User talk:Buzzards39

Farmers
Hi, and thanks for the note.

I have a question I need to ask, given past editing history of the article. Can you summarize the nature of your connection to Farmers, if any? This is because I have a strong impression that several of the editors on the article are editing either with an agenda for, or against the subject -- and that's fine, but if it's made clear then it helps avoid heavy handed editing and allows a relatively balanced article to emerge. Basically it would help to know who's coming from where.

As regards "plaudits", my main concern is that articles are intended to describe a subject to an uninformed reader. When describing a subject the usual starting point isn't to dive straight into "They're bad!" ... "No they aren't, these people say they're good!" type debates. The core policy on Neutral point of view summarises it:


 * {| style="border:1px black solid" width="80%"


 * ... Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.
 * }

At present, this article through its editors is re-enacting the debate over Farmers Insurance, rather than describing Farmers and noting who feels what on the ethics debate. I'd like to ask that editors on this article look at relatively more developed articles on other insurers and corporations, to get an idea how a corporation is covered on Wikipedia, and then help write an informative article. It would be a great improvement compared to editors looking for good and bad points to score; there's more factual material that is neither positive, nor negative, but would be useful to readers. FT2 (Talk 10:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers again
Thanks for your reply to my query. In light of which, I thought I'd drop a second note to cover a few basics if you weren't familiar with things.

Firstly, editing in good faith is always welcome. One shows good faith by the kinds of actions you've taken, such as trying to distinguish personal agenda from factual reporting, and by civility and consensus in discussion. So these are Good Things. Secondly, editing Farmers Insurance Group as a person who makes a living selling their products is by far best disclosed. As an editor, it completely disarms negative comments and suspicions, and allows editors who are familiar with the policies to be fair and know where things stand. A couple of policies which are worth a quick read include:
 * Conflict of interest ("WP:COI") -- outlines what you need to know if you edit on a subject where you have an interest
 * Reliable sources ("WP:RS") and Neutral point of view ("WP:NPOV") -- the main policies which seem to be at issue right now, covering "what is a reliable source" and "what does neutral mean in editorial terms".

I'd also strongly suggest copy the note from Syrthiss's talk page to your own user page and this talk page (or write a new one) so that it's clear to anyone who alleges it wasn't disclosed if a dispute arises. Feel free to add a brief comment how you propose to handle conflict of interest issues when editing Farmers or other insurance company articles, or your editing approach to handle this issue, and you'll be all set to go.

I've dug up articles on some other insurance companies of the United States as a quick example of what's typical in such a page:
 * Short - Acacia Life Insurance Company, General Casualty Insurance
 * Longer - American International Group, St. Paul Travelers

These might give some ideas how to do a longer article. Corporate articles aren't usually very long; we're just summarizing key points. You might also take an idea from well known non-insurance companies such as Compaq, General Electric or Boeing to see how other corporations outside your sector are written up and what kind of detail is useful.

Either way I'll keep an eye on farmers and try to ensure that what's added is in good order. if you have any queries or anything, feel free to ask.

Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too.

Good luck, and happy editing! Thanks for the note. FT2 (Talk 15:03, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

As per Ft2's suggestion, in the interest of complete disclosure, I am an agent who sells Farmers products. And also in the interest of same said disclosure, "Router" appears to be the owner/operator of a gripe site dedicated to criticism of Farmers. Just trying my imperfect best to keep the article balanced. Buzzards39 06:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance Agent Deleting and Justifying Criticism

 * 70.58.36.14/Buzzards39, since you are a Farmers Insurance Agent so please do not edit the Criticism section it is a a Conflict of Interest and you could be banned from these boards for doing so. You may add the article and the Accolades section, but deleting Criticism or justifying it is going to far. You have previously been warned about this. Router 04:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:ANI discussion.
Hello; this is to inform you that you are the subject of this discussion on WP:ANI. Sandstein 18:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Moved to  Community noticeboard.  Consider this a warning that disclosing identities of users is considered harassment.  Also a warning for SPA and Conflict of Interest editing. Router 01:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Copying Buzzards39 violations below. Router 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks/Harassment

 * Buzzards39 do not disclose identities of user names and locations which is considered harassment/personal attack in Incident 1 "The other goblin is Paul Drockton, AKA "Mormons 4 Justice", a formers Farmers manager who has been on a jihad against all things Farmers the past several months over a dispute dating back to 2002". Router 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest

 * Buzzards39 is a Farmers Insurance Agent, " I am an insurance agent who does sell Farmers Insurance products.", yet he continues to edit  all sections of it including criticism.  He delete criticism and tries to justify it with excuses.  I warned him about this but he continues to delete and justify criticism of Farmers Insurance. "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with" Conflict of Interest Router 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And Router is the owner and operator of a gripe site pertaining to Farmers. Pot/Kettle/Black. Buzzards39 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Single purpose account

 * Buzzards39 is Single purpose account which his sole purpose is to keep others from writing negative information about Farmers Insurance, yet at the same time writes positive information about it conribs. He has been warned about editing a single article,"Last, you might enjoy looking up articles to do with other interests -- hobbies, home town, school, outside interests -- and see if any of those look interesting too." Router 15:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A suggestion is hardly a warning...Except in the mind of those who want articles to be edited only by them. Buzzards39 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Farmers Insurance

 * Every time I try to be civil, you bring out the sledgehammer. I explained the personal information both to you and one the noticeboard.  I give you permission to delete them from the article talk page, if it floats your boat. As for the allegations of COI and NPOV, this is very much a case of the pot calling the kettle black.  Just calm down, take a deep breath, and you can learn to tolerate my presence in the Wiki universe.  I am happy to tolerate yours, just consider me your little Wiki concience, keeping you honest. ;-) Buzzards39 16:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't bring out the sledgehammer, all I did was copy the violations to your talk page, you have done that on several occasions to me. Being that you consider yourself a rookie, I added links to the COI, Personal Attacks etc so you can educate yourself.  This also shows that you are aware of these violations.  More importantly, don't make me an excuse for all of your actions.  These are your actions and you should take responsibility for them without trying to blame me for them.  I am fine coexisting with you.  Router 17:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My first posts were those of a rookie, that is not longer the case. I excuse nothing, and stand behind all of my posts. Buzzards39 15:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note to any reading this page: I do not consider my edits to have violated Wikipedia policies on Neutral point of view, Conflict of interest, or Single purpose account. If I am corrected by Wiki admins, I might feel different.  However, "Router" is the only person who has had a problem with my editing. Buzzards39 19:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your edits to Farmers Insurance. I feel they bring balance to an article which is turning into a forum for personal gripes.  I made a few minor alterations, just grammatical.THD3 01:52, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Hiking
You might want to look at Wikibooks for that idea. Wikipedia might be a bit restrictive, since it can only report what's already published by reputable third parties and encyclopedic. It's therefore got two big restrictions that might hamper your wishes: you wouldnt be able to write what you personally felt or thought, even if useful, if it wasnt verifiable, and also, wikipedia isn't a collection of heaps of information, the question whether detailed trail walking guides were appropriate content for an encyclopedia might be questioned. By contrast wikibooks and other parts of the wikimedia projects, would welcome such input, it's exactly what's needed, people with some expertize and experience wanting to write about it.

Hope this helps! FT2 (Talk 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O
Hey. Just as a heads-up: your request for a third opinion is generally unacceptable. The requests are supposed to be anonymous, but it says "The editor Router and I...", which means that you are obviously not Router. Furthermore, the post is largely griping about him and his methods. You should probably change it to something like "Disagreement about use of (issues)." &mdash;  Hello Annyong  [ t &#183; c ] 06:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)