User talk:Netsumdisc

Welcome!

Hello, Netsumdisc, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! 黒雲 20:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgefund Intro

Hi, I am another new user working on the HF page. I'd like to question some of your changes to the introductory paragraph: in particular, "Accredited Investor" is a US concept, SEC etc are US institutions and both are of limited relevance to the many non-US HFs. Perhaps generics like "limited number of investors" and "regulators" would be better in the opening section, with a separate section on US practice?

I'm in the process of cleaning up the HF strategies section -- I plan to merge the text from the HF page into the strategy pages and replace the section with a link list -- after which I hope to split out the regulatory material into its own pages. Perhaps a separate page on US practice would be a good idea. Do you plan to do further work on the page?

Servalo 17:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes please do write about supply and demand in the Capitalism page. Apparently it needs it because someone is saying that markets are not a necessary part of capitalism! I've never heard anything so bizarre. -In Capitalism We Trust

Your vandalism warning to Pleclech

Hi. I was on Pleclech's talk page and saw the level 3 vandalism warning you gave him. I looked at both your edits and I think both of you were editing in "good faith". I disagree with Pleclech's reversion of your edits, but I would never call it vandalism. Take a look at Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. It's a big deal on Wikipedia to give a vandalism warning to someone that's not really vandalized and it can be considered a violation of Wikipedia's Civility Policy.

I realize it may have been easier to assume this was vandalism based on the fact that Pleclech already had one vandalism warning; in fact, the other one was totally bogus and issued in totally bad faith (see my comments on the talk page for more about this.) Vandalism warnings on a talk page can stigmatize a good editor as a problematic user.

I don't mean this to come across as a butt-chewing or a formal warning -- I see that you're a good editor yourself. I just thought you should know this.

Thanks,http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netsumdisc&action=edit&section=new + --A. B. ^(talk) 18:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth L. Fisher - Fisher Investments Revisions

How come we can't add information about Fisher Investments on the Kenneth L. Fisher page. It is relevant to the Kenneth L. Fisher page because he is the CEO of Fisher Investments. I put something up and you take it done. ?????

Please leave your username if you'd like a response. Netsumdisc 21:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you censoring my link?

Why are you censoring my link to the article on Fisher Investments from the Ken Fisher page? It is in no way vandalism, it is also not original research nor original thought. It is simply information that people investing with Fisher must know before choosing Ken's firm to manage their money. Fisher Investments representatives choose to avoid these very important issues in their sales process and skirt the issues if clients bring them up. Having only links with complimentary information is very one-sided and biased. In the interest of presenting a balanced view, please stop removing my link.

Berzon 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please review Wikipedia guidelines

I can see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. There are some guidelines, as a newcomer, you may not be aware of just yet. I suggest you review:

WP:CIV
WP:NOR
WP:NOT
WP:CENSOR
And perhaps the most important, WP:FAITH

Your thoughtful contributions are welcome. To avoid edit wars, getting warned, and possibly blocked, please review these and the welcome page.

Your link to the article you wrote was removed because it was self-authored, and therefore considered original research, an opinion piece, and could be viewed as self-promotion or advertising. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia is not a battleground. These sorts of things should generally be avoided. Hope that helps clear things up. Netsumdisc (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop that nonsense!

I posted a link to an article I wrote on the subject. I did not change information on the page itself. Such links are permitted and are throughout wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to require sources for all the data provided on all the linked pages and there is no such requirement, as far as I can tell. If it is forbidden, please point to the exact sense, which you think makes it so. As far as self promotion, I have nothing to promote. I am not a money manager and the article is posted as a blog on the site of a Russian language newspaper! You, on the other hand, have no business editing pages on the subjects where you can not remain unbiased. Please don't do it again.

Berzon 17:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will change the link to Fool.Com version of the article

Look, if you have a problem with providing unbiased information, please remove yourself from the editor role. Your behavior is ridiculous and unacceptable. Every time you come up with a new reason for threatening me with being removed. Is the real reason you are doing it that you have a commercial interest tied to Fisher Investments?

If the problem is the site where this article is posted, I will provide a link to the same article on another site that I have no interest in whatsoever. However, I do not believe that this is the issue here, since the newspaper site I linked to is not investment related. Please, refer this matter to a neutral editor for speedy resolution and in the meantime I will change the link to a Live Journal version of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berzon (talk • contribs) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How much is Fisher Investments paying you?

Dude, you are so biased that I can't help but wonder how much Fisher Invetsments is paying you for misrepresenting information about them. OK, I get it you don't want any links to the best independent source on Fisher Investments, but why would you also rewrite sentences in such a way as to make them incorrect? Perhaps an RFC is in order here? Would you please set that up for both this page and Ken's book? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.127.101.213 (talk) 02:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. Wikipedia is not censored. Any further changes which have the effect of censoring an article, such as you did to Kenneth_L._Fisher, will be regarded as vandalism. If you continue in this manner, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please maintain neutrality and undo your changes, which removed links to CXO Advisors Ken Fisher page ( http://www.cxoadvisory.com/gurus/Fisher/ )and Odesskiy Listok Fisher Investments page ( http://www.odessapage.com/new/en/fisher-investments )

Sockpuppets at work

Please note – the previous warning[1] and a number of comments[2][3][4] on this page are from a ring of suspected sockpuppets. [5]. I appear to have angered them :) Netsumdisc (talk) 02:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Kenneth_L._Fisher. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Do not groom the article to remove documented facts, that no longer serve the needs of Fisher Investments. Wikipedia has policies against advertising.

If you’d like to warn me, please sign your comment. Also, it’d carry more weight if you weren’t a single-purpose account that’s only made negative edits on one article. But thanks for your efforts. Maybe a meatpuppet [6] I’ve angered in the past? Who knows. Netsumdisc (talk) 04:10, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]