User talk:Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The/Overstock/Analysis/Naked short selling

Excellent (and boring work)! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it up to February, 2007. Mantanmoreland did sock, and was found out and told to stop. However his edits look rather kosher, whilst there are many other editors around on that article who are very obviously not here to produce an encyclopedia article, but rather a propaganda piece. Maybe he has changed in the past year. I'll keep on. We'll see. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is Mantanmoreland who is trying to produce a propaganda piece, and the other contributors who are just trying to produce an encyclopedia article that reflects the current state of this debate. Within weeks of your comment above, the chairman of the SEC came out and confirmed what the good guys have been saying all along, and then on April 3, in testimony to the US Senate, the CEOs of Bear and Lehman said pretty much the same thing, and the SEC Chairman reaffirmed it. Of course, when there are two parties, and one is saying, "I'm South Korea and you're North Korea," and the other side is saying the opposite, there is one good way to settle things, and that is, allow for the free exchange of ideas. What has happened here, however, is that Mantanmoreland: was allowed to dominate the articles; sock-puppet; was protected by SlimVirgin and Jimbo (even though Jimbo privately admitted believing Mantanmoreland was Gary Weiss); and now the articles are sealed from further contribution, effectively freezing them in a dated state where they are laughably out of synch with the public statements of regulators, bulge bracket CEOs, Senators, a congressman, the GAO, and an Inspector General of the SEC. I have proposed a solution that I think is really quite fair. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Sandbox/Naked_shorting Setting aside the pseudo-controversy, the Naked Shorting page is itself horribly written. I have proposed a solution, which is to leave the content as is, but to rearrange it so that the pebbles that are on one side of the scale are grouped together, and the pebbles that are on the other side of the scale are grouped together, and it is not just a muddle. The arguments on both sides would be made clear, and there would be far less controversy about what could be added, and where it should be added. PatrickByrne (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]