Talk:Ackerman McQueen

paid editing/COI

It appears that paid editing might be going on in this article and related ones. Jytdog (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed the NRA callout since they rep way more than just the one company as well as the firearms wikiproject link. FriarTuck1981 (talk) 08:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Looks like successful attempt to sanitize the article. WP:NOTCENSORED -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

NRA

I've restored the NRA material. It is a very notable account, going beyond the average agency-client relationship. Add any other notable clients or campaigns. Don't delete well-reported material. Felsic2 (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Those dont look like socks to me...

@Springee: You need to explain these two edits[1][2]. It doesn’t appear that any of the material removed was added by a sock as you claim in your edit summary. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

FYI @M109B:@MelanieN:@Daniel Case: you guys were the editors Springee claimed were socks when they reverted your edits. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I was partially mistaken, M109B is a sock. But the other two aren’t and Springee reverted the edits of all three. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 08:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Daniel Case (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't accuse MelanieN or Daniel Case of being socks. Springee (talk) 13:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Horse Eye Jack, is there some reason you are digging into ancient history to accuse Springee of falsely claiming sockitude months ago? -- MelanieN (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

P.S. It does look as if Springee gutted the article with those edits, removing two-thirds of the text. Maybe that is the issue that needs to be looked into and partially reversed. -- MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: while they were a while ago they are the fifth and sixth most recent edits to the page, I have followed this page for a while and when I most recently visited I noticed that it was a shadow of its former self in terms of length and so I clicked history to see why. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

The edits were made by one of the many HughD socks. Per EVADE I removed them; "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block, without giving any further reason and without regard to the three-revert rule.". I admit it appears some edits to the material added by HughD were subsumed in the reversion of what was almost completely material added by a prolific sock. I have no specific issues with content here other than we should not reward a prolific sock's efforts by allowing their edits to stand. Springee (talk) 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually at least one paragraph that you removed[3] had been added by me a few months earlier. I am not a sock, and it was well sourced. I'm going to take a look at how much of that content should be restored. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:15, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry. That was a mistake on my part. I will be more careful when removing HughD edits in the future. Springee (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I've restored some of the missing material. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)