User talk:TheSLEEVEmonkey

Recently you entered 'Ponzi scheme' in Wikipedia's voice into the lead of this article. The strongest language I could find in the Globe and Mail was that Banayoti "acknowledged using investor funds not to invest in mortgages, as he told investors, but to cover operating costs and make payments to previous investors." Please consider undoing your edit and putting back 'allegedly'. Generally Wikipedia does not like to use primary government documents as sources, such as the settlment agreement that he signed. It is better to have the description of his misbehavior filtered through WP:Reliable sources so we can rely on their judgment of what terminology to use. It also makes it easier to defend the article if it is challenged, for example on BLP grounds. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your input.

I added the term "ponzi scheme" directly in to the lead section as it seems to be the most notable thing about the subject.

As to specifically the use of the term "ponzi scheme":

*This source^[1] by Daphne Caruana Galizia is one of a few articles in which she uses the term directly (there are others on her site)

*This source^[2] has the following phrase

Golden Gate's former in-house counsel, Milton Chambers told W5, "It appears as if all of the money was used in the classic Ponzi scheme – in which new investors were paying out old investors."

*In the Globe and Mail source you mention, immediately after the phrase you've quoted, the text says: "The story echoes one that many fraud victims recount" (emphasis mine).

*An additional Globe and Mail source^[3] states the following:

Settled with the OSC after engaging in the "illegal distribution" of securities and then using the money to make deposits in related companies' bank accounts or payments to other investors.

I'm happy to look at phrasing it differently if that's the right thing to der per Wikipedia policy, however given that we have two sources which use the term and given that the other sources reference how investor funds were used to pay other investors, which is the defintion of a ponzi scheme, I thought it was the most correct way to summarize the sources.

The alterantive would be to say something like "It was reported that Banayoti ran a ponzi scheme and defrauded investors through his unlicensed Canadian investment company Golden Gate Funds LP which sold investment products illegally . He entered into a settlement with the Ontario Securities Commission in 2009, in which he acknowledged that his company did sell investments illegally, and used investor funds not to invest in mortgages, as he had told investors, but to cover the operating costs of Golden Gate Fund LP as well as affiliated companies and to pay back other investors, as well as investors from previous investment schemes. As part of the settlement, he agreed to pay $4.7-million in financial penalties".

However at this stage surely we're beating around the bush just for the sake of it?

What are your thoughts? TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

The actual long quote that you use above has two disadvantages: (a) 'it was reported' doesn't say who did the reporting, and (b) it is possibly too long for the lead.

If you want to use those sources to describe Banayoti's behavior, then it is better to quote the actual sentence from the source article. Note that the report by Daphne Caruana Gallizia is mostly a direct quote from some other publications so you should cite them instead. One of them it ctv.com which is probably reliable; CTV says they did their own investigation. If you want to use that, attribute the 'ponzi' statements to the people who actually made them. For example the former attorney for Golden Gate, but that is quite a long quote.

If you made your own interpretation that it's a Ponzi scheme, it can sometimes be questioned as WP:Original research. It is better to have a reliable source that says 'Ponzi scheme' and then attribute the conclusion to them. I'm writing here as an admin who is hoping to fend off future trouble because there is a set of editors (possibly including some socks) who are likely to push back indefinitely on any negative conclusions in the article. If we have to defend the article as not violating BLP then everything has to be super-well referenced and supported. As an alternative to saying 'Ponzi' in the lead you could use a vaguer summary there such as 'financial misconduct', and mention that he entered an agreement in which he admitted certain things (assuming he did admit them). EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this makes sense. It's been reverted so I'll leave it as is for now while I try to think of a better way of formulating the intro. Thanks for your input and patience! TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Seeing your revert of a sockpuppet IP on the Old Ford article, you may have something useful to add to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London#Bow_/_Bethnal_Green_sockpuppet_damage. This user has been tinkering weirdly with a lot of east London articles over the past year, changing them from "areas" to "districts" and back again and forward again (as well as repeatedly moving buildings and streets and stations between "districts"), and it could use an expert eye to clean things up, if you know the area. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful introduction to Wikipedia!

I am wondering why you thought I might have a conflict of interest, though?

Plopatries (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this kitten! I certainly did not mean to assume bad faith on your part. The article in question has been heavily edited in the past by what appears to be people connected to its subject. As your edit summary mentioned that the subject's charitable work extends beyond Israel, even though the source does not mention this, I thought perhaps you knew this personally as you might also be connected somehow to the subject. So to err on the side of caution, I thought I would highlight the WP:COI and WP:COIEDIT guidelines.

TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia and I appreciate your input. However, I do wish to query your excision of the following:

(1) Forman's attendance at Trinity College, Cambridge, during 1982-85 is verified on the subject's own LinkedIn page, which I cited when adding this information. Doesn't this qualify as a trustworthy source?

(2) A swastika was spray-painted last year on the side of Forman's Fish Island, which houses not only the business premises of H. Forman & Son but also the studio of J-TV: The Global Jewish Channel. In view of the anti-semitic associations of the graffiti, I thought this was worth mentioning. I take your point that the reference I inserted elsewhere to Oliver Anisfeld's establishing this YouTube channel might be interpreted as unrelated and unnecessary promotion and am happy to accept this excision, but I really think the presence of the J-TV studio at Forman's Fish Island is important enough in the context of this incident to merit a mention, especially in view of Forman's own insistence that it was an anti-Brexit rather than an anti-semitic statement.

(3) The direct quotation from Forman referring to his move from the DTI to a business career in 1992 - "at the DTI [Department of Trade and Industry] you are mixing with business leaders but at the DSS you are having to spend your time with the poverty lobby." - seems relevant to understanding his decision to quit government employment and I don't see why it shouldn't feature on the page.

(4) Forman is a self-declared Libertarian and I thought this was worth mentioning in the context of his views on "reducing the size of the state" and removing "red tape".

I look forward to your response, and thank you in advance!

Godsmanschmodsman˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godsonshmodson (talk • contribs) 18:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hello Godsonshmodson and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy editing and decide to stay! Thanks for reaching out and please don't hesitate to do so going forward if you have any questions. So you know, if your questions relate to a specific article, these can also be done on the "Talk Page" of the relevant article by adding a new section, like here for Lance Forman.

Firstly allow me to apologize if any of my edit comments seemed harsh or confrontational - I contribute on quite a few pages which attract a large number of WP:PROMOTION issues, the article for Lance Forman included, so please know that it is nothing personal against you or your contributions.

If you are new to Wikipedia, I would recommend reading up on some of the rules of this place, particularly the Five pillars of Wikipedia, the Core Policies and what Wikipedia is not.

To answer your questions in turn:

1) User generated sites, such as LinkedIn, are generally speaking not considered reliable sources on Wikipedia (see WP:UGC)

2) I understand your point, however what you are saying would be considered "original research" here. Wikipedia can only publish what has been stated in reliable, third party sources. See WP:OR for clarification. In particular:

The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources.

In other words, although you and I may agree it is interesting in the context of Forman's statement on anti-Brexit versus anitsemitic, unless a reliable, third party source has mentioned it as well, it would be considered original research and thus does not belong on Wikipedia.

3) I agree direct quotes can be useful, especially where they help to clarify the article. However it appeared to me in this instance that adding the quote was somewhat arbitrary (I'm sure there are plenty of quotes from Forman about the reasons behind all of his career decisions but we don't include them) and also was more confusing for a reader of Wikipedia than just explaining what happened. "DTI", "DSS" and "poverty lobby" are a bit jargon-y. If you disagree with this, please feel free to add a section to the talk page and we can get a third or fourth opinion.

4) Again this would be considered original research by Wikipedia standards, in particular it is considered WP:SYNTH of materials. So unless we have a good, high-quality source which puts these two statements together, we shouldn't make the connection ourselves.

I hope I've answered your questions and look forward to editing with you in the future! TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why secondary sources? Surely the best place to have credible information is the actual place the news originally came from instead of a website that could easily misinterpret the information? Kranitoko (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. You should check out the Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

In particular see: WP:RS, specifically WP:RSPRIMARY.

But it's a good idea to look at all the major content policies and guidelines.

Feel free to reach out again if you have any other questions. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Not only per the books but also per the series, the ones that are destined to each other are Geralt and Ciri by destiny. I've removed your addition since is innacurate. Before editing again, please discuss your changes. Best regards. Miaow 17:23, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, Miaow. Firstly, the whole section which you added is uncited so shouldn't even be in the article. I decided to add to it rather than revert it in the hope that it would be improved over time, though I see you have not offered the same courtesy to me.

As per the books and the series, Geralt and Yennefer are tied together through the Last Wish of the Jinn. The ending of the Netflix series makes clear that Ciri is somehow tied to Yennefer too - this is indeed the twist of the first season. However, it doesn't matter, because this whole section which you added is entirely uncited, so it's original research and needs to be removed. Cheers. TheSLEEVEmonkey (talk) 18:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

What you added is not a real plot and is a copyright violation, plot summaries should not be copied from elsewhere and plot summaries can be sourced from the works themselves per W:MOS, in those articles we don't need sources when we have the series, just as we don't need it to the characters descriptions in all articles about series, movies, books, etc.

What I said is about the ones that are destined to each other, not about the people they will find in their adventures. What you said about Geralt and Yen is because of a spell, not about destiny; so you are right, i never said otherwise. This is stated in both books and show. That was i tried to tell you. It's not the same the ones that are destined to each other and Geralt's wish to the Jinn to make their lives tied together with Yen which means they will share their adventures because of the spell as per the show, but you added "In his adventures Geralt also meets Yennefer, a sorceress, to whom he and Ciri also become tied by destiny" but "by destiny" is not accurate since the show and even the books never stated that (the only ones that are destined by destiny itself are Geralt and Ciri) but it's because of a spell they all will share most of their adventures/lives together with Yen since Geralt linked her to them throught a spell when using his wish. Meanwhile, books and show states Ciri is Geralt's destiny and viceverse when they didn't even know each other, It's because of destiny they are linked, destined and "will always finds each other". It's because of a spell Yen is connected to them, "the last wish". That's why I tried to tell you when I said your addition was innacurate. Best regards. Miaow 01:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S: also, i didn't tried to be rude or something like that when I reverted your changes before, so my apologizes to you. Miaow 01:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)