User talk:PatrickByrne

Based on an edit you have made to Jimbo Wales' talk page, it would appear that you are claiming to be Patrick M. Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com. If you choose to edit under the username of a well-known living person (which you are), it is required that you either disclose that you are not the same person, or provide proof that you are. You may wish to read the relevant policy to avoid being blocked. Thank you! - Chardish (talk) 05:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick has kindly confirmed to OTRS that it is really him that is editing wikipedia. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the professional way this was handled. Respect, PatrickByrne (talk) 01:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, PatrickByrne, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Acalamari 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You took back your comment before I finished typing up my reply, Patrick, but since I typed it up, let me just give my two cents on the issue. Here's what I would have posted:

First of all, Patrick I did a bit of formatting to seperate our statements, hope you don't mind. Let me put my .02 in. I think the best outcome possible is that it's conclusively proven one way or the other. That these people are related, or they are not related. Jimbo understands there's a need for this investigation, the so-called "deep digging" because if we don't get the bottom to it, it'll just fester again and again.

As for the line that the best possible outcome being that the charges are not true.. well.. when you consider the amount of disruption that proving a match (especially if there's a link to a supposed RL identity).. if I was responsible for Wikipedia, I'd hope there's not a match too. Ever hear the phrase "Hope for the best, but prepare for the worst?" SirFozzie (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok SirFozzie. No worries on the formatting. I am a newbie here and am cognizant that I am probably violating various Wiki-etiquettes, though I try not to do so.

Regarding the evidence or statement you are preparing for the mantanmoreland Rfar, I would recommend staying away from email communications being posted to the page. Rather explain your position and what the evidence shows and email the actual evidence (if it's emails or other normally "private" communications). One of the reasons this problem has festered (IMO) is that the problems have not been brought to light in a way that the community generally finds respectful of user privacy. Whether that is right or wrong is another issue. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rocksanddirt, Well, many people feel violated in many ways, I'm sure. I can follow your advice, but if I do that some people are going to say they do not know whether to believe the emails say what I say they do. In any case, what do you mean by saying, "email the actual evidence"? To whom or what should I email it? SlimVirgin and Jimbo? No thanks.PatrickByrne (talk) 06:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To an arbitrator of your choice? User:Dorftrottel 06:47, February 18, 2008

Actually, to the whole committee (and assorted hangers-on), via arbcom-lwikimedia.org would probably be a better way to go about it than emailing individual arbitrators. —Random832 16:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I took it, and sent the ArbCom something. I also added something to the arbitration page (just a link to [redacted link to BLP violation]).PatrickByrne (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick, I am taking no sides in this dispute. For all I care, GW could be a villain or a saint, but this is not the place to argue the issue. WP is built on linking to or referencing reliable sources, and not as extension to users' own blogs. Once you have links to reliable sources (such as mainstream media) publishing your allegations, we'll be glad to include them in Wikiepdia. Until then, they'll have to remain on your blog, unlinked from here as long as they violate WP:BLP. Thanks for your understanding, Crum375 (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Isn't an arbcom case specifically about the accounts accused of being his sockpuppets kind of precisely the place to argue the issue? It's not like he tried to link it in article space. —Random832 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP. Removing BLP violations applies to anywhere on Wikipedia. ArbCom material that may violate privacy or BLP may be forwarded to them via email. Crum375 (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that Gary's blog has been quoted from, although it has about 1/100 the traffic of mine. In addition, "Once you have links to reliable sources (such as mainstream media) publishing your allegations, we'll be glad to include them in Wikipedia" rather misses the point of my argument, that Wikipedia's capture by vested financial interests largely prevents mainstream media from publishing the allegations. See the circularity? PatrickByrne (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If WP is "[captured] by vested financial interests," then that should be a good enough story by itself for the mainstream media. Crum375 (talk) 23:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if no evidence of it can be posted within Wikipedia to disrupt its hermetically-sealed version of Truth, nor that which isposteed outside Wikipedia cannot be linked to from within Wikipedia.PatrickByrne (talk) 01:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if no evidence of wrongdoing can be posted on the Mob Weekly, the FBI and the media can just ignore them? Crum375 (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note to User:Crum375, I dont think it is a good idea for yourself to unilaterally remove, all examples of what you term "BLP violations" from evidence pages of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland. You may have an incorrect grasp of the relevant policies, despite your and SlimVirgin's attempts to re=write BLP policy as a tag-team. see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372#Crum375 meatpuppeting at LAYOUT

At the RfAr/Mantanmoreland, might I strongly suggest that you leave such matters to the Arbitrators.

You ought not to insult the arbs, and the forum by repeating the actions you took which led to /Evidence being protected. You exceeded 3RR, and went against a strong consensus of editors who have been more involved than you, and SlimVirgin, in the AfAr/Mantanmoreland. Your edits there could be considered as vandalism, and you could be blocked. I am not an admin, and I resent your attempts to impose your will upon this forum, as if you have some special power not available to ordinary editors.

I repeat, you have insulted the arbitrators, in my opinion, and your actions were insulting to the respected editors who tried to reign you in. With respect, consider your position,it might be perilous. And Just Stop it. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 02:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Newbyguesses. Crum, you of all people should decently leave all of this to other admins so as to avoid as much drama as can be avoided. Dorftrottel (warn) 02:53, February 25, 2008

Yeah. Respect to Crum375 (talk · contribs), of course. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 04:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if User Crum375 is reading this?

He said to Patrick, I am taking no sides in this dispute. For all I care. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick: As someone who agrees with some of your concerns with the way Wikipedia has handled this, let me just say I believe it is consistent with standard principles for the site to allow a link to your story, but not to allow the substance itself on Wikipedia. This derives from our policy on biographies of living persons, which generally requires very strict sourcing for negative statements about living people (I understand this has not always been upheld in your case, something I consider a problem). All the same, the link has received some attention, so I wouldn't be concerned that it has been overlooked. Just a thought from one editor. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mackan,: point taken and respected. Live and learn. I am new here and, believe it or not, am not trying to hurt anyone, nor violate Wiki-etiquette. I now understand your point.

No problem, and thanks for the note; it takes us all a while to pick up the ropes. For future reference, anyone who leaves you a message will have your page "watchlisted," so you're safe responding either on your page or theirs as you choose. Mackan79 (talk) 02:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike-through text Will strike if necessary.

My, (newbyguesses), comments in the BLP section above do not reflect any view on the additions currently being made by User:Patrick Byrne. With respect Patrick ,sir, you could slow it down, or send evidence by email to the arbs as has been suggested, or discuss further with them before continuing to put up contentious material. (Although what it is that is contentious about it, I do not understand, at this point, since I am not up on the current re-write underway of WP:BLP). It is my understanding that the material you added is from a BLOG, (maybe), (Maybe NOT R/S?) I dont read them. But you are saying that it is already widely available? I wouldn't know about that.

Like i said before, Patrick Byrne (talk · contribs), I have no opinion on the material that you posted, as I have never seen it before. But, please, respect this forum, the RfAr/Mantanmoreland, and the arbitrators, and other editors will respect that, too. Thanks, Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 04:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, i did not mean to suggest that any of your posts here on your talk page have been anything but respectfull, Patrick Byrne. You will learn the ropes, as you say, if you are around for a while. Or learn how to jump through the hoops, is another way of looking at it. Apologies, i meant no disrespect to you, sir. Newbyguesses - Talk 04:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

( or Link above). Newbyguesses - Talk 04:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. I appreciate the graceful way you guys have sorted me out. - Patrick PatrickByrne (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-- Patrick, re your input at this RfAr.

You have identified yourself as an editor with your RL identity via the OTRS system, and I admire you for that, though i wish you would populate your userpage with at least the en1 userbox or something, so it doesnt appear in red any more.

There is no need for you, or anyone indeed to speculate as to the RL identity behind editor Newbyguesses (talk · contribs), I wish only to be addressed as an Editor. I am an Australian citizen, resident in Australia, I support the Brisbane Broncos football team, though not a member of the club. I am not employed by any business or corporation, am not affiliated with any web-site (other than WP, oh! and Poets.com), and have no ties to any business, political group, or activist organization. My previous employment, with the Australian Public Service, has not left me with a bias towards, or particularly against, that public service sector, or the Australian government. I do not vote in US elections, and reserve the right to denigrate any, or all, aspirants for such office(s) of power globally, that get up my nose.

As i say, do not speculate as to who Newbyguesses is; I am not offended, but NBG is just another editor, and every post by NBG is covered under the GFDL, and my own attempts to remain neutral, relatively calm, and to retain my integrity, through listening closely to those who might find anything i say perplexing or wrong. As Groucho Marx put it, Any club that would have me as a member, I would not want to join.

I will likely also reveal my RL identity in the fullness of time, per whatever method, but it is a matter of no import, since I am not a published writer, nor notable in any way, and hope to remain so (the latter, that is). I am pleased that you accepted my apology, which was sincere. I think that sorts it all out, I am glad that you have expressed thanks for your welcome to WP. Please, think about starting your Userpage; just one, or a couple of user-boxes would do it, or you could post there any short screed you choose. I sometimes use my Userpage as a workshop for my poem of the week, but older versions of it are populated by user-boxes (a few) as is fairly standard.

Contact me, or in fact ask anyone you know for help about any matter of WP policies and practices that you might experience difficulties with. Thankyou, and again, welcome to WP. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand why if "strategic failure-to-deliver"[1] artificially makes the selling price of Overstock stock less than its real value, why Overstock can not benefit from buying Overstock stock. If indeed "Overstock.com recently determined the number of its shares tied up in short positions to be 107 percent of its float" then Overstock could buy back 100% of the number of shares that on the books constitute the real shares and leave the other half the float high and dry and worthless and those engaged in strategic failure-to-deliver with a public scandal. It seems to me that the only thing preventing that would be if Overstock was not valued by anyone outside of Overstock at the value that you do. Further if you are right and everyone else wrong, then you could prove you are right by selling off parts of the company or making a profit to generate the funds to buy back stock. If Overstock can not get a loan or float a bond or sell off parts of itself or generate a profit sufficient to buy back stock to benefit from its undervalued stock then I conclude that the stock is not in fact undervalued. Wherein am I wrong? WAS 4.250 (talk) 09:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WAS. Please help me understand your comment by showing me where on this page I mentioned "Overstock"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay . In addition, what part of the word "illegal" is confusing to you? - PatrickByrne (talk)

My question has nothing to do with your page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PatrickByrne/Whitewash_essay and has nothing to do with whether it is illegal. I take it that I am not wrong in my what I said about this illegal practice. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to re-ask the question without regard to Overstock's stock price, I would be happy to answer. It would help if you minimize the loose assumptions about what you think I believe. PatrickByrne (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to understand why if strategic failure-to-deliver artificially makes the selling price of a company's stock less than its real value, why that company can not benefit from buying its own stock back. If indeed a company recently determined the number of its shares tied up in short positions to be 107 percent of its float then it could buy back 100% of the number of shares that on the books constitute the real shares and leave the other half the float high and dry and worthless and those engaged in strategic failure-to-deliver with a public scandal. It seems to me that the only thing preventing that would be if that company was not valued by anyone outside of that company at that high supposed value. Further if that company was right and everyone else wrong about the value of that company, then that company could prove it was right by selling off parts of the company or making a profit to generate the funds to buy back stock. If that company can not get a loan or float a bond or sell off parts of itself or generate a profit sufficient to buy back stock to benefit from its undervalued stock then I conclude that the stock is not in fact undervalued. Wherein am I wrong? I understand that it is illegal for good reasons; but the negative effect on the market would seem necessarily limited to cases where the company's value was subjective rather than objective - "this is a good idea that will in the end create profits" rather than "this is a company that right now is generating profits equal to its potential". And then you are back to the job of everyone trying to pitch an idea; others will want to shoot down your ideas for their fun and profit. And in a competitive world people play rough whether it is Gates giving contributions so he can get away will illegal abuse of monopoly or some Hollywood writer letting the air out of the tires of a rival so they miss an important meeting with a producer. I'm just not seeing a reason for thinking this is as big a deal as I've been led to believe that you do. Yes its bad and illegal, but a big deal? Not that I can see. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis concludes, "Yes its bad and illegal, but a big deal? Not that I can see." See, for normal people their analysis can begin and end with, "Yes it's bad and illegal." That's it. If someone is trying to stop something that is "bad and illegal," they don't have to do anything to justify their position beyond that. As far as, "a big deal? Not that I can see." Great. Then settle the trades. Just settle the trades. Oops, says the SEC: after downplaying this issue for several years, they officially (on the SEC website) switched their position to say that trying to force the trades to settle would create "excessive volatily from the large pre-existing open positions." That is, the system would crack. So in short, "It's not a problem, it has not been going on, don't worry about it ....Oh wait, it's gone on so much that trying to stop it now will make the system crack." And more recently, of course, the SEC has come out and said this is a very big deal and of grave concern to the commission in its job of overseeing the capital market. So in sum, you are asking me to defend why I am opposed to something that you admit is bad and illegal, and which the SEC has disclosed is of grave concern to the capital market. Did I miss anything? - PatrickByrne (talk)

Thanks for your reply. Are you satisfied with what the SEC is currently saying about this issue or do you want them to say something they are not saying? Also, it sounds like you want trades to be forced to be settled if they are otherwise illegal due to not being settled. Would that satisfy what you think needs to be done regarding this issue? (If I appear to be changing the subject, its because I don't think further words on prior details I brought up would be useful; and I'm trying to understand, not trying to argue.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, forcing the trades to settle is precisely what needs to be done. I use an acronym ("Golden") to convey all the steps. Get rid of the Grandfather, close the Options Market Maker Exception, require firm Locates on shorts in the future, Disclose the size of failures, and Enforce the law Now. Kind of catchy. Since you do seem sincerely interested, I'll answer your first question with an example. Force Protection makes MRAPs for soliders and Marines in Iraq. $200 million in revenue, $18 million GAAP net income. They could not keep up with orders, and announced a secondary to raise capital to expand their factory to build more MRAPs. Immediately they went on the Reg SHO list as they were naked shorted from $25 to $5. They cancelled their offering, so they did not raise capital, so they did not expand their factory, so they cannot produce as many vehicles, so some soldiers will die in Iraq this month. Now one can say, "At this price, couldn't they buy back stock," etc. etc. Similarly, couldn't one say of a woman who crossed Central Park and encountered a rapist, "Well maybe she can subdue him and take his gun and sell it in a pawn shop and come out ahead for the experience," but it kind of misses the point. Rape is bad. Taking money in return for nonexistent stock is bad, too. - PatrickByrne (talk)

Thank you for your answers and time spent. Thanks also for trying to make America better by promoting "Golden". We at wikipedia are trying to make the world better, also. Our governance mechanisms are rudimentary and ever changing. Wikipedia is useful and every year more useful than the last. There are many proposals put forward every month on ways to improve; some even directly opposite each other (delete more articles, delete less articles, ...). We need more transparency but oversighted edits, private mail lists, private evidence, pseudonymous administrators and editors, undisclosed COI, sockpuppets, and meat-puppets all work together to ensure too little transparency. None the less I have never seen a more open project, so I have hope that wikipedia will continue to get more useful every year. Thanks for your help in adding transparency; the community is in better shape now that "shoot on sight" is no longer the law around here. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made changes to your biography and would appreciate your comments (here is fine, or in email if you prefer, tonysidaway@gmail.com or you can ask and I'll send you my London phone number). My changes are being discussed on the talk page of the article, and there is a possibility that the "Sith Lord" reference might be restored but in a much more neutral way and with much less prominence. I have also restored some points about positive media coverage that were removed by a vandal in October but never restored.

Our policies say we treat complaints from subjects of biographies very seriously and I try to live up to that. Thank you for pointing out the distortions in the article.

Tony Sidaway (aka) --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mr. Byrne - I haven't looked over your edits to Naked Short Selling, and I probably lack the necessary understanding of the subject matter to evaluate them in any event, but I'm wondering if you'd consider staying away from that article, at least until you're a more established editor (I believe that during the ArbComm case you expressed some interest in editing articles about Zen). I think I'm sympathetic to your cause, at least insofar as I favour the banning of Mantanmoreland, but I think it would be best if all editors with high profile real life involvement in naked short selling laid off that article. Moreover, I'm sure it's not news to you that there are editors here who are pretty mistrustful of you; it would probably help your case if you built up a body of edits on subjects less controversial and less related to your professional life.

To be clear, these are only requests and suggestions; I'm not threatening you with any sanction. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sarcasticidealist - I suppose that here is the problem: experienced editors are telling me that they want to edit the absurdly heavy slant of that article now, but are afraid to go near it for fear of getting zapped. If a newcomer comes in to edit it, he gets zapped for not having the juice. Now I get warned off about an edit regarding State Security Regulator Lambiase (he is on OUR side, not the other side, but the paragraph was so muddled that was unclear), and I get warned off. So, not to be a sarcastic idealist myself.... Is this how it is at the encyclopedia that anyone can edit?

Well, as I said, I wasn't threatening sanctions, and - without really understanding the article's content - I don't think you've violated any policies. And none of the article's other editors seem to have any problem with your edits, so perhaps they were totally non-controversial, in which case power to you. I just think that the last thing either you or the site needs is a perception that Patrick Byrne is here trying to make the content of naked short selling conform to his own POV (and again, I lack the qualifications to say whether or not it's what you're doing). Ultimately, it's up to you, so I'll leave you be. But welcome to Wikipedia (at least the mainspace element of it). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcastic Idealist - Quite a fair point you make. I understand. Thanks for the point about the site: if that is the last thing it needs, then I'll be the last to bring it. As far as "the last thing I need".... that ship sailed a long time ago. No matter. Just so you understand, I do believe my edit regarding Lambiase was uncontroversial. It was tagged on to a paragraph of NSS-denial, so I shifted it around to make it clearer. However, I again repeat that Wikipedia page as it stands is drafted to reinforce a reality which has been ruptured for everyone who understands what is going on. If this still sounds as hard to believe as some would want you to think, watch this 57 second video pf the Chairman of the SEC, yesterday, confirming to the US Senate that the SEC is investigating whether or not the collapse of the 5th largest broker in America (an event which has destabilized our financial system) was, in fact, brought about by naked short selling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-aInPKicho Then read how the CEOs of Bear and Lehman are saying essentially the same thing. Then go and read the Wikipedia article on naked short selling, and you'll see the slant. In any case, I think the solution is that I should come here and post recommendations on how I would fix that page without actually touching it. Then the editors who are interested can dig into it and see if I am being neutral-POV. PatrickByrne (talk) 10:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI#Non-controversial_edits. John Nevard (talk) 07:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not gratuitously remove content from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Nakon 02:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 03:25, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion on the conflict of interest noticeboard in regards to your edits to the naked short selling article. John Nevard (talk) 02:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it would be prudent to do this from a new account, but I think me and several other WP'ers owe you an apology over the whole GW thing.

Take care. OneofmanySPAs (talk) 15:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I will write something more thoughtful later, but I just saw this and want to say quickly: thanks so much. And, that is very kind of you to say. And, no apologies are necessary at all: I know that this is one weird story. I don't blame anyone for taking a long time to connect the dots, or even, for not being able to believe they connect at all. And, I don't have any anger at anyone here (including SV, JW, or even GW). But...until the slant of these articles is removed (especially the one on naked short selling), then the journalists' minds will not be liberated enough to see what is right in front of them. And that is a remarkable testament to Wikipedia. Thank you for your very kind comment. PatrickByrne (talk) 05:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate your help at Patrick M. Byrne. I didn't notice it had been full-protected. It really needs to be fixed, and I would like it dropped to semi-protection (while keeping watch for further Mantanmoreland socks, of course).

Just as a reminder, keep your work on this particular article confined to the talk page per WP:COI. I don't want you to break any of our policies or guidelines. Cool Hand Luke 05:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Hand Luke - All acknowledged and understood. I will confine my comments to the talk page. The dominant paradigm is crumbling (e.g., the Vanity Fair article). I would be surprised if the socks do not continue doing what they have been doing.PatrickByrne (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Patrick: I just read your commentary at Talk:NSS. I certainly don't know the history behind your campaign or your wikipedia contributions, but to the extent that you're calling out the financial elite on illegal trading activity, thank you. A comment...

What I found interesting about recent events (the SEC announcement on NSS, etc.) is that the media, at the least in the beginning, failed to show that there was an issue different from normal "short selling" under discussion. I saw that the NSS pronouncement was treated as part of the plain-old "short selling" debate by the business press. This is the same press that is willing to explain in layman's terms what "short selling" is, every time it uses the term, but largely failed to mention the "naked" in front of "short selling" that makes all the difference here. This has had the convenient effect (for an NSSer) of killing the "media moment" that your cause needed: after all, how much of the "investment community" (the broad one) knows that the practice exists, and is in a gray area legally, except that the government is now saying you definitely can't do it with some shares? (Is this inconsistency a rhetorical point that you could use more? I'm just an amateur, but from my limited perspective this is ludicrous. I've heard little to no discussion on this aspect, leading me to believe I've misinterpreted something.) I hope that you are keeping the media honest--don't let them conflate SS and NSS. If you're the same person I saw on Canadian business TV the other day, the interview ended with that 'stock question' that boils down to: "Well, if you're running your company well, what are you worried about short selling?" Again, issues conflated, probably leaving many viewers with the impression that there's no fundamentally different issue at hand, just another guy who doesn't like short selling. (Case in point: I remember this much better than the rest of the interview. :-) Regards, Whiskeydog (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhiskeyDog, you are right on the money. That conflation is one of the main weapons in the arsenal of those who want to mask the practice and deride those who would expose it. See the links in my TalkPage post to the Fox interviews I did this week.PatrickByrne (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I visited your talk page wanting to comment, but without looking around extensively at what you've been doing, so please excuse any sense that I'm commenting to the choir, as it were... Whiskeydog (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have watched those video links first; it would have saved me the comment. Anyway, good job highlighting again how the money movers can damage real wealth creation. You've rather quickly gained one more proponent. Whiskeydog (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, WhiskeyDog. Every comrade helps! PatrickByrne (talk) 06:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re the NSS article and "cones of silence," thanks for the explanations on the points I raised. At least I don't mean to ignore your comments on the talk page. For a little perspective, I think unfortunately one aspect of Wikipedia is that everyone tends to be doing their own thing, which sometimes takes on that appearance. Part of this is also the WP:Consensus, WP:BRD, WP:Sofixit approach around here, which basically tells people just to do as they see fit until there's a dispute. When you're only commenting on the talk page then, and adding to that the awkward history of these articles, and the fairly esoteric nature of the topic, it doesn't take much for silence to set in (the reason someone commented to me wasn't that I said anything interesting, but because I changed the article so they had to). What to do about it? Not entirely clear. The best thing probably is to be very specific, pointing to a specific paragraph, pointing out a specific problem, providing a solution, and providing a strong source that supports your position, probably one issue at a time. Even then I can't promise that I'll help anymore than others, but in terms of return for time spent, I suppose it's about the best I've come up with. Regards, Mackan79 (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.PatrickByrne (talk) 12:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Byrne, you mentioned "Reason" magazine in your recent edits on the NSS page. I believe you meant to say "Regulation" magazine. By the way thanks for your tireless efforts on this issue. It is unfortunate this is likely to be lost in the larger scandal on Wall Street.--66.135.235.254 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I will fix it. thanks for the kind words. But I am not sure it is going to be lost, after all. PatrickByrne (talk) 04:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being a renown entrepreneur, this fellow computer science/business undergraduate asks you your advice? Which major would you recommend? Finance or Economics? I would like to learn how to invest and multiply, specially within the reals of th stock market. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKunai (talk • contribs) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]