Talk:Thom Calandra

Born?
When was Thom born? Hmm...anyone? Piperdown 02:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I was born June 8, 1956, in Brooklyn, New York. I self published the novel, Pablo By Numbers, in 2008. My first job in journalism was in 1982, working for the Tucson Citizen in Arizona. I worked as a financial writer until 2004 for newspapers, wire services and then, as co-founder, for MarkwetWatch.com. -- Thom Calandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.235.56 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 21 November 2011‎ (UTC)

Time in journalism, etc.
The Associated Press link does not support that he is (or was) "25 years in journalism."

I am not clear, looking at the Calandra website, just where this novel he is writing is going to be published. It apparently is being excerpted by a stock promotion site called "Stockhouse." I think maybe the reference to the novel should go. Meanwhile I have changed to "forthcoming" novel as apparently it has not been published.

I've reorganized the article to put the SEC charges first. That is his claim to fame.--Mantanmoreland 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It would help if you could review WP:RS and provide sources that cite this information from reliable and independent publications. Mkdw talk 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had to collapse large sections of your comments here on the talk page because most of these walls of text are very difficult to read and sort out: they repeat themselves; links are frequently repeated; the use of should not be used on a talk pages; every section of this talk page has been engaged in making it difficult to follow the various lines of thread and some date back as far as 2007; indentation to denote replies are not being used and difficult to discern who made what comment; and you frequently add your Wikipedia signature in the middle of sentences and multiple times; etc. etc. etc. I've done my best to refactor some of the content for readability. Use the last section on a page as an example how a discussion should be formatted. However, more importantly, you're using this article and this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote your own personal achievements. I don't have a problem listing things like your current employer and where you went to school, but the main reason I wanted you to read WP:NOT was the section that Wikipedia is not your resume on display. You still do not fully understand WP:RS as many of the links you provided are merely press releases -- and you've provided links to your own personal website. Tidily, why don't you review WP:Talk page, use a top down method of replying with indentations, use your signature only once and at the end of your comment, and continue the discussion.  The bickering done below is not only disruptive but needs to stop. Now. This talk page is not a place to settle personal differences or ideological opinions about ethics and the subject of the article. Furthermore, it's being needlessly carried on in multiple sections. WP:Talk page outlines how comments and discussions should be formatted and the purposes of them. If they cannot be applied and the personal attacks continue, the talk page and article will be locked from editing for both of you. Consider this the final warning on the matter.  Mkdw talk 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Conversation moved to User talk:70.71.36.74. Off-topic and WP:CLUE. Mkdw talk 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:BLP
This article has been the subject to several WP:BLP violations and it appears the subject and another editor have engaged in edit warring and the removal of content -- as well as the introduction of biased content. I have swept through the article and removed any majorly contentious material against BLP, and provided citations and neutral language for certain sections, particularly the SEC section. I have advised the subject about our policies regarding WP:COI and recommended that they use the help template and engage on this talk page for any complaints or requests for changes to the article. Mkdw talk 03:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have added several notes to the TALK pages, with references. Thomcalandra (talk) 18:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Thom Calandra
This being the case I WELCOME a profile that isn't completely tainted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.52.15 (talk) 04:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NPA must be observed at all times. Mkdw talk 04:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I left a message on your talk page about our conflict of interest policy. There are only certain times primary sources can be used, and anything you add directly will inherently be controversial due to your COI. Therefore, it is strongly recommended any content you wish to be added to the article be requested on this talk page. Not doing so invites controversy and you will likely be reverted for either failing to adhere to WP:NPOV or WP:RS. Mkdw talk 17:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

My investment portfolio is available always for public view at this url: http://www.stockhouse.com/members/tcalandra. This is free for members of Stockhouse.com.

Thank you.Thomcalandra (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * None of those sources are eligible. Amazon.com publishes whatever bio you submit to them and has no editorial oversight for fact checking. Similarly, investorintel looks like a self-submitted biography as well. These essentially count as primary sources. This suggests to me that you have not read WP:RS as I have previously recommended to you. We have a policy called WP:CLUE that essentially states if you're not willing to work within the system, you'll end up fighting it the whole time. While you're at it, you should read WP:NOT. Just because it's a part of your life does not mean it's going to show up in Wikipedia. The English Wikipedia is not a place to host your autobiography and noteworthy content is established through using independent and reliable sources as an indictor of notability. If a publication like the New York Times, TIME, BBC, Reuters, etc. decide to cover aspects of your personal life like your education, then its deemed noteworthy for inclusion. If not, then your article on Wikipedia will only focus on aspects that are covered in the mainstream media. Mkdw talk 18:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am reading all of the Wiki policies on sourcing. I also will read WP-NOT and other WILI policies. Thomcalandra (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What is happening here, clearly, is TC is attempting to obscure that past which brings him the greatest infamy and he intends to do that through the addition of reams of irrelevant material that is purely self-promoting rubbish. We know this because he did it before, to the point where his Wiki profile read like a fantasy novel and he was Prince Charming.
 * Mr. Calandra is a career promoter and was busted red-handed by the SEC. THAT is his claim to fame. Nothing else is relevant, certainly NOT his biblical promotional materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.19.181.202 (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Might I make the case also when it comes to Claims To Fame that the SEC incident was a black mark on my reputation. I regret that and have apologized. Yet it was one span of several months. My career in journalism started in 1976 at the college newspaper KINGSMAN for CUNY Brooklyn College and continued across 10 to 12 publications, wire services, radio and television in cities in the USA and the UK. And of course, founding the editorial operations of CBS MarkwtWatch, MarketWatch.com and FTMarketWatch. Which became under my supervision as editor in chief and executive VP of news the largest financial news site. It still is today after our $520 million sale of the business to Dow Jones in 2005. I was at the time the largest employee owner of the publicly traded stock. Over those many years and continuing today, I have published across newspapers, magazines, wire services and the Internet thousands of articles, reviews and commentaries. Please see references above, Thank you. Thomcalandra (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Resignation
Calandra was forced to resign from Market Watch because the SEC demanded documents from his employer regarding his activities and he refused to authorize it.

Eventually, with the SEC closing in, he settled to avoid civil penalties and possible criminal sanction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk) 21:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is all covered in the MarketWatch resignation and SEC section. The event you speak of occurred in January 2004. The statement you edited, was when he started The Calandra Report in March 2003. Mkdw talk 21:55, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Speculation. He resigned. The reasons for it are NOT because he decided to publish newsletters as you suggest.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's what was published in the source which is the basis of that statement in the article. Any statements you make in the article will need to be supported by a reliable source otherwise it is in violation of our policy on biographies of living people. Wikipedia does not accept any original research. Mkdw talk 22:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If it's not true, and it this case it absolutely isn't, what actual "good" are your sources? They speculated and you are accepting that speculation as solid fact. Stop speculating.  Calandra resigned. That's what happened is it not?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Calandra did resign, in 2004 from MarketWatch due to the SEC investigation. It says it in the article. I suggest you go back and read Thom Calandra. Otherwise, I'm not really sure what you're trying to say? That he resigned twice? Sources are pretty good from reputable publications. They're subject to editorial oversight and fact checking. They don't always get it right, but the SEC source and multiple sources have a consensus on the matter. Arguments from random IPs that run along the lines "but I know it's true" are really not worth very much in terms of using it as a basis to write a statement on a biography article. You may want to read verifiability, not truth. Mkdw talk 22:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Beautiful work, truly. Confusing in that Calandra resigned as "commentator" in 2003 and was apparently "resigned" in January 2004? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * 1) I resigned from MarketWatch.com in January 2004. I resigned because I was the subject of an SEC informal probe into my trading practices.
 * 2) I am reading Wiki's policies on sourcing.
 * 3) The original TCR The Calandra Report began in January 2003 or late 2002 as a CBS MarketWatch and MarketWatch.com subscriber service.
 * 4) The revised TCR began in August 2012. It is a subscriber service. 2601:647:2:4C25:912B:B714:BE92:F4F1 (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2015 (UTC) Likely


 * "I resigned because I was the subject of an SEC informal probe into my trading practices." - I for one would probably believe Mr. Calandra's statement this time because that is exactly what happened. This statement belongs on Wiki imo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk)
 * Allow me to add that the conditions of my consent decree stipulated that I cannot confirm nor deny ay of the descriptions in the SEC civil complaint. I paid to the SEC about a half-million dollars U.S. in returned profits and penalties for a fund for anyone who felt they lost money taking the advice of The Calandra Report during this time. I continue to publish TCR and have a growing audience of investors. I would ask that they contribute any negative or positive comments about my work then and now. Thomcalandra (talk) 18:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "I resigned because I was the subject of an SEC informal probe into my trading practices." - I for one would probably believe Mr. Calandra's statement this time because that is exactly what happened. This statement belongs on Wiki imo. As far as the continued horn tooting of TC is concerned, I mean geeze. Read it for yourself. Further, should TC be editing this material (without supervision) at all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.36.74 (talk)