Talk:Dime Community Bank

Suggested Changes

Personal Insurance Products

Dime Community Bank no longer offers personal insurance products. It is not on their website, they did not announce or promote that it went away, and it was a silent change in their product offerings around March 2017.

The suggested edit is to change this sentence in the Corporate Profile section: “Dime also offers personal insurance products provided through their subsidiary company, Dime Insurance Agency, Inc.” to instead read: “Dime stopped offering personal insurance products around March 2017, through their subsidiary company, Dime Insurance Agency, Inc.”

Thanks! -Brenton (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

I have not compared the current site to potential archive.org versions to see if I can pinpoint when the change occurred. (*Full disclosure; I have a COI with Dime.) -Brenton (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rbrenton: Edit Request Complete. AmericanAir88^(talk) 23:22, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

This edit was undone by another editor, again. Please review updated request. -Brenton (talk) 15:48, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

COI edit requests cannot be used to maintain a preferred version of the article. If there is edit warring going on in the article, please escalate to WP:3RR.  Spintendo  19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Moving this request to a direct appeal with editor. Thanks for everyone's help! -Brenton (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Archive.org shows that personal insurance is available in February 2017, and gone by June 2017.

References

-Brenton (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

This is hard to follow, Wikipedia is backwards-looking, not focused solely on what is current. This applies to the talk pages as well as the real world history. It is not helpful to delete conversations on a talk page, they will be archived in time. Make new conversations instead of replacing old ones. In a similar vein, do not delete information solely because it is old, instead add new information or update the tense of an older sentence or give a time range for when the old information was true. This article has had a lot of COI issues in the past, and I worked with another editor who was also involved with Dime to get the article into the shape that it is now, personal insurance included. A brief look at the page's history will illustrate the propensity for SPAs to edit here. The page should reflect accurate historical accounts of the institution, not whitewashed corporate desires solely consisting of current bank offerings. JesseRafe (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For the record, after this talk page comment, Rbrenton, refused to reply and instead reverted again, despite clear explanations on the three relevant talk pages (mine, his, and this one) and then improperly left a template warning on my user page. The COI process is not being followed and this editor is editing in his/her client's interest solely. JesseRafe (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding to record, JesseRafe has a history of edit warring, and was blocked by administrators at one time for doing so. I have made every attempt to follow the proper process, and do not want to appear to abuse the COI edit request process. Please update the page according to the above suggested edit, or suggest an improvement. Thanks! -Brenton (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

That is irrelevant and ad hominem, discuss the edits not the editors. I have a 13 year history of over 50000 edits, shit happens. Please stop obviously lying, "I have made every attempt to follow the proper process" No. You made one attempt and then when it didn't go your way you immediately violated the COI edit request process. It is also extremely disingenuous to claim I have not made alternative suggestions. I've said it over and over again... cite that they don't offer that! It's so damn easy! Self-revert, please. JesseRafe (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's as relevant as any COI, sir. There's no citation for something disappearing aside from the archive.org links that I provided above. Do you have any recommendations on the suggested edits at the top, or is your position still that you want the page to reflect personal insurance products are being offered, when they are clearly not? Thanks. -Brenton (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Clean Up Tags

Information to be added or removed: Remove COI, third-party tags; archive discussion.

Explanation of issue: The COI & third-party tags are disingenuous, at best. They are referring to me, and are fallout from a moderator starting an edit war in dispute of the fact that Dime no longer provides insurance products. This was resolved 9 months ago. Nonetheless, the tags were added to the page after the issue was resolved, without any additional discussion or an attempt to resolve for the past 9 months. (see COI guidelines "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning"). Please remove these tags and archive irrelevant discussion to clean up the article, talk page and reflect the lack of active/pending activity. Thanks for keeping Wikipedia articles unbiased and accurate!

References supporting change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:COI#When_to_remove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Brenton (talk) 13:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a little cute that you think everything is about you, but this article has a long history of COI edits and the tags should be up. Aside from the above user, the page history reveals no less than three additional dedicated SPAs: Special:Contributions/Lguilder, Special:Contributions/Jr3500, and Special:Contributions/Bpressman. Not all of which are/were problematic, but it serves as a notice to readers and reviewers that one or more people who are more interested in the subject of the article than the rules of Wikipedia itself. JesseRafe (talk) 16:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I think that you should recuse yourself from this article, and maybe moderating in general. You can't seem to interact with anyone without being condescending. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers -- At any rate, I'd like a neutral moderator to weigh in; please leave. Thanks. Brenton (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been asked to refrain from personal attacks. You have not taken the steps asked of you to disclose your conflict of interest. You are still editing Wikipedia on behalf (if not behest) of an entity you identify as your client. If anyone should recuse themselves from this article (which I've made substantial improvements to) it's clear who that should be. JesseRafe (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I attacked anyone, personally or otherwise. I've been very forthcoming. Have a good day. =) Brenton (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Reply 20-SEP-2019

  Please consult assigning editor  

• It is recommended that, as a courtesy, you first try asking the editor who assigned the template — in this case Melcous — in order to find out from them if it can be removed. Since they placed the template, they are in the best position to know whether or not the issues which caused its placement have been corrected. You may contact them directly by placing a new message on their talk page.
• In the unlikely event that you do not hear back from them after a reasonable amount of time, please reopen this request by altering the {{request edit}} template's answer parameter to read from |ans=yes to |ans=no. Thank you!
  Regards,  Spintendo  22:48, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
• I will leave a note for Melcous and request their input. Thank you. Brenton (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this discussion Rbrenton. There have only been minimal changes made to the article since the tags were added. I do not believe the issues have been addressed. There have been no clear declarations of conflict of interest made either here or on relevant user pages (as noted above, Rbrenton, you are not the only COI editor involved with this article, but given you have called the subject of this article 'our client', I would expect at minimum a declaration on your user page as well as here). In terms of referencing, the article is still largely sourced to press releases and primary sources linked to the institution itself, which is why the other maintenance tag was added. Thanks, Melcous (talk) 07:38, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I understand. At one point I made it clear that I was a web developer doing a (non-wikipedia related) project for Dime, but I'm happy to centralize that info on my user page. The only change I was interested in was the removal of language indicating they had current insurance products, when they didn't. I'm ignorant of any other edit attempts by users with a COI, so I can't really speak to that. It sounds like there is more going on that I'm unaware of, but if I can be of any assistance I'm happy to do so; please feel free to let me know. Thanks! Brenton (talk) 15:31, 25 September 2019 (UTC)