User talk:Tedwyer

September 2019

This is your only warning; if you continue to use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. MelanieN (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You have been spamming names like Santa Monica Today and San Diego Today into literally dozens of city articles. But these are not real news sites; at most they are Twitter and Instagram accounts. In many cases the link you provided goes nowhere. They do not belong at Wikipedia.

You added your OWN name to the notable people section of the Claremont, California article. I have removed it, because only people who have Wikipedia articles about them get listed there.

It is clear that you have a conflict of interest and are here to promote yourself rather than to improve the encyclopedia. Any further activity of this kind will result in a block from editing. -- MelanieN (talk) 22:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:

{{unblock|reason=You have responded with some very damning conclusions regarding our news sites and I want to take a step back and provide you with information that should help you understand our news sites in an accurate way. What we are not – CLICK BAIT. SPAMMERS. ADVERTISERS.

Using Wikipedia’s definition “Clickbait is a form of false advertisement which uses hyperlink text or a thumbnail link that is designed to attract attention and entice users to follow that link and read, view, or listen to the linked piece of online content, with a defining characteristic of being deceptive, typically sensationalized or misleading.”

Looking at any of the news sites that were mentioned, you cannot reasonably conclude that there is any false advertising, anything sensationalized, deceptive or misleading on any CALocal website. To claim that we are CLICK BAIT under the Wikipedia definition is in itself misleading. And defamatory. The websites clearly state their purpose, clearly provide attribution in the title, source and a big colorful link, and there is nothing on the site that could lead to your conclusion that the purpose of the site is deceptive or false. With the exception of the small ad block at the bottom of some of the web sites pages we don't make a nickel from any link on any of our web sites . It is a news aggregation site that provides the same “snippets” of news that Google and Bing have provided us via paid search API's and we are no more CLICK BAIT than a Google search. If you’d care to really understand what these sites do and how they benefit our readers please visit the ABOUT page on SanBernardino.Today and at least inform your conclusions and if you look at our efforts with an open mind then at least we had a fair appraisal. We're good guys performing a unique service. But in any case, as it stands, your conclusion that it’s not a valid news source is your opinion and if Wikipedia allows you to choose what news is and isn’t without an open discussion then we’ll discuss that down the road.

Further, the assertion that we have added our site name to the articles that are reported on our news sites is absurd. The internet does that. The page that the link resides on is picked up by the Bing and Google bots and linked back to the website by Bing and Google on their search pages. That’s the way the web works. The Drupal CMS system we use automatically creates a page for each node that begins with the site name. That’s how web navigation works. It is a link on a page. XYZ.com/link. We are not adding our name to the articles to create SPAM and to state that in a public forum like Wikpedia that we are participating in a deceptive business practice is defamatory. And simply erroneous. I’m sure that wasn’t your intent but that’s how it looks.

That we are somehow “using Twitter and Instagram” to perform some deception or for some advantage is also erroneous. We have a one week old Twitter account with 3 postings. We have no other social media accounts.

“We are Spammers and were posting advertising”. The News Media/Newspaper section of the city Wiki pages that we addressed are incomplete. They do not accurately report the news sources for the cities they represent and our omissions are not the only one. We added without hyperbole or any text that might reasonably be understood as advertising, the name of a digital publication that had been omitted. Some of these news sites have been around for decades. But, you’ve attached the worst possible motives to our legitimate actions.

Let me add one last thing. The link Failure rate can be no higher than that of Google or Bing. It is their links that we provide. We cannot not control what the publishers do.

We don’t believe that there was any malice in your conclusions. I’m sure that you deal with SPAM and other malfeasance and are simply being protective of your charge. We have the same issues. But we need to have a real conversation about this and we’d like to be treated with a bit of respect and not have this shade thrown our way. We are not spammers and we are not click bait.

ADDITION- Clarification. Further we did not insert these into "literally dozens" of city articles. If you can support this, please do. And in no case did we provide a link that goes "nowhere".

Thank You. Tedwyer (talk) 22:10, 24 December 2019 (UTC)}}