User talk:Mark7144

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Mark7144, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! /wangi 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link position

Welcome Mark7144!

Out of interest, do you get significantly more hits when you're top of that list than when you're at the bottom? And what happens when you're second? RobbieC 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never payed attention to the difference in hits in relation to its position but if it get moves down again I'll have a look Mark7144 15:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark,

Would you put your case for Murraysworld in the fansite list on the talk page please. Your opponent has come forward, and it looks like we'll have to get the regular page editors to come to a consensus.

RobbieC 20:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam on Andrew Murray (tennis player)

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. /wangi 08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding commercial links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. /wangi 22:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. /wangi 08:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Murray Message Board person=

Thanks for the head- up. Be good if you could see my comments on our friend's user page,User:86.17.154.196, and ideally support me there. RobbieC 10:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Murray Talk Page

Your input is sought on the Andy Murray talk page. Could I ask you especially to address the question of your relationship to the Murraysworld website. Thanks. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

DO NOT continue to add your website into the external links of Andy Murray and do not misrepresent that consensus has been reached in the middle of a discussion. -- The Red Pen of Doom 18:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My observation of the facts is, originally consensed in 2006, consensus for the website was reestablished at Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link as early as July 9, 2009 when a (now banned sock) opponent of the website said, "Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended." (Chidel 07:46, 10 July 2009) If Chidel's oppose is discounted as a sock, the consensus was unanimous to keep.

Old consensus does not go away until a new consensus is established. The Talk:Andy Murray#RfC: Should this article contain... of 17:09, 19 July 2009 has 30 days to run until there exists a new consensus.

Unanimous to keep (sans sock) is an unusually strong consensus without wiggle room. If there are not other material facts that are unknown to me, Dlabtot and TRPOD violated existing consensus by removing the website link before the 30-day RfC is over.

Therefore TRPOD's charge of misrepresentation against Mark7144 is not only false, but egregiously false in light of the facts.

Accordingly, I question Dlabtot's and TRPOD's commitment to Wikipedian consensus values. If they have no commitment to consensus, they are outsiders with no welcome to be editing this project. Milo 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't re-add the website for the time being, particularly if it's a COI. Participate in the discussion on the talkpage. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is wise advice. A rule-abiding COI editor is in a weak editing position, and must adhere closely to the consensus of other editors. Even if others are edit warring against consensus, as is my opinion of this situation, a COI editor must stay on the side of angels and work through WP social politics to achieve goals. And, sometimes life just isn't fair. Milo 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm doing the right thing by re-adding the link as it was based on consensus, I appreciate it might make people feel uncomfortable as I'm a COI. Therefore, can someone else kindly re-include the link until a consensus has been reached to say otherwise. Mark7144 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Publication process

Can you tell me what process you have for checking facts, before your team, which I count as eight, publishes stories to the web? (Please reply here if desired) Milo 10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of stories are comprehensive match reports, something the official website does not provide, but we do have a contact within Andy's management that can verify the contents of a story when it's appropriate to do so. Please also know that to be a Google Publisher, the website must be evaluated and seen as an organistion with an acceptable editorial process. Mark7144 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to Google's editorial process requirements?

While one assumes that your organization has the intent to publish accurate stories, it's useful to both your writing team and the public to make a visible commitment to do so – especially using your existing feedback process. If you don't have a publisher statement, you can easily add one now. For an example using intended British spelling:

Publishers statement

Our organisation intends and works to publish accurate statements of fact to the best of our knowledge. While our opinions and judgements may respectfully differ from yours, please send us any corrections of fact, along with your basis for believing them to be true, to (web mail link here).

I wrote this statement. My fact check by Google Web and Google News Archive searches on the major key phrases suggest it's original enough. Such publisher statements are essentially generic anyway. Of course, you should do your own fact check as well. As checked, you are free to modify it or use it as is. Milo 21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Milo. I've added the statement to the about page: http://www.murraysworld.com/about/ Mark7144 (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Common ground section

Hello, the point of this section was to collect the areas and points upon which parties agree and not to rehash arguements already on the page. Would you be willing to remove your comments from the section and either rephrase the statements to reflect your understanding of the common consensus of the RfC or strike them if you do not agree that they reflect the consensus of the discussion? Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure... I've removed one of the comments and changed another to reflect something that is accepted as fact about the website and which is relevant to the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a comments section, copied, and reformatted to hopefully solve everyone's problem (including mine, being lack of comment space). Editable proposals always need a comments section, which functions somewhat like a visible edit summary. Milo 21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2013

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Them From Space 22:14, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andy Murray. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Murry1975 (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your website

Please leave that link out until the community decides. It is currently disputed and you have a conflict of interest. If you edit war by continuing to add the link, you may end up blocked from editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring

I've removed your refactoring. Please, don't do that. Thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]