Talk:Cheyne Capital Management

Please respect the fact and stop edit warring

1/Loss with Queens walk is a major fact for this company 2/FSA sanctions for this companys CIO is also a major fact —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.103.199 (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Please read carefully 1) Re: Queens Walk section, there has been consensus on what the most balanced version is, please refer to The edit-warring stops now, please right below. 2) On Christopher Goekjian, such information does not fall into context as he was CEO of CSFP in 2003.

Please add real value to Wikipedia, as opposed to malicious comments as noticed not only in this article, but also in the recent edition to: Marie Douglas, where you have added: and then ended up flirting with her old client, which looks more like gossip than facts 94.173.42.115 (talk) 16:23, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

First you have to sign when you proceed with an article. please note that the CG or MD ad ons are all facts available with news and nothing to do with Gossip. Wikipedia is about facts and references and this is exactly what is happenning here. wheter or not you are happy or related to those companies or persons those are the facts.--89.194.32.177 (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the biased entry about the former CSFP CEO. This article is about Cheyne Capital Management; the 7 year-old FSA press release does not even mention the firm, and attempting to link the two is WP:OR and against WP:NPOV. The IP making changes here appears to be editing from an agenda, as is evidenced by his edit history. Consensus has been reached by and large on the previous version, and any new editions should be added with neutrality in mind.—DMCer™ 17:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

And we're semiprotected again. People, edit-warring to get your preferred version of the article up never works. Discuss here. You've got a week before the protection comes off. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Age, like 7 years, is not important. The fact that Cheyne is employing a fined individual is very important.

More facts on Cheyne Capital

Cheyne Capital is one of the initial signatories to the Hedge Fund Working Group and its funds comply with the new Best Practice Standards (http://www.hfsb.org/?section=10567) of the Hedge Fund Standards Board; and it is also a member of the AIMA, the Alternative Investment Management Association (http://www.aima.org/download.cfm/docid/05578081-F000-446A-93617B8188726542) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.173.42.115 (talk) 23:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Added.—DMCer™ 20:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Notes to edit this page and view=

thank you for blocking the page, the issue is that it seems that this company was at the centre of the sub prime crisis and is now tring to hide the fact that one of the flag ship fund at Cheyne , QueensWalk whent out of business and almost bankrupt for 100's of millions of dollars. this version af the article seems the best one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cheyne_Capital_Management&action=edit&oldid=341277549

-all the Credit Flux references are non third party reliable references -all comments and references to the fact that Lourie and Co are Jewish is normal on Wikipedia and totally encyclopledic such as the Einstein page, Kerzner page or Hank Paulson page for a Christian reference....

-please change the article and back to reality. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.194.197.163 (talk) 19:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The edit-warring stops now, please

I've reverted this page to a version from mid-January that appears to be clean and relatively neutral. I encourage editors here to improve the page by including new references and keeping the article neutral in tone. Further edit-warring will not be tolerated. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Per this diff, it appears the only difference between the two versions currently being reverted to/from is the section title and the first sentence. It has been my experience that 89.194.*.* will not discuss, but only reverts. Could I get a quick sense of which version has consensus? I would support keeping the first sentence, for perspective. I have no strong opinion either way on adding a section title. My previous reverts of this IP editor had to do with BLP/sourcing issues. I'd like to know there's consensus to revert 89.194.*.*'s additions here before reverting/protecting/rangeblocking. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Before reverting the latest changes, I would like to point out that the original paragraph about the Queen's Walk fund was written by a registered WP user User:DMCer on 4th February, who carried out research on the topic and wrote it using a balanced tone; in fact, the paragraph in question makes much more sense when the first sentence is included. As to the title 'Loss with Queens Walk Fund', although keeping it would be irrelevant, what is noticeable is the interest in highlighting negative facts of companies/executives related to Goldman Sachs, this has been already reported to WP moderators, please refer to the following edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/89.194.135.110 -i.e.: The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. is a criminal enterprise that transformed into a new world order controlled bank holding company in 2009..., therefore, the veracity of these contributions is very disputable. 85.189.223.124 (talk) 11:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear before, I agree with re-adding the sentence that 85.189.223.124 has re-added. Including the original author of that line (DMCer), me, and 85.189..., there is a consensus to keep it in. The lone editor continually removing it without discussion is therefore editing against consensus, and needs to discuss here before removing again. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:15, 22 February 2010 (UTC)