User talk:Sparkzilla

Image copyright problem with Image:Nova-logo.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Nova-logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked

As discussed on UTRS you've been unblocked. Secretlondon (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just so that you know...

I am also Spud. It seems like we might see more of each other over at RW rather then here.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Newspaper

Hi, I decided to post my questions regarding RS here, because it kind off would have been an off-topic discussion. I do understand that Wikipedia is not a Newspaper neither it is the news, but take a look at this: We rely on reliable sources and according to that policy, newspapers, media, books, and magazines are such. In a case of celebrities for example, they don't appear a whole lot on say CNN or FOX unless its the Oscars. They do tend to appear on ABC's The View and various talk shows, like Late Shows for example. I'm personally a huge fan of David Letterman and The View where celebrities tell the world what they are, and what they are planning to do with say, their upcoming role in an upcoming film.

But if we will look into that Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, we can safely assume that using original research is more safe because we don't need to go through the hoops of what is RS and what is BS? Because according to Lady Lotus and that user with caps in his username, everything is BS not RS. This brings me to another question; if lets say Amal Alamuddin is dating Clooney and its a scoop is it reliable info??? Yes and no. On one hand, its a part of her bio, because besides being a lawyer she is also a celebrity in the Hollywood world. But, if that scoop is covered by magazines and newspapers, why not include it? Sure, you might point me to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but then lets remove Alexandra Kerry because she is sup-par actress and a daughter of senator John Kerry? Like really, what's the point of her having a WP article if she known for only those two instances?--Mishae (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the other page, you have come up against several basic flaws in Wikipedia. The first is that editors make blanket decisions about the reliability of sources, rather than he reliability of the information itself. It's easy to blacklist the Daily Mail (or any other news source), but what happens when they have an exclusive interview that gives new information to a topic? The second flaw is that many editors are conflating news with notability. There is so much news that is not notable. a good example of this on my site is the Newsline of Jesse Biter, a local businessman in Sarasota. http://newslines.org/jesse-biter/ He is clearly not notable for Wikipedia, but he has generated over 30 news articles. The reason I created my site, was to create a news archive about people, free from Wikipedia's many constraints.

Ms Alamuddin is not a celebrity in the Hollywood world, she's the fiance of Clooney, and until she does something notable in her own right, then the most she should get is a line on Clooney's page. I think you would agree that we would not put every girlfriend Clooney has had on Wikipedia just because of his celebrity status. I would personally cut down the Alexandra Kerry profile to the factual information about what she has done, and check each item for its notability. That she supported her father on the campaign trail is not notable. That she made a SuperPaC is notable, and so on...-- Sparkzilla talk! 16:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know. I'm personally on the fence when it comes to scrutinizing reliable sources. Like, will Star Tribune be reliable in your opinion? If so, I will be eager to substitute Daily Mail for Star Tribune if Lady Lotus doesn't like it.--Mishae (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on the report, and the person. Even the National enquirer has had notable scoops. IMHO blanket bans on sources are destructive. I am not all that interested in Ms Alamuddin, I am observing this issue as a way to examine Wikipedia's structural problems. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O' O.K. You know, I'm not interested in her either, but when a person gets a significant coverage, it is always welcomed on Wikipedia. Like lets say, my mom is an artist, but she doesn't exhibit her work, and neither do her friends which means they are not notable according to WP:ARTISTS. What we have here, is completely different situation. We have plenty of coverage on a person who despite the plethora of sources get deleted. I agree, if that person would have had a single source (and I vote delete on those, but not without searching for more first). O.K. Lets exclude Daily Mail and Radar, we still have 30 reliable sources saying the same thing as those that are not reliable. In fact, in my opinion, Lady Lotus exaggerated on what is RS and what is not as her POV. I checked WP:RSN and it turns out that New York Daily News and US Weekly can be used as an RS, so I don't know what she trying to get on?? Like, personally an American news report for me is more reliable then say Russian one (and I watch both). Like, I don't like Fox News, but other sources seem fine by me. Yes, Daily Mail and The Huffington Post are bad, but then why no body blacklisted them????--Mishae (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You still seem to be confusing newsworthiness ("but when a person gets a significant coverage") with what is suitable to be included in an encyclopedia. It is simply not true that "it is always welcomed on Wikipedia". Just because something has a source does not mean it should be included. Ms Alamuddin is simply not notable in her own right. It wouldn't matter if a million papers wrote about her.

The question is where to draw the line. The line on Wikipedia is arbitrary and results in these kinds of discussions. Ultimately the inclusion of pages like Amal Alamiddin, and the lack of clear rules on inclusion, devalues the encyclopedia.

I offer, by contrast, Ma Alamuddin's page on my site Newslines, where the standard of inclusion is much lower. http://newslines.org/amal-alamuddin/ Newslines is a news archive, and does not claim to be an encyclopedia. If you wish to avoid tiresome discussions about reliability of sources perhaps you can help out there. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Sparkzilla. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

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.
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. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the input at the ANI discussion [1] as well as my own investigation into your editing habits, I have blocked you for an indefinite period of time for using Wikipedia as a promotional device for your own profit. You were indef blocked once before for this, for five years, and unblocked because you convinced an admin you wouldn't do this again. As a large number of your edits are solely promotional, you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and frankly, your goals seem to be exactly the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: If the user is blocked indefinitely, shouldn't the block template be updated? It says he is blocked temporarily for spamming. Callmemirela (Talk) ♑ 07:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone fixed it. They changed the admin interface in Twinkle while I was on wikibreak, still haven't gotten used to it. Thanks for the note, I do like accuracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sparkzilla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Previous block was not related to self promotion at all. In fact, it was about the use of a magazine that I published as the authoritative source about the activities of a drug smuggler in Japan. There was nothing promotional about it -- and there was never any promotional complaint about the edits made to the page, and no-one ever mentioned that I was posting for promotional purposes. There was also no issue about the factual information contained in the articles, only that I should not post them because I was the publisher. The COI complaint was in fact a bogus way to stop the use of the information my magazine had investigated on the smuggler being added to the page. As a result the page continues to be extremely non-NPOV about the smuggler's innocence. As for the current issue. I was already in agreement with the other admins that I would not post links to my site, even if they were to illustrate a point or to show how an alternative way of crowdsourcing news works. My discussions of AfD were purely about the difference about notability and newsworthiness, a distinction that causes many editors greif. Having built a site that deals with these issues differently, I had hoped to educate people on the difference. However, I agree that AfDs are not the best place to have these discussions, as it can be seen to be self-serving. As I also pointed out in the ANI discussion, any links back to my site were 1) in context of the AfD discussions with respect to the boundary between news and notability 2) only placed on the talk pages 3) were few in number and 4) I have been open that I am the owner of the site. This complaint, and this block is heavy handed, uses a false representation of a prior block, does not deal with my edits in context, and does not support the consensus of admins on the page.-- Sparkzilla talk! 20:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Your edits in 2007 were in obvious and entirely inappropriate COI and self promotion. You were unblocked on the theory that you understood this, and that you wouldn't repeat the same behaviour. Your recent edits are more self promotion in exactly the same vein. This block is overdue, and it's well supported by policy and consensus. Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For the record, I didn't look at a single AFD. I looked at your linking your website on Jimbo's page, Signpost, etc. Self-promotion is self-promotion. No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it is still a pig. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't look at the AfDs, nor the detail of the previous ban. Event the evidence you did look at does not support your contention: The Jimo page diff and the Signpost diff are both completely in context and reasonable posts that are part of the discussion about Wikipedia fundraising. They are not on main space and are part of talk discussions. Sure, I could have posted my entire blog posts about the topic to the pages, but a link is more than sufficient.

The discussion on ANI was about AfD posts, which as I explain above are part of a wider discussion about news vs notability. Looking back, I can see how the two or three posts I made to people's talk pages can appear self serving, however, the ANI admins already assessed the edits and did not recommend a ban (my site was added to the spam list). Your assessment of the Jimbo/Signpost posts is inaccurate and irrelevant, and you have made a heavy-handed reaction to a problem that was not a severe as presented (maybe ten links over a six month period, most of which are in context), and had already been resolved by the admins on the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a judge. I'm under no obligation to consider any of the information at ANI, and I barely skimmed it. Instead, I went and independently found reason to block you. You can't use AFD or the ANI to wikilawyer out of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason is completely bogus -- both the Jimbo Wales and Signpost postings are completely in context of adding to the discussion on both pages that were about Wikipedia's fundraising. Those links were months ago, and were not even challenged at the time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those two edits where not the reason, they were examples that are easy for anyone to find in your edit history and are indicative of your other edits. I'm 30 years into marketing, I know bullshit when I smell it. You are here to promote your business, not build an encyclopedia. Your actions speak to this. It doesn't matter how slowly you edit, how eloquently you complain, what matters is the CONTENT of your edits, which all too often were pointers to your own website. This is the second time you've been blocked for this same basic activity, so go cry to your forum buddies all you want, maybe they will be too lazy or subjective to look at your edits, but the edits speak for themselves, if anyone bothers to LOOK. You may always use WP:UTRS, WP:BASC, put up another unblock banner, have any number of other admin review if you like. And by all mean, no admin needs to ask my permission or consultation to modify this block. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, but you said clearly above that your ban was based only on those two posts, which were not part of the original ANI discussion, were never contested at the time, and are totally reasonable as part of the discussion on Wikipedia's fundraising. If you had taken the time to research the ANI discussion, which you "skimmed" then you would have seen that it was already resolved to the satisfaction of the existing admins. Your aggressive attitude to my participation in off-wiki forums, and you dislike of my comments on Wikipedia's fundraising (the two comments you singled out) seems to be driving this ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is kind of funny, since I'm an outspoken critic of our fundraising, many actions of the WMF, and generally considered a Reformer, someone who tries to fix from the inside instead of crying foul or simply pouts on other websites. And this isn't a ban, it is a block. For someone who professes to understand the policy and how this is too harsh, you should at least familiarize yourself with the policy first. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sparkzilla (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This ban is too harsh for the supposed crime. Firstly, the above discussion shows that the banning admin did so on the basis of two links that were not contested by any other user, were not contested at the time, and were made months ago. Those links were not spam, and were part of a discussion about Wikipedia's fundraising. While they do link to my own site they provided relevant information to the discussion. The banning admin admits he "barely skimmed" the ANI discussion about my edits to AfD posts. That ANI discussion had already been resolved to the satisfaction of the two other admins on the page, with whom I had agreed not to add links to my site, nor to mention my site even to educate other users about the difference between newsworthiness and notability. The other admins accepted that there was a relevant point to my posts, but that the AfD discussion was probably not the best place to place it. I also admitted that the posts could be seen as self-serving. Fair enough, but it does not merit a ban. The situation was resolved by the original admins and myself in a consensual manner well before the heavy handed approach of Dennis Brown, who swooped in and made his decision not based on the ANI discussion at all, but on two uncontested links. In his later post he says he smells BS, and tries to say that thos posts are indicative of the others, however other posts are in the context of a discussion about the AFDs, and in any case that discussion was already resolved amicably. Secondly, the admin who confirmed the ban say that my previous COI was the same as this one, when in fact they were totally different situations. The first COI was about the conflict of using material in a magazine that I published that was the only evidence that proved a drug smuggler was lying. No-one in that discussion thought I was trying to promote the magazine -- the concern was that I was trying to add information that I was too closely related to (I was also a leading expert in the case). The editor who confirmed the ban says that my magazine was not a reliable source. He is simply repeating a false allegation: At that time the magazine was a 30,000 80-page full color weekly magazine with a fully professional staff, and was the No. 1 English magazine in Japan, equivalent to The Village Voice or Time Out. There was never any promotional complaint, the issue was entirely about whether I could add the information from my own magazine, which had been written not by me, but by a journalist, and was the only independent investigation into the situation. In fact the issue was resolved, and once again another admin swooped in and banned me, after the fact. So the two COIs are not remotely the same. Thirdly, Dennis Brown's aggressive comments about my off-wiki activities, and focus on the two posts about Wikipedia's fundraising, lead me to think that he thinks I should be banned for that activity alone. Finally, as I said in the ANI discussion, and was agreed there, I am happy not to post any links or other promotion of my site even in the guise of education. Thank you for your consideration. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:40, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having looked over the COIN thread, the ANI thread and your comments here, even assuming that your argument above is valid the fact remains that you have been very evidently spamming Wikipedia, and you violated if not the terms at least the spirit of the lifting of the previous ban, which was hinged on you not spamming. Spam is spam. Arguing that this is a "different COI" or a different type of spam is just absurd. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 04:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.