User talk:Wiki-nika

Good edits on Manuel Asensio. By the by, if you think the article is "hagiography" now, take a look at earlier versions where he was called "Mr. Asensio." --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

\ Thanks, Johnny. I don't know if you'll see this but your talk page is semi-protected.

I see what you mean about how the Asensio page used to read. Kudos on your efforts to bring neutrality. The page still feels to me like it bears subject's fingerprints.

Specific examples:

- Is there an accepted way to verify Asensio's educational credentials? There's a "citation needed" for his claimed MBA but not for his B.S. I assume this is a frequent issue with businessperson BLPs, although I don't know what best practice is, or even whether it's worth worrying about. Bios of officers and directors of public companies are generally taken from SEC filings where there are consequences for false or misleading information. In this case, educational credentials don't seem relevant and the claims presumably originated with the subject.

- Saying he "has worked in the securities industry..." may be a stretch since he was barred from associating with any NASD members, which would seem to effectively bar him from working the industry. He now appears to claim to be an "Investment Advisor," although he doesn't seem to claim to be a Registered Investment Advisor and doesn't list an IARD/CRD Number. Kind of like saying you're a realtor without a license. My suggestion would be to drop the reference to his work history or perhaps make it past tense. --Wiki-nika (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I've rearranged the order of the posts above, so as to be in the correct order.

I think you raise some very good points and should feel free to make any and all edits that you see fit, subject tot he rules and policy. You may want to transplant your comments from above to the article talk page.

I had the same concerns you did, and assume that Asensio or his people edited the article. I believe I may have even said so. It's OK for him and/or his people to edit the article, as long as they adhere to policy. But they can't put in excuses and whitewashing for which there are no sources. Someone added that he had resigned from NASD. OK, where is that in the sources?

Glad someone else is editing this article. I mistakenly removed the reference to his firm's expulsion, and nobody noticed. That is what happens when an article is under the radar. Also, as you pointed out, there was a website responding to allegations not in the article.JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

As for your specific points, "worked in the securities industry" etc., I don't know. If there are no sources for it, then for an innocuous fact I'd suggest adding a citations needed tag, which looks like this: {{fact}}. Generally innocuous stuff can remain in articles without sourcing if tagged. He could have worked in a hedge fund despite having been barred, for example. His website, if it makes uncontroversial statements, can be used as a source on himself. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your post. I think that you probably can't edit that page because you are under ten edits, after which you will be "autoconfirmed." I've gone through Google News and found numerous articles about him. One recent one from 2004 in Registered Representative seems to be the best of the recent ones, as it touches on his regulatory issues and litigation, and includes a Q&A. Most other articles quote him saying how he hates this or that company, or are citations from law reviews about his lawsuits. He uses such virulent language that I'm hesitant about a lot of what I see. Feel free to weigh in on the talk page, please. After you have ten edits, you can edit semiprotected pages. But keep in mind that editing just one page makes you a "single purpose account," and I think the relevant Wiki page on that is WP:SPA, for what it's worth.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)