User talk:Stock trad3r

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Disruptions to Mad Money Page

Please stop using Wikipedia to prove an unsourced, unverified point. Continually re-posting the same paragraph on the Mad Money page -- the same one that has been deleted over and over again -- is not productive. That paragraph will keep on getting deleted if you make edits that ignore Wikipedia policy. Please abide by Wikipedia's simple set of rules that are aimed at keeping the site accurate and neutral. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research.

Further, all edits must be written in an encyclopedic, unbiased manner and must cite reliable sources where necessary. Edits must also refrain from using peacock words or weasel words, as that type of phrasing misleads the reader. Please visit the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, in addition to the links above, for a hub to major Wiki policy.

But, in the meantime, please refrain from using original research, unverified (via sources) claims and informal language. If you follow these policies, there should be no problem with your editing. Also, make use of talk pages. Notice that the deletion of your paragraph has been noted on the Mad Money discussion page for many days.

I have pasted the explanation for the removal of your first edit. Hopefully, it will shed some light for you:

I removed the two paragraph explanation that the IP 24.6.164.191 put in to explain the criticism of Cramer because, first and foremost, it was written in an unencyclopedic manner and didn't explain itself properly. The first explanation needs to be made in a more detailed manner. It doesn't make sense as it was written. The second explanation says: "if the efficient market theory holds (which many believe it does)..." This is colloquial writing and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Also, how many people are included in "many"?? Here, "many" is a peacock word and also unappropriate for this site. Many people also do not believe efficient market theory works -- in fact, there's quite a bit of evidence to disprove it from being anywhere close to a fullproof explanation for the markets. And efficient market theory can be qualified by certian rules and regulations, so you must specify what level of effient market theory you're advocating.

By and large, if you write your reasons in a manner fit for an economic journal (or an encyclopedia), then inclusion is possible. But editors will have to revert your work if it's written in the manner it was.

ask123 14:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)