User talk:Spindoctor69

Blocked as a sockpuppet

You have been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of a banned or blocked user. Blocked or banned users are not allowed to edit Wikipedia; if you are banned, all edits under this account may be reverted.

Details of how to appeal a block can be found at: Wikipedia:Appealing a block.

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Spindoctor69! I am Andreworkney and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! 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! Oh yeah, I almost forgot, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Andreworkney ^talk_contribs 15:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Geronimo20 (talk) 22:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles, as you did to Fish Information and Services. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Geronimo20 (talk) 22:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advert Tag

The advert tag does not mean the information in the article is untrue. It means it is written like an add - that is overly positive and self-promotional. Also, the companies website is not exactly an independent source. Please see NPOV for guidelines on how to clear this up.--ThaddeusB (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. 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. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention to this warning --Matilda ^talk 21:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services

There are problems with this article you have created about a commercial web site. You use the company itself as your only source. You make highly dubious claims, for example, that it is the "standard for the global seafood industry information on the Internet" and that "the site is considered to be the most reliable and comprehensive worldwide fishing, seafood, and aquaculture information provider of its kind". It is just not good enough to keep citing their website as the only source for these provocative claims.

You also claim, with no citation other than the company itself, that the site gets around 330,000 views per month. You could confirm this by looking at Alexa. They give the site a traffic rank of 329,535 with a weekly average of 0.00025% of global internet traffic. This translates to about 130 billion global rate of internet page views. Now I don't know what the global rate of internet page views actually is – you'd think that would be easy to find – I'm still looking. But if you can establish that 130 billion is about right, then there would be the citations you need.

Alexa says the company has 0-25 employees, contradicting the 50–60 claimed by the company. This Spanish based site gets more traffic from Myanmar than anywhere else, and doesn't seem to have a real global presence. I doubt whether it really warrants a Wikipedia entry at all. It certainly doesn't warrant the promotion you gave it across Wikipedia when you plastered inappropriate links concerning it on a number of core fisheries and fishing pages.

You also created a new account, apparently for the specific purpose of promoting this dubious site, and you called yourself Spindoctor69. Don't you think other editors might wonder at your motives, and whether you have some personal involvement with this site? And I see 86.155.22.136 is making serependitious interventions for you. I trust you are not using a sockpuppet.--Geronimo20 (talk) 01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a promotional arm for FIS. As such there are rules that must be followed. Sometimes it is frustrating trying to follow the rules, but that is what this game is about. Sofar, your article just mirrors what FIS say about themselves on their own web site, even down to details like what their subscriptions cost. This is why it has a tag saying that it reads like an advertisement. In particular, you must be able to verify statements. You make debatable claims, such as that the site is the "standard for the global seafood industry information on the Internet", an honour that I would think applies to the FAO. You can make statements like that if you support them with independent verification, otherwise they should be removed. Also, there is the issue of notability, and you haven't established that. A commercial site with a traffic rank of 329,535 doesn't, on the face of it, seem hugely notable. You mention that Infrafish is the main competitor to FIS, but Infrafish doesn't have a Wikipedia entry either. However, I'm coming round to the idea that FIS does warrant an entry, but the current version needs to be confined to clearly factual matters, and not promotional ones. Please read and consider the material in the inline-links before you reply. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I have rewritten the article. It is still shaky, because the only reference is to the companies own web site. I reinstated the categories you removed. All article must have the correct categories. They appear at the very bottom of the article. You may not like it that I removed your picture, but the reader of the article is only one click away from seeing the real thing. When you add something to an article you should always ask: Is this really necessary, or has the reader already got all the access he needs? I also removed the link to fishbase. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with FIS. The section on head offices is no good, and should go. You don't even give the contact information, and anyone who wants that stuff can get it off the company site. Most readers are not interested in that, and it just clutters the article.

What you are now free to do, if you want, is to find some interesting information about the company, from outside the company, and add that. Normally you find stuff on google and news sources. Unfortunately FIS is a widely used acronym, and you will find such a clutter of information that you will be lucky to find anything to do with the FIS you are after. This shouldn't be a problem with Infrafish. So good luck, and happy editing! --Geronimo20 (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability decisions are not limited to the wikiproject. I do not believe the company meets our guideline on notability for organizations and companies. I will be nominating for deletion. Note although you say I have also esablished a list of sources which support the information provided - the only source that is not from the company is the Alexa ranking page - that ranking does not establish notability. --Matilda ^talk 21:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not call me a vandal in edit summaries ! --Matilda ^talk 22:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you didn't follow the suggestions above, and find information about the company from outside the company. It might have helped also if you had done what you said you would do, and entered an article for the main competitor, Infrafish. Instead, you resumed trying to advertise the site, which again raises the issue of what your personal investment is. You a playing a different ball game, and it is not the encyclopaedia game. So the issue is now opened to the wider community, and if you wish, you can plead your case here. --Geronimo20 (talk) 00:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we take a step away from the heat over the article

I'd very much like to get back to assuming good faith, please. That works on both sides of the keep/delete discussion.

The article is not wonderful, that is clear. And there are very few Ghits for the organisation, that is also clear. It would behove us not to get into argument and counter argument about spamminess, and simply to do something encyclopaedic: to enhance the article in such a way that it is a true representation of the size, merits, demerits and notability of the organisation concerned.

One article in a Norwegian paper may even be enough, depending upon what it says, or it may be no such thing. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of wee points about how you discuss an AfD (Article for Deletion). It's usual to initially state your position - you should put * Keep - at the start of your initial entry. Also, when you signoff, signoff in the same line at the end of your comment, and not on a new line (I adjusted your signoffs when I added my * Keep). --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services Deletion

You wrote: Hello again, I think a consensus may have been reached to keep the article. Obviously it is your responsability as an administrator and the person you nominated the article for deletion to close the deletion page. Can you please check if it is appropriate to now close the page? I will add the "now closing" tag in the discussion. Spindoctor69 (talk) 18:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As an involved editor (who happens to be an admin) it is not appropriate for me to close the debate. Similarly it is not appropriate for you as an involved editor to add any further tags to the debate. --Matilda ^talk 20:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

with ref to your suggestion on my ignoring all rules - thanks but I will do so when I choose to - I have the read the guidelines - I suggest that you can read our guidelines on notability! --Matilda ^talk 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have no evidence that I "blindly follow the rules" . Please note the policy that you should comment on content not on the contributor.--Matilda ^talk 13:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest

Given the single purpose of your edits to date, I note you have not yet had your attention drawn to our conflict of interest guideline - hence:

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Fish Information and Services, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Matilda ^talk 03:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Personal Attacks

Your two edits - and comments to Matilda - who is a well respected and long standing editor as per this edit are dangerously close to a blockable ofence. Your previous history of calling Matilda a vandal is also inappropriate. Towards that end you should carefully heed the request that you Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --VS ^talk 05:42, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet report

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69 for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Matilda ^talk 06:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

September 2008

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for using multiple sock-puppet accounts at AfD and elsewhere as proven here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Spindoctor69. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. --VS ^talk 12:49, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Info and Services

Hello, I noticed that you had input in a previus deletion discussion. The article looks like it may be deleted by the same group of people who started the first discussion, without imput from you or others who contributed previously. I thought you may liketo know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.246.82.69 (talk) 02:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]