Talk:Ackerman McQueen

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

Marketing & Advertising Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Oklahoma Low‑importance

	Oklahoma portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oklahoma, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oklahoma on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OklahomaWikipedia:WikiProject OklahomaTemplate:WikiProject OklahomaOklahoma articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from Ackerman McQueen was copied or moved into NRATV‎. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

WhitleyOConnor (talk · contribs)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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