Talk:Thom Calandra

message: The Associated Press link does not support that he is (or was) "25 years in  journalism."
I am not clear, looking at the Calandra website, just where this novel he is writing is going to be published. It apparently is being excerpted by a stock promotion site called "Stockhouse." I think maybe the reference to the novel should go. Meanwhile I have changed to "forthcoming" novel as apparently it has not been published.
I've reorganized the article to put the SEC charges first. That is his claim to fame.--Mantanmoreland 18:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It would help if you could review WP:RS and provide sources that cite this information from reliable and independent publications. Mkdwtalk 18:15, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

text: I've had to collapse large sections of your comments here on the talk page because most of these walls of text are very difficult to read and sort out: they repeat themselves; links are frequently repeated; the use of <ref> should not be used on a talk pages; every section of this talk page has been engaged in making it difficult to follow the various lines of thread and some date back as far as 2007; indentation to denote replies are not being used and difficult to discern who made what comment; and you frequently add your Wikipedia signature in the middle of sentences and multiple times; etc. etc. etc. I've done my best to refactor some of the content for readability. Use the last section on a page as an example how a discussion should be formatted. However, more importantly, you're using this article and this talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX to promote your own personal achievements. I don't have a problem listing things like your current employer and where you went to school, but the main reason I wanted you to read WP:NOT was the section that Wikipedia is not your resume on display. You still do not fully understand WP:RS as many of the links you provided are merely press  releases -- and you've provided links to your own personal website. Tidily, why don't you review WP:Talk page, use a top down method of replying with indentations, use your signature only once and at the end of your comment, and continue the discussion.  The bickering done below is not only disruptive but needs to stop. Now. This talk page is not a place to settle personal differences or ideological opinions about ethics and the subject of the article. Furthermore, it's being needlessly carried on in multiple sections. WP:Talk page outlines how comments and discussions should be formatted and the purposes of them. If they cannot be applied and the personal attacks continue, the talk page and article will be locked from editing for both of you. Consider this the final warning on the matter. Mkdwtalk 19:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Conversation moved to User talk:70.71.36.74. Off-topic and WP:CLUE. Mkdwtalk 01:26, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time in journalism, etc. 

message: This article has been the subject to several WP:BLP violations and it appears the subject and another editor have engaged in edit warring and the removal of content -- as well as the introduction of biased content. I have swept through the article and removed any majorly contentious material against BLP, and provided citations and neutral language for certain sections, particularly the SEC section. I have advised the subject about our policies regarding WP:COI and recommended that they use the  template and engage on this talk page for any complaints or requests for changes to the article. Mkdwtalk 03:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:BLP]]