User talk:MyWikiBiz/Archive 1

Blocked

Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Jimbo Wales for the following reason (see our blocking policy): paid editing on behalf of customers Your IP address is 207.8.215.81.

Jimbo Wales said he would remove the block he imposed on us. Thank you, Jimbo. See below for [Very productive phone call], to which we will reply, after the block has been formally lifted.

I've sent two e-mails to Jimbo, plus talked with him again this morning. He said he tried to lift the block on August 9th, but that something was wrong with his browser. If another admin can unblock me, maybe that would alleviate some of Jimbo's trouble. Or, would some admin please prompt Jimbo again, on my behalf? This is frustrating not to be able to join in on conversations taking place elsewhere.

I am not in a position to lift a block imposed by Jimbo. The only way I'd have to prompt Jimbo would be to email and since you've already done that, it would seem pointless. I can of course see Jimbos message here, but since I'm not privy to the discussion and if other issues needed to be resolved first etc. etc. I'll leave the unblock request in place, another admin might know more about this. --pgk^(talk) 18:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has unblocked you. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Jimbo has failed to unblock me. Again. It's Friday afternoon, and I'm still blocked. But Jimbo says he's forwarded the problem to other Admins to try to clear it. Apparently it's the whole IP address issue. -- MyWikiBiz 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked two IP addresses that appeared to be affected by the autoblocker (an automatic function that blocks underlying IP addresses of blocked users). Try editing now and let me know if you see any more problems. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You rule, Deathphoenix. The League of Awesomeness salutes you! The home PC is liberated now, and I'll let you know on Monday if the office PC is still afflicted or not. Thank you. -- MyWikiBiz 20:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see that you're unblocked now. :-) The office PC should be fine now, I think the IP addresses were hit at the time of your initial block, but if they're still affected, just let me know. --Deathphoenix ʕ 06:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Companies established in 1997 etc

Thanks for your comments regarding the recat of the Norman Technologies article from the Category:1997 establishments category to the Category:Companies established in 1997. The new category is a sub cat of the first one and so Norman Technologies still falls under 1997 establishments category. Also the new cat fulfils a similar purpose to the Category:Educational institutions established in 1997. The benefits of this recat are:

• The 1997 establishments category doesn't get bloated (it may need other sub cats in future).
• Readers are able to readily pick out a significant subsection of the 1997 establishments by clicking on the Companies established in 1997.

I hope this answers your concerns. Greenshed 11:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Will I do the rest of the 1997 re-cats? - Yes when I get round to it. I currently working on Educational re-cats, establishments in general (with a focus on pre-1900 stuff) and building the remaining Companies established in year x (probably going back to somewhere between 1850 and 1900). Also, I want to be sure that the articles I recat really are companies (if the article says it's a company that helps me recat it quickly). If you want to lend a hand then the support would be welcome. Greenshed 16:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I too am not sure about what's going on with record labels. A martian reading the wikipedia would think that 21st century earthlings are spending most of their time starting record companies. Greenshed 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we spamming?

Not surprisingly, we would say, "Of course not." MyWikiBiz follows both the letter and the spirit of the Wikipedia "law", accepting only clients that pass the notability tests employed by Wikipedia administration. Follow the discussion at [[1]]. In short, we try to write good, intelligent, informative articles about companies and organizations that deserve to be on Wikipedia. --MyWikiBiz 13:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:FamilyAndWorkplaceConnectionLogo.png

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:FamilyAndWorkplaceConnectionLogo.png. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Bkell (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the fair-use rationale looks fine. You should actually use the {{logo}} tag for logos that you think qualify as fair use. See the complete list of copyright tags at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Role account?

Hi there. Is this account being used by more than one person at the business? If so, we urge your employees to create one account each - it is forbidden in almost all cases for accounts to be used by more than one person on Wikimedia projects. See m:Role account for more information. Thanks, Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• No, the account is being used by just one person. --MyWikiBiz 02:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

(copied from User talk:Samuel Blanning)

• Thanks for letting us know about "Role accounts" at MyWikiBiz. While I didn't know the policy, fortunately, I'm the only person who has been using this account to make any edits or changes. Now that I know the policy, it shall become our corporate policy, too. Kindly yours... --MyWikiBiz 02:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Some suggestions

Thank you for your contributions; I'm sure that between you and your eventual competitors, Wikipedia's coverage of business (at least in developed countries) will be thorough. However, there are a few ways you could serve both your clients and Wikipedia better:

• Presumably, your clients give permission for their logos to be used on Wikipedia. You can indicate this by tagging your uploads {{withpermission}} as well as {{logo}}. This will decrease the chance of the image's deletion and may make it easier to reproduce the image in other editions of Wikipedia.
• Many of the articles you have worked on, such as Gregory Kohs and Digital Leisure, are stubs. Adding the appropriate stub tag(s) will invite organized, specialized teams of editors to expand them.
• Some of the articles you work on, such as Rockfish Seafood Grill, fail to establish the importance of their subject matter. There must be dozens, maybe hundreds, of seafood chains with at least eight locations.
• Wikipedia is in many other languages besides English! Some of your businesses may benefit from exposure on other Wikipedias.

NeonMerlin 00:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Verifyability

Verifyability is as important as being unbiased (NPOV). Please do not include information that is not properly sourced from trustworthy sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary verification. For ordinary claims, what a company says about itself is good enough. I highly recommend use of <ref></ref><references/>. WAS 4.250 15:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC) I wrote this after looking at Gregory Kohs. WAS 4.250 15:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Unblock request

Hi, I noticed that you added an unblock request. Unfortunately, you were blocked by Jimbo, and I'm pretty sure he did this in an official capacity. It is highly unlikely that you will find anyone willing to undo Jimbo's actions, so you will need to directly contact Jimbo Wales to appeal his block. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Reply I figured as much. I spoke with him this morning for 20 seconds, but he had a dentist appointment, so he said he'd call me back this afternoon. I'm just a little surprised that the block would come before that conversation. Oh, well. -- MyWikiBiz 17:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Okay. As long as you've started the contact process with Jimbo, that should be fine in terms of the unblock request. Jimbo may or may not unblock you, but I doubt any other administrator will. Best wishes, Deathphoenix ʕ 17:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Vanity pages

"While an article about a little-known company, say, should not automatically be taken as a vanity article, it is preferable for the initial author not to be an owner, employee of, or investor in the company; likewise, an article about a little-known musician or band should preferably not be by the musician, a member, or a manager, roadie, groupie, etc" - one imagines this is why your activities are not particularly welcome here. ed g2s • talk 18:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Reply I am neither an owner, employee of, or investor in the companies about which I have edited articles about. So, your point is? -- MyWikiBiz 18:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

The point is the spirit of the law, not the letter - and that is people who have a personal or professional relationship with the company should not be starting articles about them. ed g2s • talk 18:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Very productive phone call

I just got off the phone with MyWikiBiz and reached what I think is a very favorable agreement about this sort of thing.

The big problem with paid editing on wikipedia is NOT that someone is getting paid to write, but rather that this causes a rather obvious conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety. This was my problem, and they immediately saw why this was not in our interest or theirs.

Rather, what we brainstormed about as a nice mutually beneficial ground would be for them to charge customers for writing high quality NPOV articles about their companies, with sources and verifiability, but for them to work with well known and respected wikipedians who are NOT being financially compensated to actually enter the articles into Wikipedia upon their own independent judgment. This will avoid, for MyWikiBiz, a lot of sad fighting with us which is likely to be ugly and unproductive all around.

This preserves our independence as a volunteer editing body, while at the same time supporting the creation of high quality NPOV content. I am very pleased with this idea.--Jimbo Wales 18:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Question: What is the website that MyWikiBiz will be posting the articles on? JoshuaZ 05:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

See Press Release - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with Jimbo on this one. This just means more work that the rest of us have to do without being paid; I don't think we can just assume that this COI will cause edit warring or lead people to discredit Wikipedia until it actually starts happening. NeonMerlin 20:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the actual paying customers of MyWikiBiz should simply insert the contents of his work, then? rootology (T) 22:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not? I'm sure if MyWikiBiz does get into any edit wars, it will mean bad press and they'll learn their lesson fast. NeonMerlin 23:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I prefer it this way. Since MyWikiBiz is open about the fact that he's being paid, we can have reasonable NPOV and AfD discussions and not have to guess about his intentions. The alternative is that he just gets a new account and this kind of thing is harder to detect and police. He has been nothing but civil, so far.--Kchase T 22:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC) BTW, sorry for taling about you like you're not here; and welcome to wikipedia! It should be quite the adventure.--Kchase T 03:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not the individual. The issue is how to create an NPOV Wikipedia. For example, Jimbo edited his own bio. Do I have a problem with Jimbo doing that? No. He's ok. Just like this MyWikiBiz guy is ok. But just like the principle of no autobiographical editing must be upheld to deal with systematic POV editing, so too the principle of no paid direct editing must be upheld to deal with systematic POV editing due to that also. WAS 4.250 02:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Related Proposal

Please see Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest created by User:Eloquence 10 August 2006 in this regard. WAS 4.250 22:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)