User talk:MBMadmirer

koch family

at Koch family might you be able to find a WP:SECONDARY source for the word "invented". it would strengthen the sentence, in my opinion. thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 22:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. Thanks! Will find and fix. Would this from the forbes list suffice? MBMadmirer (talk) 04:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about this? The primary source The Science of Success says he “developed an improved thermal cracking process for converting heavy oil to gasoline”. WP:PEACOCK makes me hesitant of the word invented in general. For now I think we should just stick to the wording used in The Science of Success. Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me. Will make that change. Thanks for the suggestion. MBMadmirer (talk) 23:38, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am making too much of an issue out of the word "invented" but if we make the change surely it will be more specific as to what actually was done to start the family business. You're welcome. -Shootbamboo (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tea Party page "Fundraising etc." section

Hi. I left a note within the section as well. I feel very strongly about this and just want to cover my bases. I don't want to unnecessarily clutter your talk space.

Let's please put this in the existing discussion section, or at least move this new section to a position immediately beneath the original, for the purposes of organization and keeping the original participants in the discussion. I feel very strongly about this. Would you please delete it and move the text, or at least move the section upwards? -Digiphi (Talk) 19:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the talk page is about a week old and had clearly hit a brick wall. That's why I wanted a new section on the talk page. I copied in the text from the existing page so people could see the comparison. Thanks for the comment. MBMadmirer (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you did and why you did it. And I completely agree. It's done routinely on different talk pages. But for the sake of organization the new section is placed beneath the old one. Would you please consider moving your new section, completely intact, upwards to a position immediately beneath the stale discussion? It would look like this:

how the sections would be arranged

==Fundraising and Support Section==

all the old content from that stale discussion.

==Trying again on Fundraising and Support==

the new, continued discussion.

==Off tocpic "geo-engineering"==

whatever the heck they were talking about here.

And it would look like this in the Table of Contents:

view of the TOC

Contents
3. Develop Consensus of coverage of Koch funding / support

3.1 Title of Section

3.2 We should clarify whether Koch bros. actually supported the TP

3.3 Wording Problems

4. Fundraising and Support Section
5. Trying again on Fundraising and Support
6. Off topic "geo-engingeering"
7. And so on...etc.

It would be better for the other editors and better for the organization of the page. Will you please consider it? -Digiphi (Talk) 20:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free files in your user space

Hey there MBMadmirer, thank you for your contributions. I am a bot, alerting you that non-free files are not allowed in user or talk space. I removed some files I found on User:MBMadmirer/Tea Party Movement. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

See a log of files removed today here.

Shut off the bot here.

Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

question

Hi there, is your 'support' on the tea party movement page for the compromise edit, or for going back to the mediation cabal page? I'm wondering since it's right under North8000's suggestion to return to the cabal page. Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the proposed compromise MBMadmirer (talk) 20:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TPM talk page.

Hey. About the "Consensus for Lede" section on the discussion page, would you be opposed to moving/having moved your !Vote to the top of the section next to all the other votes? I'm asking some other editors with votes in the middle of the page the same thing. -Digiphi (Talk) 02:26, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While you are at it, would you have any objection to a notation in the lede indicating that the movement has also been described as astroturfed? Your comments here suggest to me that you wouldn't have a problem with it. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am torn on that. I think that the evidence is a lot more thin on that, but people who say it are notable. Perhaps if it said something like "political opponents of the tea party have alleged that it is astroturf". MBMadmirer (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COI warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Koch Industries, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. In specific, your account is used solely to remove unflattering but accurate information and to downplay the link with the TPM. This is in direct violation of policy and may result in your account being permanently blocked. Dylan Flaherty 11:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is tremendously bad faith on your part. I am trying to introduce facts. I am NOT trying to minimize the relationship with the tea party and the record is really clear. I am trying to make sure that facts are there. The FreedomWorks example, for example, is tremendously clear. MBMadmirer (talk) 13:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been assuming good faith for some time now. In contrast, you've been doing nothing at all except editing Koch-related articles with the obvious intent of making Koch look better, at any cost. There's no nicer way to say it without sacrificing accuracy. Dylan Flaherty 13:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So just to be clear, my position is that you have been making uncited and false changes to pages. I have been trying to constructively address them on the talk pages. I believe that there is a clear record of this. And the things that you accuse me of (minimizing Koch relationships with the tea party) I have not done. I have only highlighted what I see going on.

I am a citizen who has read about and admires the Koch family. I was not pleased with the way that they have been presented in the media. And I thought that I could come to Wikipedia to try to make sure that there are balancing facts. Nothing I do is in coordination with Koch or authorized by Koch. I simply want a fair and true representation in Wikipedia. MBMadmirer (talk) 13:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are an employee of a company that gets paid by Koch. You come here and do nothing but edit articles to make Koch look better. I think I've said enough. Dylan Flaherty 13:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion with respect to your block

I have raised the subject of your block at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#MBMadmirer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Following the discussion, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive679#MBMadmirer, I have unblocked you. Needless to say, you should avoid giving the impression that are creating sockpuppets or soliciting help in the form of meatpuppets. Also, should you start editing again, please clarify your disclosure statement. It is not clear from the existing statement whether you are engaged in professional public relations work on the part of a client or are just an amateur volunteer. User:Fred Bauder Talk 18:49, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]