I'd appreciate it if you could take a look at the recent edits in Patrick Byrne. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 04:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the page where the discussion around what the entry about BXB actually is and feel that the people discussing what the post was about didn't actually come to me and ask me about the site before making an uninformed decision.

Let me explain why the entry about BXB is not simply advertising. Firstly, we are a non profit website. We have no advertising of any kind and hence "advertising" on wikipedia would not get us any revenue.

Secondly, the entry was written by one of our forum users and not myself. I made some minor edits at the bottom to give a few links to the site. The text was inspired by our Online Portfolio which can be found here: http://www.britxbox.co.uk/about/

Apparently, the wiki entry writer used that Portfolio to write the peice which is why the tone of the article is in a self-promotion type and not written appropriately.

I'm rather annoyed that despite there being links to our site and the opportunity for you to discuss the entry with myself that you chose not to. A simple e-mail to me explaining that the tone wasn't appropriate would have sufficed and I would have reviewed how it was written. It's not hard to be polite. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BXBMike (talk • contribs) 12:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just wondering that something that is linked and non-linked in month and date article. When I contribute the articles, I little bit confused on links. So Could you please explain to me links that is listed and not listed in my talk page? Cheers!! Daniel's page ☎ 04:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was asking you about appropriate for using wikilinks on each dates. Daniel's page ☎ 04:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you feel the need to speedy delete this article. I was actually working on it when you deleted it. You should give yourself a huge pat on the back for being such a dilligent deleter. Just keep deleting pages without any thought, or without engaging the author(s) in discussion, one of which was probably a new user, and another of which (me, hi!), who is not a new user and will use the Wikipedia prinicle of Be Bold when expressing myself here. If you have anything to say in response, please do so on my talk page, however you should have already wasted my time. Once more, the Theta Beta Potata is being developed and i am sure it qualifies for a notability. Just give it some time? eh????. Thanks and have a nice day. Xsxex 05:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have already requested a deletion review. IN THE MEANTIME, put the article back up, did you even read the DAMN article??? Check out the sources. ITS NOT A FRATERNATY its a punk house... mothers!!!!!!!!!!!!Xsxex 12:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ESKOG.. listen, I'm not sure if I've properly requested a deletion review. In the meantime can you at least re-post the deleted text into my talk page so I can use that info in the Deletion Review insteado of having to re-write it a 4th time?? I dont understand why I'm getting treated like this. My hostility is a direct response to what seems to be a direct targeting of this article and very little effort to communicate with the contributors. Xsxex 12:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reposted from TBP Deletion Debate

How can you guys actually come to a consensus on something you have NO FUCKING CLUE about. Obviousl, you dont have a clue since you dont know ANYTHING about the TBP. Anyway I am requesting a deletion review, and I'd like a few more opinions other than a bunch of User clones all chanting "delete, delete." Only User:Mareino took the time to actually do any research into the subject. The ONLY REASON i'm even coming back to this article is because I happened to see that someone else, other than me started it again, and it was promptly deleted by User:ESkog. And for User:ChrisB this is not a vanity article. The Theta Beta Potata (which was started by the psuedo-anti-frat group "Theta Beta Potatoes") was actually a house in Iowa City, as well as a house in Milwaukee. Between the two houses several hundred different musical artists have performed. Also, this article should be a WELCOMED ADDITION (& EXPANSION) on punk house subject... which now come to think of it... isn't really that notable... well, you know neither is punk... and neither is wikipedia, or actually the entire earth or the solar system.. yeah lets just delete them all. Xsxex 05:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unprotect Hipcrime_(Usenet) and stop imposing your own point-of-view regarding graffiti. 222.238.179.10 06:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)YouKnowWho[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Siegler. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, your reasons on how or why you did so will be greatly appreciated in the above review. Whispering^(talk/c) 04:19, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its ridiculously obvious that the user that re-uploaded these is a dipslime sock, Image:HipB.gif, Image:HipT.gif, Image:HipE.gif, Anyonecanedit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've noticed that deleting the images does seem to slow him down at least on the graffiti because he has to keep creating accounts to re-upload the images.--Crossmr 14:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another sock here Hiptwo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Crossmr 00:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

one more for the pile Anybodyedits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Am I safe in assuming there is concensus that these edits are vandalism from the involved editors and I can revert this without worry?--Crossmr 01:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missed one last night in all the fun Wikicensor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--Crossmr 13:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I expected Septseven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The only way to contain this individual may be contacting ISPs--Crossmr 01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's using proxies, likely open ones. Isn't there a project set up to block open proxies? Perhaps we could get some help from them?--Crossmr 02:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this guy with the images is determined. I almost semi-protected this myself but I thought it would be better to come back and offer you moral support for whatever reasonable path you should choose.

One thing I would add is that the arbitration committee considers that someone who had shown himself determinedly disruptive on a subject can be banned from articles related to that subject [1]. --Tony Sidaway 04:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but do you honestly think a ban would produce any different behaviour than what is currently occuring there? Multiple account blocks, obvious proxy use (when all the involved IPs except 1 or 2 only have edits to that page its pretty obvious), etc. Short of out right permanently protecting the article and having all edits approved by concensus, do you think anything else would contain him as he is right now?--Crossmr 06:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've said much the same to Tony on his talk page - I think that the only solution which upholds our core principles is the old-fashioned watchlist and revert. I have been blocking the socks indefinitely, but it's really a futile exercise. Due to WP:BEANS concerns, I don't want to get into too much detail on-wiki about the different ways this individual could be dashing around IPs, but I don't think it's that difficult. (ESkog)^(Talk) 07:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ESkog, today is my one year marker for being at Wikipedia. I wanted to drop by and say thank you again for nominating me for adminship, another milestone. Hope all is well with you, regards, DVD+ R/W 19:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy with lots here, but while the article is protected and hopefully safe for a bit more, could I get your input on this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#.2A.2A.2ARia777_.28talk_.E2.80.A2_contribs.29_and_her_edit_summaries. Its described in full there, the editor doesn't really communicate, and seems to be honestly thumbing their nose those of us who've asked them to use edit summaries by making gibberish entries. In 1 month since they've created an account they've made 2000 edits, of which 12 have been to talk pages, only one of which even relates to the massive recatagorization they're going on. I personally don't have a problem with the catagorization (though I do view the entire situation somewhat suspiciously because of the editors behaviour), but someone who's constantly making these kinds of edit summaries doesn't really help things here. I've made one more comment on their talk page asking them to use proper edit summaries since no one else wanted to intervene, but I'm tired of feeling like I'm at my wits end with some people and not getting any feedback or assistance.--Crossmr 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Hopefully that made a difference. 30 edits later only 8 are gibberish and the rest are filled in. I don't know what stance to take with users who won't communicate sometimes.--Crossmr 04:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was short lived, as I expected. New day results in almost all gibberish edit summaries. I'll leave this in your capable hands because I'm completely frustrated here.--Crossmr 23:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

another similar case Treybien (talk · contribs), also likes to do catagory work, I don't think he's ever used an edit summary. I left a template reminding him to use edit summaries, his response was to blank it with no explanation. Is this actually quite common behaviour?--Crossmr 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not seeking a block here in this case, or specifically in any case, more often a third opinion, or intervention, whether verbal or otherwise as appropriate. Though I do find it peculiar that someone would seemingly make 5000 edits in this case, and almost go out of their way to avoid using edit summaries. Good edits or not, I guess it just strikes me a bit odd.--Crossmr 04:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're on a quasi wiki break as the school year intrudes on us all, but I wonder if you could take a quick look at Naked short selling when you get an opportunity. --Mantanmoreland 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted the article VT-10 as a copyvio, but the source is a public-domain work of the US government. Deleting for copyvio requires the identification of a source with an "obvious copyright notice", missing in this case. I have created an undeletion request for this article; please review the undeletion and place your comments there. Cheers, Vectro 01:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They were taken directly from VT-10 and VT-86's offical US Navy web site..now if globalsecurity is taking their stuff from them, and copywriting, it is wrong. The link is as follows: https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt10/history.asp https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/tw6/vt86/history.asp 69.48.38.145 19:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...for reverting the vandalism to the automotive articles. I really appreciate it! Your awards are well-deserved! Enigma3542002 18:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is a farce that ignores multiple factual comment letters from authorities on the topic, like the state securities regulator of Utah, a former underscretary of commerce, multiple state AGs, academics, etc. That these expert views are deleted because an editor named mantanmoreland feels that his view should prevail over their copious factually articulated expert opinions should tell one all one needs to know about the "NPOV" mantan is engaging in. It is rank censorship of anything that conflicts with his agenda of whitewashing this issue as a non-issue. I too wonder why multiple touts of Gary Weiss' books are appropriate, but an in-depth analysis of the issue by a securities regulator isn't. I long ago gave up on the notion that I would ever see a fair or balanced answer. Better to claim the article is "under attack" rather than being edited by those who know what they are talking about.

Having skimmed a few of Mr. Weiss' book chapters, they don't actually contain any verifiable data on this topic, but rather simply argue from authority, and espouse unsupported opinion. Mr. Weiss has no advanced degree in the topic, is not an acknowledged expert on stock clearing and settlement nor regulation, and thus cannot be put in the same category as a securities regulator who is.

Wiki is moving from tragedy to farce.

The article is once again under attack by anonymous meatpuppets.--Mantanmoreland 05:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mantanmoreland chose to revert to mentions of two books by one former business reporter and one link that same reporter's blog as being a correct description of the controversy. That blog, by the way, has a very heavily biased point of view that the current rules against deliberate fails to deliver should be repealed. What he deleted is a link to a balanced article on exactly this topic (naked short selling) written by the former Chairman of the SEC and links to comments on the regulation filed with the SEC (in the public domain) by the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut and a joint letter by the leaders of both houses of the legislature of the State of Utah referencing their nearly unamimously passed law tightening up the restrictions against naked short selling.... What, pray tell, makes links to an old book on possilbe mafia connections on Wall Street that doesn't even mention naked short selling a more important reference than directly on topic discussion by people charged with making the laws and enforcing them?

The anonymous IP above and other new IDs have been assaulting naked short selling through blatant editorializing and blanking such as this [2], similar in Patrick Byrne and additionally have created an advertising brochure called Market Reform Movement. All have descended upon these articles as a result of virulent attacks on Wikipedia and wiki editors in thesanitycheck.com (check recent posts under "Bob's Sanity Check Blog".--Mantanmoreland 07:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is granted. I will now input constructively. Verbosemjp 00:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, I hereby name you "speedy vandalism reverter". I'll start finding and correcting typo's now... Verbosemjp 00:49, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NCANS/The Market Reform Movement have been recognized in numerous news articles surrounding the Washington Post ad, as well as by the Supreme Court of Nevada, when their Amicus was accepted over the objections of the SEC. TheSanityCheck.com, the blog of the Market Reform Movement, has been cited as expert by the Columbia Journalism Review, with a recommendation that interested parties go there for info on the naked short selling crisis and the SEC's apparent misbehavior. http://www.cjrdaily.org/the_audit/will_the_media_blow_off_a_whis.php Thus, the movement exists and is recognized, as the home sites of the movement (NCANS and TheSanityCheck) have been the topics of articles and citations, and have been deemed legitimate enough to have an Amicus brief accepted by a court. How much more legitimacy and verification of existence would Wiki like besides the top court in Nevada, and the folks that hand out the Pulitzer, recognizing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.65.61.50 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, User:Fatty4ksu has defied your warning of 15/3/06 and has vandalised Football. Grant65 | Talk 02:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your kind words and would respond on the page I read them on, but I cannot find it, so I hope you don't mind that I have come over here, and I will also post this on my talk page. It seems obvious that the naked short selling page has been co-opted by the miscreants. I see no reason that the link http://www.thesanitycheck.com/BobsSanityCheckBlog/tabid/56/Default.aspx is not permitted on the page as it is a legitimate blogsite, full of useful information where one can learn and share information on naked short selling. It is obvious to many of us that watch our stocks on a daily basis that there is blatant manipulation of the share price in many stocks, which is only possible through the counterfeiting of phantom shares. I am sorry you chose to side with the big money who are manipulating our markets and now the wikipedia. If I cannot participate in the wikipedia anymore, so be it. I know a lot about a few things, and a little about many. However if the wiki is not interested in seeking the truth, count me out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nothing But The Truth (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggest you read this public letter from the association formed by the 50 state securities regulator. Hopefully you will see the topic differently after reading the official position of those people, who have enforcement power that existed long before the SEC existed.

http://sec.gov/comments/s7-12-06/jpborg7410.pdf

72.192.56.93 05:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional[reply]

Just dropping in to say thanks for reverting the anonymous vandalism to the Umit Karan article and being instrumental in eliminating that vandal (if only for a short time). Waya5 16:13, 5 October 2006

I haven't been here too long, but it's my understanding that editors who've contributed to and demonstrated an interest in specific articles are made aware when those articles are nominated for deletion. I've just learned that you nominated Market Reform Movement for deletion by visiting the article and seeing a big blue "AFD" box. I assume that was an oversight.--Beware of Cow 00:15, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of the rule under which that disappeared. While it should be clear that what I said was opinion about someone who holds themselves out to the public as an expert, I will not re-post. Thank you for your understanding. I'm just trying to make this article balanced, since it reads like a big pitch for a minor author's books and an apologist screed for an activity which is basically against the law, with very specific and minor exceptions. Even those exceptions are not exempt from general securities law that prohibits manipulative trading. There is substantial evidence that the options market-maker exemption is being used regularly by manipulators in these naked-shorted stocks on the Regulation SHO list. Professor Boni's paper on the topic using data she had as a visiting scholar at the SEC prior to adoption of the Regulation shows that extended deliberate fails were very common in hard-to-borrow stocks, especially if those stocks had options. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.192.56.93 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you have the time to look at the section I added to the talk page on that article. I think I have identified the reason it is presenting one POV. Also, the recent edits have removed a number of key references from five members of Congress, one Governor, the former Chairman of the SEC, Time and Forbes Magazines, the Attorneys General of Connecticut and Utah, the State Securities Regulator of Utah, minutes of Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, and several nationally recognized newspapers.

<new material October 16>

Yet another legitimate source that highlights efforts to disclose and punish illegal naked shorting. Forbes magazine, October 13, 2006. Distinctly more "encyclopeadic" than the single article referenced in the protected Wiki entry, which was an opinion piece put out in 2003 that argued it shouldn't be illegal. This, on the other hand, talks about the lengthy position piece by the association of all 50 state securities regulators, and about efforts made by both Connecticutt and Utah to obtain information on potentially criminal activity from the DTCC, which has been stonewalling. Here's a nice quote by the Director of Utah's Division of Securities: [quote from Forbes begins]

Wayne Klein, director of Utah's Division of Securities, wrote in a letter to the SEC, "The division does not know whether the obstreperous attitude of DTCC is because DTCC has shortcomings that it fears releasing or whether DTCC's lack of cooperation is at the behest of its participant firms."

[quote ends]

http://www.forbes.com/business/2006/10/13/state-regulators-naked-shorts-biz-cx_lm_1016shorts.html

I hope you can respond to this some time soon. 72.192.56.93 22:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional[reply]

Once again, I bring to you a call to end the bias on the wiki article on naked short selling. As it stands in its current protected state, the article has two links to the same reporter's opinion that the illegal act should not be illegal. It also references his two books. It disguises his solitary opinion under the vague "some investors think" or "critics maintain" (no other source can be found that shares his opinion)... meanwhile the biased editor mantanmoreland keeps removing links to articles with significant references written by the former Chairman of the SEC, letters seeking stronger enforcement by Members of Congress, copmments by state Attorneys General to the SEC and in testimony before the US Senate, extensive comments by the US Chamber of Commerce and the North American Association of Securities Administrators (top securities regulators of all 50 states and every province in Canada)... Now, here's a link to a speech this year by a sitting Commissioner of the SEC, in which he says

"These issues are tremendously important to the integrity of the capital markets, and we should be careful to ensure that the appropriate amount of enforcement resources are directed to the type of activity described in the Journal piece, as well as the separate but no less important issue of illegal naked short selling. Have we, perhaps inadvertently, over the past few years allowed too much of our attention to be diverted to other, supposedly "sexier" financial frauds where the lines are greyer, potential settlements are eye-popping, and newspaper headlines are guaranteed?http://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch021606psa.htm

Are you feeling up to the challenge of putting this article into a neutral POV with expert references included, possibly even removing the single reporter's voice that says the law should not exist unless at least one other reputable source agrees?

72.192.56.93 02:29, 25 October 2006 (UTC)securities professional[reply]

The user 67.70.37.221 has been vandalizing Nadirshaw Edulji Dinshaw. After your reversion he has again vandalised this page. Siddiqui 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twice, I have tried to remove information that has no source. Both times you have undone my edits as vandalism. Wikipedia's policy is clear - information "should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."

"Be careful not to err too far on the side of not upsetting other editors by leaving unsourced information in articles for too long, or at all in the case of information about living people. Jimmy Wales has said of this: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced."[3] --Jastcy 19:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping out with my old buddy Maoririder. I need a new hobby.  :) - Lucky 6.9 16:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting the linkspam on the states. I was dreading having to do that once I got time. -Ravedave ^{(help name my baby)} 17:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. I have a site that has been up since 1994 and will be up forever since it
has my family name, we feature some Mexican and Spanish recipes
which are among the most visited on the web. In fact, other recipes in Wiki 

refer to our site. So I figure I do some people a favor and point out the recipes for Tacos, Fabada and Paella.

And yes, I did read the policy on external links, please put them back.

Ricardo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.34.108.16 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi ESkog. Several participants in the events surrounding the deletion last July of Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe are now engaged in an arbitration case. The CTMU affair is mentioned on the evidence page, but the diffs needed to document editing and talk-page behavior are inaccessible due to the article's deletion. If Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe were redirected to Christopher Michael Langan, could you perform a history-only undeletion of the article and its talk page, to make the diffs available? Tim Smith 02:31, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Could you do the same for the talk page—maybe redirect it to Talk:Christopher Michael Langan? Those diffs would help too. Tim Smith 03:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

its actually not misguided because under the page for vandalism it states that if i made a concious effort to improve the website, then it is not vandalism. i'd appreciate it if you stop deleting my posts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.245.130 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you care so much that I edit him in. He IS a friend of mine and Notable Residents is purely an opinion based thing. There is nothing wrong with adding him, and I don't appreciate your removing him. It's silly. He is a media personality in KC. That's more than Stevie Case has ever done. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.136.221.221 (talk • contribs) 01:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think you would find that a lot more people know Matt than know Stevie Case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.136.221.221 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I've just noticed that you recently left a templated userpage message. I'm just bringing to your attention that the format and context of these templates will be shortly changing. It is recommended that you visit WikiProject user warnings and harmonisation discussion pages to find out how these changes could affect the templates you use. We also would appreciate any insights or thoughts you may have on the subject. Thanks for your understanding. Best regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 14:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you need to stay consistent with your accusations. first you told me i was vandalizing, now you're telling me im violating the NPOV policy. the way i see it, you making false accusations is worse than me providing my point of view...so get up off my back —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.65.245.130 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting vandalism to my user subpage. Best regards.--Húsönd 02:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting vandalism to my user talk page!

sorry for any "nonsense" or vandalism can i get a quote of what was said and it was not done out of intention to be such "nonsense" i dont remember what i even typed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danieljordan2007 (talk • contribs) 21:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)