Talk:Patrick M. Byrne: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 04:08, 21 August 2006

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 February 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Removing details inserted by user concerning naked short-selling, which as stated were skewed entirely to the "anti-shorting" position. Interested users can go to the naked short selling page, where a consensus article is being hammered out. I've also removed a paragraph of hagiography and unduly self-promotional and does not belong in a Wikipedia profile. --Tomstoner 02:29, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some details re recent controversies and widespread press coverage. Also I did a bit of reassembly of the article, which I think was a bit disorganized. Tried my best to be as neutral as possible. Let me know what you think. --Lastexit 14:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the following: (1) His semi retraction of the Sith Lord comment (2) Gradient Analytics as the firm being sued with Rocker Partners (3) Worldstock Reference (4) Patrick's presentation on NSS

Removed the following: (1) Links to articles that were one sided as reference. Mfv 02:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your links and quotes from non-notable websites and reinstated the notable links you removed. Please review WP:RS. Thanks. --Mantanmoreland 03:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mantanmoreland, I reverted your changes as the reference was given directly by Overstock : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2006/0004248568&EDATE=. I also felt the reference to Gradient Analytics and WorldStock to be pertinent. Please let me know if you feel otherwise before reverting with a broad brush. Thanks. Mfv 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because a non-notable website is mentioned in a press release does not mean that you can quote from it and link to it in the article. Please study WP:RS, which specifically refers to quotes on non-verifiable bulletin boards and websites. Even if it were quotable, the quote re "Al Qaeda" doesn't retract the "Sith Lord" comment and is used way out of proportion to the significance of the quote. Additionally it is improperly placed in the beginning of the article, where it does not belong.

Additionally, I cautioned you against removing citations to notable publications and substituting a non-notable "BusinessJive" website. Again, I ask that you study WP:RS.

These changes strike me as POV edits. Do not make further reversions without discussing. Thanks.--Mantanmoreland 04:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 :Mantanmoreland, I reverted your changes as the reference was given directly by Overstock : http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-13-2006/0004248568&EDATE=.  I also felt the reference to Gradient Analytics and WorldStock to be pertinent.  Please let me know if you feel otherwise before reverting with a broad brush.  Thanks. [[User:Mfv|Mfv]] 03:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
+::No, just because a non-notable website is mentioned in a press release does not mean that you can quote from it and link to it in the article. Please study [[WP:RS]], which specifically refers to quotes on non-verifiable bulletin boards and websites. Even if it were quotable, the quote re "Al Qaeda" doesn't retract the "Sith Lord" comment and is used way out of proportion to the significance of the quote. Additionally it is improperly placed in the beginning of the article, where it does not belong.
+::Additionally, I cautioned you against removing citations to notable publications and substituting a non-notable "BusinessJive" website. Again, I ask that you study [[WP:RS]].
+::These changes strike me as POV edits. Do not make further reversions without discussing. Thanks.--[[User:Mantanmoreland|Mantanmoreland]] 04:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)