Thank you for letting me know. I was not aware of that rule. I do see commenters that routinely like to share the fact of who they work for, It may be that th

Thank you for letting me know. I was not aware of that rule. I do see commenters that routinely like to share the fact of who they work for, It may be that they only do that when they think it stengthens their comment. In any event, I will not make the same mistake again. Remember that to argue that the comment contained an "accusation" requires that one draw some inference from the inclusion of the Wikipedia URL. Inlcuding the URL was a mistake. The statement I made however contained no accusation. It merely drew attention to the fact that Googlers often disclose their employer when talking about Google stuff on HN but in this case the person made not mention of it. I found that noteworthy. The inference to be made there would simply be potential bias. I think that's fair. Is it within the rules to state that a commenter is an employee of "${CO}"? I note the commenter who did that did not get flagged.