Fake your life on Wikipedia

[Mancunium]

Why Wikipedia Should Be Your New LinkedIn
MainStreet, 5 September 2013 link

Facebook, Google+, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, Tumblr, et al, have become marketing avenues for me to drive traffic to my blogs around the web. All of these platforms have strengths and weaknesses and are quite useful for different functions. I wouldn't consider any of them to be a true representation of who I am and what I'm really capable of accomplishing in a professional capacity, though. Anytime I send a cover letter and resume out to a company, I don't lead with any of my social media profiles - I link to my Wikipedia page.

People tend to forget that a lot of people use the internet for information. There are so many resources available, yet it's the open-sourced and non-profit Wikipedia that rules the realm of encyclopedic knowledge. Everyone tells you not to use Wikipedia, and that it's not a valid source. Somehow, despite these limitations, Wikipedia happens to be the top search result for nearly every legitimate search term in every search engine. So if Wikipedia is such a highly trafficked site and anyone can edit it, it only makes sense to add yourself to the mix, right?

Here's the kicker: anybody can edit Wikipedia, but whereas social media relies and rates you on who you know, Wiki-editors are only focused on what you know (as well as how well you can document and prove it). It's true that anybody can edit Wikipedia, and in our heads, that equates to complete anarchy. Since the anarchy is confined to the digital realm, a process of survival of the fittest took place in which the nerdiest and strictest grammar tyrants established a regime. You're more than welcome to edit whatever you want on Wikipedia, but it's not as easy as you think.

How I Created My Wikipedia Page

Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn; a 14-year old can't just hop on and create a work profile. I started off by building a profile. From there, I started researching topics I knew a lot about. I read through Wikipedia articles, correcting factual and grammatical errors to build up some wikirep and learn the editing format. Once I had everything down, I got to work building my page. The first time I tried, I had only been mentioned by name in the news twice. My page was marked for deletion within hours. After a week, I had gone through the full dispute resolution process and learned some valuable lessons.
[...]
Reaping the Benefits

Having one of the largest websites on the Internet host an encyclopedic article about me brings a level of prestige in itself. Wikipedia prides itself in documenting only notable people, and by completing this important step, I accomplished something no resume could ever put into words.

Within the article are listings of my accomplishments, people I've worked with, past work experience, and links to my blogs around the web. When someone runs a background check on me, they don't have to look very far to see my accomplishments documented.

I get offers for projects all the time now.

This is the man who gets offers for projects all the time, thanks to Wikipedia:



And here is his BLP: Brian Penny (T-H-L)

[EricBarbour]

And here is his BLP: Brian Penny (T-H-L)

That is atrocious. I'm adding him to our hacker-groups section. If his shit BLP isn't deleted, then we can assume that Anonymous
has deep hooks into Wikipedia's fleshy bits. Then we'll have to start looking for other Anon people glorifying themselves on WP.

[DanMurphy]

It's been tried. Mr. Penny did not take kindly to the effort (and appears to be an atrocious writer).

Links to the Brian Penny page exist on Bank of America, QBE, Collateral Protection Insurance, and Timeline of Events Associated with Anonymous. This warrants Wikipedia:Sock Puppetry as this isn't the username you used to mark Brian Penny for deletion, yet it's the one you used to mention it's been marked for deltion. In addition, during edits, you consistently removed information cited from well known media sources in regards to various forms of regulation against the company. It is clear you are paid by Assurant to do this, which doesn't abide by Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. This warrants Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Versability (T-C-L) (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Ah, the classic self-promoting hypocrite. He's there to make his enemies look bad, himself look good, and to accuse others of having conflicts of interest.

What are your primary contributions to Wikipedia? Are there any about which you are particularly pleased? Why?

I have made edits on Bank of America, QBE Insurance, Collateral Protection Insurance, Brian Penny, Assurant, Timeline of Events Involving Anonymous and am particularly pleased about the edit to Bank of America, as they clearly have a corporate editor who is paid to maintain their account.'

Have you been in editing disputes or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future? If you have never been in an editing dispute, explain how you would respond to one.

I have been going back and forth with Assurant's paid editor Spatuletail for the last 2 days to ensure the Assurant page maintains neutrality as it has been flagged for. I have made many concessions and have persisted to learn the Wikipedia editing process despite his constant underhanded editing tricks meant to confuse me. In response to this, I have taken the time to learn what each flag placed on my account means and review any dispute processes. I have also ensured to clearly and fully cite all edits I make and fully explain myself to the best of my ability. In the future, I will continue the process I have been following, but I would like feedback on how I have done thus far to ensure I'm promoting quality on the site.

[Mason]

I'm a bit confused.

First AfD:

The result was delete. Davewild (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Second AfD:

The result was speedily deleted per G4 by Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. —KuyaBriBriTalk 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

So why does it still exist?

[Midsize Jake]

So why does it still exist?

They forgot to "salt" it? I mean, you have to use salt when dealing with a situation like this. I would also add a touch of Jamaican Jerk Sauce, just to add a little extra pizazz.

Oh, and maybe a wedge of lemon too, for freshness.

[Jaranda]

I deleted it as a A7 though G4 is applicable as well as the original two deleted versions was written by Mr. Penny (same account). He clearly doesn't have a good grip on sources, as basically every source is articles that he has written (80% of the citations) or doesn't mention him at all (20%).

[DanMurphy]

Mr. Penny briefly sought to have his biography restored but then changed his mind:

Brian Penny

deletion states no sources mentioning me, however every single source (including the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Huffington Post, and other very reputable media sources) mentions me, and I was in the process of adding government sources, such as http://www.fhfa.gov/webfiles/25277/1_Br ... dacted.pdf to further establish significance when my page was deleted. Proper deletion process was not followed. This is not cool. -Versability (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

[Mancunium]

I deleted it as a A7 though G4 is applicable as well as the original two deleted versions was written by Mr. Penny (same account). He clearly doesn't have a good grip on sources, as basically every source is articles that he has written (80% of the citations) or doesn't mention him at all (20%).

Well, that was fast. He was an expert on gaming Wikipedia at 2:30 pm EST, when his "Wikipedia is the next LinkedIn" article appeared, and a nonperson at 5:00 pm EST. Where will the offers of projects he gets all the time come from now?

[Moonage Daydream]

I deleted it as a A7 though G4 is applicable as well as the original two deleted versions was written by Mr. Penny (same account). He clearly doesn't have a good grip on sources, as basically every source is articles that he has written (80% of the citations) or doesn't mention him at all (20%).

Well, that was fast. He was an expert on gaming Wikipedia at 2:30 pm EST, and a nonperson at 5:00 pm EST. Where will the offers of projects he gets all the time come from now?

That's gonna hurt.

Anytime I send a cover letter and resume out to a company, I don't lead with any of my social media profiles - I link to my Wikipedia page.

[TungstenCarbide]

Well, that was fast. He was an expert on gaming Wikipedia at 2:30 pm EST, and a nonperson at 5:00 pm EST...

[Zoloft]

Well, that was fast. He was an expert on gaming Wikipedia at 2:30 pm EST, and a nonperson at 5:00 pm EST...

Wikipedia: if you play the game, sometimes it will play you back, hard.

[AndyTheGrump]

The Brian Penny bio is still available via the Google cache. Not a modest man:

His GPS for the Soul guide is one of the most popular in history.

What an arsehole...

[Mason]

That's gonna hurt.

Anytime I send a cover letter and resume out to a company, I don't lead with any of my social media profiles - I link to my Wikipedia page.

So all prospective employers will see is a snarky note from Secret in a pink box:

every single "source" is either articles he has written or doesn't mention him at all, sorry Wikipedia is not your LinkedIn page

Whoops.

[Cla68]

He's there to make his enemies look bad, himself look good, and to accuse others of having conflicts of interest.

So, how is he that much different than Gary Weiss?

[KillerChihuahua]

Have any of you taken a look at his blog? It's just chock full of wrong. I realize this is straying somewhat from the subject at hand, but trust me, the amusement is worth the click.

http://thoughtforyourpenny.blogspot.com/

[Zoloft]

Wikipediocracy welcomes its newest member, Versability.

I am sending our new member a link to this topic, as is our custom.

[Midsize Jake]

It seems to me the main "assertion of notability" in Mr. Penny's now-deleted BLP was his claim to have "worked with Anonymous to leak confidential BofA emails to the media and public in an event called #BlackMonday." That all took place in mid-March of 2011, and this is somewhat of an interesting case because there are relatively few online sources that actually name Mr. Penny. The Wall Street Journal was the one cited in the article, but there were several more (such as this one) that didn't name him, and perhaps could have been used to further assert his "notability" if they had.

I remember at the time, these revelations about forced-placed insurance seemed like a fairly big deal, though in retrospect it's possible that this was actually Mr. Penny "ginning up" the information coming out of the hacker community regarding the practice - presumably to make it sound significantly more scandalous than it actually was (and presumably still is, since they're probably still at it). People were angry at the banks for their key role in triggering the Great Recession of 2008, and deservedly so. There was quite a lot of media attention paid to villainy in the financial system, but it was also media manipulation in some respects - a matter of perspective to be sure, but no reason it couldn't be both in many cases, including this one.

I generally don't interest myself in people who are trying to get their BLP autobiographies kept, but looking at what just happened, it's a case that may also help people who are trying to get BLP attack articles deleted by appearing to be ostensibly more self-promotional than they actually are. Mr. Penny did himself a disservice not only by writing the article for Mainstreet.com, but also by all the other hallmarks of "spamminess" that distracted the WPers from what he'd actually done to deserve an article about himself. It also didn't help that he'd inexplicably provided an incredibly hideous "Smurf costume" photo of himself instead of something more conventional that might have given him an appearance of general respectability. But IMO these could end up being good ideas for people who are trying to engineer a successful AfD, if handled properly.

[thekohser]

But IMO these could end up being good ideas for people who are trying to engineer a successful AfD, if handled properly.

Sad, but true.

[Echo]

Mr. Penny is not happy:

LMAO!!! Maybe I'll do a follow-up expose entitled, "How I offended a couple elitest Wikipedia editors, who removed an article that was clearly sourced via legitimate academic, government, and media sources simply to prove a point." My page had been reviewed by various editors, and nobody had a problem with it all year until I advertised it on one of the many mainstream blogs I write for and offended a couple wiki-nerds. So long as you allow personal bias and politics to override legitimate sourcing, you will never be the legitimate source you so wish you were. Censorship in this manner is akin to Hitler's Nazi regime. Just because you don't like what I say about you doesn't give you the right to change history. Good luck to you, Wikipedia...this means war... -Versability (talk) 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

[Versability]

So the long story short is that I followed every single Wikipedia guideline up until the point that I wrote an article about it? How "unbiased" and "encyclopedic" can Wikipedia possibly be if discussing the process in which I posted content to it is grounds enough to have that content removed?

We can site whatever notability and/or autobiographical wiki-rules we want, but the fact of the matter is that everybody was fine with that article until someone got emotionally butthurt. That's not the academic way. Much like the financial sector and government, Wikipedia has proved to be run by elitests who put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.

I'll be sure to mention you guys in my response articles. I get paid $250 minimum every time I write for MainStreet, and I'm sure I can squeeze another $1000 out of this. We live in desperate times, lads...

[DanMurphy]

So the long story short is that I followed every single Wikipedia guideline up until the point that I wrote an article about it? How "unbiased" and "encyclopedic" can Wikipedia possibly be if discussing the process in which I posted content to it is grounds enough to have that content removed?

We can site whatever notability and/or autobiographical wiki-rules we want, but the fact of the matter is that everybody was fine with that article until someone got emotionally butthurt. That's not the academic way. Much like the financial sector and government, Wikipedia has proved to be run by elitests who put their own personal interests ahead of the greater good.

I'll be sure to mention you guys in my response articles. I get paid $250 minimum every time I write for MainStreet, and I'm sure I can squeeze another $1000 out of this. We live in desperate times, lads...

You wrote a fawning promotional article about yourself. You bragged about it (while giving some really, really terrible and dangerous advice in a blog post), thereby drawing attention to your fawning promotional article. It was then deleted.

Count your blessings it was deleted rather than made into a revenge target, as frequently happens. For Wikipedia to improve it would need a way to keep folks like you as far away as possible. But you are legion.

Also, your bizarre Nazi comparison makes you come off as unhinged.

[Lukeno94]

You make yourself look more and more stupid every time you post, Versability.

[thekohser]

...I followed every single Wikipedia guideline...

First off, I want to say that I'm on your paid-editing "team", Brian, so don't shoot the messenger; but, do you really think you followed the WP:COI guideline, which states: "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged."

...everybody was fine with that article until someone got emotionally butthurt. That's not the academic way.

In reality, everybody who noticed the article's existence was not moved to do anything about it, until someone who mattered did notice and acted on their butthurt condition. You're delusional if you think "the academic way" has anything whatsoever to do with Wikipedia.

I get paid $250 minimum every time I write for MainStreet, and I'm sure I can squeeze another $1000 out of this.

Of everything you've argued here and on Wikipedia, I find this claim of "$250" to be the most unbelievable thing you have introduced to us. If you can provide some documented proof that MainStreet pays you $250 per article, I will donate $25 to whatever charity you wish. I've written dozens of articles for Examiner.com, and I get paid about 6/10ths of a cent for every page view. I probably make $250 in an entire year of writing for them. MainStreet would be bankrupt if they were paying writers $250 per article.

[DanMurphy]

And as with so much of the crazy at Wikipedia, it's hard to find anyone to root for:

Your vile and contemptible article in the Patriot Ledger advertising the ways in which you have been abusing Wikipedia, and urging others to do the same, to the great detriment of this project, has left several editors suggesting that you be blocked indefinitely until and unless the Patriot Ledger publishes a full retraction by you, one which makes it clear that you realize the gravity of what you have done in writing that... steaming pile of falsehood. I am reluctant to do that, even though I'm considered one of our more militant admins about spamming and self-promotion, because some of your other edits have been sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike - you're a puffed up wannabe thug demanding other people grovel. Feel good?

[TungstenCarbide]

... got emotionally butthurt ...

:yawn

[Versability]

What's your email address? I'll send you my paystub, and in return I wish for you to send $25 to every single animal charity in the entire country...which I truly do believe follows your stated guideline below of "I will donate $25 to whatever charity you wish."

I get paid $250 minimum every time I write for MainStreet, and I'm sure I can squeeze another $1000 out of this.

Of everything you've argued here and on Wikipedia, I find this claim of "$250" to be the most unbelievable thing you have introduced to us. If you can provide some documented proof that MainStreet pays you $250 per article, I will donate $25 to whatever charity you wish. I've written dozens of articles for Examiner.com, and I get paid about 6/10ths of a cent for every page view. I probably make $250 in an entire year of writing for them. MainStreet would be bankrupt if they were paying writers $250 per article.[/quote]

[KillerChihuahua]

What's your email address? I'll send you my paystub, and in return I wish for you to send $25 to every single animal charity in the entire country...which I truly do believe follows your stated guideline below of "I will donate $25 to whatever charity you wish."

Then your English skills are substandard. It was charity, singular. Not charities, plural. Pick one, in other words.

[Versability]

The first thing a totalitarian regime does is silence their opponents. Congrats, Wikipedia. You've become a monster.

[Lukeno94]

Thus perfectly proving my point that you look more and more idiotic with every post you make. No one actually gives a shit about the jumped-up tripe you come out with.

[TungstenCarbide]

The first thing a totalitarian regime does is silence their opponents. Congrats, Wikipedia. You've become a monster.

Have you though about moving your article to EncyclopediaDramatica? https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Versability

[Versability]

Actually my English skills are fantastic - I can send you my SAT scores and transcripts as well.

You're focusing on the grammar mechanics of your contract and ignoring the composition elements. Charity may have been singular, but by not providing limitations upon the wish, one can only assume the standards (no wishing for more wishes, bringing people back from the dead, or forcing love) apply, and I'm allowed to use my wish to specify the number.

We're arguing a moot point anyway if you believe I can't back up my statement. Much like in my wiki, I have the proof to back up everything I say. Why do you think the banks hate me so much?

Then your English skills are substandard. It was charity, singular. Not charities, plural. Pick one, in other words.

[KillerChihuahua]

Actually my English skills are fantastic - I can send you my SAT scores and transcripts as well.

You're focusing on the grammar mechanics of your contract and ignoring the composition elements. Charity may have been singular, but by not providing limitations upon the wish, one can only assume the standards (no wishing for more wishes, bringing people back from the dead, or forcing love) apply, and I'm allowed to use my wish to specify the number.

We're arguing a moot point anyway if you believe I can't back up my statement. Much like in my wiki, I have the proof to back up everything I say. Why do you think the banks hate me so much?

Then your English skills are substandard. It was charity, singular. Not charities, plural. Pick one, in other words.

My contract? You not only cannot tell plural from singular, you cannot tell KillerChihuahua from thekohser. You just don't bother to read, do you?

[thekohser]

I think this is providing an excellent example of how Wikipedia article deletions can sometimes have a catastrophic effect on the stability of the subject. I've seen it before, with multiple clients.

[Versability]

At the end of the day, I'm going to make a living this quarter off writing about this moment, notable or not, and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me from relating my bad customer experience with Wikipedia on my many blogs...some of them get quite a few hits: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifest ... -time.html

If you think I made a career successfully playing chess with the Enterprise Risk Management teams of multiple financial and insurance institutions, along with the Department of Homeland Security, and the media by being an idiot, you've got me all wrong.

I'm not the bad guy here...history will show that, I assure you...

[KillerChihuahua]

I think this is providing an excellent example of how Wikipedia article deletions can sometimes have a catastrophic effect on the stability of the subject. I've seen it before, with multiple clients.

I submit for your consideration that this isn't a catastrophic effect on stability, this is a temper tantrum by someone who was already suffering from a highly inflated sense of his own importance.

[KillerChihuahua]

At the end of the day, I'm going to make a living this quarter off writing about this moment, notable or not, and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me from relating my bad customer experience with Wikipedia on my many blogs...some of them get quite a few hits: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifest ... -time.html.

I think you're confused about where you are. This site is not affiliated with Wikipedia, and so far as I know no one here cares if you make a ton of money off of this incident. I cannot imagine anyone here trying to stop you from wanting to write whatever you want about Wikipedia. Many of the members here have as their goal "bringing Wikipedia down" or otherwise encouraging the disparagement or failure of Wikipedia; so far as they are concerned, the more bad press Wikipedia gets, the better. Many are, like you, indef blocked or banned from Wikipedia.

[Vigilant]

And as with so much of the crazy at Wikipedia, it's hard to find anyone to root for:

Your vile and contemptible article in the Patriot Ledger advertising the ways in which you have been abusing Wikipedia, and urging others to do the same, to the great detriment of this project, has left several editors suggesting that you be blocked indefinitely until and unless the Patriot Ledger publishes a full retraction by you, one which makes it clear that you realize the gravity of what you have done in writing that... steaming pile of falsehood. I am reluctant to do that, even though I'm considered one of our more militant admins about spamming and self-promotion, because some of your other edits have been sound. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mike - you're a puffed up wannabe thug demanding other people grovel. Feel good?

With a major COI from editing the article about his employer.

Orange Mike is the mini-me to Qworty.

[Zoloft]

At the end of the day, I'm going to make a living this quarter off writing about this moment, notable or not, and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me from relating my bad customer experience with Wikipedia on my many blogs...some of them get quite a few hits: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifest ... -time.html

If you think I made a career successfully playing chess with the Enterprise Risk Management teams of multiple financial and insurance institutions, along with the Department of Homeland Security, and the media by being an idiot, you've got me all wrong.

I'm not the bad guy here...history will show that, I assure you...

Something to consider here is that this site, Wikipediocracy, is NOT pro-Wikipedia—we're more the Rebel Alliance. So please, by all means, "...[relate your] bad customer experience with Wikipedia on [your] many blogs..." as we support criticism of Wikipedia on many fronts. If you mention us, all we ask is that you spell our name correctly: Wikipediocracy.com

If you have a look around our site, you will understand that we allow a lot of disagreement. You've had a rough introduction to our pundits and hoi polloi here. You might enjoy a lot of what we do. Have a closer look.

[Vigilant]

At the end of the day, I'm going to make a living this quarter off writing about this moment, notable or not, and there's nothing any of you can do to stop me from relating my bad customer experience with Wikipedia on my many blogs...some of them get quite a few hits: http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifest ... -time.html

If you think I made a career successfully playing chess with the Enterprise Risk Management teams of multiple financial and insurance institutions, along with the Department of Homeland Security, and the media by being an idiot, you've got me all wrong.

I'm not the bad guy here...history will show that, I assure you...

HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHA

Oh you!

[Zoloft]

<snip>Many are, like you, indef blocked or banned from Wikipedia.

Oh snap. They did indef block you. That's a bit harsh.

[KillerChihuahua]

<snip>Many are, like you, indef blocked or banned from Wikipedia.

Oh snap. They did indef block you. That's a bit harsh.

I think it was this display of poor manners and temper which sealed his fate (well that, and the fact that he was NOTHERE, by his own admission)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =571786155

[Tarc]

Sometimes OrangeMike just makes me

"Homie" is in a situation analogous to a gangbanger who posts pictures of his robbery victims to his Facebook page, then starts whining when he is arrested. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

That is the most racist thing I ever heard... Versability (talk) 15:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

? You were the one who started addressing other editors as "homie", not me, Brian. I find your assumption that gangbangers are people of color to be the actual racism. I also suspect that unlike me, you do not live in the inner city. Oh, well, you're blocked now, so the problem is ameliorated. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

[thekohser]

I'm delighted that Wikipedia will now have another combatant fighting against it. I earnestly hope that Brian can "tone it down a notch" so that his arguments are read as reasonable criticisms, not flailing attacks.

As for the $250 per article at MainStreet.com, I will be a monkey's uncle, but the editors there have CONFIRMED that this is their standard rate! I am amazed. I humbly submit to Brian's accuracy on that matter, and my $25 awaits delivery to ONE charity of his choice. My apologies for doubting you on that one, Mr. Penny.

[Vigilant]

I'm delighted that Wikipedia will now have another combatant fighting against it. I earnestly hope that Brian can "tone it down a notch" so that his arguments are read as reasonable criticisms, not flailing attacks.

As for the $250 per article at MainStreet.com, I will be a monkey's uncle, but the editors there have CONFIRMED that that is their standard rate. I humbly submit to Brian's accuracy on that matter, and my $25 awaits delivery to ONE charity of his choice. My apologies for doubting you on that one, Mr. Penny.

Oh lawdy, the end times are upon us!!

[thekohser]

...my $25 awaits delivery to ONE charity of his choice. My apologies for doubting you on that one, Mr. Penny.

Per Mr. Penny's suggestion via e-mail to select "any animal charity", I selected the Animal Welfare Institute, because it got an A-plus rating for program efficiency, among animal-related charities, from an independent watchdog site. Proof of donation.

[Versability]

Look...I'm stoned, bored, and enjoy trolling the internet, and you people are making it very difficult by being polite...

*sigh* we'll table this discussion for now, but I assure you that wiki page is going back up no matter what I have to do...

[Versability]

Well played...

It's been a pleasure meeting you people...

Per Mr. Penny's suggestion via e-mail to select "any animal charity", I selected the Animal Welfare Institute, because it got an A-plus rating for program efficiency, among animal-related charities, from an independent watchdog site. Proof of donation.

[Vigilant]

Well played...

It's been a pleasure meeting you people...

Per Mr. Penny's suggestion via e-mail to select "any animal charity", I selected the Animal Welfare Institute, because it got an A-plus rating for program efficiency, among animal-related charities, from an independent watchdog site. Proof of donation.

Don't leave now.
I will personally be more rude to you in the future if that'll help.

[Zoloft]

Well played...

It's been a pleasure meeting you people...

Per Mr. Penny's suggestion via e-mail to select "any animal charity", I selected the Animal Welfare Institute, because it got an A-plus rating for program efficiency, among animal-related charities, from an independent watchdog site. Proof of donation.

Don't leave now.
I will personally be more rude to you in the future if that'll help.

If only more of our critics at Wikipedia realized that we're good enough, we're smart enough, and gosh darn it, people like us!
(Thanks to Stuart Smalley (T-H-L))

[Midsize Jake]

...we'll table this discussion for now, but I assure you that wiki page is going back up no matter what I have to do...

At this point, you'll probably have to do something that gets nationwide publicity, completely aside from the whole Bank of America thing. I'd suggest committing some sort of sensational cyber-caper (not necessarily of a criminal nature, though that might help) followed by an announcement that you're getting a sex-change operation - but only if I didn't know for a fact that I'd be totally torched by just about everyone reading this post for suggesting it, even in jest.

I'm of two minds about this whole situation. On the one hand, I'm really impressed with what Mr. Penny here has managed to do so far; I know I couldn't have done it, and the fact that I wouldn't have wanted to doesn't make it less impressive. On the other hand, this ongoing tendency of his to shoot himself in the foot is almost dumbfounding, and does little to enrich anyone other than his podiatrist. I agree that Mr. Penny is not an "idiot," but he also seems to completely lack common sense and, more importantly, impulse control.

Another problem here is the writing itself. I was looking at some of the Mainstreet.com articles, and articles like this one kind-of bother me:

I constantly hear banking and insurance industry professionals stating that only 1% of loans in their loan portfolios have force-placed insurance as a way of defending the practice. According to the Census Bureau, this equates to 7.56 million American citizens being price gouged.

Maybe these numbers are defensible, and Heaven knows I don't like banks. But they don't look defensible, whether or not they're being cited for a good cause. How can any of this be factual? First off, the "Census Bureau" doesn't keep track of how many loans are out there, they track population demographics. The Federal Reserve and the IRS track lending, so why not cite them, and their numbers? Also, it hasn't been established that forced-placed insurance always equates to price-gouging; I suspect in some cases it's probably quite justifiable (though always undesirable for the customers). Regardless, even if every American citizen had an outstanding loan out, 1% of the US population (including minors, etc.) would be 3.1 million. The actual number of mortgages in the US right now is roughly 50 million; 1% of that number would be 500,000 (bearing in mind that the number of affected citizens would be smaller because some people have multiple mortgages). You could maybe include auto and student loans to increase that number, but forced-placed insurance is mostly a mortgage-related practice, right? So is that 500K figure not good enough, not sufficient to make the banks look evil for gouging that many people? It must not be. To me it seems like it would be better to cite more realistic, if not genuinely accurate numbers, but even if the ones Mr. Penny uses here are accurate, why not explain them more clearly so that they don't look wrong? Or does he just not care?

I suppose this kind of critique is pointless, but either way, it doesn't bode well.