User talk:Router
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
|
[edit] Addition of "companyXsucks.com" websites
Please read WP:SOAPBOX. Wikipedia is not the appropriate place for campaigns against companies. While "Criticism" sections are acceptable, they need to be backed by reliable sources (major media outlets, etc.) OhNoitsJamieTalk 20:40, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Sucks sites aka Gripe Sites show an alternative perspective of a person or company, having them in the External Links section is justifiable and needed. This particular Gripe Site contains and compiled "information that is reliable and verifiable" in the case of Farmers Insurance having the most complaints in many States. The site has the State Commissioner Reports or links to them. Critical information like this is crucial to get a full understanding of this company. Router 20:50, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you can find links directly to state reports, etc., use those, not links to a gripe site. OhNoitsJamieTalk 21:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your VandalProof Application
Dear Router,
Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego talk 13:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Deleting your soapbox comments is not vandalism. I have been leaving the "factual" paragraphs, even though I personally feel they are misleading. Comments such as "Worst" would seem to violate the "Neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia, especially when they come directly from a gripe site. If you are the owner of said site, that would seem to be a conflict of interest as well. We can play revert wars for weeks, but with a little tolerance, you can post your "criticism", whithout violating Wikipedia rules. Remember, this is a collaborative project, not your megaphone.70.103.176.242 20:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am not violating the "Neutral point of view" policy of Wikipedia, I am displaying the criticism, the other side which you continue to delete. It is a fact that many people believe Farmers Insurance is the worst and all the complaints listed are cited. Please quit deleting content that is critical of Farmers Insurance. Router 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- As I read the Wikipedia policies on "Soapbox" and "NPOV", your editorializing is certianly in violation. I am not deleting your refrences to specific incidents, just the paragraph lifted nearly verbatim from (your?) gripe site. You were told not to quote the gripe site, and your were told not to link directly to it, and not by me. If you are the owner of the gripe site, there is a clear conflict of interest, in any case. BTW, if I posted a comment that many people consider Farmers to be one of the best insurers in the USA, would you allow it to stand, or howl in protest? See, we can fight back and forth, or come to a mutual understanding. Wiki is not your personal domain. You already have that forum.70.103.176.242 21:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the "worst" comment. Router 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just so we are all clear, I was content with your revision of 1/3. The removal of the specific instances on 1/5 was not by me nor at my instigation.Buzzards39 07:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Single purpose account
- Router, I've come to believe that you are a single purpose account with the sole purpose of using Wikipedia as a soapbox for *sucks.com sites (possibly run or owned by you). All of your article edits in ~1 year of editing here have in some way related to this topic. You show an excessive feeling of ownership of the criticism sections of articles. Do you have an explanation for this behavior? Syrthiss 15:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
- I am presenting the minority view of these articles. I may consider myself an expert on one or multiple articles. I noticed your edit on this particular article is to critique the criticism section but you did nothing to the rest of the article. You didn't put citations on any of the information that was positive about Farmers. What do you say of that? With that said, I am trying to keep the articles balanced. My purpose is to counter accounts like you who delete or minimize the minority view of articles. Router 17:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 3RR
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in PayPal. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.
Regardless of the merits of the external links, you violated the 3-revert rule on on January 7-8 (4 reverts in 24 hours and 10 minutes is close enough). Since you appear not to have been specifically warned about the 3 revert rule before, I'm warning you know. Cut it out. Thatcher131 19:54, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Conflict?
I thought we had reached a tenable compromise on the Farmers page, but you *apparently* want to contest each and every positive thing posted, while leaving your criticisms unchallenged. I openly disclosed my interest as a Farmers agent both to the admins and and on my talk page, so others could draw their own conclusions as to the value of my edits. If you are the owner, operator, a contributor, or in any way connected to the Farmers gripe site, it is time for you to be open about that as well, as every "Criticism" cite is directly taken from that webpage. I'm not contesting your right to good faith editing, just asking that you be above board as to where your interests and possible agenda come from. Buzzards39 14:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Buzz, you posted information that cited the company's own web page. I am just agreeing with FT2. A company should not manufacture its own news to be cited on Wikimedia. It is a blatant conflict of interest and is certainly not a reliable source. Any information I would like to reveal about myself can be found on my User page. Thank you for your interest. Router 15:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Buzz everything you added to this page really should be deleted. If you are a Farmers Agent you are certainly a COI, "avoid editing articles related to your organization or its competitors". Not only are you editing an article you shouldn't be, you are citing information directly from your company web site. Router 16:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
When I made edits, I disclosed the nature of my relationship to both Syrthiss and LT2. In fact, I asked LT2 to review my edits to ensure that I had maintained NPOV. I was told specificially that as long as I was up front about it, there was not a problem. Remember, I am an independent contractor, not an employee. You have been cautioned about being a "Single purpose account" by the same Srythiss, and in fact, there was a debate on the admin page as to whether you should be blocked from editing due to this reason. Why are you not willing to be up front about your relationship or lack therof to gripe sites? All that does is fuel suspicion. If it is your site, then let readers judge for themselves what your agenda may or may not be. If you have no connection, then at least declare what your interest is. What you are "willing to reveal" only seems to reveal that you have something to hide. (IMHO) 70.103.176.242 20:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
- Re: Your threat to have me banned from editing. By all means, bring my edits to the attention of editors. Please! I would be happy to have those who have the power to make such decisions arbitrate between your edits and mine. Do you really think that only statistics that cast a company in a negative light should be posted? Maybe on YOUR gripe site, but not on Wiki. Complaint ratio is a much more relevant measure than absolute numbers that will always be higher for larger companies. And cherry-picking the worst years while ignoring years when your misleading statistics do not hold up is hardly NPOV. And while we are at it, I ask you again, since you have not responed in the past, are you or are you not connected with a "Gripe sight" critical of Farmers. If not, what is your agenda. The only reason that you know about my agency is because I have been up front, so that others could draw their own conclusions.Buzzards39 05:08, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Farmers
It's inaccurate to state that Farmers has the "most complaints" in all these states. It's true that the company has the most complaints in certain states in certain years. FCYTravis 19:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I hate to say I told you so, but...Seriously, despite what you think, if there is legitimate criticism, I have no problem with it being up. The nature of the insurance industry is that there will be disputes from time to time, I'm not naive enough to say that the Insurance company is always right-and if we have a zit, no reason to smear makeup over it. But saying things that are false or misleading just is not fair to a user who is looking for unbiased information. I'm content with the current way the critique section is written-and the last edits were made by admins, not me.
BTW, I plead guilty to mentioning Mr. Drocktons name, but it was not me that posted the statement about someone being from Arlington, TX. I suspect that you are the owner/operator of the gripe site, but do not know if you are from Arlington Texas, Arlington Virginia, Arlington California, or Point Barrow Alaska.Buzzards39 21:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- My humble response, as posted on the noticeboard:
In regards to the alleged harrasment, I plead "rookie mistake", since the personal info that the honorable Mr. Router refers occured literally on my first or second discussion edit. If it is a big deal, then by all means, remove it. As to my edits, I can only say that I have tried to: 1. Stay within the lines on NPOV, going so far as to solicit admin review of edits that I have made, and 2. Striven for full disclosure as to any possible COI so that Wikipedians may see my work and comments and draw their own conclusions. My humble submission is that Mr. Router has not been quite so transparent about his reasons for interest. When information has been properly sourced, I have left it alone. But I am unrepentant for removing or altering content that is false or misleading, including my latest revisions. I would not want to revoke Routers right to good faith editing, I wish he would accord me the same privelege. Buzzards39 04:23, 26 February 2007 (UTC
The only person who has ever "warned" me, or threatened to have me blocked, is you. So you will excuse me if I don't take your fulminations seriously. Just make accurate, NPOV edits, and I'll do the same. Have a nice day :-) Buzzards39 04:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Every time I try to be civil, you bring out the sledgehammer. I explained the personal information both to you and one the noticeboard. I give you permission to delete them from the article talk page, if it floats your boat. As for the allegations of COI and NPOV, this is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Just calm down, take a deep breath, and you can learn to tolerate my presence in the Wiki universe. I am happy to tolerate yours, just consider me your little Wiki concience, keeping you honest. ;-) Buzzards39 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm happy to hear you are willing to coexist. I honestly am not trying to effect a whitewash, but am serious about making sure that critical information is factual and NPOV, just as you would if any positive information was posted. You *did* make an attempt to have me run off Wikipedia for good, if that's not a sledgehammer, I don't know what is. And I just made my first edit to another article, albiet one insurance related. I'll be happy to look around for more... Buzzards39 18:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Good morning. I saw your latest contribs to Farmers, and was a bit puzzled. If those links exist with Farmers, should not they exist on the articles for every Insurance company? I checked several, and you did not make those changes to anyone else. While the "Insurance" link is fairly innocuous, the "Bad Faith Insurance" link is more problematic. If you are trying to insunuate that Farmers is the only company that has been involved in this type of litigation, then not only is there an NPOV issue, but it is just plain innacuarate. Take a look, BTW, at the State Farm article. The editors have moved the entire criticism section to the discussion page, where NPOV is not so much a concern, so both sides can blast away to their hearts content. I have not changed any of your edits, but I'm trying to work to keep the article balanced. As I have stated before, I'm not opposed to good faith editing, but will fight to keep the article from being hijacked into a diatribe against Farmers, just as you would not want it to be a Farmers-written puff piece. I'd like to hear what you are trying to accomplish by adding these two links, especially the "Bad Faith" link before we get into another editing skirmish. Have a good day. 70.58.36.14 13:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
