User talk:Tycoon24/Archive March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. 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 Talk 08:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Which links, specifically, still worked for you? Are you sure that it is "dubious" to delete false information? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. 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)


 * Moved to Archive March 2009. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:24, 16 May 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)

Please stop claiming vandalism on every edit. No where in the source regarding Wachovia did it state that "Others felt that Cramer was too hard on himself". Granted you fixed the sentence, but you charged vandalism at first. Then you reverted back the date to Feb 11, 2008 on the Bear Stearns topic when it WAS indeed March 11, 2008 and you claimed vandalism once again. Stop being so hasty and research or read the sources before you level a charge of vandalism. Eros2250 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume you made these edits in good faith and you were just in mistake, but now I am not so sure since you left this on my talk page:

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 or that is not from a reliable source. Adding false information is against Wikipedia regulations. Thank you.

Usually moderators are the ones who leave these when they have determined that vandalism has occurred. Do not leave this on my page without discussing with a moderator and only then should a moderator leave it. Thanks. Eros2250 (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding in incorrect dates and reverting back information lacking sources. Eros2250 (talk) 18:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) 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) 18:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009
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. DP 76764 (Talk) 20:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Reply
I think you should discuss it first on the appropriate Talk Pages and gain a WP:CONSENSUS about it. I see no reason that the 'criticism' can't be balanced out by a reliably published article. That being said, blogspot posters are generally not considered reliable. But, again, it should be discussed first, not deleted first. DP 76764 (Talk) 20:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, you're going to need a better source then the article you linked originally. What you should do is (since this has gotten a little out of control): find several good sources that discuss him positively and then create a new topic in the Talk Page suggesting adding them to the article.  Then wait a day or two to give people a chance to discuss and voice opinions.  If most people agree, then move on to adding them to the article.
 * In regards to the section naming, I think you have a fair point that it shouldn't necessarily be called 'criticism'. For example, many movie articles have a 'critical reception' section where both positive and negative reviews are discussed.  I think that that kind of format might be appropriate here for the show.  For Cramer's article itself, we should look to the policy on biographies of living people for guidance (there is probably a 'manual of style' for articles like that).  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, if you get no responses, then I'd feel free to add things (assuming you have good sources for them). If people revert them, I'd do 1 restore and politely point the reverter to the discussion on the talk page. Happy editing!  DP 76764  (Talk) 21:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please use the article's talk page before you start making radical changes to the article. For example, deleting sections. Also, I can not agree with some of the edits you have made such as the Matthew's interview as the quote you provided as it is no where in the transcript so I have to agree with the others in removing it. From the above discussions, it looks like blogspot was agreed to be a source that can not be used, so I don't think you should keep adding it back. It looks like the same blogspot source in the above discussion. 151.151.98.237 (talk) 09:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You are wrong. Go back and read the transcript. The quote is there. In fact, if you still can't find it, do a "CTRL + F" and search for the quote. It's there. Tycoon24 (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * More Archive moves added. Tycoon24 (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)