User talk:Stymiee

Potential Edit Warring on Shift4 page

By way of transparency, let me say that I am the new Corporate Communications Associate at Shift4. With that tidbit let me add the caveat that being an employee does not, of necessity, constitute bias.
Stymiee, rather than engage in continued war of reversions, I would like to ask for your help. As you are obviously intimately familiar with Wikipedia's terms of use and with the Payment Processing arena -- please cease from adding orphan and advertising tags, and instead make use of your knowledge to remedy the post. Add links to credible sources, alter the portions of text you feel read as advertising copy, add credible reviews of Shift4 products, etc.
I'm not saying that the rest of us will categorically accept your revisions -- but it will at least give us a starting point for compromise. It's poor use of time for all involved to simply point out another's flaws but refuse to help them overcome said flaws. I appreciate your cooperation and look forward to seeing the fruits of your labor. Casper n (talk) 17:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

___________________________

I have no time to work on editing that article and I just watch it to make sure it meets wikipedia guidelines. Basically until the criteria to remove the orphan and advertising tags are met they have to stay. Wikipedia added them, not myself, so please do not think it is a vendetta or something on my part. Since you work for the company surely it is in your best interest to spend the time to rewrite the article so it no longer reads like an advertisement (removing much of the content would also accomplish that). But until someone does that the tag cannot be removed. (FYI, reviews of your products is exactly the opposite of what needs to be done. The article needs to be more factual and less marketing). stymiee (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_____________________________

Mr. Conde, I wholeheartedly agree that our page is an orphan. We are addressing that issue currently, but will happily leave that tag in place until the issue is sufficiently resolved. However, as to your repeated "re-flagging" of our account as advertising, would you be so kind as to at least point out what part of a corporate history you feel qualifies as advertising? I read it and I had a third party read it -- neither of us felt it was marketing-centric. There are no tag-lines, no claims of superiority, not even in-depth analysis of what we do. You mention that the tag was originally placed there by Wikipedia, but the copy has since been updated to be in compliance.

My contacts in the legal department of Wikimedia have recommended seeking your cooperation before seeking mediation or pursuing other options. We've gone back and forth on this for two years. We have essentially deleted all but a product list and company history from the page. If, at this point, you aren't willing to identify EXACTLY what your issues are with our page then I must ask that you cease and desist your practice of flagging our page as advertising or risk sanctions for again engaging in edit warring.

___________________________

I have re-read the article and had others do the same for me. All agreed with me that it sounds more like marketing material then an article (everything but the first paragraph). So as of now I have to say that I do not believe this article warrants the removal of that tag. At this point if you feel that mediation is necessary then feel free to request it. I'll be happy to contribute to that process as I have found it to be a good process and it would be nice to have a conclusion finally reached.

FYI, I personally think this article should be marked for speedy deletion as I do not feel shift4 is a notable company by Wikipedia standards. stymiee (talk) 05:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

_______________________________

Interchange Fee Controversy

The following was posted to George William Herbert's User Page and is posted here for full transparency.

Good afternoon, Mr. Herbert.

I just wanted to let you know that I am making changes to the "Interchange Fee" article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interchange_fee). The "Discussion" tab is locked, so I am posting my reasoning on your user page and on the user page of Stymiee, with whom I think I am in a "revert war." In brief, I am trying to correct the bias of the article by inserting into the "controversy" section the other side of the Merchants' argument (of course, you can read the whole history here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Interchange_fee&action=history).

I feel that the changes I made are consistent both with the explicit rules of Wikipedia and are in keeping with the spirit of the Wikipedia mission. My edits further the following Wikipedia values (taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:The_perfect_article):

• acknowledges and explores all aspects of the subject; i.e., it covers every encyclopedic angle of the subject.

My angle on the subject, which includes the activities and viewpoint of the Electronic Payment Coalition (EPC) is certainly part of the “controversy,” which is where I made most of my edits and EPC’s Web site (which I linked to in the “external links” section” is certainly relevant to people looking for external sources of information—at least as relevant as The Merchant’s Bill of Rights.

• is completely neutral and unbiased; it has a neutral point of view, presenting competing views on controversies logically and fairly, and pointing out all sides without favoring particular viewpoints. The most factual and accepted views are emphasized, and minority views are given a lower priority; sufficient information and references are provided so that readers can learn more about particular views.

Words like “secrecy” are logical “poison pills;” they assume nefarious (or at least ulterior) motives. “Transparency,” which I used, is a more neutral term.

Also, Stymiee is deleting essential parts of the controversy; in a section dedicated to explaining an ongoing controversy, I am presenting one side’s documented argument, that “merchants are simply attempting to shift costs to consumers – costs that are a part of doing business, just as rent, salaries, or the cost of accepting checks,” which I state is an argument, not a fact (that is, it is a verifiable fact that one sides make the argument I present and that that argument is a part of the controversy—thus it belongs in the “controversy” section of this article).

• is precise and explicit; it is free of vague generalities and half-truths that may arise from an imperfect grasp of the subject.

I wrote “Some countries, such as Australia, have established price controls in this arena. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” Stymiee edits this to “Some countries have established significantly lower interchange fees. The fees are also the subject of several ongoing lawsuits in the United States.” My language is more precise and explicit. I name a country and detail why they have a different interchange fee I do not use words like “significantly” or “marginally” or “nominally” lower; what does “significantly lower” mean? 10 percent lower? 50 percent lower? My language is more precise and explicit. I would also point out that interchange fees are negotiated between banks, they are not set by one group of banks (more on that below).

• is well-documented; all facts are cited from reputable sources, preferably sources that are accessible and up-to-date.

By linking to the EPC, I am adding to the cache of verifiable facts. People can go to the EPC for their side of the argument and to read the assembled statistics available on the site. I am already gathering more online citations for the facts that I have presented in my edits; currently, my information comes only from wood-pulp media.

I also believe that my edits are in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. For example, much of the "overview" section (before my edits) represented an argument and not verifiable statements of fact. In my deletion of certain passages, I tried to keep the article focused on verifiable, accurate statements of fact about the Interchange Fee, even to the extent of presenting both sides in the "controversy" section.

An example of this is that the article stated "Interchange fees are set collectively by the financial institutions which are stakeholders in Visa (currently an association of banks and other credit card issuers and acquirers) and MasterCard (a public company). Many of these banks issue both credit and debit cards. JPMorgan Chase is the largest issuer of both." In truth, interchange fees are negotiated, not set, (see, for example, http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/region/06-06/interchange.cfm, "Sears and large grocery chains, have negotiated special interchange fee deals."

Not relevant to the article are the following paragraphs, which serve more to vilify the payment card industry and do not help readers understand what the Interchange fee is, nor its history nor the ongoing controversy that surrounds it.

This post seems long enough and you are a patient man if you have read it in its entirety. Because the discussion page of the Interchange Fee article is locked, I am cross-posting this entry on your page, on my own page and on Stymiee’s for full transparency and I am going to revert the Interchange Fee article to my own edits. Though I hope the altercation I seem to be having with Stymiee can be worked out without any intervention, I hope that I can contact you again should the need arise.

Thanks,

Anne Rush (Arush-JMP)

Calling for a truce with Stymiee and seeking third party intervention.

I would like, formally, to declare a true with Stymiee. Given the fact that he reverts without leaving notes on the talk page and that he seems to have a history of un-Wiki-like behavior as this post to his talk page from Calltech (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calltech) on 23 December 2006 attests:

(being quote)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStymiee&diff=188013876&oldid=96099797)

(end quote)

Stymiee: please contact me directly on my user page about our editorial differences before you abrogate the 3RR.

I am also seeking comment on my changes through other channels and expect to have entries to this talk page forthwith.

GBYehuda (talk) 11:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Interchange fee. 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Onorem♠Dil 14:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this seems to be occurring due to multiple parties. Can this article be locked until a resolution is found? stymiee (talk) 14:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've now been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for breaking the three-revert rule on Interchange fee. --Onorem♠Dil 15:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The content I reverted to was the undisputed content before the current dispute began. This is the content that should remain n place until a resolution is reached. stymiee (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you've broken 3rr and have been warned about it, the content that should remain in place is the content that is currently there. It doesn't matter if it happens to be the The Wrong Version. --Onorem♠Dil 15:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on my altercation with Stymiee

I am the editor with whom Stymiee is in a revert war.

In brief, I believe that my edits are well-researched, well-documented and represent a more complete, encyclopedic formulation of the Interchange Fee than Styimee's text.

As to the argument between Stymiee and myself, I believe I have always acted in good faith and in accordance with Wikipedia's stated policies and general spirit. I always leave copious notes as to why I am making the changes to certain pages and have always contacted Stymiee when I have changed the page. Stymiee, conversely, has not acted in good faith. He has broken 3RR, has never left notes on the discussion page, and has never contacted me to discuss the changes I have made or that he wants to see made.

While this case moves forward, I would ask that any interested parties take a look at the Interchange Fee discussion page, at Stymiee's Discussion History page, and at how both Stymiee and I have conducted ourselves throughout this argument.

Though I have left extensive notes on the discussion page, I would like to include a summary here:

My edits are not Vandalism.

My edits do not compromise the integrity of Wikipedia in any way. They are not obscene, crude, humorous, or nonsensical.

My edits allow other to assume good faith< about my edits.

I have always taken steps for visitors, administrators and even Stymiee to believe that I act in good faith. I have annotated my changes extensively, left notes for administrators and even reached out to Stymiee on his talk page as well as on this page.

Stymiee has shown himself to act in bad faith in this instance and has a history of being accused of acting in bad faith.

Stymiee has never left notes explaining why he reverts the text. I have never heard back from him on my own talk page, nor has he posted the reason that my edits should be removed. The history in his Discussion page shows that he has been often accused of acting in Bad Faith, and his refusal to talk or negotiate with me (or any other editor), to me, makes the strongest case of all.

GBYehuda (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your Request for arbitration

Hi. I have noticed that you recently filed a request for arbitration concerning a dispute between you and User:GBYehuda. Just some advice, that arbcom will not normally accept requests unless all other dispute resolution menthods have failed. It may also result in sanctions. It is really a last resort. I would recommend either getting community dispute resolution help through WP:Requests for comment or mediation, which tries to gain an agreement between parties involved, through Wikipedia:Requests for mediation. Please contact me if you have any queries. Thanks very much. Tbo ¹⁵⁷(talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Authorizenet logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Authorizenet logo.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Preventing an Edit War

This post is directed at the user Stymiee. I do not want to engage in an "edit war" with you, however, you repeatedly revert my revisions on the Shift4 info page as I try to rectify the error messages. Instead of continually reverting my edits without notes or comments, may I suggest you add or remove information that you feel is pertinent in making this an "acceptable" wikipedia entry? Also, this article is NOT an orphan and it does have in-line citations, so I do not understand why you insist on continually posting these warnings on this page. Once again, I am just trying to make this page a satisfactory page up to wikipedia standards. If you feel you can improve the page, that is great! If you want to post and let me know what you would like to have changed on this page, that is also great. However, undoing other people's edits without direction or comments is not the way to reach this goal. Thank you, Alkamins (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you remove the notice about the article reading like an advertisement and not an article which it most certainly does. Until the article is rewritten or removed that tag must stay. Also, the majority of, if not all, of the inline citations come directly from the shift4 website or are general citations that do not directly apply to shift4 making them virtually useless as far as validating the content. Independent citations need to be added before that tag can be removed. Also, no other wikipedia page links to that page so it is definitely an orphan. You also have been removing those tags without making any changes that fix the issues they are denoting. Basically, you should NOT be removing those tags as they all are applicable. stymiee (talk) 17:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with you on several points. I have rewritten several things in the article that could be construed as promotional. What I see on this page is purely informational. Not all of the inline citations come directly from the Shift4 page, as I added links myself to opposition to the technology, PCI DSS website, Visa's website, blogs and others. The article is not an orphan -- many other wiki pages are linked throughout the article such as PCI DSS, VPN, ASP, POS, PMS, leased lines, brick and mortar business, IBM, Windows, Microsoft DOS, merchant banks, payment gateways, and more. I made these changes before taking the tags off the page, and you should look and see what edits have been made before automatically reverting my revisions. Alkamins (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's own tools this page is still an orphan. Also, no significant changes have been made to the text that prevent it from reading like an advertisement. The inline citations are improved so I left that tag omitted. stymiee (talk) 12:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not bogus links. I added the same links to this article that Shift4's competition has linked to theirs. Please stop reverting my edits without taking a second to see the big picture. Alkamins (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Network Merchants Wikipedia Page

Stymiee, Please reconcider you recent placement for speedy deletion. This page was revised and MEETS all requirements for wikipedia. This article in no way shape or form is marked as an advertisement. It has met the requirements of nawlinwiki and stephenbuxton (other admins). Stymie please remove your speedy deletion tag or let me know what I can do so you dont think its an advertisement. It is just a company history of one of the largest payment gateways in the world who's been in business for 11 years which is unheard of in the payment gateway industry. All references are backed up too! Please consider removing this speedy deletion and let me know. Thank you. OnebadGTR (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stymiee, Network Merchants is on the PCI DSS board for the United States Government. PCI basically makes the laws for the payment gateway industry. Network merchants is also in the ETA (Electronic Transaction Association). PCI is no joke and very very very few companies are a part of PCI, they just have to remain PCI compliant. The importance of this company is justified. Network Merchants holds certifications that no other gateay in the world has either such as PAGO, multi-currency exchanges. Please reconsider your tag for this article based on no significant importance. I know there is major significance with Network Merchants. As stated before I make all these adjustments to this article and different moderators come along and tag it when other moderators state that the page is ok. I would really appreciate it if you take another look. Please contact me. OnebadGTR (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Network Merchants

An article that you have been involved in editing, Network Merchants, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network Merchants. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payment gateway

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Payment gateway, you may be blocked from editing. I don't know why you keep reverting my corrections to this page. As my edit notes said, (a) there is a referencing error; (b) you have duplicated an entire section, including the error. Unbuttered parsnip (talk) mytime= Sun 20:15, wikitime= 12:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 12:12, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Stymiee. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]