User talk:Andrewbaron

Welcome to Wikipedia, Andrew. You can read the Wikipedia policies on editing and such; and I suggest you take a look at Talk:Kristen Bell-- her dad is apparently a contributor. There's nothing unethical about being connected to the article you work on, so long as you are not creating self-promoting spam and you provide citations that can be independently verified. Others should treat your contributions with good faith, unless evidence shows that you are ignoring the ground rules that Wikipedia has set.

Borderline dubious assertions within an article may be tagged with a tag, while the most libelous remarks and vandalism may be removed from the article as long as you mention libel or vandalism as your reasons. Speculation and opinion are other things that may be removed. Please remember to sign your comments made on talk pages with a series of four tildes ~ . That way, everyone knows who said what and when.

I have seen some ridiculous comments removed from the KFC talk page, but otherwise, talk pages are where we give more leeway for free discussion and debate among contributors. That may be safest route for contributions that might result in an edit war between two opposing parties, just like you did in Talk:Amanda Congdon. If you feel that you are entering into an edit war within an article, do not attempt to violate the three revert rule-- WP:3RR. Let the other guy fall on that sword. When your concerns are valid, there is always gonna be someone who can support you as the community tries to resolve the matter. Any changes that anybody makes is permanently archived, so don't be rash, but also, do not be afraid that your contributions will be made in vain. Rocketboom covers so many subjects in its blog-- I hope you can contribute just as much to Wikipedia. MMetro (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rocketboom

Please do not edit your own company page any longer. This will never produce the result you seek. Instead, use the talk page to discuss things with other editors. If that fails, select an option from the dispute resolution process. Please understand that Wikipedia is different from the blogosphere. Battling with those you disagree with will get neutral parties upset and lead to counter-productive results. I hope this advice helps. Jehochman ^Talk 15:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

When I edit the page, at least you know who I am. Otherwise don't people edit their pages anonymously? An anonomously edit is much less valid. Especially when unjustified.

Thank you for identifying yourself. My advice is designed to help you accomplish your objectives without risking a backlash. Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Signing your posts

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Jehochman ^Talk 00:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on companies editing their own articles

Regular editors know that when Wikipedia has an article on a company there is potential for embarrassment in both directions. We in Wikipedia are very sensitive to promotional language and claims that seem insufficiently proven, and on the other hand the company may be concerned about people they don't know making changes to their article.

I second the advice of Jehochman that Andrewbaron should stay off the article completely, and just give comments on the Talk page as to what should be in the article.

The following is a notice that is often used when it seems that someone from a company is editing their own company's article. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);

   and you must always:

4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Editing Own Page

I am happy to take this advise and would prefer to not even think about this. I used to never think about it. I have spent a lot of efforts trying to resolve the issue by calling attention to the article but for many months, no one has addressed the edits that Cleanr has made. First he led me to want my own page deleted because he kept messing it up so bad and then he kept messing up the Rocketboom entry. The most frusterating trick that he uses is making a change, and then leaving remarks about his change which are only one small part of the story. If Cleanr became banned, I have a feeling she would come back as some other user so it feels like an uphill battle. I've asked Jimmy Wales to look into because I consider him a friend and simply asked if he could refer me on to others (obviously I dont think it appriapriate that he himself get involved), I have twittered it, posted to my blog about it and still yet, Cleanr continues to make edits such that I feel compelled enough to spend all of this time fighting against it.

Ill keep trying the talk page and hope that Cleanr will also just keep to the talk page and will not tweak any more information, including the discussion pages, links, etc. as she has been doing for so long. If the article continues to spin downward, I'll let everyone know why I would be editing the page.

As a final note here, I am not making edits that adds new info or "clean up" or anything else, Im only ever "undoing" Cleanr's edits, along with providing justification that Cleanr has NEVER ONCE bought. Thats been the only purpose of creating this account: to "undo" the edits that Cleanr makes that are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewbaron (talk • contribs) 02:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Undoing Cleanr's changes to the Rocketboom article still counts as editing the article, which is something you should avoid. If you think someone is making unjustified changes to your company's article, and you get no response when you ask at Talk:Rocketboom, you can make a complaint at the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving that a try, thanks. Andrewbaron (talk) 06:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take a moment to read WP:V and WP:NOR. If you contemplate my edits within those Wikipedia policies, I think you may have a better understanding of where I'm coming from. It must be frustrating to have a greater knowledge of events than is currently reflected in the mainstream media, however Wikipedia by definition is not the place to right this wrong. I've responded in greater detail on my talk page. Thanks. Cleanr (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

interactions with Cleanr

Please remember that editors here have the right to preserve their anonimity. Refusing to reveal personal details is not an ofence on wikipedia.

Also, please, don't make comments like "his anger and frustration in his own life clearly overcame himself and he couldn't take it and had to come back here and has started editing this page again, only in the negitive" [1]. Please go to the WP:NPA no personal attacks policy on wikipedia page and read it (please notice that "personal attack" on wikipedia does not have the same meaning as it has when it's used on a legal context or on other places, and it doesn't imply anything bad on the person making the comments, it just tries to be a neutral description of a type of comment).

Also, about "Cleanr has been using tricks that make it impossible to use logic" [2], I think that you two simply think very different and that it's difficult for you two to arrive to a consensus and not pick a fight unintentionally every time to interact. You have very diverging opinions and different logic. Please try to calm down a bit. You can make objective complaints about Cleanr's edits without the need to explain what you think that his motives are.

About "He appears like a good citizen to others because he can play the Wikipedia lingo card" [3] I assure that this is not the reason that you find little support. The reason is that you are trying to assign bad motivations to other editor, when in wikipedia you should WP:AGF assuming good faith. I urge to please stop making remarks about other editors' character, motivation or reasons. Just plain state why you think the edit itself is invalid, or give an objective rationale based on facts, and you should notice a better reception for your ideas.

I wouldn't want you to think that wikipedia is some sort of secret club that uses knowledge of the rules to exclude people. If someone infringes on a rule becasue he doesn't know it, then we explain the rule to him. It's true that the rules have become very bizantine with time, but you should be ok knowing only the main ones. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That all sounds reasonable to me. The only reason why this started to occur was because logic wasn't working. Though I agree with all of what you are saying so Ill try my best to stick to logic. Andrewbaron (talk)

Rocketboom's technical changes

You mentioned something about changing things around, so I thought you might like to know about my frustration. I've had trouble getting the latest video from the website for the past week (since David Byrne). I like the larger picture though. When I go through the archives, I usually play them full screen, and prefer Flash over YouTube. It's the latest stuff being YouTube that has trouble loading. The most recent stuff I can load now is July 17, "Village Phones in Uganda". Do I need updates or something? Thanks. MMetro (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Next week, we should have Crackle embeds which will be really great and hopefull will solve the problem. If not, email me for quickest response.