User talk:Mtamony

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Ted L. Nancy, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ted L. Nancy

Your recent editing history at Ted L. Nancy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

I would also suggest you comment on the article's talk page instead of reverting the page again. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that it is extremely unwise to suggest that you will seek legal intervention. For more information and advice, please see WP:NLT.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

Thanks for lending your opinion. There was no threat to employ litigation, as this states WP:NLT. Legal intervention however is prudent if it can clear up facts about a trademark. I am being directed by the legal representative of the Ted L Nancy trademark on what the Ted L Nancy Wikipedia should say. These are factual references and notes from the actual author. How this has become a problem for Wikipedia "contributors" is amazing to me. Isn't Wikipedia interested in facts? I respect that perhaps the page was not originally set up as Wikipedia would like, but now I have been having to answer to a bunch of people that know nothing about Ted L Nancy.--Mtamony (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia community decides what goes on the pages here and not someone's legal representative - once an article is written and published, neither the original author nor subsequent contributors can claim ownership of it. That includes both text and image content on which we have even stricter exclusion policies than most public legislation. Among our 'bunch of people' are experts in our content policies. Our experts in the copyright department will not allow the publication here of a logo or other image that does not meet our regulations, so you can rest assured that no copyrights will be violated; uploaded images that do not comply with our terms are rapidly deleted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that within Wikipedia there are experts in Wikipedia content policies. The author of the Ted L Nancy books is also an expert in Ted L Nancy. I would appreciate a mutual respect, which is why I am editing the content of the page to match your content policies. This editor that I had an issue with came in here and deleted everything with a redirect to the author. He consulted nobody, got consensus from nobody, and simply redirected. Have you had this same discussion with that editor? I was asked by Ted L Nancy people to correct the page. When I rverted it, this contributor changed it back, I reverted it again and asked for time to get the content corrected, that author redirected it again. This is how Wikipedia is run? --Mtamony (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is 'the encyclopedia anyone can edit' , which means in effect that it is run by itself - its community includes a core of dedicated experienced editors and administrators who volunteer to monitor the edits of those who are less experienced and who may not be familiar with the policies and guidelines. It can therefore take a day or two before the attention of one of these is drawn to a content dispute or breach of policy. Generally our effort is to mediate and help the concerned parties understand those policies and guidelines while assuming good faith that neither party in the first instance was aware of doing anything wrong. Situations such as these are most often resolved through a calm discussion on the article's talk page - perhaps with the moderation of an experienced user. So while the encyclopedia is 'run' by many who may be less experienced than others, there is nothing that cannot be repaired, recovered, or put right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now THAT makes complete sense to me and I respect it. I am also grateful for the efforts of Wikipedia editors. If someone just deletes a page and sends it somewhere else that can't be a correct process. Now he stuck some giant announcement on the top of the page stating I have a conflict of interest. I just removed it. Please feel free to review the content. I tried to provide facts with citation. If you see something questionable by all means ask me about it. I'm done dealing with this Wikipedical person's ego.--Mtamony (talk) 05:41, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kudpung this Wikipedical editor has an agenda in editing the Ted L Nancy page. If you follow the edits, they deleted the page's content, redirected to Barry Marder's page, then deleted the content they claimed to have moved. I understand the COI and bias aspect of Wikipedia policies, but the opinions and contributions of the actual author and person the page is about should hold some weight. The intention in my editing the pages was to reflect actual facts and cited occurrences related to the character and author. How are these less important than a "random" Wikipedia editor's agenda and ego? Sadly this is why in college they tell you to not use Wikipedia for research. I would rather understand a subject from the subject matter expert as opposed to someone who thinks they are the subject matter expert.

Warning about conflict of interest

Hello, Mtamony. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Ted L. Nancy, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. I am leaving these points based on your actions, comments on Talk:Ted L. Nancy, and comments on this talk page. I ask you to please review Wikipedia's content policies before "correcting" other users' edits. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:20, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Ted L. Nancy with this edit, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Your recent editing history at Ted L. Nancy shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. This warning serves to remind you that you have already reverted three times, so one more revert will result in blocking. Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 06:24, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Ted L. Nancy

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Ted L. Nancy. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Mtamony reported by User:Wikipedical (Result: 24h). Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 06:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Legion of Decency moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, The Legion of Decency, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

Please make your WP:COI declarations as it is obvious there is one, and submit your articles to WP:AFC instead of creating them directly in mainspace. This article is extremely promotional, and unsupported by reliable sources. Please review the notability guidelines at WP:NBAND. Also note, Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:19, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:The Legion of Decency

Hello, Mtamony. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Legion of Decency, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 04:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:The Legion of Decency

Hello, Mtamony. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Legion of Decency".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:42, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]