User talk:Aseca21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Economic Crisis of 2008[edit]

In reference to the article on Christopher Cox: Thanks you for jelling the article together and putting the missing pieces in place. I do not know if you meant to remove the Glass-Steagall Act from the explanation? Ronewirl (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Article on Christopher Cox[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

No, this editor was not engaged in edit warring by removing vandalism. Please don't use warning templates inappropriately.JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, this editor is repeatedly removing items from the Christopher Cox page that could be viewed in a bad light —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.226.32.16 (talk) 20:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Article on Chris Cox[edit]

It is quite evident you admire this character and put forth a lot of effort to protect his career as the chairman of the SEC. It's ironic how you would include his effort to protect senior investors and also leave out the fact that under his chairmanship of the SEC, he supported the decision (and as chairman, authorized the change in regulation of short sales) to eliminate the Uptick rule. Ronewirl (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Washington Post quote[edit]

Please stop removing that he told the Washington Post that the temporary ban was the biggest mistake of his tenure. That is significant and belongs in the article. The explanation from Reuters is fine, but does not justify removing that.JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)