Hello Piperdown! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing and above all else enjoy your time here! QuackGuru TALK 01:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome, "quackguru", I'll have to hire an assistant to get up to speed on all that. Keep an eye on me, I can tell this can already be addicting. Piperdown 01:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi piperdown, I'm actually not sure what happened with the Twiggy article. I was actually just trying to change the categories to clean up the categorizations for the America's next top model category. Maybe I accidentally edited an older version and it reverted to that? Sorry for the problem, it won't happen again. Calliopejen 17:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. Piperdown! I do not know what your intention is on editing the article about Paul Simon. But removing the by far best internet site about Paul Simon, where all fans meet daily only shows me that you maybe do not know much about Paul Simon? Could that be true? Check out what www.paul-simon.info is - and compare it to the official site www.paulsimon.com The visitors have agreed that www.paul-simon.info should be the official site to promote Paul Simon (no one is visiting www.paulsimon.com - as there is absolute NO information)

Sorry, I am going through biographies and finding many of them have "fan sites" that turn out to be self-promotional sites not affiliated with their subjects. Wikipedia's rules discourage link to such sites as they are often commercially trying to profit from celebrities and contain material sometimes potentially damaging to these celebrities. If that site is not commercial in any way than I apologize for the removal. Just trying to improve biographies through WP:RS.Piperdown 12:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your comments in naked short-selling: I was trying to be courteous and polite, and offered praise sincerely for what I considered to be an editing job well done. There was no intent to be "patronizing" and I must ask you to tone down the heat level and avoid making comments attacking other editors. Please keep in mind the requirements of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Thank you.--Samiharris 21:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, I'm being civil, your "praise" was sarcastic in tone, patronizing, and out of line.Piperdown 16:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand how you could possibly read "sacrcasm" into remarks intended to be conciliatory. You appear to be trying to gain an advantage by putting other editors on the defensive. Please assume faith in other users as required by WP:AGF.--Samiharris 17:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You appear to be trying to gain an advantage" is a personal attack itself under your own criteria. let me cut to the chase Sam. Here's what 2 editors including yourself did:

1) Removed a sourced edit from the SEC that directly applied to the topic. Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it.

2) This was despite half of the article was a direct quote from the same SEC site, which you didn't seem to want to apply the same criteria for some reason.

3) After taking into consideration that your comment about my edit was correct in that it shouldn't be a copy and paste from the site, I added it back it in a summarized form and was not inappropriately long for the section. It was also a recent change that updated the SEC's Reg SHO comments, so went into the Recent Developments section.

4) you then again completely removed the edit, claiming it was Original Research, despite the link provided as source, and your own ealier acknowledgement that the oringal edit was a direct quote from the SEC site.

5) Another editor, citing that it was dubious that it was a recent development despite its 10/10/06 date on the SEC site, completely removed it again, claiming it was information that was already availble on the SEC site. No duh. There is a lot of information on the SEC site that is already on their pages, but not represented here at all.

6) The entire section on the "NASAA" section is WP:OR from a site that does not meet WP:RS. Yet you don't have a problem with that. This OR source use is dominated by the "debunking" side of the issue, but the other 40 pages in the document and the experts cited in it on the other side of the issue are nowwhere to be found in this article. Either summarize the source in a balanced manner or leave the whole part out anyway as it violates WP:RS WP:OR

7) On edit into this thing, you warn me about 3 reverts rule just for my reinserting a well sourced section that you deleted (reverted) without just cause. Well sourced material that could be edited to meet WP criteria should be edited, not removed because it might not be consistent in POV with the rest of the history of your edits.

That's enough, I will continue to edit this article as well sourced facts become notable, be they "pro" or "con". I hope other editors will do the same without making false claims about other editors' use of sources to game a block for by reverts. I won't play any victim games with editors who completely blank well sourced edits while hypocritically not blanking out other text that meets the exact same criteria cited for removal. Piperdown 17:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not fairly stated the statements that I made in the talk page. Let's go back and review.

It is not true that my "Reason was for no long quotes. So instead of editing the section, you removed it." and that my next reason was simply "original research." You have entirely omitted my central reason for disagreeing with your edits.

My explanation for my first edit was as follows: "I also removed the lengthy quotation from Regulation SHO, which was unnecessary in my opinion and much too technical and jargon-y." That was and is true. The fact that it was "sourced" is beside the point.

After you insisted upon retaining the material, I said, "I strongly disagree with your adding that lengthy excerpt from Regulation SHO. It clogs up an article that is already top heavy with jargon, and it is unnecessary detail." That was and is correct.

You then summarized the same material, and I said that "Though now summarized, which is good, I still question its significance. Was there some kind of change in policy in October 2006 regarding Reg. SHO? I searched the SEC website and could find none. I then looked for articles mentioning this and could find none. So I would suggest to please provide some article sourcing meeting Wikipedia criteria. As written currently, it falls squarely under the category of "original research" which is verboten under Wiki rules."

Whether this is "original research" or not is a side issue. You have yet to address my central point, which is that this repetitious and unnecessary detail that gives the mistaken impression that something happened in October 2006. Nothing happened in October 2006, yet you add it under "recent developments."

Even if you put it somewhere else, the issue remains as I stated it. That is my opinion, and of course I could be wrong, but it is important to have a good-faith dialogue and correctly state what other people I object to your oversimplifying and distorting my position, as well as to your constant stream of insults and personal atttacking terms.--Samiharris 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the article at the talk page.--Mantanmoreland 00:50, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:"constant stream of insults " - I have done no such thing. And your removal for WP:OR did in fact occur, and was in fact baseless. It is not a side issue. I put the direct material in, and that was blanked for 'jargon'. I summarizeed in layman's terms and then the excuse for blanking is OR, when in fact the summarizing did not contain any slant or OR on the original source. The material should be in there, whether it was "recent developement" or not. If you consider it redundant, please show me where else in the article the SEC is cited as plainly stating their rules for location and borrowing shares prior to short sales, that should legally prevent naked shorting from occuring. I haven't distorted your position, I could care less about your position. What I do know is that agressive blanking with different baseless reasons each time, and paired with a similar blanking from another editor that shows a similar patttern of editing on the article is a great way to bait someone into getting blocked for 3 reverts when they restore edits that have been blanked (not even attempted to modify) with progressively disingenuous reasons each time. Good faith is assumed until one is blanked on multiple occasions for bogus reasons. I am sorry if you feel this is a person attack, I don't know or care who you are so this isn't personal and is not an "attack". I can tell my wikicareer is going to short if I let people walk all over well sourced edits with a blank brush. Good day.Piperdown 02:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piperdown, your comments are not only wildly off-base, but they are off-base in the wrong place. The place to be off-base about naked short selling is in the talk page of naked short selling. If you're going to have a nervous breakdown concerning one paragraph of that article, please do it there so that other editors can read your comments.--Mantanmoreland 03:05, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "If you're going to have a nervous breakdown" Nice. That's just special. I'll post on my talk page in response to posts on it as I please. Thanks for the advise and personal attack. Piperdown 04:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re: "The place to be off-base about naked short selling". Great. Now there's a fantasticly productive slant on my edits. And they say that wikipedia article watch dogs aren't receptive to well sourced input.Piperdown 04:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Your user ID evolved into a full-scale edit warrior after three days on Wikipedia, so it's pretty obvious this was anything but your first nervous breakdown.--Mantanmoreland 04:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I began editing on wiki on March 8 after the essjay thing. I'm sure you'll find a lot of 'warriors' started editing wikipedia, as well as kids and vandals who found they could run roughshod over public people here, after reading about this wild west of publishing. I am still amazed that something like this even exists. And thanks for your characterization of me as an edit warrior. Wikipedia needs a lot of "edit warriors" on the hundreds of biography entries that are full of child pranks, vendetta vandalism, and vanity puff pieces. All married with links to websites trying to drum up business from vulturing off famous people. I look forward to improving wikipedia as a collection of accurate sources. Thanks for the lovely welcome, remember, self-projection is a difficult art to master.Piperdown 04:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, your edit warring began one week after you began editing, when you began your blatant POV pushing in naked short selling and when you responded to a compliment from another editor with a personal attack.[1] I appreciate your frankness in acknowledging that you are edit warring, and that you view yourself as being on some kind of personal crusade. --Mantanmoreland 04:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not warring or crusading, POV pushing or attacking. Inclusion of sourced material into wikipedia articles should be the goal of editors everywhere. But thanks for the spirited contention and blanking of sourced material. If you're trying to bait me into something, you're not going to have any luck at it. Happy editing.Piperdown 04:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of sourced material into wikipedia articles should be the goal of editors everywhere. Wrong. WP:NOT. "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of items of information. That something is 100% true does not mean it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." --Mantanmoreland 05:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Piper, I look forward to the baseball edits you mentioned. Please let me know when you make the changes in Roger Clemens, as he isn't on my watch list. --Christofurio 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your real account? your first edit makes it clear you are not a new editor.--MONGO 05:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's your real acccount? This is my only account. Sod off, you're an abusive editor who shouldn't have admin powers. Stop harassing people who dare point out abusive admins, conflicts of interest, and other cancers that should be removed from wikipedia.Piperdown 06:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin.--MONGO 06:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations.Piperdown 06:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just fascinated you find my Rfc to be fasinating (as well as comments left at the discussion regarding a prior arbcom case in my name)...I always wonder when anyone aligns themselves with conspiracy theory POV pushers and yet claims to be here to help us with BLP issues. That just seems odd to me.--MONGO 06:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fascinated why you choose to have this conversation on my talk page instead of email. I'm also "aware" of you after you posted the same sock puppet-whoareyou harassment on Cla68's page. I was reading up on Cla68 due to his posting history on an article I was editing, and followed his RFA, and your post to him. I was expecting the same warm greeting. Mongo, are you just a pawn in game of life, or just blazing saddles? Piperdown 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]