “According to Alexa.com and Compete.com, EarningsWhispers.com is the source most commonly used” NO SOURCE. Alexa.com and Compete.com are the source. If you want I can link directly to the traffic pages for http://siteanalytics.compete.com/earningswhispers.com+whispernumber.com/?metric=uv which shows that EarningsWhispers.com had five times as many unique users to its website in December.
69.69.74.108 then said: “On the other hand, EarningsWhispers.com gets its whispered expectations from the analysts following the company and regularly cites the analysts, by name, for the projection. Therefore, EarningsWhispers.com]'s numbers are not susceptible to manipulation and are more likely to get the true expectations of institutional traders and that are spread among trading desks." NO SOURCE, NO PROOF. Don't take one idiots word over another....its all about sourcing, right?
However, in the latest version I posted, I did reference a Wall Street Journal article from 2000 that is appropriately titled “Consider the Source When Evaluating 'Whisper Estimates' on the Internet” that has an interview with a professional analyst stating he has given expectations to EarningsWhispers.com. Furthermore, in the Barron's article I posted it mentioned that the analysts are cited by name onEarningsWhispers.com's site.
So, to summarize, it is understandable that WhisperNumber.com doesn’t want a discussion or even a reference to EarningsWhispers.com because, as 69.69.74.108 said in his comments to you, it affects his livelihood. But every single addition I made to the page was supported by a very credible reference.
Therefore, I ask that you please add back my additions to the whisper number article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Agent452, just a reminder that this issue is still outstanding. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.143.16 (talk) 12:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] AfD nomination of Pig mask
An article that you have been involved in editing, Pig mask, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pig mask. Thank you. CyberGhostface (talk) 21:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Dealt with Agent452 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Anonymous Posts
Hi. Thanks for your comments on the Mighty Boosh Characters page. I'll admit I wasn't particularly concerned about being anonymous, until that is I realised my IP address was shared with hundreds (maybe thousands) of other students. Not only that but obviously some of them had been a pain in the arse around these parts -- 130.123.192.23. I didn't want to be associated with them (even though I always try and sign my posts.) Josh 1bj05hua (talk) 02:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Hoffman's involvement in Saw Series
I'm sure you that will agree that it is obvious that Hoffman is helping Jigsaw in some form, regardless of whether he is an unwilling accomplice or an apprentice. It is also made clear in the fourth movie that Hoffman is a decorated police officer (who doesn't fit the profile of a Jigsaw apprentice) and that he once risked his career to get his friend Rigg cleared of all charges after Rigg punched the man who abused his wife and child. After risking his career for Rigg, why would Hoffman of his own accord design a complex test for Rigg and then leave him to die when he failed? Already, a clear implication of the movie that Hoffman was forced to put Rigg in a test and did not choose to leave his friend to die willingly.
Also, it is made clear at the end of the fourth movie that Hoffman left the letter for Amanda. It provoked her rage, leading her to shoot Dr. Lynn Denlon, which led to Jeff killing Amanda and Jigsaw. Ultimately, the product of Hoffman's letter to Amanda was the deaths of Jigsaw and Amanda. Therefore, Hoffman wrote the letter hoping for this result.
The aspect of the movie that conclusively proves that Hoffman was an unwilling accomplice was the autopsy tape at the end. Jigsaw stated on the tape to Hoffman that although Hoffman thought he was in clear, Jigsaw's games would continue and have only just begun. Why would Jigsaw need to tell his APPRENTICE that the games would continue? This only make sense when the viewer realizes that Hoffman was coerced into collaborating with Jigsaw, wrote the letter to Amanda to orchestrate her and Jigsaw's deaths (which worked out as he had planned), and then believed that he, Hoffman, could "walk away" from the whole ordeal, no longer forced to work with Jigsaw and with no evidence tying him to the crimes. However, the tape from Jigsaw is telling Hoffman that he is not in control, he will not be allowed to just walk away from the games, the games will continue because Jigsaw is "still among you", (again, if Hoffman had been the apprentice, Jigsaw would not need to state that) and the games are only just beginning. The line "you think it's over just because I am dead" does not make sense if Hoffman were Jigsaw's apprentice; Jigsaw's apprentice would not think the games were over, he would be ready to continue them.
All of this implicates that Hoffman was an unwilling accomplice in the ordeal and that he will be tested by Jigsaw's true apprentice in Saw V.
This was a very complicated movie, and I don't think many people understood that this was what was happening. However, the events of the movie contradict each other until you consider the reality of the fact that Hoffman, a decorated police lieutenant and a friend of Rigg, was forced to participate in Jigsaw's games and did not do so of his own accord.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gordonmattjake (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Mighty Boosh
Are you sure? I'm actually getting rid of the link. You're warning the wrong person, mate :) Will (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Hi, many thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page while I was fast asleep! Keith D (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
