Talk:R/wallstreetbets/Archive 1

Archive 1

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2020

Please stop deleting our edits is clear you have no knowledge of the sub and are rejecting edits from the people that have been in the sub for almost 10 years 216.156.252.68 (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Danski454 (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Self-promotion in Bibliography section

The inclusion of the Rogozinski book is likely for the purpose of self-promotion. Rogozinski is known for promoting the same book on /r/wallstreetbets.

I propose that the book be removed from the article or moved to the references section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.34.123.54 (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Establishing what qualifies as a reliable source

I am seeing a lot of edits get reverted for not having a "reliable source." I made a number of contributions yesterday that I think are very important to the culture of the subreddit, such as the different gangs to which people subscribe. They were reverted for not having come from a reliable source.

What qualifies as a reliable source when talking about trends on a social media outlet? I do research on WallStreetBets in order to document events for my YouTube channel. Do we need mods to make contributions? I am not sure how to reliably prove that "Bull Gang" refers to traders who place trades with the belief that the market will rise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamikazecash (talk • contribs) 08:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's requirements for reliable sources can be found here, Reddit is not considered a reliable source as it contains mostly user-generated content, and is considered both self-published and generally unreliable. In addition I can see a large part of the information you added is not mentioned in the sources you provided. Wikipedia is not the right place to list a glossary of terms used on a subreddit. Greyjoy ^talk 09:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I’ll come back and cite my sources with published media outside of original sources in Reddit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B0A7:3702:917C:5A7F:D93D:5FA3 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

There is factually incorrect information regarding the supposed engineered short squeeze on AMC

There has not nor will there be a short squeeze for the AMC ticker. It is BLATANTLY false to claim that a short squeeze has happened to AMC and even more ridiculous to assume that r/wallstreetbets had absolutely ANYTHING to do with the recent increase in price with AMC. In addition to this, the page has been locked for edits until February. I believe this is an organized effort to suppress correct information regarding r/wallstreetbets and paint it in a negative light. I strongly urge Wikipedia to appoint someone with proper knowledge to oversee this page because the previous edits are FALSE and MISINFORMATION regarding the AMC squeeze. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.71.196.138 (talk) 00:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021

I am quite new to Wikipedia editing (although I do have experience on Fandom), and all in all I just request that someone add the Current events template to the GameStop short squeeze section of the r/wallstreetbets article. Sideshowsimpson (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sideshowsimpson:  Done I think this is just about reasonable given the volume of editing we've been having despite semi-protection—see the template's documentation at Template:Current for its intended use case. Might be sensible to take it down after 24 hours if there isn't continuing breaking news about this. — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Sideshowsimpson (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Logo

The sidebar claims that R/wallstreetbets#/media/File:WallStreetBets.png is the subreddit's "logo" however looking at the subreddit, it appears to be just a part of the subreddit header, not the logo (or snoo), which is just the face. Nithin^talk 18:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2021 (2)

Change 4.6 million users to 4.9 million users to make the users more accurate Bubza101 (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bubza101:  Done just this once... These are only supposed to be very ballpark figures, gives you the rough order of magnitude (millions rather than hundreds or thousands), so it's not usually desirable to update it multiple times per day. It's now >4.95 million so that would be 5.0 to 2 significant figures, but I've gone with just 5 (1 sig fig) so that the information will become outdated less quickly. — Bilorv (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

JohnShmith00 beat me to it before I actually clicked "Submit", seemingly with the exact same thought about 1 significant figure—appreciate it. — Bilorv (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding profanity

Hi @Irish Birdcatcher: I've reverted your recent edit Subreddit members often refer to themselves as "autists”, “retards”, and "degenerates." Firstly, while seemingly true, neither of the sources cited included the word "retard" (though it would make sense to re-add if you find a reliable source). Secondly, the first half of that sentence was written as it was because reliable sources describe the relevance of that language that way, and as a standalone statement without reference to its notability there wouldn't be a reason to include the subreddit's use of profanity. If you think that there's something wrong with the way it's written currently it would make sense to discuss it here though, so feel free to disagree. Volteer1 (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Volteer1: Yes I agree with your reasoning. I will keep the description as profane. I will also add more slang terms used by wsb (sourced) unless you think that is irrelevant information. Irish Birdcatcher (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Irish Birdcatcher: looks good to me. Volteer1 (talk) 04:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Minor edits

The tagline is 'like 4chan found a Bloomberg terminal illness' WolframaticAlpha (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@WolframaticAlpha: this is mentioned in the article—what change are you suggesting? — Bilorv (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ugh the tagline "Like 4chan found a Bloomberg terminal",[2] doesn't have the words illness Also usercount hit 6 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WolframaticAlpha (talk • contribs) 15:37, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@WolframaticAlpha: I see. The source does end it at "terminal". Is it possible that that used to be the tagline? I can see the new tagline just by visiting the primary source but I don't think it's worth mentioning without a secondary source. Maybe it's best to remove the tagline entirely. I've updated the users to 6 million though. — Bilorv (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bilorv: I think the "terminal illness" thing was a temporary joke by them, the tagline is back to normal now, so there shouldn't be any problems. Volteer1 (talk) 15:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Ousting of founder Jaime Rogozinski.

Either in the "Founder(s)" detail or within the main page, there should be a specific address to Jaime Rogozinski as the "banned" founder of WSB. The founder of WSB was expelled from his own subreddit after making continuous decisions that divided and angered its followers. From reiterated attempts at profiting from said subreddit by selling merchandising to writing books without the consent or even knowledge of the other moderators or even trying to create a new Pay-to-Play platform in which redditors could share their financial thought through a more private, fully paywalled version of WSB. He is currently taken as a persona non grata in the subreddit while he continues to give live and written interviews as some sort of "mastermind" behind WSB, when in fact he was drastically removed from his own creation by the vast majority of its members.

I believe the actual wikipedia page doesn't do justice to Jaime Rogozinski and still paints him as a relevant figure in the subreddit of today, which cannot be further from the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.186.163 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Not neutral

By saying that they are young and don't understand the stock market, and by pointing out the profane language, you are vilyfying these people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pixar1995 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pixar1995: which sentences specifically say things that are not originated from the reliable source cited inline? — Bilorv (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Pixar1995: Please read WP:NPOV to understand what is meant by neutrality on Wikipedia. SmartSE (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

All clearly opinions which serve no purpose in an informational, unbiased platform. DesPickableME (talk) 14:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)