| Revision as of 02:05, 30 January 2006 editRiverrunrun (talk | contribs)16 edits Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:27, 30 January 2006 edit undoMantanmoreland (talk | contribs)5,801 edits →Counter Reply to Naked Short SellingNext edit → | ||
| Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
| As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. ] 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. ] 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Might it be possible to have one central place for discussion of this issue? This dispersal of the subject is confusing.--] 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:27, 30 January 2006
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.
Archives:
Adminship
You wouldn't happen to be interested in adminship, would you? NSLE (T+C) 06:49, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
- Late February would be the best time, now would be too soon. NSLE (T+C) 07:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
User:WAvegetarian and Thistheman
Thanks for the reversion. I have been checking my watchlist more than I can afford to due to RL time constraints in part becuase of stuff like this. It's nice to know that someone's watching out for my page while I'm gone. —WAvegetarian•CONTRIBUTIONS• • 07:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Please Help with a user User:CthulhuFhtagn to stop editing my page
This user repeatly keeps editing my team wiki page. He keeps added a section to my teams page that we are accused of an act called Zerging. He has changed it multiple times and wont respond to my warnings. Is there a way to prevent this user from vandalizing my teams page Thanks Skeletor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.46.202.226 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
In Regard to My Warnings
I am sorry. I allowed one of my nephews to check out Misplaced Pages while I was at work. I am a supporter of Misplaced Pages and will try harder to become constructive and punish my nephew for this attrocity. I am terribly sorry for any problems that this incident may have caused.-207.69.137.26 http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:207.69.137.26
The Vandalism IRC channel
Sorry it took so long to get your request processed, it normally goes quite a bit faster. It was absolutely nothing personal, there was nothing wrong with your request, the people in the channel (myself included) just all thought someone else was handling it... Anyhow, we hope to see you around, you are very welcome to join us! --JoanneB 23:29, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks
Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things poeple wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? /
AfD? 12:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Abortion
You have this wrong: read it carefully —Achille 2006-01-25 03:15Z
- pro-life (prō-līf')
- adj.
- Advocating full legal protection of human embryos or fetuses, especially by opposing legalized abortion.
- Oops, my bad. —Achille 2006-01-25 03:21Z
Your revert on the Pakistan page
Sorry about changing the version back, but an anonoymous editor (65.92.244.156) twice inserted a change about Jinnah without explaining why. After two reversions, this user David Matthews suddenly appeared and made the same change without explaining. I know you reverted user 70.31.11.199 edit but I felt the need to change back to before David Matthews. Thanks Green Giant 03:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Award
Thanks!
Well, I briefly considered being nonchalant as though receiving barnstars happens to me all the time, but... Thanks! That was the first one I've been given, and it came at an especially good time; I've been getting very frustrated with my several attempts to work with editors on high-conflict pages as my major contribution. To have my efforts at cleanup/rewrite recognized so quickly goes a long way toward making me feel that I can have a positive impact on WP.
In fact, I'm going to drop my wikistress meter down a level, thanks, ESkog!
Fox1 (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: 221.169.51.189
Regarding the message you left at User talk:221.169.51.189 this is liley an open proxy being used by User:Bonaparte banned indef for running a sock farm through open proxies used for 3RR workaround, RFAdm multiple voting and trolling. His othe proxy I exposed having been blocked by Mikka just minutes ago, makes clear why he chose to vandalize the pages of these particular users this time. Open proxies should be banned as per WP policy. Reagards, --Irpen 20:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
my rfa
thanks for you support on my rfa Benon 06:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Mb1000's Request for adminship
Hi, this is Mb1000. You recently voted Neutral on my request for adminship. Is there anyway you could reconsider and vote to Support me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Mb1000 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
P.S. If you have any questions you'd like to ask me, just post them on the comments page. I'll answer them as soon as I see them. Thanks.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me, ESkog. I was not intending to pressure you or anything. Just asking you to reconsider. :) --Mb1000 19:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Neutral POV violations
Appreciate the assistance in rectifying persistent POV violations in short-selling page.--Mantanmoreland 19:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Note that the page has been vandalized -- again. Different ISP number, same vandalism -- an apparent sockpuppet.--Mantanmoreland 20:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps the page can be reverted back to a neutral state and frozen? --Mantanmoreland 20:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, I have reverted back to a neutral version, and hopefully the administrators will have mercy.--Mantanmoreland 21:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Naked Short Selling
Your "Naked Short Selling" page is definitely biased in favor of the naked short seller. It is not neutral!
I have tried to replace it with factual information to no avail. A poster named ESKOG (you?) has entered a message to me that I am in violation of the "neutral" policy of Wikopedia. Either the author is not adequately knowledgeable regarding naked short selling or he is intentionally placing untruthful and biased information on this page.
I sincerely hope that this person is not an official moderator who controls this page. If this is an example of neutrality, it is blatantly hypocritical. Please let me know how to correct erroneous and biased information on this "Naked Short Selling" page.Riverrunrun 00:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Counter Reply to Naked Short Selling
Thanks for the reply. Hopefully we can have a constructive dialog with truth as the goal.
I have been investing in the stock market for over 30 years and have seen all sorts of schemes to bilk the unsuspecting small investor out of his money. I don't know how much experience you have had with such actions, but, by the tone of you comments, I would guess very little.
You have mentioned several "problems" with removed version of this page. My version attempts to rectify the inaccuracies in the protected version.
You state that this version was "extremely biased with a thesis that 'naked short selling is bad'". I suggest that you look at the SEC ACT of 1933 and 1934. Illegal Sale of an Unregistered Securty has always been forbidden, by Sections 5 and 6 of the Securities Act of 1933, and by provisions of the Securities Act of 1934. It is illegal. In light of this, how do you construe that "naked short selling is bad" is biased? It is nothing more than taking someone's money and not delivering anything in return. That's why they call it FTD (Fails To Deliver), i.e., no shares are ever delivered to the buyer. This is a crime. Crime is bad.
Using this illegal ploy, a hedge fund can, with broker complicity, sell unlimited shares on the open market and drive a target stock issue down dramatically, even to zero. I am not talking about penny stocks either. Believe me, this really is happening to the tune of billions of dollars per day of lost retail investments. Last year I lost over $500,00.00 due to this type of criminal action. The stock involved had over 200% of company issued shares being traded. Now, obiously, not all of these shares were legitimate.
This IS fraud! You say that there is no evidence of this happening. The SEC, DTC and NASD will not allow the true numbers of FTD shares to be given out. Even using the FOIA will not bring forth the numbers. Do you honestly think this is OK?
If you want to remain "neutral", then allow the current version of this page to give facts and not erroneous propaganda in favor of naked short selling. Facts are not argueable. Distortion of same is.
Since the mid 1990's, the SEC has been aware of naked short selling and failed to adequately respond to investor and company complaints alike. In recent years the FBI, SEC, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have conducted investigations into naked short selling and followed these sales through money laundering schemes used by criminal elements. Those elements jeopardize our Homeland Security. Unbelievably, the practice of naked short selling still continues to this day regardless of where the profits are going.
Brokerage firms make their money not by representing their clients, the average investor. They make their money by trading stock. It's that simple. And no one trades more stock that the hedge funds. Between the two of them, they have created some of the wealthiest individuals in America, lining their own pockets with outrageous salaries, unbelievable commissions, and massive bonuses that most Americans can only dream about. And they do it in a stock market where the average investor is still struggling to recoup even a fraction of the losses sustained in the market meltdown of 2000.
They do it by selling stock. It doesn't even matter whether that stock is real or imagined, just as long as the shares keep flowing. It doesn't matter whether the shares are delivered or not, just as long as the "customer" keeps paying the commissions for the shares that flow in a neverending stream from one hand to another. Counterfeit or real, as long as the brokerage firms collect their fees, they'll continue to buy and sell, sell and buy.
As I said previously, you are being hypocritical if you think that the wording of the protected version of this page is "neutral". It is showing the true bias or lack of knowledge of the author. This biased diatribe hurts the small investor, our economy and, by money laundering, our national security. Be informed before taking a stand on neutrality. Learn and advocate the facts. Otherwise you are definitely become part of the problem. Riverrunrun 02:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Might it be possible to have one central place for discussion of this issue? This dispersal of the subject is confusing.--Mantanmoreland 03:27, 30 January 2006 (UTC)