Talk:Patrick M. Byrne/Archive 1

message: I have attempted to add some content that is relevant to this article and have properly sourced where necessary.  It appears Mantamoreland has disasgreed.  I am asking for a third party review before I go to mediation.  Here are my justifications:
1) Patrick indeed made reference to a "Sith Lord" during one of his conference calls.  Several months later, Tim Mullaney, of Businessweek sent Patrick a list of questions to which Patrick responded openly on the internet.  The precise questions can be found at [the sanity check blog]  The particular response, from Patrick, pertinent to this discussion reads:
"By the way, the "Sith Lord" reference which so excited you fellows is probably imperfect. A better one is Al Qaeda: a loosely organized confederacy united by an ideology but lacking central control."
Which I've tried to include in response to the "Sith Lord" reference in the first paragraph of this article.  Mantanmoreland first claims this was reference from a non-notable website, yet when I responded that Overstock itself issued a PR release referencing this site as the source for Patrick's response , I am told that it simply doesn't belong here, though it speaks directly to what the first paragraph of this article is about.  I remain confused.  
2)  I attempted to add a reference to WorldStock, an endeavor that Patrick calls the "Best idea of my life."   in his response to a poster on The Motley Fool.  He also mentions it again in his cancer speech (currently referenced in this article ).  I am met with a statement, again from mantanmoreland, that claims that Worldstock is a "PR" stunt and "non notable".  Again, I remain confused.
3)  I posted a link in the "External Link" section that points to a presentation on Naked Short Selling authored by Patrick Byrne and was, yet again, told this is hosted from a non-notable site.  Again, I point out that the reference was given by Patrick himself .  
4)  I recommend that we move the media references from the External Links to the "Media" section and provide context as one of the articles is highly biased (The Register).  There has been no response to this.
5)  I attempted to add the name "Gradient Analytics" to the article to clarify the research firm that Overstock is suing along with Rocker Partners.  This was removed wholesale without justification.
Can someone outside of Mantanmoreland and Eskog (who re-editted w/o discussion) comment?
Thanks --Mfv 11:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for 3rd Party Arbitration 

message: The article seems to flip-flopping between two versions: 
*...best known for his "jihad" against Naked short-selling.
*..also known for his crusade to clean up what he claims are several forms of corruptions on Wall Street, ...including Naked short-selling.
May I suggest that we avoid this extreme language and compromise on something milder, such as "fight against", "campaign against", or "effort to clean up"? Religious terminology isn't needed. Introductions should be the most neutral part of the article. 
(And we can we agree that the intended article is "naked short selling", which has no hyphen and is not a proper noun? thanks.) -Will Beback 05:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Jihad" is Byrne's language, and use of that inflammatory language and the "Sith Lord" is what has made him well known.--Mantanmoreland 13:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even if it is the subject's term, it isn't neutral and shouldn't be in the lead. We can quote him using the term later in the article. -Will Beback 21:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with that. However, have clarified the first paragraph to note that he is known for calling attention to naked short selling. That is why he is known and has received such public attention. --Mantanmoreland 04:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Crusade"/"Jihad" 

message: Utah Connect Magazine cannot be used as a reference, it is a 'questionable source' per Wikipedia guidelines:
"A questionable source is one with no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. Such sources include websites and publications that ... are promotional in nature... Questionable sources should not be used, except in articles about themselves or their activities."
Lumin Publishing, publisher of Utah Connect Magazine, does not produce independent journalism but "for hire" Public Relations articles designed to look like actual journalism, according to its website
--Valwen 00:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Utah Connect magazine link 

message: Does "The Register" used here to slander Patrick Byrne, employ "editorial oversight or fact-checking"? 
Care to dance, Valwen?
Also your cite of Herb Greenberg's award of 2nd place to Patrick Byrne. Do you think Herb's being named in affidavits in the OSTK vs Rocker-Gradient lawsuit as being part of a frontrunning conspiracy might have something to do with Herb's lack of journalistic NPOV? 
75.177.152.237 00:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Valwen's application of "questionable source" 

message: Blog is a external linkable source as it is by the article's subject.
see WP:LINKS
Links to be considered
   4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject 
of the article from knowledgeable sources. For example a blog written by the subject of a biography article.
Piperdown 23:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I stand corrected on that. Cheers, Samiharris 14:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Byrne's blog 

message: Well that's interesting. Guess they're not too happy about the Reg SHO news. Log in under a pseudonym next time and don't make your IP so obvious. At least it wasn't a DTCC address this time.Piperdown 02:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not interesting in the slightest. Please don't make comments that have no relationship to the subject matter.--Samiharris 14:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since 90% of this article is how bad Patrick Byrne is according to several journalists that Byrne has sparred with off-wiki in emails as Byrne's disclosed on his Overstock blog, and since Byrne's lawsuits involve hedge funds, it's pretty darned interesting when IP's from any hedge fund located in NYC metro area edit this article. It's a talk page edit, sam, relax.  Piperdown 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Allied Capital is not a hedge fund. Poof goes the conspiracy theory.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a link to the Wikipedia article on Alliance Capital Management. It runs "100 mutual funds," not hedge funds   Are mutual funds part of the conspiracy?--Samiharris 04:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alliance Capital Management editing article today 

message: Sam (can I call you that? I'm guessing since it's "samiharris"), do you really need to include the 2/25 Nocera article cite in the External Links section when it's already cleared cited in the References section? How many other articles do you see "External Links and (unlinked Article)"? I don't get it. The external links section is normally for links to web pages related to the article. The 2/25 Nocera piece is there in all its glory in the article and in the references section. Piperdown 03:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it will calm you down, go ahead and revert the EL listing for an article from a reporter that you clearly despise. I don't want to keep you up nights about this.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wow, so you think I need calming down and I'm up nights? Hmm. I wasn't the one instantly reverting some really minute points (NBC, redundant EL/Ref links) with the calmness of a hair trigger. Do you know Mantanmoreland? He likes to soothe me when he thinks I'm having a "nervous breakdown". It's good to see my fellow editors so concerned, and so able to remotely perform psychoanalysis based on wikipedia copyediting. Kind of like some journalists's ability to discern when Byrne is having a "meltdown". It's all about the spin, isn't it? Piperdown 03:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please stop the trolling. Your entire purpose on this page is to antagonize. You also need to stop your destructive edits such as this one  in which you removed a valid source and replaced it with a "sources needed" tag. If you felt there was a problem with the link, you should have removed the link and left the reference to the Globe and Mail article. Your behavior in the article and on this page is disruptive and violative of WP:POINT. You also do your cause no good by your expressions of hostility bordering on hatred for some of the reputable journalists quoted in this article. Remember that "silence is golden" and may be a good strategy for you in furthering Mr. Byrne's cause, as is your obvious objective.--Samiharris 04:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. I'm not going to respond to that total B.S. characterization. Not sure why I even tried to dialogue with you any further. Have a good one, sam. Piperdown 04:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your removal of proper sourcing and replacement of that sourcing with an unwarranted "sources needed" tag - a tag necessitated by your own destructive edit - is not "total B.S." The edit was B.S., not my characterization of it, which is accurate.--Samiharris 04:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "rgm.com" is not a valid source for anything, regardless of your declaration that it is. I think that's enough b.s. in your attempts to characterize me as a "troll", my edits as "desctructive", and your interjection of my "agenda", my "disruption", and my "hostility", all of which is in your head, not my editing. You can call all those names but that doesn't change the fact that "rgm.com" is not a valid WP:RS to link to. I think we're through conversing, I don't converse with such people. Piperdown 14:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I repeat: the issue was not and never was rgm.com, but your unnecessary placement of a "fact" tag even though you knew that the statement was correctly sourced from the Globe and Mail. The rgm link was to a copy of the Globe and Mail story. You were correct to remove the rgm link, but your removal of the sourcing from the Globe and Mail was not warranted. Please stop misstating what happened. You should admit error and move on. You are, again, being disruptive.--Samiharris 15:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: You forgot to mention Bill Moyers.--Samiharris 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wow, picking some serious nits

message: :DJ IN THE MONEY article on 8/1/07 by Carol Remond stated, "  “Turns out that one guy did, in fact, illegally trade shares of the company (Overstock.com)sometimes between August and December 2005. Some details about those trades surfaced Tuesday in an American Stock Exchange's disciplinary decision against Scott Arenstein and his options trading firm, SBA Trading LLC.”  She goes on to seemingly dismiss the importance of the action later. "“SBA's improper trading doesn't come close to amount to the massive conspiracy alleged by Overstock, it's likely that Chief Executive Patrick Byrne and his lawyers will use the information to continue building their case against short sellers and brokerage firms through which they trade.”  At this writing, OVERSTOCK.COM has been on the Reg SHO list for well over 550 days.  Ref: "regsho.com".
Suggest article content request for comment to establish consensus. DurovaCharge! 02:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed from article, please supply adequate referencing and copyedit for neutrality 

message: (removing comment by sock )
:Hog the article? Everyone is welcome to participate. It's a collaboration.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On further review, I see I've made just three edits to the article. You've made eleven edits, as of this moment. It is inappropriate to tell other editors to stay away because they've edited too much.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's great that you're helping, just please don't denigrate the contributions of others, or demand that they stop contributing.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turns 

message: are socks of banned user . Our policy is ban on sight, revert on sight. Deleting their commentary outright (which I am about to do) will leave holes. Therefore, other editors are encouraged to decide to remove their replies if desired. ++Lar: t/c 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RidinHood25, Mightyms , MoneyHabit et al... 

message: Per this discussion, I was prepared to remove the Register link from here. Some IP had removed it earlier. I've gone ahead and removed the other Register story from there that was linked as well, about the mail lists. If one article isn't a reliable source on one article, theres no reason it would be acceptable on another. To apply double standards along those lines would be a total NPOV violation and not good. Lawrence Cohen 07:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether the Register is a "reliable source" is debatable (I see that the Register is quote in Criticism of Wikipedia), but the most recent attempt to add the link placed it in the SEC investigation section, which doesn't make sense. I'd tend to agree that the Byrne/Wikipedia/Register thing doesn't merit mention here as long as the Register is the sole source, but it might be worth mentioning in the aforementioned "Criticism" article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think there was a New York Times source mentioned over on the Weiss page. If the NYT plus the Register is talking about the petty feud between Weiss and Byrne, we would have no excuse to not cover it at least in passing on both articles. Which NYT articles were they? Lawrence Cohen 16:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's been some hesitancy about adding that language to this article on WEIGHT and duplication grounds, as it is covered in Overstock.com, and it's been discussed elsewhere with Jimbo ruling The Register is not an RS source on this subject matter. That is why JzG removed Register cites from that article. But I imagine one can borrow some of the language and tone of the reference in Overstock  for a brief mention here.--Samiharris (talk) 16:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which NYT article was the source? There shouldn't be any problem with related language appearing in both or all three articles. If the NYT has covered the feud, we have no reason not to mention it on both this page and Weiss's at least in passing. The existence or acknowledgement of a feud that was reported on in an internationally distributed newspaper isn't any sort of possible BLP or WEIGHT violation that I can see. Also, one person can rule an entire site non-RS? I doubt that. I thought it was the fact that I kept seeing multiple people saying that the Register wasn't an RS specifically in regards to Wikipedia, not Weiss and Byrne. Lawrence Cohen 16:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a "feud," it is a proxy campaign by Overstock against critics. Look at the sources in the link. That said, I think what's needed here is a reference to the smear campaign on this page that is consistent in tone and sourcing with the stable, consensus version at Overstock.com. Jimbo's authority re sourcing is a mega-issue and you'll have to ask elsewhere on that. Specifically, an article critical of Overstock from the Register was removed from the Overstock page by Jzg.--Samiharris (talk) 16:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The New York Times clearly describes it as a feud, or more precisely as an "increasingly vicious online dispute," and as a "flame war among 14-year-old boys."--G-Dett (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I was just curious since I kept seeing this all referred to everywhere. What was that NYT source by the way? Lawrence Cohen 16:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's cited in the Overstock section on ASM, a portion of a "What's Online" column.--Samiharris (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Sami. Lawrence Cohen 17:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello folks, what's with the blatant censorship of Wikipedia criticism? You might as well go and call this place Jimbopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I am a long-term reader of The Register and find it very reliable, thank you very much. However, if you want to turn Wikipedia into Jimbopedia, I guess you are free to do whatever you like.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.239.234.41 (talk) 16:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Register articles 

message: How is this different from the short selling section? There's already lots of "media attention" and opinion commentary coverage in the naked short section. This seems superflous. Cool Hand Luke 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, organizationally it represents an issue. One can just simply move the contents into the short selling section, and give the short-selling section subsections to break it up or something. After all, that is the major focus of his life and thus of the coverage of him as reflected in RS sources. Incidentally I removed the Cox quote, as it was indeed synthesis and the proper way to deal with synthesis is to remove it, not to add more synthesis. However, if it is to be left in, then I think the other material needs to be re-added.--Samiharris (talk) 21:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I was just wondering if there was a source that connected the rules change in any way to Byrne. The only trace I found was that blog post. It should stay out. We'll merge the sections then (or find a more logical way to subdivide them). Cool Hand Luke 21:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps "media coverage" should be expanded as a subsection of the short selling section, with media criticism and praise (the Bloomberg piece) moved into it?--Samiharris (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Media attention" section