User talk:Chuck Marean

My Talk Archives [6-1-09] [4/3/09], [11/4/08], [3/8/08], [2/5/08], [7/29/07], [3/207], [9/ 22/06], 7/20/06, [8/606], [9/6/06], 7/8/2006

---

June 2009

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Portal:Current events/2009 June 2, you will be blocked from editing. Chuck, again, the current events portal is not for any news item you find interesting. If you want to share news items, perhaps you should explore the website Digg. ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

It is June 2 in Australia and elsewhere. I don't understand your opinion. --Chuck Marean 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the mention of vandalism, realizing this is more an issue of disruption, not vandalism per se. Apologies for the false characterization. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought I was following the protocol. I now notice the significance of the box pointing out Wikipedia time. I think what I added today was notable, although I suppose I should have linked them to the background articles myself to make sure there were in fact background articles and that they did get linked to those articles. -- Chuck Marean 02:37, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

FAC withdrawn

I appreciate that you are acting in good faith, but it is best if featured articles are nominated by people who have worked closely on them. In this way, they can give reasoned replies to reviewers and be familiar enough with the sources to act on suggested improvements. Someone who has not worked on the article can not provide this input, so the nomination may continue until opposition to it becomes so overwhelming that the article is failed; this takes away time from reviewers. While the European Union article is of reasonable quality, it is not yet of featured quality, and principal contributors must be consulted before a nomination, as required in the featured article candidate instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:11, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh. Ok. --Chuck Marean 07:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

File:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:White Crested Cockatoo .jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Jay (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Incoherant entry?

I didn't mean to be rude, but I removed the entry because I had no idea what the sentence said. "Schwarzenegger speech in Escondido opposes paying off old bonds with new and California printing money, but favors lower spending and higher taxes." It reads more like a headline, but I still don't know what "opposes paying off old bonds with new and California printing money" means. If you re-add the entry it should be a sentence and the source you give should be a news source. – Zntrip 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I found a news source, and tried to word it better.--Chuck Marean 18:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the entry. Just a note: when adding things to the current events templates the entries needn't be phrases or headlines. They should be complete sentences. For example, "Military spectacle, Trooping the Colour parade, occurrs in London in bright sunny weather" could be something like "Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom celebrates her 83rd birthday at Trooping the Colour." Also, remember that only newspapers or magazines are in italics. – Zntrip 05:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Happy Birthday

Hey Chuck, I noticed from your user page that your birthday has just passed so I just wanted to wish you a belated many happy returns. I'm also glad to see you taking an interest in ITN, which is great because it does lack contributors. My only advice would be that unfortunetely you have to accept that bad news often outweighs good news and realistically it's not out place to change that. After all there's a reason for the saying that No News, is Good News. However, if you do want to get more positive items on ITN your best bet is to look for scientific and technological, stories particularly those relating to significant breakthroughs. Not only are these positive, but if significant enough they are normally welcomed due to their encyclopaedic value. Once again happy birthday and happy editing :) --Daviessimo (talk) 21:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to BRIC

This is a message in response to the message you have sent me regarding the headline of the BRIC summit headline I removed from "todays" headlines. Someone had already added a headline regarding the BRIC summit on the day prior to the it. I just thought I would confirm that with you. Thanks. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of On financial regulation, June 17, 2009

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article On financial regulation, June 17, 2009, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Wikipedia is not for news reports.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. MuZemike 03:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of On financial regulation, June 17, 2009

I have nominated On financial regulation, June 17, 2009, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On financial regulation, June 17, 2009. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for every news story you find interesting

Chuck, given some your recent activities (example), I (again) urge you to review WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is not the place to list every news item you happen to find interesting. Just because something is on the front page of your newspaper doesn't mean it belongs in this encyclopedia. Thank you. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's news. It's a speech.--Chuck Marean 18:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

You are confusing Wikipedia with Wikinews. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 19:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I notice that Wikipedia does write articles on current events -- and has always done so -- whether someone wrote an article against it or not. Therefore, I suppose the difference would be that Wikinews would also contain articles on upcomming events. I also read somewhere that Wikinews includes original reporting. I don't have the time or money to write a news article. The article you are talking about is about a speech, as are many articles. It was written to give background to a Current events sentence, since I read that is what the Current events list is for. --Chuck Marean 09:37, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, only items that go on the main page require articles. If they a simply listed in Portal:Current events they don't neccesarily require them. This item was never going to get on the main page so there was never a need to create an article. At the end of the day this was a speech and nowhere near the level of I Have a Dream or We shall fight on the beaches, which are the sought of speeches that warrant their own articles --Daviessimo (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I did nominate it or was going to, and I noticed there's a category for articles on the individual speeches of president Obama, which is why I started one for that speech. I realize it needs work, but supposed others would work on the article since there is a category for Obama's speeches. The speech got a lot of publicity before it was scheduled to be given, but I was unable to find it on TV. In fact, I don't know whether or not he actually gave the speech. I read it on the White House web site. I agree it was not poetic and had a high fog index, but I did notice there are several articles on speeches of his.--Chuck Marean 10:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Response to "The museum"

This is a response to the message you have sent me regarding the article about the museum that opened on "Saturday." If you didn't know, I removed it because someone had already added that article on Friday's current events. Therefore, I had good reason to remove it. No need to worry. If you want me to move the article to Saturday's current events, I would be happy to do so. Please let me know, and again, no worries. Thanks. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

As a courtesy, I have moved the article that was put up this Friday, and put it in Saturday's current events. I hope you will find the time to look at it. Thank you for your concern, and please keep in touch with me if you have any other concerns. Thanks again. --Radiokid1010 (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Your edit significantly compromised the quality of the lead and so was reverted. The article, though, is sub-optimally long, and if you've concrete suggestions about how we might make improvements consistent with WP:SIZE and our guidelines for clarity, you should feel free to raise them at the article's talk. One tip, while I'm here, about certain of your citations, including that you introduced in the instant article: although encyclopedias are unquestionably reliable sources, they are tertiary, and, cet. par., we prefer secondary sources (see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources). It is fine, then, to cite encyclopedias and dictionaries for general propositions and in summaries and overviews, but you will want to be careful not to attribute too much substance (from WP:NOR: "the bulk of the article should rely on secondary sources") to them. 76.229.232.170 (talk) 17:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Really? I thought it improved it. The was it was, it had a lot of things I didn't understand, as well as an unnecessary list of nations. The edit was because of the template I saw complaining that the article was too long. I think encyclopedias are a valid source.--Chuck Marean 17:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article is too long because of the interminable sections following the lead, some of which need to be moved into daughter articles (after discussion!), not because of a list of countries in the lead. Also, if you don't understand something, perhaps discussing it on the talk -page would be a good idea before changing it. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/2009 June 29

Your edit to the Bernie Madoff section of Portal:Current events/2009 June 29 was vandalism. Don't do that again. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It was not. You apologize.--Chuck Marean 20:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't criminal, so that's why he went to jail for 150 years. Your opinion is not a reliable source, your edit was soapboxing. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

this edit shows you don't know what you're talking about. go read the facts before contributing. --208.54.7.185 (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I must echo this suggestion, one that has been made many times before. If you don't have a full understanding for a story, you will do well to avoid writing about it; if you can't readily appreciate when you don't have a full understanding, we have, of course, a graver problem, one that has resulted in the AN thread mentioned infra. I should say that on the substance I agree with you: as an anarcho-capitalist I support the abolition of criminal law, preferring that controversies be addressed civilly, and in specific here I deeply regret that I live in a country that would deprive a man of liberty for the remainder of his life for a non-violent taking, whatever its scope, especially one effected purely by word. My personal view, though, is irrelevant to our work here, as is yours. I continue to think that your view follows from a basic misunderstanding of the Madoff saga, such that you didn't intend to inject your opinion in P:CE but merely to recast the story to conform to your understanding of the events, and I would be disappointed to find that you edited to express your disapprobation for the sentence. I do not doubt that you would have been indefinitely blocked long ago were the community not confident of your good faith, and your comments at AN re Madoff suggest, I regret to say, that that confidence may have been misplaced. Joe (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipedia article on Madoff. If it's accruate, I learned something new,i.e. that he was depositing the money in the bank. --Chuck Marean 00:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He was depositing money in the bank, yes. However, he was taking some of it out and liberally spending it on his own expenses, and was reporting interest income and capital gains to his investors which were far in excess of the interest the bank was paying him.

He was able to sustain this scheme only because, for a long time, he got enough new investments to cover the interest payments he was giving out to his existing investors. When that scheme unwound, he was out of luck and everyone was out of money. That is exactly the definition of a Ponzi scheme.

I have to agree with the chorus of your critics that your editing on Madoff have been very poor. Even if you don't understand what a Ponzi scheme is or why what Madoff did is wrong, the fact that nobody on Wikipedia agrees with you and that you could not find any echo of your conclusions about Madoff's good faith in the media should have made you stop and think before editing. The fact that you went on with editing even after that makes the whole thing much worse, I'm afraid. --Saforrest (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I made this one edit (Link) then complained about it being called nonsense and vandalism by a surprisingly angry editor. My edit was because what I heard on TV he got bad press from inverstgative reporters even though he may have made an honest overestimate of being able to pay the money back and 150 years in jail sounds illegal to me. Maybe he should get a scholarship to business school instead.--Chuck Marean 03:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Chuck, it was called nonsense because it was nonsense, and that's being charitable. Piling on the nonsense doesn't help your case (hint: when a Federal judge imposes a prison sentence recommended by the US Attorney's office using the United States Federal Sentencing Guidelines [1], that is very much the exact opposite of "illegal"). Remember the First Law of Holes: when you find yourself in one, stop digging. --Calton | Talk 14:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excessive bail & fines and cruel punishments are illegal under the U.S. Constitution Bill of Rights, which is based on the Magna Charta, the Petition of Right, the Declaration of Rights, “two wrongs don’t make a right” and so forth, i.e. punishments are for public safety and the civil, calm retraining of the offender. An example is traffic school.--Chuck Marean 16:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Editing restrictions

Restrictions on your editing privileges are being discussed here. Raul654 (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Madoff Explanation

I saw the discussion on AN, and while I will refrain from commenting on the parole options, I thought if I explained the situation in a different way it might help you to understand exactly why what he did was illegal. He was taking investors money, claiming to invest it in funds and stocks, but instead simply turning around and claiming that money was coming from the same stocks when giving it to other investors. This is highly illegal, as he was lying to his clients about how he was making the money. The scheme, which you commented 'paying old bonds with new, something anyone might do', is illegal in practice, as it is completely unsustainable (and seeing as he has been in the investment market since the '60s, he would be very familiar with the laws). When people start demanding their money that you are contractually obligated to have invested safely, you simply do not have it because you have paid it out to other people and used to to fund your own life, that's investment fraud. 24.99.242.63 (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Until recently, I thought the government was paying old bonds with new, but now I think the money it coins is considered a product like cars and something it can therefore secure the bonds with. So, the notion of a business deficit spending instead (to balance the budget) does not make sense because a business is not allowed to coin money. This is interesting enough that I've started reading a book on the subject of finance.--Chuck Marean 03:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh for the love of God, NO, governments -- those which have actual central banks and are not run by whackjob dictators -- do NOT print their own money to secure their bonds with. Please, just stop pretending to knowledge you don't have or which you make up out of whole cloth. --Calton | Talk 14:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

From what little I know, the alternatives are fees and taxes or less government spending, which historically caused U.S. and French revolutions, respectively. --Chuck Marean 14:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)