User talk:Beatthecyberhate

August 2011
Hello Beatthecyberhate. If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Optical Express, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * 1) 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.
 * 2) Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * 3) Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * 4) Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content 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. Thank you.  Teapot  george Talk  13:51, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Optical Express. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * I am attempting to add back some of the referenced content but your continued page blanking will just end up in you being blocked I'm afraid.  Teapot  george Talk  16:01, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  F ASTILY  (TALK) 20:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  17:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

{unblock|reason=I have been forced into illegal Wiki behaviour by unjust editors that have been undoing edits and contributions without just cause and in direct violation of Wiki Community Standards. I have now tried to talk to each of these editors on their talk pages both with this account and creating a new account, but these discussions have been deleted. I wish to resolve this matter following Wiki rules and escalate through the approprioate channels. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC)}}

-- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps, but someone identifiable as being a "Marketing and Communications Team Member" for Optical Express has been editing Optical Express in June, from the same IP, making the same sorts of COI edits that this account has. --jpgordon:==( o ) 15:13, 12 August 2011 (UTC):

I can assure you I am not associated with that account nor do I know who originated it, where do I go from here? Can that one be blocked and this one unblocked? Or if that is not possible, can I have an external contact email to contact the relevant grievance department? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You are claiming to not be associated with User:CharlotteGosling, even though she edited the same article, in the same fashion, from the same IP as you? --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * If you don't know who originated the account then you could always ask the members of your company's Marketing and Communications Team if any of them can think who might conceivably have originated an account called "CharlotteGosling". JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of Blocking editor OrangeMikes false statement on my user page
My actual statement reads as: I have been forced into illegal Wiki behaviour by unjust editors that have been undoing edits and contributions without just cause and in direct violation of Wiki Community Standards. I have now tried to talk to each of these editors on their talk pages both with this account and creating a new account, but these discussions have been deleted. I wish to resolve this matter following Wiki rules and escalate through the approprioate channels.
 * There may be a misunderstanding here about the term "escalate". I understand the term "escalate" (especially when combined with an admission of "illegal Wiki behaviour" to mean conflict escalation: using more harsh and drastic methods in a conflict. To quote the line uttered by Sean Connery's character "Jim Malone": "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue." -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  15:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies for this misunderstanding. By escalate, my intent is to raise my grievance with the next/higher level of Wiki governance by following Wiki guidelines to the best of my knowledge. I have already attempted this through direct discussions with contributors to no avail (i.e. no one is responding to my direct emails or comments on discussion pages, except to close the discussion page with false assumptions - who regulates the regulators? What happened to an open debate?) and I am willing to refrain from editing on the page itself due to the obvious COI in order to obtain a fair and just review of this page. I am still at a loss to why no Wiki editors can see the obvious bias. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You kept editing the article to put weasel words like "alleged" on press reports clearly attributed to newspapers and other reliable sources, apparently because you are unhappy with the press coverage of the company, rather than because the press reports were mis-characterized. Unless you can provide links to similar coverage from other reliable sources that says different, we are not interested in edits that say, "My company disagrees! T'ain't so, and the newspapers and telly are all just liars!" (You also misused the verb "refute" rather badly.) The aggregation of reports from reliable sources is how we work; clarification and rebuttal must come from similarly reliable sources, not from the subjects of articles. You provided no such sources, but rather challenged the good faith of other editors instead; ad hominem attacks violate our policy of assuming good faith on the part of your fellow editors. You seem to be employed by this firm in some capacity, and not only refused to refrain from editing, but when blocked you attempted to circumvent the block rather than await its end. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't misuse the verb "refute" badly at all, it was a direct copyline taken from the cited source that I added as it is currently without a source, but it has been edited rather nicely to look like it is part of the next article which is sourced. I have offered to provide evidence that refutes these claims which has been rejected as the are unfortunately, although offical, are not published online. The 'widely' reported insertion is from one local newspaper, not the most reliable of sources, but apparently within your rules. If that is the rules then so be it. It still does not explain why the positive and cited articles from more highly regarded publications are being deleted? I have also asked for clarification of what I can include, including geographical data, but I have had no response. the fact these updates were included by a direct competitor has been completely overlooked. All I am aksing for is an impartial editor to review the content I would like to appear on the page and make an impartial decision as to whether it is within Wiki encylopedic guidelines. I appreciate my initial attempts to gain a fair and unbias OE page has not been implemented through the correct channels, but i am sure you can also see the page as it stands does not depict a fair view of OE? Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

And I have also questioned the length of the summary of negative articles compared to the length of the summary of the positive articles, does not exactly follow the 'balance' policy of Wiki. Beatthecyberhate (talk) 16:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You have not answered the question above from jpgordon relating to user:CharlotteGosling. Could you please do so before proceeding further? --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 18:15, 12 August 2011 (UTC)