Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 13 March 2009

Article on Christopher Cox

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, what makes this editor's edits problematic is not "edit warring," as I understand the expression, but rather that this editor is rolling back several generations of edits repeatedly and without discussion on the talk page. That makes these edits vandalism. That is problematic no matter whether the editor is "warring" or inserting the edits at a more leisurely pace. JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You should go back and take another look, you're arguing a moot point. I could turn around and suggest the very same thing, that you are in fact editing out everything I edit in order to keep truth from being added to the SEC Chairman wikipage. If you go back to the very first few edits I created, I indeed did not erase generations of edits. I believe you are; in fact, editing history from the Christopher Cox wikipage will prove that you are erasing facts and vandalizing while intentionally lying on Misplaced Pages.

So how about this - You, JohnnyB256, take what I have edited using unbias facts, and without erasing what I have edited over generations and over several months now, add whatever it is you are attempting to write. But you cannot simply choose to erase facts from the wikipage in order to continue discussing McCain's 2008 elections strategy. You should try going to McCain's wikipage and doing so, or possibly go to the 2008 U.S. elections wikipage and add it there, but it does not belong in the section for how the SEC Chairman is reacting to the credit crisis. Tycoon24 04:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, user JohnnyB256 has decided to continue his "edit war" by erasing, rolling back, generations of edits in order to post his blog links, or whatever agenda he is attempting to exploit using wikipedia. He is violating the rules, again. Tycoon24 2:52PM, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer discusses his reasoning, after careful research, why he's holding the SEC accountable for Madoff. Tycoon24 11:21PM, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The wikipage for Jim Cramer appears to have been vandalized by bloggers who are spreading false lies about Jim Cramer. I am fixing this page to make it accurate.

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. The recent edit you made to Jim Cramer has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Matt (talk) 08:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I also reverted you a couple of times on this page, but didn't warn as I was assuming you were acting in good faith. Still, your reasons that you cited on the talk page for removing the information appear dubious, as the links still seem good. I can no longer act due to the three-revert rule. You've passed this by a bit, but per assuming good faith, I'm not requesting you be blocked. Additionally, I haven't done the research on the topic. I have requested that CastAStone take a look, as s/he seems to have made some good edits to the page. If you could start a dialog before further edits, I'd greatly appreciate it. Thanks! Gnowor 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Which links, specifically, still worked for you? Are you sure that it is "dubious" to delete false information? Misplaced Pages is not and should not be a source of venting frustration on public individuals. If the source is followed up with factual, relevant information - then it is legit. I've done a lot of research on Jim Cramer and have followed him for over two years. I do not work for him or know him personally, but I know there are a lot of abusive and hatred spreading on this Misplaced Pages page about Jim Cramer. Most of it is false.

I will continue to follow this page and make corrections accordingly! And thank you for understand my more than 3 corrections today. It is in good faith. I am here to clean up this article. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tycoon24 -- we're not interested in whether the information is true or false, we're interested in whether or not the information came from reliable sources. The information you removed concerned statements that Mr. Cramer made, which were backed up by several reliable sources -- The New York Post, USA Today, and even Reuters. Therefore, I don't believe your removal of that information was justified. Thanks, Matt (talk) 08:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit you made to Jim Cramer constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content from articles without explanation. Thank you. Matt (talk) 08:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt -- are you kidding me? Who is "we" when you suggest false information is allowed to be used when attempting to publicly vent anger or hate about Jim Cramer? You should reconsider your philosophy. If the source is simply spreading dislike and/or hate about Jim Cramer, there's absolutely no reason it belongs here. If what you are suggesting is true, then anyone should be able to add any link to any Misplaced Pages article - without consideration whether or not the information is true or relevant. This does not make sense to me. Please reconsider your method for editing this article. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The blog being used as a source here is only used to say that the interview stirred up controversy. I think the blog qualifies as reliable in that respect. The other websites, although a few of them are blogs, all independently agree as to what Cramer said, and therefore, in my opinion, are reliable. If you really wanted to skip the blogs and go straight to the source, I'm sure you could find the original YouTube clip and cite that instead of the blogs. The article here is only citing what Cramer said -- I don't believe it's trying to be biased against him. Matt (talk) 09:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Matt, I'll suggest this - to make the link or source relevant and from a real reliable source, why can't the actual source be added instead of a blog article that inputs personal opinion by manipulating what is mentioned within the reliable source? Tycoon24 (talk) 08:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jim Cramer. 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. Matt (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey, Matt, you're not a machine. Instead of repeating what you've already told me, you can say 'thanks' since I pointed out the broken link that was re-added to the SEC subpoena section. So I re-edited the section to take out the broken link you added. If I went over the three-revert rule in order to fix what was broken - I apologize. But stop adding the broken link if that's you. It's no longer funny. Thanks. Tycoon24 (talk) 09:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not funny. The reason you took out the link to biz.yahoo.com was because it was broken, right? You didn't bother to notice that I had replaced it with a link to another website that still had the same copy of the article posted. I'd appreciate it if you'd revert back to that one. Thanks, Matt (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The article I fixed made the point that "In April 2006, the SEC announced a new policy on subpoenaing journalists, saying it would avoid issuing subpoenas 'that might impair the news gathering and reporting functions'." Forgive me, but I fail to see how that's libelous. Matt (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think that fits the definition of libel at all. If you're going to create the perception that the SEC changed their position at least in part because of Cramer's actions, then the outcome would be that Cramer fought the SEC and won. Again, I don't see how that's libelous. Matt (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Jim Cramer

You reversion of a prior edit you labeled as vandalism does not appear to have been vandalism. This was on the Daily Show, I found a link to this segment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFDXwjuEWGY Growler998 (talk) 20:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not referencing the "Bear Stearns is fine" quote from Cramer, but the segment on his Buy or Sell Segment which is in the video.Growler998 (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you may have some confusion over John Stewart's segment. Stewart's apologoy was obviously disingenous and done in a mocking tone. You seem to keep editing to make it seem that Stewart actually meant to apologize when that is not the case.Eros2250 (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, you appear to have violated Misplaced Pages's Three-revert-rule by making 3 reverts within a single page in a 24 hour period. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 02:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)