User talk:Iclaudius markets

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Iclaudius markets, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

Please pay particular attention to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 15:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wey[edit]

Hello, Iclaudius markets. I have accepted some but not all of your pending revisions. The edit summaries will explain why. Please feel free to discuss this on the article's talk page if you have any questions. More importantly, if you have any affiliation whatsoever with the subject of this article either personal or professional (including his companies and his publicists) please read WP:Conflict of interest and follow the guidelines scrupulously. Please also familiarize yourself with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use requirements re disclosure of paid contributions. – Voceditenore (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the correct way to ask for a citation after an assertion is to add {{Citation needed}}—not to type in your own comment. Using the correct template also automatically puts articles in Category:All articles with unsourced statements. Your edits to this article strongly suggest that you have an association either with the subject, his publicists, or his companies. Once again i strongly suggest that you read the guidance pages which I have linked above and that you use the article's talk page to discuss any edits you are making. Voceditenore (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Wey[edit]

Good afternoon Voceditenore, First, I wanted to thank you for checking my changes and removing my mis-citation. You should know that am totally objective in terms of this page, but am new to Wikipedia, and have obviously made some mistakes as I am learning.

I am thus very appreciative of your corrections, in no way hostile to any of your posts, whether positive or negative regarding Wey. I do apologize for the amateur nature of my postings, but do my research objectively (absent a single mistake thus far because I was rushing and cross referencing between NYGG site and WSJ).

Second, my intention is to make sure that Wey's page is neither inaccurate nor hyperbole. That being said, my understanding is that positive information is allowed so long as it is properly cited.

Please know that there are many companies beyond the penumbra of Wey who are affected by these articles. Wey is obviously a figure of much contention, and it is my hope that we continue to scrupulously check and double check all of the language and sources we use, not to ensure that they are beneficial, but to ensure that they are accurate.

Sincerely and respectfully,

iClaudius_markets

Hello iClaudius markets. I'm glad to hear that and I must say that I find your cooperation and willingness to communicate a refreshing change from the attempts to intimidate editors and the issuing of legal threats which had previously characterised the single purpose accounts and anonymous IPs who had caused so much disruption to the article. Adding "positive" information about an article's subject is fine if (a) it is strictly relevant and (b) is referenced to sources which are entirely independent of the subject and what Wikipedia terms "reliable sources". The page Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons provides guidance on this.

In the case of Wey's "full scholarship" to Oklahoma Baptist University, I kept the claim but made it clear that it was Wey himself who made the claim, not an independent source.

In the case of the Focus Media leveraged buyout, the source made no mention of either Wey or NYGG. In their own press releases NYGG have stated that Focus was "an investment portfolio company" of NYGG [1]. But (a) press-releases are not an independent source and (b) even in the press release there is no mention of Wey. Nor is their a claim that NYGG had any hand in the company's "successful" exit from NASDAQ. Thus I removed it. Broader issues related to reverse mergers, including the contention that the problems with them (especially those involving Chinese companies) were caused by short sellers, belong in the Wikipedia article reverse merger. But even there, they must be referenced to reliable independent sources.

Re conflict of interest. I know that "there are many companies beyond the penumbra of Wey who are affected by these articles". But if you are an employee of Wey, his publicists, or any of the companies with which he is associated or have a personal affiliation with him, you should explicitly acknowledge a potential conflict of interest. You don't need to identify yourself but simply state that you are a connected contributor with respect to that article, either on your user page, the article's talk page, or in your edit summary. It goes a long way towards building the trust and respect other editors will have for your work, and many will bend over backwards to help you. However, if you have been asked by your employer or client to make edits to articles connected to them, these are considered "paid editing", and in those cases, you must disclose your connection and name the employer or client for whom you work. Terms of use/FAQ on paid contributions without disclosure has more guidance on this. I realize that neither of the above scenarios may apply to you, but just in case they do, I'd hate for you to tarred with the same brush as some of the previous contributors the Wey article.

Finally, just a tip about participating on talk pages, including your own... WP:SIGN has all the details and explains why proper signing is important, but basically, at the end of your comment, you add your signature (which will also have a time stamp automatically attached) either by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~ or by placing your cursor were you want to sign and clicking the

icon in the editing bar. Best wishes, Voceditenore (talk) 10:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning Voceditenore, Thank you for your note, and I look forward to working with you in the future on all of this. Also, this site gets a little addicting, and I would like to enjoy it a little and do some things beyond Wey. I noticed that you write a lot on opera, I was thinking of adding to certain pages relating to classics or classical music, and was wondering if your ventures on wikipedia have led you to any interesting pages in that realm. --Iclaudius markets (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets[reply]

@Iclaudius markets: I just wanted to mention that in your most recent edits you substituted material sourced to primary sources, including lawsuit allegations, for text sourced to secondary sources. While I could see limited citing of a decision, if it is clear, citing of material submitted to the SEC and lawsuits is not generally considered appropriate and in this cases there are secondary sources. One example is the stuff about Wey being "notorious." We don't cite original primary sources and write about it since a reliable secondary source already did. The letter from a Chinese provincial government also struck me as inappropriate as it made a serious accusation ("racism") without substantiation and that reflected on third parties (U.S. regulators) so it was not appropriate. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Figureofnine: First, thank you for taking the time to contribute to the talk page, and generally engage in the editing process. I think it is first critical to point out the value of primary sources. Secondary sources are by their very nature not as reliable as the primary source. This is well known however. The primarily important aspect with respect to this page is that there are several secondary sources which have misquoted primary sources in a grave manner. Please refer to earlier edits of this pages history an example of that in what I recall to have been the financial times article.

I would also invite Voceditenore to arbitrate in this instance. I have a commitment to clear and well sourced material. I will not intentionally post anything that is inaccurate or sensational. The primary sources to the legal material provide a simple and direct link to sources which are totally true, and absolutely verifiable. It is my understanding that this is the purpose of Wikipedia, and encyclopedias generally. The term "notorious" was one which existed for some time before my edit, and I simply expanded the use of that term to the entire cited quote in the complaint (the only available and verifiable source for the language), and added that primary source which it was originally without. I'm sure the context of the quote makes it far more relevant than the quotation of only the word "notorious".

The letter from the Chinese government certainly uses strong terminology, but I quoted it directly, and it is directly relevant to the Cleantech history, and the context of the decision which was overturned on the basis of ethnic generalizations against Chinese reverse merger companies. It is presented as it exists in fact, no more no less.

Again, I ask that Voceditenore add input here. It is my belief that my position on this will be backed up. I ask for input from a third party perspective, and will refrain from reverting any of your edits Figureofnine for the time being as a show of good faith, and to underscore our interests in providing the best possible wiki-pages available to the world.

Sincerely,

--Iclaudius markets (talk) 21:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets[reply]

@figureofnine : By way of example so that my earlier argument is not without the substance I claim it has. The sentence regarding Wey and Bodisen bio-tech is based on an article in the financial times which claims the following:

"Wei Tianyi previously signed a filing document registering Finchley's sale of Bodisen shares."

After researching this assertion on EDGAR, I have discovered that no such document was ever filed under Bodisen's EDGAR. Technically that sentence should be removed I think, as it is fundamentally misleading, but that as well i will leave to you and toVoceditenore to confirm and assess independently. This is part of the reason I prefer to stick with primary sources, and why using only secondary sources can be problematic. As I noted in my discussion above however, I do sincerely appreciate, along with Voceditenore the sincere and honest efforts of anyone editing this page. --Iclaudius markets (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets[reply]

iclaudius_markets, I fully concur with Figureofnine's removal of your additions and the reasons for them, and especially, the inappropriate primary sources you've used. While I've previously written to you here to explain some of the ins and outs of editing, referencing, and conflict of interest in general, detailed discussions about changes to the article's content belong on Talk:Benjamin Wey, where all editors who have worked or are working on the article can give input and reach a consensus. In future, please propose changes on that talk page and get input from other editors, before you make them. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

voceditenore, I appreciate your perspective on this and I will run my changes through this forum first. This raises the question however of how to provide reliable information to the public. As I mentioned, and as you yourself had accepted as a past change, misquotations in the relevant Financial Times article regarding AMEX's reasons for delisting Bodisen Biotech. A primary source demonstrated that the FT article directly misquoted the primary source (the Amex delisting decision).

In terms of changes, I would propose the following at the moment: (1) Regarding Bodisen: The cited Barron's article does not indicate that NYGG "brought" Bodisen "into the equity markets", but that they provided stock promotion and investor-relations services. This may seem like knit-picking, but there is a distinction here. Because Bodisen was a Chinese company, their shares can not simply be brought over and traded in the U.S. via stock promotion and investor relations services. As the article notes this would require a merger, or IPO, and a relisting on an american exchange or on the OTCBB/pink sheets. The article does not indicate that NYGG provided this function.

Please consider the above change, and, as mentioned before, I am glad to be working together on this. I think it provides for a more solid and technically peer reviewed approach, my concerns about the trustworthiness of secondary sources notwithstanding. :)

--Iclaudius markets (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets[reply]

Voceditenore / Figureofnine, please see above - Voceditenore and Figureofnine

--Iclaudius markets (talk) 13:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)iclaudius_markets[reply]

iclaudius markets, article content should not be settled at personal talk pages. Both you and Figureofnine need to make your respective cases at Talk:Benjamin Wey#Removal of primary source material for a wider, permanent, and much more transparent discussion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your current block[edit]

As you are aware, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts folllowing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim. Please note that you are blocked as an editor—regardless of which account or IP you use—and may not edit here until you are unblocked. You may appeal the block by adding the following text below this message: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Note that each time you attempt to evade your block by editing while logged out as you did yesterday [2], the less likely it is that an administrator will unblock you. Voceditenore (talk) 07:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further note To request the unblock, you must log into this account. Your block does not extend to your talk page and you will be able to place your unblock request here. Voceditenore (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]