User talk:Bmanpa

In response to your feedback

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! It's contributors like you that keep this project going. I hope you like Wikipedia and keep making edits to articles that interest you.

Tow Trucker talk 03:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2012

An image or media file,User:Bmanpa/sandbox, has been removed from your userpage, user talk page, or other page because it was licensed as non-free. Wikipedia's non-free policy states that Copyrighted images under fair use are only allowed to be used in articles about the subject of the image, and only if no free equivalent is available. For example they are not allowed to be used on user pages, in lists, or (typically) in biographies of living people. As a result, although users are often given a great amount of latitude in the type of content that is allowed on their user pages, it is requested that you abide by this policy. Feel free, however, to add images and media files licensed under other terms. For more information, see Wikipedia's non-free content policy and an accompanying essay on the removal of non-freeimages. Further use of these images will be considered vandalism, and shall be treated as such. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 10:22, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pendant Productions issues

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote—in order to influence Pendant Productions. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Spshu (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Number 1 - Wikipedia:Canvasing covers editors who are campaigning for a certain outcome. I am certainly not doing that. All I did was thank another editor who has made prior contributions to the article in question, and was previously involved in a dispute between the two of us on Valiant Comics. This is fully allowed under WP:APPNOTE.

And Number 2 - My message to User:Electricburst1996 was neutral in intent, as I simply asked if they had suggestions on ways to add additional citations to prevent the kind of edit warring you're engaging in.

Number 3 - It's a fact that you are now engaging in edit warring. And you have been unwilling to discuss any measures that can be taken to fix your perceived issues with the page, even after I explained my position in detail. I have been patient, and I have attempted to communicate with you without reverting your edits. Unless you are willing to discuss the issues you have with the page, then I believe the matter is settled, as multiple editors disagree with your consensus. If your edit warring persists, I will report it to the Administrators.--Bmanpa (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. I think his next block should be indefinite, as his lengthy block log for precisely the same offense does not inspire confidence. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are campaigning for a particular outcome as the post was not neutral in intent: "...I've got another editor to back me up if I have to file an edit warring dispute." That post expecting support for your side ("...back me up...". I am not engaged in edit warring, Electricburst1996 has accused me of vandalism over this twice now, which is false. Which I have had to deal in addition to you canvassing him for support instead of responding to your post. That is not good faith.

my last post yesterday: 23:06, 16 June 2016
your discussion post on my page - 23:24, 16 June 2016
canvassing - 00:57, 17 June 2016
my first post today: 12:04, 17 June 2016

So, 11 hours before I can respond and 1 hour after your discussion post on my page, you have declared me "unwilling to discuss" by already canvassing support for an edit war report. This is not good faith.

Electricburst1996, remember the last time you attempted to get me indefinite block as turned into a boomerang. And you do know that you are working with some with admitted (and here, which also leads to two different IPs that Pendant has used that were blocked for editing abuse and Block evasion) COI with Pendant Productions.

Hello, Bmanpa. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places, or things you have written about in the article Pendant Productions, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic, and it is important when editing Wikipedia articles that such connections be completely transparent. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, we ask that you please:

avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your family, friends, school, company, club, or organization, as well as any competing companies' projects or products;
instead, you are encouraged to propose changes on the Talk pages of affected article(s) (see the {{request edit}} template);
when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or to the website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

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

Please take a few moments to read and review Wikipedia's policies regarding conflicts of interest, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Spshu (talk) 22:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When I said "unwilling to discuss," I was also counting my posts on your User Talk page starting on 12 June, where you gave a vague answer to the question I posed and User:Electricburst1996 attempted to refute. Since 12 June, you've only given reasons for removing content, and none for maintaining what is already on Wikipedia.

As for the noted WP:COI from four years ago, I was a new Wikipedia user at the time. I was unaware of the COI rules, and was attempting to clear up some outdated information that someone else had removed and vandalized the page with.

There is no conflict of interest now. The edits I made were an attempt to clean the page up and give it a standard Wikipedia format, while your edits did not adhere to the guidelines of WP:DR. Additionally, I have no current or former involvement with Valiant Comics, yet my edits there elicited a similar reaction from you.

And so, we're back to square one. What is a solution to this problem that all three of us can agree upon without User:Spshu being banned? I don't want Spshu or anyone else being BANNED for trying to improve Wikipedia and make it better and more informative for everyone. There's got to be a fair way for us to come to a resolution without someone reverting to a "he said, she said" dialogue every time. --Bmanpa (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmanpa: Take this to WP:ANI. Spshu is clearly a lost cause at this point. Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:22, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: I will give User:Spshu ample time to respond before we take this to an administrator. I would still like to find a peaceful resolution to the issue at hand.--Bmanpa (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, you seemed satisfied with the answers "I gotcha! My mistake." .... "Thanks for cluing me in!" That isn't not a response to an unanswered question, so you should not be claiming now that it was unanswered. Electricburst1996 attacked a linked guideline WP:DUE saying I made it up. It is there to look at; it exists. How is that made up and need a response? You made one that was reasonable (but not my reasoning) that ended that line of question any ways. Why should I beat a dead horse? You only indicate that you really did not understand it until your new section about Pendant Productions thus resetting the clock.

You do not currently work for Pendant Productions? You and Electricburst1996 derailed discussions as I have outlined by the failure to Wikipedia:Assume good faith expecting it to turn into a edit war and encouraging Electricburst1996 to make it so. And that was the first thing on the WP:DR that you claim I am not following.

RE: Valiant, I never said you work there. Making up false statements don't help you. I intended to respond to your post at my talk page, but instead you started to plot against me: decide what and what I would not do. To come to a resolution start assuming some good faith per WP:DR and discuss the issue instead of like EB deciding I have an agenda. Spshu (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: "Electricburst1996 attacked a linked guideline WP:DUE saying I made it up..." Congratulations on accusing me of s**t I never said! I said that primary sources are not inherently undue! Read more carefully next time! Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 23:37, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume no agenda on your part, and I apologize if it appears I accepted that as fact from User:Electricburst1996. His believing you have an agenda remains his opinion and not mine. I fully assume good faith on your part.

At the time of your response on 12 June, I was satisfied with your answer because I thought it meant that the issue was resolved. But, then you turned around and used similar reasoning to take down non-primary sourcing on Pendant Productions and delete page content under reasoning that I attempted to refute on your User Talk. That's what I meant by "Vague," because your initial response left a confused impression on me.

Also, *if* I made the impression that I encouraged ElectricBurst1996 to start an edit war, then that is false. The perception of edit warring on my part is due to the back and forth editing between the two of you that happened before I ever raised the possibility of edit warring.

As for my status with Pendant Productions, you have to keep in mind that we're talking about a company comprised of volunteers. Aside from the Executive producers and the folks who worked with Valiant Comics, everyone at Pendant is just volunteers and fans, which is what I am. I have no financial interest in Pendant, and my contributions there are akin to someone contributing to an online Forum. Under Wikipedia rules, that would constitute a conflict of interest no more than a Marvel Comics fan editing the Marvel Comics page. --Bmanpa (talk) 23:50, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bmanpa: If you want to resolve this issue without resorting to reporting, why not start a Request for Comment over at the article's talk page? Electric Burst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 01:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Electricburst1996: @Spshu:I didn't realize that was a thing we could do! I naturally assumed all disputes had to go through the administrators. This seems like the fairest course of action for all three of us.

I went ahead and started up the WP:RFC on Talk:Pendant Productions, describing the situation to the best of my abilities.--Bmanpa (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pendant Productions for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pendant Productions, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pendant Productions (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]