While I was researching *why* New York Brad was "forced to resign", since no one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real name and the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html_ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html)
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com issue and related topics. I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually is.... but wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks at WR respond in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail. Like that one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own name, and have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007)
On 29/06/2008, WJhonson@aol.com WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
While I was researching *why* New York Brad was "forced to resign", since no one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real name and the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
_ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html_ ( http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html )
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com issue and related topics. I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually is.... but wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks at WR respond in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail. Like that one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own name, and have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. ( http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Got as far as "Cade Metz" before I closed the window.
2008/6/30 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
If I never subscribed to this mailing list, I would have never heard of him. :)
Am I one of the few people who had heard of him? He was that anti-Google crank who ascribed his low search ranking to malice on their part. Of course, since then he's worked extremely hard to make himself as famous as possible, using Wikipedia to this purpose.
- d.
On 6/30/08, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/6/30 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
If I never subscribed to this mailing list, I would have never heard of him. :)
Am I one of the few people who had heard of him? He was that anti-Google crank who ascribed his low search ranking to malice on their part. Of course, since then he's worked extremely hard to make himself as famous as possible, using Wikipedia to this purpose.
The first time I read his name I wondered if he was the same Danny Brandt that subbed for Jim West in Weird Al's band when I saw them at Tag's Tavern in Elmyra NY in 2000... I was relieved to find out it wasn't... I couldn't imagine that Danny Brandt being that much of a jerk. ;-)
David Gerard wrote:
2008/6/30 Angela Anuszewski:
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
If I never subscribed to this mailing list, I would have never heard of him. :)
Am I one of the few people who had heard of him? He was that anti-Google crank who ascribed his low search ranking to malice on their part. Of course, since then he's worked extremely hard to make himself as famous as possible, using Wikipedia to this purpose.
Angela does make a valid point. The biggest factor contributing to DB's notability has been the persistent debate over his notability. Maybe there's a lesson in that somewhere.
Ec
2008/6/30 Angela Anuszewski angela.anuszewski@gmail.com:
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
If I never subscribed to this mailing list, I would have never heard of him. :)
I've never heard of (to take a completely random example) the President of Peru, but that doesn't mean that Alan García (I looked him up - in Wikipedia, natch) isn't notable.
On 28 Jun 2008, at 23:07, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
While I was researching *why* New York Brad was "forced to resign", since no one here seems to want to state that Daniel Brandt revealed his real name and the law firm for which he works ---- I found this interesting article.
_http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html_ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/06/wikipedia_and_overstock/page3.html )
While gives a big overview of the whole Overstock.com issue and related topics. I still have no *clear* idea of what naked short selling actually is.... but wow what a lot of new topics to research!
Even ED doesn't really go into the whole thing in a way that makes the issues clear. They really need to hire a new writer, and the folks at WR respond in one or two short sentences to a whole lot of underlying detail. Like that one guy said "I see the crumbs, wheres the loaf of bread" in the whole Alison-Amorrow "he's editing from where I work" fiasco.
I'm rambling. It's just much easier when you edit from your own name, and have nothing to hide. Linda Mack? MI5 ? Google-Watch?
What happened to the Daniel Brandt article? Is he not notable?
Will Johnson
**************Gas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. (http://autos.aol.com/used?ncid=aolaut00050000000007 ) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Editing under your own name doesn't make things simpler. It just moves the criticism on to another level!
As for naked short selling, it is simply selling shares you don't have in your possession. Normal short selling involve borrowing shares from someone (for a fee) and selling them on so the buyer gets shares and your willing counter party may lose out if you default. With naked short selling, if you go bust, your buyer ends up without the shares, even though he never consented to take this risk.
In the UK, Market Makers do this all the time to ensure an orderly market, so they can hold (on average over time) no net position in a share.
I'm sorry to hear NewYorkBrad is leaving - he is a very knowledgeable contributor.
2008/7/7 Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com:
As for naked short selling, it is simply selling shares you don't have in your possession.
Strictly speaking, naked short selling means selling stock which you don't possess *AND* haven't arranged to borrow.
Sellling shares you don't have in your posession is simply a definition of short selling. The SEC's Regulation SHO requires broker-dealers to document the "locate" they have performed prior to selling the shares. This is the steps the broker-dealer must take to ensure that he will be able to borrow enough shares to fulfill the sale.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/7 Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com:
As for naked short selling, it is simply selling shares you don't have in your possession.
Strictly speaking, naked short selling means selling stock which you don't possess *AND* haven't arranged to borrow.
Also, I'm not sure there is an official definition anywhere, but I'd say that the practices which the market makers engage in is, by definition, not naked short selling.
On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 6:34 AM, Tony Sidaway tonysidaway@gmail.com wrote:
2008/7/7 Stephen Streater sbstreater@mac.com:
As for naked short selling, it is simply selling shares you don't have in your possession.
Strictly speaking, naked short selling means selling stock which you don't possess *AND* haven't arranged to borrow.
Is this the stock market version of "selling the Brooklyn Bridge"?