User talk:Mfetzer3

Welcome!

Hello, Mfetzer3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Meetinguniverse, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Meetinguniverse

A tag has been placed on Meetinguniverse requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Meetinguniverse

A tag has been placed on Meetinguniverse, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Triwbe (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Review of references used to support notability in the article Meetinguniverse

Wikipedia requires all articles to support notability with non-trivial mentions in verifiable, reliable sources. The list below comes from the content of that article, and does not meet the qualifications; and this was determined in the AfD.

Performance-Based Systems on Colorado Meetings + Events — written by a staff member of MeetingUniverse, so it's not an independent source.
Web 2.0 and Social Media, written by Corbin Ball (related site to above) — lacks non-trivial mention of the site in question.
Corbin's November/December 2008 TechTalk Newsletter — Corbin Ball's links, also a mere trivial mention
Niche Travel Websites — Dave Carlson and/or his blog is not recognized as a reliable source for verifiability.
TripAdvisor for Meetings — behind a paygate, so it's difficult to verify, but doesn't appear to have nontrivial coverage, similar to #2 above.
Web 2.0 and Social Media – A New Paradigm for Meetings — original publication, redistributed by #2 above.
http://www.washingtonregency.hyatt.com/hyatt/hotels/index.jsp — dead link?
Atwitter Over New Tools — trivial mention (also from Corbin Ball)

Please review our criteria carefully. Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mfetzer3. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry

The accusation is merely that, and holds no official response other than to run what is called a CheckUser, which would prove if what you say about you and Hospitalityexpert (talk · contribs) is true. I made this accusation because neither you nor Hospitalityexpert have edited anything else before or since, and you've both only edited the one article, and related Wikipedia pages (e.g. the AfD). If that account is not a sockpuppet of yours, then it is most definitely a meatpuppet, that is, an associate of yours that you've most likely recruited to assist you. These accusations are not levied against you because of any assumption of bad faith on my part; this pattern of behavior has been observed on Wikipedia (and by extension, the entire Internet) for a long time. With the second account name, it appears that the both of you may have a conflict of interest on this matter, and may be related to the company/website in question, and may not have an unbiased perception of MeetingUniverse as it pertains to Wikipedia's notability criteria for companies and organizations. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:04, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all the fact that there may be improperly sourced articles on Wikipedia is not an excuse to mimic those errors. Wikipedia is a wiki, and as such, is constantly being updated and refined. If you see references in articles that do not meet Wikipedia's reliability requirements, or are unverifiable, or the article does not meet any of Wikipedia's notability criteria, by all means, feel free to do something about it. I mean, that's part of why you're here, right?

The checkuser request has been made, here.

Thanks. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:13, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CobaltBlueTony,

I was not mimicking those errors knowing they were errors. I was merely referencing similar articles that have been published on similar subjects to see how to best make them independent, non-biased, and acceptable. I asked for help from anyone who criticized me but you are the only one that has actually talked back and so have become my tutor as to the workings of Wikipedia, I hope. The fact that I am involved with MeetingUniverse may be concerning but is not against policy as long as the article is written in a non advertising voice. Apparently I came across as too biased and am able to accept that and re-write the article so that it is not viewed as such but I need help to see what others are seeing as I feel as though I stated fact, following established articles, and offered verifiable 3rd party sources. Obviously I was mistaken. All I am asking for is some help.

Thank you,

Mfetzer3 (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Mfetzer3. You have new messages at A More Perfect Onion's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A More Perfect Onion (talk) 19:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CheckUser request fail and insufficient references

I'm having difficulty understanding where you actually asked for help, originally. You were notified three times about the notability issues of the article here on your talk page. They contain links explaining the notability critiera, which you are thereafter expected to read and understand. If you still have questions, you can always place {{help}} right here on your talk page, and someone should respond rather quickly.

As was explained to you earlier, in the AfD, trade publications with limited readership do not make a case for notability outside said trades. This is comparable to individuals being recognized within the McDonald's corporation for outstanding this, that, or the other, but such recognition would scarcely make any waves outside of the corporation, and thus would not meet the notability criteria here on Wikipedia. There has to be some obvious ripple, in mainstream media, or in large segments of society that can be easily documented. I highly doubt that the meeting planning subset makes that much of an impact on the grand scheme of things. And without some significance of the meeting planning industry being apparent, we really don't have a way to grasp the reliability of the references in question.

Also, since you are evidently Mark Fetzer of MeetingUniverse.com, I would like to remind you again about your conflict of interest. I'd like to quote, in case you're overwhelmed by the quantity of information contained on the page:

Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization.
Closeness to a subject does not mean you're incapable of being neutral, but it may incline you towards some bias. Be guided by the advice of other editors. If editors on a talk page suggest in good faith that you may have a conflict of interest, try to identify and minimize your biases, and consider withdrawing from editing the article. As a rule of thumb, the more involvement you have with a topic in real life, the more careful you should be with our core content policies — Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Verifiability — when editing in that area.
The definition of "too close" in this context is governed by common sense. An article about a little-known band should preferably not be written by a band member or the manager. However, an expert on climate change is welcome to contribute to articles on that subject, even if that editor is deeply committed to the subject.

I hope this gives you a little more clarity on how things work here. Feel free to ask me questions. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sock tags

Now that you know the policies, I would think it is OK for the two of you to remove the tags, and ensure that you abide by wiki's policies and guidelines in the future. Thanks and Good Luck. -- Avi (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]