User talk:Checking the checkers

I'm always looking for people to help me understand what represents the best that Wikipedia has to offer!

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Checking the checkers! Thank you for your contributions. I am First Light and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! First Light (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Welcome
So glad to see an editor arrive on the scene who has such an instant, almost miraculous grasp of Wikipedia's arcane rules and traditions. Why, I know editors who've been around for years who don't have that kind of grasp. And you do, and you're a newcomer. You certainly are an "old soul" in the Wikipedia sense. Welcome on board! Coretheapple (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, experienced user from late 2012. So glad to see an editor keeping up the Wikipedia cultural tradition of saccharine sweet language, even while the knife is being carefully adjusted in the subject's back.  You certainly are a "dedicated bookworm" in the knowledge sense.  Nice to be welcomed! - Checking the checkers (talk) 15:06, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, but I'm experienced with your previous incarnations. Ta-ta. Coretheapple (talk) 15:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I am glad you're back. Whatever your motivations, you raise valid points. Coretheapple (talk) 15:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, then can we work together, without you poking and bashing me? Is there any chance that you will soon realize that Jimmy Wales is the biggest grifter/spammer/PR-manipulator of them all on Wikipedia, or do you think it's going to take a long time for you to come to this ultimate and inevitable realization? - Checking the checkers (talk) 14:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this. Why don't you get off the I-hate-Jimbo kick? It's obsessive. Coretheapple (talk) 17:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't hate Jimbo. I find him very entertaining. - Checking the checkers (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're a p.r. man. Coretheapple (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Outing
Checking the checkers: Reminding you that we have a strict policy here against posting personal information about editors that they have not revealed on Wikipedia; whether you know it to be true or are just wondering whether you are right, it's contrary to site policy: WP:PRIVATE. I have accordingly deleted two of your posts at a talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Yng. I've known CorporateM for so long, I forgot that the user tries to hide their identity on Wikipedia now, where before the user had been more transparent and open. - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * How could you have known me for so long when your account is only 1 month old? Har har. Don't mind my comments on the Hillard page, I'm just having fun (and eating a delicious cake). Except my mother literally use to make me German chocolate cakes for birthdays, that part is true. I wouldn't eat like that nowadays though - my wife and I are competing over who can lose more weight over the next two months. CorporateM (Talk) 21:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * CorporateM, first, your math stinks. My account is over 13 months old, not 1 month.  (Har har.)  Regardless, by your logic, you only came into existence as a person on 29 January 2009, the day that User:CorporateM was born.  You're saying that it's not possible for me (as a person) to have known you (as a person), just because User:Checking the checkers was born in January 2013?  That's just silly!  Are you saying CorporateM is the only user name you have ever used?  It's weird, because I thought that User:David44357 was created in April 2008 and was active through May 2011, well after Corporate M was born.  Are you trying to tell me that operating multiple accounts on Wikipedia is a "no no" of some kind? - Checking the checkers (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahem. Unless you know that to be publicly declared information, you should redact that, Checking the checkers. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * "Ahem"? Is something stuck in your throat, Yng?  Are you unable to point your mouse and click, Yng?  For most of us, it's pretty easy.  Let's try together, shall we?  Point your mouse right here, and click it.  Once you've done that, read the page.  See how it says "My name is David King"?  Now, toward the bottom of that page, do you see how it says "King4057 (talk)  This is an old account. I edit from King4057."?  Mr. King left a convenient link to User:King4057 right there.  Imagine how easy it is for you to click that link!  What do you get if you have the courage to click it?    You get a redirect straight to User:CorporateM.  Imagine that!  "Ahem", indeed. - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, like most newbie editors, and especially COI editors, I made some quite awful edits back then. Got rightfully busted and was quite embarrassed. But we all learn. Although nowadays I sometimes have the opportunity to circle back and improve some of the bad or mediocre work I did as a newbie. This old COIN post is pretty embarrasing. Shows me scooting around the issue of a non-disclosed COI and ranting nonsense. I think part of the reason I help cleanup promotionalism is because I know I myself have contributed my fair-share, before I was able to see it. Anyways, thanks for bringing that 5-year-old account to my attention. I need to figure out what to do with it, to avoid personally identifiable information, while providing transparency into my entire editing history. I have asked the same admin from before how to handle the personally identifiable information. CorporateM (Talk) 19:49, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hrm. I need to fix those articles and delete half of them. CorporateM (Talk) 20:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how "CorporateM" (whoever you really are) could have made such awful mistakes regarding paid editing, as late as January 2009, when MyWikiBiz had made it painfully and notoriously clear that paid COI editing was trouble, back in August 2006. Were you asleep for most of 2007 and 2008? - Checking the checkers (talk) 20:10, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh surely MyWikiBiz is not nearly as famous as you think. A lot of PR people are oblivious to there being any controversy at all, even now. At the time I was one step above an intern and quite oblivious to most things. It gives me some perspective looking at it though. If my current self bumped into my past self on Wikipedia, I would probably be very rude to myself. Anyways, I looked through and did some very quick cleanup. SolarWinds/Thwack.com looked the worst out of them. I have to get back to other things, but I almost feel I should thank you for bringing that old account to my attention, even if you were mostly just trolling. Anyways, I gotta get back to other things. Cheers. CorporateM (Talk) 20:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Best wishes, CorporateM! At least you've learned to be honest now.  Some people just keep telling more and more lies, throughout their lives. - Checking the checkers (talk) 21:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if you think about it though. I wasn't honest back then even after getting caught and even when it was obvious, although now I would laugh and scoff at editors doing the same. I think in most cases when someone gets busted doing something on Wikipedia, they deny it. However I wonder if in most cases the denial is not as corrupt and spin-doctory as one might think, but just the result of being embarrassed and not knowing what else to say in one's own defense.


 * You know, I think the way I should think of you is like Jack O'Dwyer. He is a persistent critic of the PRSA and while he comes off as trollish, I believe some of his accusations are true. This is essentially the role of a watchdog sometimes, is to criticize anything and everything and other people only pay attention when they actually find something legitimate. The line between watchdog and troll is only the level of spin, mis-representation, etc. one uses to air their criticisms.


 * Anyways, I don't mean to insist on getting the last word. I came back up to my office to research how to make old billiard balls that are faded nice and white again. Re-finishing an old pool table I got from Craigslist. CorporateM (Talk) 21:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It probably would not surprise you to learn that Jack O'Dwyer and I have had many lengthy conversations about Wikipedia and about the PR business. Good luck cleaning the grime off your old balls. - Checking the checkers (talk) 21:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you are just annoyed...
But that is the limit to my reverting you. I did it once because I was justified as you have gained no consensus on either Jimbo's talkpage or the AN/I filing. However, you have shown a rather obtuse form of editing and one I cannot condone. Having said that, I will not revert you on that post further. Please feel free to delete this message about your accusation against Jimbo Wales. Yes...he is a big boy..but he deserves the same respect as any other living person. Not something you seem to understand and not something you seem willing to learn.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "Self undo, since I can predict that Mark will be a bigger baby about this than I am." Nope.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

At least you self reverted and I commend you for that.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:37, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I confer on the person in question the same respect as another living person: Bernard Madoff, who is a man of similar character. I would show the subject far more respect if he would (a) tell the truth more consistently, and (b) when caught in a lie, apologize for it and learn from it.  He does neither, I'm afraid.  What kind of man says "I don't want to talk about him", when presented with easily-verified evidence of corporate manipulation of a Wikipedia article? - Checking the checkers (talk) 05:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Someone trying to keep the focus of an interview with him...on him and not others? I can't tell you if what you stated was true or not...because there was only evidence and no solid proof. But, what should be more important is, that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to bring outside conflicts into a discussion here. There is so much wrong with that I could continue to argue the point, but I think you should know that if you want to criticize Jimbo or others for their work here, it is likely to be a discussion and not an edit war, but there are some limits. I have no issue with you. But I actually have removed the same accusation against others on Wikipedia as well as BLP subjects. All I did here was to redact the offending comment and leave intact the rest to keep all other contributions, but I didn't realize this meant as much to you as it did.I can and will apologize for upsetting you with my removal of some of your post. That does annoy many people when done, but I stand by the removal and why I did it. Hope, at the very least, you understand why it was done, if you don't fully agree on the application here. Happy editing!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)