User talk:Mtp1960

Welcome

Hello, Mtp1960! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Intuitive guide to Wikipedia
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Links

Please don't add any more external links before reviewing our policy. Mahanga^Talk 04:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatz^chat _spy 05:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you admit to being affiliated with ourprattville.com, I'd like to point you in the direction of our conflict of interest policy. If your news service is as invaluable and important as you believe it is, someone unaffiliated will likely use at as a reference or link to it as an external link. As it stands, your repeated additions to the encyclopedia are spamming as they seem designed to promote your news service. Please desist. AniMate^draw 06:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not conflicted out here. Of the hundreds of articles we have written only a sparse few are on wiki.

As a mater of fact we do not see any revenue from these wiki links period.

The articles are posted BECAUSE they are of interest and germane to the subject at hand.

There is NO way we should NOT be on our hometown media page, care to explain that one?

Yes, you are "conflicted out here." You're implying you work for the news service. You appear to have added links to your website to twenty or so it's hard for us to go through and see which are valid and which aren't. I'll look over the Prattville article and see if the addition is valid, but stop adding links to your site on the articles here. AniMate^draw 07:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put a mention of Our Prattville in the article on the town with a link to the website. That's about as good as you're going to get right now. AniMate^draw 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a highly respected, high profiled journalist who has interviewed high profile celebrities in all genres, our work is respected, unbiased, and is certainly not spam. We sell nothing on our website - the website has no product. It is free to the public and the links were not advertising. If they had the Our Prattville name in them it's because some of the interviews have the Our Prattville name in them, therefore germane to the article link name. If you would like for us to post any of the third party mentions on respectable journalist sites of our work, we would be happy to produce the links for you where you can verify the voracity of our claims.The reason why these were posted in the first place is because in our opinion they added context to the wiki articles. Interviews are too lengthy to be included in the wiki article. They have been up there for months and months. Sp, why has this become an issue all of a sudden today? American journalists do not generally show bias in their work and as such, our articles are fair and balanced and certainly not spam. As media we have a relationship with our city's mayor and other city leaders. The interesting thing here is that these articles were taken off in a wholesale manner in which no one could read or examine the contents of each in that time frame. Ckatz apparently removed them within a 5-10 minute time frame and the second party removed them within 2-3 minutes.

Try reading up on our self promotion policy. Spamming doesn't necessarily mean that you are trying to sell something. Within Wikipedia spamming can mean inserting links to promote your own site or work. AniMate^draw 08:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've not given me any proof that any of these articles are spam. Once again, we are journalists of merit. There is no self promotion involved here. As a matter of fact, the articles never result in secondary page views for us so I can't see how this would be shameless self promotion. This seems to have been no problem for the best part of the year, now all of a sudden we're being attacked with this. Why? As a journalist, I have a duty to ask the question why? This is an attack on our journalistic integrity.

I've given you plenty of policy to read up on, and you disagree. Looking at your edits, it's clear that you are promoting your website. Just because you're not generating any revenue from us doesn't make this any less self promotional. Your best course is to file a ticket with our WP:OTRS volunteers. Please read our policies, contact a volunteer, and they can guide you on when and if it is appropriate for you to add a link to the news service you work for and are promoting. AniMate^draw 09:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this, and in reply to some of your points:

- just because a link has been present for a period of time does not mean it is valid or warranted, only that it has not been addressed.

- you do not have an implicit right to receive links, even in an article about your home town. This is not a directory service.

- the fact that you publish an article does not mean it deserves a link on Wikipedia. There are millions upon millions of published articles on the planet, and we cannot list them all - nor can we give preferential treatment to one local site.

- saying this is an "attack on [your] journalistic integrity" is, frankly, nonsense. To be blunt, there are countless interviews from sites and outlets far more notable than yours that do not receive links, as per our policies and guidelines. Why should you receive special treatment? You're misinterpreting the fact that your site doesn't warrant inclusion on an international encyclopedia project as some sort of comment on the quality of your work, which it is not.

--Ckatz^chat _spy 09:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are external links on many wikis that you removed ours from that are way less germane than ours are. Explain that to me. One example is "making the rounds at General Hospital," Blogcritics Magazine - that link doesn't even have anything to do with the entrant and it is allowed to stay. "Soap stars to visit campus" is another link on that same wiki. How is that germane to anything? An external link on the Dennis DeYoung wiki is an interview with Dennis DeYoung and it is allowed to stay as our link for his interview is not. Why is that one allowed to stay and ours was not? Please describe the criteria that is used here. On the Elvis Presley wiki there are Elvis resources interviews and articles by Elvis Australia - how is it that is allowed to stay when our article is an in-depth piece on the history and birthplace of Elvis Presley with photos and interviews from individuals who are curators at that property? Also, on the Elvis wiki, there is a link for ancestry.com - isn't that for self-promotion? I could go on and on and on with other examples.

There was a decision made by Animate to put us back on as media on our City of Prattville wiki and that was correct and then another admin took us off again. What is going on there? The River Region and the Prattville Guide are not the media outlets in the city. We are. We are a media organization in the city of Prattville, Alabama. We must be listed on this wiki. Again, if you want proof that we are a media outlet in this city we can provide that proof. We have a relationship with the mayor and all high-ranking city officials. We are the only news media outlet that is located in the city.

I have given you a perfectly valid course of action. File a ticket with one of our WP:OTRS volunteers and go from there. AniMate^draw 11:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That won't do any good. OTRS volunteers do not resolve editing disputes. You should pursue dispute resolution. - Rjd0060 (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this is an editing dispute, but other avenues available are the Conflict of interest noticeboard or the reliable sources noticeboard. AniMate^draw 22:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. You have already been warned repeatedly about misusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. As someone directly involved in the operations of the "OurPrattville" site, you need to follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and avoid posting articles about a business you have a vested interest in. While you are free to argue your case for the creation of such an article, the actual decision regarding notability and suitability for inclusion in an international project must be left for editors without any such conflict o interest. Please do not recreate the article, as continued efforts to use Wikipedia in this manner may lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 23:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mtp1960, final warning. You're abusing the site to further your site's purposes, and conveniently overlooked the fact that the external links were still present in the article. Given your conflict of interest, the repeated warnings you have received from myself and other administrators, and the disruption to the article, any further attempts to disrupt the article will result in a block. Seriously. --Ckatz^chat _spy 02:28, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to the page history where you will see that these allegations are unwarranted. Mtp1960 (talk) 22:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you MTP1960, there seems to be arbitrary rules application involved in your case. I have read the entire Prattville Wikipedia article fiasco and find your assesment about Media Section links to be spot on. 76.73.140.26 (talk) 01:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate undo, done without warrant or merit. Mtp1960 (talk) 05:17, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the guidelines for user pages, keeping in mind that it is not your (or anyone else's) page. Users are free to delete any messages that are placed on their talk pages, including warnings, with the understanding that removal is regarded as acknowledgement that they have received and read the message. (You are, however, encouraged to archive posts rather than just deleting them.) There are exceptions to this rule, however, with regards to important notices such as active blocks, sockpuppet notices, and declined unblock requests. As mentioned earlier, once the block has ended, you can remove the messages if you so desire. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]