User talk:Rbrenton

Welcome!

Hello, Rbrenton, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Dime Community Bank. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! JesseRafe (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Help me!

Please help me with...

Updating Dime_Community_Bank to reflect communication from our client (Dime Community Bank) that they no longer offer personal insurance products. How do we cite internal communication from the bank? Point out the fact that there's no personal insurance products on the website? Do we have to dig up the original source for the information and show that it's defunct? This change has been made twice to the page now, and was immediately reverted by 3rd parties to inaccurately reflect that they still offer personal insurance products.

Thanks!

Brenton (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, you would find a newspaper report that contained the information that personal insurance products are no longer being offered, perhaps because of a divestiture or reorganization of the bank. Direct communication from the bank is not a published form of information. And since they formerly offered these products, the article would need to read something like "before 2008 the bank also offered personal insurance products, but this line was ended because ...."

I know it seems roundabout, but it all has to do with being able to refer readers of the article to independent sources for any facts given in the article. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:27, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Rbrenton Please also see WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY before editing. Praxidicae (talk) 20:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

praxidicae Thanks! Brenton (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. So, I should advise them to make a public announcement or note somewhere that can be referenced to support the change. We are just looking for factual accuracy, and wouldn't normally get involved in our clients' Wikipedia pages; they were just looking for technical support. Thanks! Brenton (talk) 20:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Rbrenton. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Dime Community Bank, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Just an FYI, thank you for being forward about your COI as Dime is your client. JesseRafe (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Dime Community Bank.
Your last edit summary is untrue on its face, both in the definition of 3RR and your ridiculous claim that others have reviewed the edit, and the claim that it was found to be OK.
You are also violating the COI rules, your edits must be requested on the talk page, not done unilaterally by you.
Being a paid consultant or whatever your relationship is with Dime Community Bank puts you within a certain set of rules on how you can edit their page, and you have had multiple chances to review those rules. You are now violating them because you continue to edit with regard to your client's interest, not Wikipedia's. Please self-revert. JesseRafe (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

These statements are your opinion. You have reverted the same edit more than 3 times. I am, in fact, trying to spare you a 3RR violation report. I went through the COI edit request process, and the exact same edit that I proposed was performed. You reverted again without contributing to the talk page. Your attempt to force me to abuse the COI edit request process while you continued to revert the edits is in fact the vandalism that's occurring, not the simple update of fact that I've requested.

1) As I said above, you do not understand the 3RR rule and you are welcome to read about it on your own time. The edits have to be within 24 hours for one thing.

2) The COI edit request process is binding. You don't get to skirt it by making a request and then getting to edit the article at your whim after that. You must continue to make edit requests at the talk page. And also, stop deleting things, both in the article main space and in the talk pages. That is not how it is done. Please self revert. The policy has been explained numerous times, provide a cite that it is no longer offered if that is so, but do not edit to remove information in your client's interest. JesseRafe (talk) 16:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

You have broken the COI edit request process. They have responded that I should report you for 3RR due to the amount of reversions you are doing. What you're doing is not constructive. I've taken the time to start discussion on the talk page for the article, and have a good suggestion on how to edit it at the top of the page. You're welcome to provide feedback and join in the discussion, but just reverting good faith edits by multiple editors without participating in improving the article is not helpful. -Brenton (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Once again, what you are saying is literally not true. "If there is edit warring going on in the article, please escalate to WP:3RR." Spintendo was not saying that was the case one way or the other. He was not engaged in the content of the article, only responding the COI request. AND, in fact, admonishing you for making a bad faith COI request, to wit "COI edit requests cannot be used to maintain a preferred version of the article." You're consistently lying, insinuating I have not been taking part in the conversation at the talk page nor not suggesting how to improve it. Which I've done, numerous times. Self-revert now, please. JesseRafe (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This was the official response: "A requested edit by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. Wrong venue. Please move to WP:3RR." You are cherry-picking facts to support your position. -Brenton (talk) 16:19, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Please explain your edits

Hello Rbrenton. See my comment on your edits at WP:AN3 and explain why you should not be blocked for violating Wikipedia's paid editing rules. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:39, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm just a web programmer who noticed a factually inaccurate statement on the article and tried to fix it by removing the unsourced statement that Dime offers personal insurance products. I'm not being paid to edit content, but I do have a pre-existing relationship with that organization, so I did the right thing and disclosed it; I'm simply not up to anything nefarious. A few notes:

1) I don't benefit in any way from the suggested edit.

2) The warring started before my COI edit request.

3) JesseRafe undid my initial good faith edit, despite the lack of source for the statement he restored.

4) JesseRafe has undone past edits of others trying to correct this same statement, and failed to cite any sources in the time since doing so.

5) I sought help on my Talk page due to JesseRafe reverting my initial edit. I was instructed that I may have a COI issue and sought out the proper way to request edits.

7) JesseRafe reverted an approved COI edit request.

8) I made every attempt to satisfy JesseRafe's editorial quips in his revert comments, but that was the extent of his interaction with me up until this point.

9) I made a follow-up COI edit request to address the latest editorial quip in the edit summary of the latest reversion from JesseRafe.

10) The follow-up COI edit request was denied due to apparent warring, and I was told to file a complaint that JesseRafe was edit warring.

11) Despite this, I attempted to reach out directly to JesseRafe directly on their Talk page, and without success.

12) JesseRafe has been bullying, flinging personal insults suggesting I'm not familiar with the English language, talking down to others with every interaction, and otherwise militant and uncollaborative.

13) At this stage, I believed the COI edit process to be broken, and that it was intentional maneuvering on JesseRafe's part in his attempt to bully. I had not done any direct edit to undo JesseRafe's reversions at this point.

14) When JesseRafe continued to undo the removal of this single contentious sentence, I believed it amounted to vandalism, and subject to exception 4.

I don't understand the resistance to removing an incorrect statement, or JesseRafe's mean-spirited and uncollaborative gatekeeping. Dime simply doesn't offer any personal insurance products. The fact is, I'm new to editing and tried to educate myself on your policies and procedures as quickly as I could in order to defend against JesseRafe, a seasoned bully, with a long history of edit warring documented on his Talk page. It's unfortunate that it went as far as it did, but I have every intention of continuing to educate myself on the proper policies here and use them to stand up for myself and others. If you think that Dime bank still offers personal insurance products, you should ban me; if you do not, then I propose that JesseRafe be stripped of his ability to bully newcomers. Thanks. -Brenton (talk) 01:44, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

You may still avoid a block if you will promise to make no more direct edits at Dime Community Bank. Even if you aren't being paid, this degree of connection still falls under our WP:COI policy. Please respond on the noticeboard. Your charges against an experienced editor (who has previously dealt with apparent COI editing of the article) are way over the top. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I promise, and thank you for your time. -Brenton (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello Rbrenton. You've been warned per the edit warring complaint. You should refrain from direct edits of Dime Community Bank. You are warned against personal attacks, and the other party has been advised to lay off as well. Personal attacks are blockable. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2019 (UTC)