User talk:Rotsmasher

Welcome!

 * }

Community Standards: OE contribution
In compliance with Wiki guidelines that you should receive notification: you have been noted in a grievance discussion with regards to the OE page concerning failure uphold Wiki policies and guidelines which has now been escalated here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Optical_Express_Page Beatthecyberhate2 (talk) 11:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Optical Express
Replacing one bias with another is not cleanup. If an article seems to be overly favourable to its subject, try making it neutral instead of replacing it with text that portrays the subject negatively. Adding large paragraphs about incidents at one branch five years ago that had only local press coverage, for example, is lending that incident undue weight. I've been working hard over the last week or so to help Optical Express staff re-write the article, because the previous version was heavily biased against the company. Any help improving the article would be much appreciated, but replacing favourable material with negative material is not helpful. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:27, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash;  HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What's your connection to Optical Express? You haven't made any edits not connected with that article, and your userpage very strongly suggests you're a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest (COI). If you have a conflict of interest, would you please declare it so everyone knows where they stand? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   20:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have no conflict of interest. I added factual information which Optical Express COI editors have used every trick in the book to remove. Overall the article is much better partly due to my edits and the debate created by them. RotsmasherRotsmasher (talk) 21:56, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Massage
Hi Rotsmasher,

Good to see that you are still around. I did a bit of massaging to the Tax stuff you added to the OE article - mainly to reflect what is in the sources and only what is in the source - if you can bring more decent sources we can build the article up appropriately. Failedwizard (talk) 18:14, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That was quick - I like what you did there. :) Failedwizard (talk) 18:46, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This will help.
You might find it useful to have a look at Citing websites on wikipedia. It's unfortunate, but it is the case that bare links are more likely to get overwritten than nicely formatted references that use those same links. Also there are all sorts of link rot issues. Failedwizard (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Have a look here for help with references. Regards  Teapot  george  Talk  17:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended
I have blocked your account indefinitely. Note that this block is not necessarily permanent and is intended to prevent further disruption. you may appeal it by adding  below this message and your request will be reviewed by another administrator. The reasons for he block are as follows:
 * 1) You appear to be a single-purpose account with little interest outside Optical Express, and thus do not appear to be here to improve the encyclopaedia.
 * 2) Your edits at Optical Express have been disruptive, including edit-warring and combative reverting, and persistent hindrance of attempts to add content that reflects well on the company or the removal of material that reflects negatively on it, even when done by uninvolved editors in accordance with policy.
 * 3) You have displayed a battleground mentality in all your edits surrounding Optical Express, hindering the consensus-building process  and contributing to the extreme level of toxicity in discussions on the topic.
 * 4) I strongly suspect that you have some sort of undisclosed conflict of interest that biases you against Optical Express (though this was a small factor in my decision to block you).

I am quite willing to negotiate your return to editing on mutually agreeable terms that would mitigate the disruption at Optical Express, but your conduct thus far has been entirely the opposite of how we expect neutral, reasonable encyclopaedia editors to act. If you wish to return, I would suggest you draft a list of proposed conditions for your unblocking that would keep you from getting into confrontations over the Optical Express article. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Dear H Mitchell. That stinks. The article is more detailed and balanced due to my edits. You were far to close to Optical Express before after working with them and that has obviously not changed. Other senior editors did not have a problem. Just you.Rotsmasher (talk) 09:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * That you continue to see this as some conspiracy by Optical Express with editors colluding to bias the article, and that you think it is acceptable to accuse anybody whose edits you disagree with of bias (or censorship, or any number of other things you've accused people of) is further proof that this action, as regrettable as it is, was necessary. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  15:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Need to see what some other editors think. Seemed to be plenty who felt that Optical Express were using every trick in the book including sock puppetry, vandalism of my page (by proven representatives) widespread blanking etc etc etc. didn't see their chosen editor get blocked even after he vandalised my page ( and admitted it) It is a crock of shitRotsmasher (talk) 23:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Calm down a little Rotsmasher, let's see what the factors are here.  I'd like to try and help but I've not been involved in any blocking before, and you're going to have to work with me.  I missed the events that lead up this this block - could you tell me what was happening with the Rots2 account? Is that something to do with you?   Also, would you be willing to try working on some other pages for a while if we can reduce the block to allow this - a lot of the problems you have a stemming from inexperience... Failedwizard (talk) 07:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Rots2 is nothing to do with me. I have one account which is Rotsmasher. I am very unhappy to have been blocked and wish for at least a couple of senior editors to review this. I only undid an edit that removed factual information. The info is in the public domain, in no way negative at all and was put there by someone else.Rotsmasher (talk) 12:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'm looking into the contested content separately. Now, would you be willing to try working on some other pages for a while if we can reduce the block to allow this? Failedwizard (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am willing to do thatRotsmasher (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I want my editing rights restored ASAPRotsmasher (talk) 19:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC) PK Dundee is now on as HardlyGone - what is that all about? Why is he allowed to edit protected page - Optical Express? Rotsmasher (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Appeal the block
I wish to have another admin look into this block. Particularly now PkDundee is back on as Hardlygone - editing the protected Optical Express page again. He is a self confessed page vandal and yet gets to do as he pleases.

Unblock request
H J Mitchell - please unblock me - PK Dundee is freely editing OE despite pledging not to. He is using another name now - Hardlygone...Rotsmasher (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)