User talk:JohnnyB256

Thanks. I just sometimes get frustrated that so much of Wikipedia presents one side of one topic while ignoring the other - like the whole stock market "crash" thing. However, I'm not out to censor the other side, just trying to offer improvement from all sides. The stock market thing is developing and so is whether or not its a "crash" - and it may indeed crash sometime in the future that no one can debate - but for now I think the "is this REALLY a crash and not just being spun as one" is important. LowLevelMason (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I share your general concern but I understand that there are stringent rules on sources.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement request about Naked short selling

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement#Request for a special restriction at Naked short selling. Cool Hand Luke 03:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Seen.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How Admins Address the Issue of Edit Wars

Wikipedia administrators have the power to block an entire article from editing or block a specific user (registered or not) from making any further changes to an article. Ronewirl (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I asked for semiprotection already without results. (I assume you're referring to Chris Cox and not the Madoff article). Maybe it is time to escalate? But I am not sure where to do that. Please let me know if you've taken that step and I can participate if it will help. JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2008

(UTC)

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. 

I'm removing vandalism, Ronewirl, as have other editors, and not edit warring. Surprised to get a note like this from you, given that you have I believe engaged in identical edits. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to revert the edits twice. Which is my personal best; considering my history here in Wikipedia. Ronewirl (talk) 23:54, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: "biggest mistake" -- the reason the Reuters material is better on this point is that it is in quotes from Cox. The WaPo piece does not directly quote Cox saying this, and what he actually said to Reuters is that the final verdict wouldn't be in for years -- and that "on balance" the costs "appear" to outweigh the benefits. This is very different than "biggest mistake," which sounds like WaPo gloss. I did not correct your edit, though, because I'm open to more evidence if there's a direct quote or something that's different from Reuters and more like WaPo.Aseca21 (talk) 15:06, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What were the unintended consequences? Anyone? Ronewirl (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff and Hadassah

I reinserted it using the Jewish Week source under "recovery of funds" section. thanx. Furtive admirer (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

OK. I don't really have a strong opinion on that one way or the other, but I don't see why some mention can't be made of it. JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Madoff Disruptive Editing

Could you please see Talk:Bernard_Madoff#Jew . It seems that a few users are removing references to Bernard Madoff's heritage while violating WP:NPA. All references of his faith were removed until I reverted the disruptive editing that went against the consensus formed in Talk:Bernard_Madoff#Rabbi_wants_Madoff_excommunicated_for_bringing_shame_on_Jewish_people It seems that they completely ignored the consensus formed on this issue that you were involved in. Thank you! Magemirlen (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

New York State Thruway

I have changed the Capital District wikiproject importance rating for the New York State Thruway from mid to high.Camelbinky (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Uptick rule

Thanks. The scale of original research in the article is staggering. Still, let's see what happens before we hit the panic button! :-) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 20:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

RegentsPark (Regents Park Capital Management LLC ?) has been biased in vandalizing the actual FACTUAL data, real chart that visually illustrates the market before the uptick rule elimination, during the pilot study, and after the uptick rule was eliminated.

Why don't you want people to see and make their own conclusions? The chart is real. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WiksterPolice (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that Regents Park is trying to neutrally apply policy. Please study the policy on original research at WP:OR. JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. I can understand passion over Kashmir or whether Alexander the Great was Greek or Macedonian. But Uptick rule or Naked short selling? Go figure. BTW, any idea whether the 'Madoff exception' is real? I googled the term and found lots or recent references but all were blogs or had just picked up the term from wikipedia. --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Madoff exception" is real. Please read two recent articles in WSJ and The Washington Post before vandalizing work of others. WiksterPolice (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you say this:

Given that this is indeed a conspiracy theory that has been debunked by the engineering community,

That is a big "given" that people assume, but doing hundreds of hours of research might give a different impression. I have to ask, have you read "Debunking 911 Debunking".

I know 3 scientists that might reject the questions raised in the truth movement, but I know of hundreds of scientists and officials that say that the questions are valid. Furthermore, it looks like Popular Mechanics book has been thorough debunked, destroyed by Griffin. A few scientists rejecting the 911 questions is easy to produce the same way that hundreds of false articles about Jessica Lynch were spread into thousands of newspapers.

--Ihaveabutt (talk) 04:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thought

Interesting. Especially the juxtaposition of the contradictory thoughts: 'cyberfascistic totalitarian tendencies' and 'total anarchy'! --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 23:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Pretzel

How is a press release from Reuters not a reliable source? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current at 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis

I've removed the template from the article a few days ago per the guidelines to be found at Template:Current. Was your reinsertion of the template a revert, or did you miss my previous edit? --Conti|✉ 09:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the template. Once again, please read the guidelines at Template:Current: "As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day" & "It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic". Being a current event by the usual definition of the term does not mean that we should use the current event template. That's rather confusing, unfortunately, but that's how it is. The point of the template is to warn our readers when an article gets edited massively (hundreds of edits a day, see above) due to being a current event. The resulting chaos is something we should warn our readers about. 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis, on the other hand, has been edited 4 times in the last two days, so there's no chaos, and no need to warn our readers about anything. That the 2009 New York State Senate leadership crisis is a current event is already obvious by the first sentence of the article itself, anyhow. --Conti|✉ 16:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've taken off the template. Evidently it is overused. I've removed it from the Madoff articles, where it was also warranted at one point but no longer. Thanks, JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

There is an interesting merge discussion going on at Talk:Cupcake. You might want to poke your head in on it. --Jeremy (blah blah) 08:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merges for Food and Drink

Based on your recent participation in several Food and Drink related merge discussion, I would like to point out several open discussions that might interest you:

• Proposed merge of Jumbals to Jumble (cookie). Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Kerala porotta and Malabari paratha. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Maple spice cake to Spice cake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Patty melt to Cheeseburger. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Butterfly cake to Cupcake. Discuss here.
• Proposed merge of Majboos and Kabsa. Discuss here.

--Jeremy (blah blah) 05:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Lotsa merger mania underway I see. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:26, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Naked Short Selling

Ahh, I fear I was using a sledgehammer to crack a nut there.

The reason I removed the illegality bit is because it adds nothing constructive to the article and ought to be rephrased:

Naked short selling can be used to manipulate the price of securities by driving their price down, and its use in this way is illegal.

_Any_ selling can be used to manipulate the price of securities if it is done in the right size and time, regardless of whether this is liquidating an existing long position, borrowing to short sell, or naked shorting. All attempts to manipulate the price of securities are illegal, whether it be by spreading false news or aggressively selling the market with the intent to induce future selling. This is not exclusive to short selling (or naked short selling). Therefore this sentence could serve to mislead the reader into thinking that

1) this is the only or most common way to manipulate price

2) the purpose of NSS is an attempt to artificially devalue a security

3) it is NSS, rather than manipulation, which is illegal.

I'd appreciate your suggestions on making some edits. Beganlocal (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Jews

Thanks for your interest. I think the Sam Fuld is egregious. "Fuld, who is Jewish". Barack Obama, who is black. Mohandas Ghandi, who is Asian. Most of the time when we discuss Jews we are referring to the ethnicity rather than the religion. Hence one can be a Jew and not hold any religious beliefs. See Albert Einstein who did not only claim to be an agnostic, but was never notable for anything related to his Jewish descent. Physics does not discriminate - why should we. Of course I keep getting reverted when I try to point out that it belongs in the article, not in the lede. It is one of the first things said about him. Being alive in the 1940s and having Jewish ancestry is not unusual and it does not make you notable! If you are a famous physicist, you are a physicist, maybe a German physicist, but not a "German physicist of ethnically Jewish origin".

I particularly like Alexander Goldfarb (microbiologist), Eric Fischbein, and especially Aleksei Turovski. We are not referring to religion, but race, and this makes it even more distasteful. Beganlocal (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it might help if the MOS contained a specific provision on ethnicity and religion in WP:LEAD. I may go over there and propose one. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually it does. See WP:MOSBIO.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Update on Naked Short Selling

Hey Johnny. I found a BBC News article that updated the SEC making the interim rules permanent. I found it useful to put in what the SEC said was the impact of these rules. Would you mind looking over the article and the edit I made to see what you think? [1] is the article. Have a good one. SirFozzie (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I added the BBC's language about the reduction taking place during an eight month test period. But then I took a look at the SEC website, and found that the BBC misquoted the SEC. Actually the reduction is 57%, and not in abusive naked shorting but in "fails to deliver." So I guess I'll go back and fix it.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. That's why I pinged ya. Much appreciated SirFozzie (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 02:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Power and violence

Thank you for the mildness of your discrete reprimand. Despite of advanced age I certainly continue to learn. If you wish to reflect further upon the dynamics of this kind of problems you can see what happened as a mild analogy to what Hannah Arendt exposes in Power and Violence. The responsibility inherent to the discretionary power of a senior administrator requires the understanding and responsiveness which alone can inhibit intellectual exasperation, akin to material violence. And easygoingness is facilitated by blindness to irresponsiveness. Stefanson (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, though I don't precisely recall what comments of mine you're talking about. I'm not an administrator, just so you know. On Madoff: I think that you raise some valid points. I tend to agree with you in a general way, but you have to remember that WP:BLP is tough and strictly enforced. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Newbie

A copy of my answer, mostly directed to Frank:

OK, I take notice of your remarks on my page, and I am trying to conscientize myself about my shortcomings of style and improve it. On the other hand I hope you also acknowledge that it is natural to feel it as a personal attack to ignore my arguments and policy-references by not referring to them in your answers. It may also be interpreted as disrespectful as a personal attack. If you are in the position of administrator or regular editor with certain discretionary power then it goes along with a responsibility for extra consideration and courtesy, inconsistent with e.g. just ondoing edits prior to one-way discussion. I am also thinking of the less known dynamics of social relationships as found in Hannah Arendt's book "On violence". The analog of violence on the written arena is a certain awakened emotionality which you label as borderline personal attacks or personal jibes which you only can meet with a masterful "this habit has to stop". And, finally, I think about Wikipedia:Newbie:

• 1. Remember, our motto and our invitation to the newcomer is be bold. We have a set of rules, standards, and traditions, but they must not be applied in such a way as to thwart the efforts of newcomers who take that invitation at face value.
• 2. When giving advice, tone down the rhetoric a few notches from the usual mellow discourse that dominates Wikipedia. Make the newcomer feel genuinely welcome, not as though they must win your approval in order to be granted membership into an exclusive club.
• 3. Acknowledge differing principles and be willing to reach a consensus.
• 4. Listen actively.
• 5. Choose to learn from the incident.
• 6. Find something of value in the experience. Extract the wisdom that may have been unintentionally veiled.
• 7. You yourself violate Wikipedia's guidelines and policies when you attack a new user for ignorance of them.

On occasion you may wish to tell me whether you have learnt from the incident, or whether you found something of value in the experience. Thank you. Stefanson (talk) 16:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on your talk page. Essentially my message is to not take things personally, lest you get dragged into disputes that will waste your time and energy. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Taking Woodstock (book)

On August 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Taking Woodstock (book), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 11:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job with the Sam Yasgur article

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Nice job with the Sam Yasgur article ShoesssS Talk 23:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Gary Weiss

Are you in any way associated with Gary Weiss, and/or User:Mantanmoreland? I noticed that someone has asked you this question previously, and you refused to answer. Is there a reason for that? -J 216.241.55.204 (talk) 06:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno who the IP is but it's a reasonable question, as was Cla68's... you have a potential CoI. I'd work on the snarkiness level in your edit summaries, too. ++Lar: t/c 10:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No I thought it was a "snarky" question from an editor making questionable edits to two articles. However you have your answer.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 12:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. ++Lar: t/c 14:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation‎

Thanks. I should have some time tomorrow. Beganlocal (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Jane Burgermeister AFD

I added a bunch of sources, making notability I believe. Could you take another look? Silverseren^C 00:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)