Talk:Yalincak hedge fund scam

Fair use rationale for Image:L d8c6dc517e3016e8bddd51541f942b02.jpg
Image:L d8c6dc517e3016e8bddd51541f942b02.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Hyalincak2.gif
Image:Hyalincak2.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP concerns
may be discussed at Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Cheers,  Dloh  cierekim  23:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Version by user:Marymccully does not have my imprimatur
Restored to version after WP:BLPN discussion. Mary claims to be an expert on the subject and disagrees with the truncation of the article. Dloh cierekim  15:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

This is in response to your comment above. My restoration was in response to familiarize myself and make a thoughtful contribution and I restored it as close as I could to the print out copy that I had less the numerous blog-like edits. If it needs more eyes and contributions than let people contribute to what was already there, not based on something that no one has an interest in and what smacks of defamation considering the only source you are using in the Yalincak Hedge Fund Scam is an article that issued a retraction. See Yalincak v. Steven Fishman., et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00132 (SRU), Federal Court, Dist. of CT, March 10, 2008 docket entry. I go off of court records for my research, not whims or careless edits to a longstanding page. Moreover, allowing people to contribute to what was already there is more conducive to contributions to a single paragraph of erroneous information and imagination22:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully.

Version by user:Dlohcierekim Is An Improper Revision And Has Refused Valid Contributions And Information And Instead Opted for Useless Information
I have attempted, on several occasions to restore the page to what it was, prior to the slew of changes that were improperly made. It is contrary to the principles of wiki to overlook valid information and transform a page that has been standing for 2 years ++ and replace with a paragraph based on an article published by a magazine that later had to issue a retraction. And, on at least three occasions including a direct email the same documents were offered and disregarded. The page should be restored to what it was prior to all of the recent contributions. --Marymccully (talk) 11:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully
 * Well firstly, you misrepresented your recreation of the article citing our discussion. Second, you fail to grasp the implications of negative WP:BLP article here. You may be an expert on the man, but you need a firmer grip on our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia decisions are based on community consensus. Right now, the consensus is that the version you restored violates WP:BLP. You need to obtain a consensus before restoring any removed material. Each item needs to have a reliable source. There is much in the version you restored that is purely defamatory with no off-setting encyclopedic value. The real travesty is that this has sat here in that state for longer than two minutes.  Dloh  cierekim  14:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The problem I have is the consensus issue when it is obvious that the individual(s) who keep making the changes and disrupted the original stability of the article is using multiple usernames and accounts, and in such a case, a neutral consensus is all but an impossibility. Next, in terms of your defamation argument, I note that the version that was restored was the same version that was standing for two years prior to the recent slate of edits. Moreover, as I have noted on numerous occasions the article that is cited as the only source on the new redirected page was sued and issued a retraction. In such cases, both you and wiki are opening the door for a defamation lawsuit by Yalincak or his family members and I am hoping you see either (a) the hypocritical nature of your comments that the previous version of the article was defamatory whereas the present version which cites an article that was sued and retracted as not defamatory, or (b) that consensus cannot be built unless the original article is restored and people are allowed to make comments and edits that can then be discussed. The present form includes a one line statement that is, in part, untrue and defamatory, and provides no encyclopedic information of value and provides nothing to discuss. Respectfully, we differ on our definition of travesty. This page should only be maintained now if it is restored and locked with extensive fact verification before any further postings are allowed...Marymccully (talk) 08:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)Marymccully

Proposal to merge yalincak hedge fund scam with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ponzi_schemes
Mary does make a worthy point about this article-- it seems that the previous iterations cannot be used again as they wont survive any attempt to reach a neutral consensus on this topic/biography, given the strong disagreement on what is accurate, appropriate, or notable etc. The edit warring crossfire, targeting not random users but even high-level admins, further points to this inevitability. With these conflicts and the time they consume in mind, its should be noted that Yalincak/his story is not something that one would see in a Britannica--his story fails to impart or emobdy a unique idea/concept or a transcendent moment in history that requires strict enyclopedic documentation. Obviously Wikipedia tends to be more expansive than traditional encyclopedias, yet yalincak's presence, even within those more flexible guidelines, is still something of a stretch.

I don't believe Yalincak deserves a dedicated BLP as his biography/life story is certainly not notable in a historic or cultural sense. As stated above, it simply does not provide anything "new" in its content or provide insight to the study of related matters. His crimes, however, do meet some sense of notability in reference to Ponzi/pyramid schemes, and do provide additional reference to those studying such topics. With that in mind, I'd like to propose erasing this BLP and merging what is left of the article with en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ponzi_schemes-- a list of ponzi schemes throughout history. I think that this the most fitting place, as yalincak's scheme, independent of the man himself, is notable in that he was so young, but not for much else beyond that. After reviewing the list myself, its clear Yalincaks BLP was, from the outset, an aberration, as there are ponzi schemes on the list involving ten+ times the amount of money his did that do not have an accompanying/extensive BLP.

Any thoughts on this from the peanut gallery? Yulin23 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, usually we allow a discussion to run a week (as opposed to 2 days). I have no problem with this merger, though.  Dloh  cierekim  22:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)