Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:43, 20 November 2009

October 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, MonaVie. While Misplaced Pages welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Dac04 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request

Hi there. I noticed you left a request for a third opinion on WP:3 involving the MonaVie article. I have edited your entry to the list so that it corresponds with the instructions on the third opinion page to provide a shorter, more neutral description of the dispute. I suggest you create a new section at Talk:MonaVie that details what is involved in the dispute and how you think it should be resolved, and invite the other editor involved to share their side. Once you do this, it will greatly increase your chances of receiving a third opinion. Thanks! Mildly Mad_C 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of your recent edits

Hi! I'm concerned that your recent edits may not be appropriate, so I've asked for neutral administrators to review them here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I've changed the link, which was to the wrong place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, possible COI, violations of Neutral Point of View

Above you mention that you are reviewing this article as part of a project. Is that an academic project, or is it a project sponsored by the company or it's public relations agency? I see that you have been edit warring to sanitize the article of sourced criticism. Misplaced Pages is not concerned with presenting companies in a favorable light. We reflect the view of reliable publications. This company appears to have been the subject of considerable criticism within reliable sources, and thus the article may include that criticism in proportion to what is found in the sources. Even if you are right that the criticism is excessive, you must not edit war to get your way. Instead, use dispute resolution to settle disagreements with other editors. Thank you. Jehochman 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

MonaVie Active

I've redirected this to MonaVie. I'm not sure I see the need for a separate article on the subject. Perhaps any new material can be added there? --Bfigura 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my question is still whether the product is notable enough that it merits a separate article? If you think so, feel free to create it, but just bear in mind that you need to demonstrate the notability of the product (as distinct from the company). Best, --Bfigura 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the page. -- Bfigura 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I've looked at the page, and it appears to be largely promotional material for the drink/company, and not really distinct from the MonaVie article. Just to let you know, I plan to take the article to AfD. --Bfigura 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of MonaVie Active

I have nominated MonaVie Active, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Misplaced Pages's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/MonaVie Active. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bfigura 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Ott jeff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your promotional contribs.

Please stop. I don't mean to be rude, but you are at a high risk of getting blocked indefinitely, as explained by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) on WP:AFD/MonaVie Active.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your promotional contribs.

Please stop. I don't mean to be rude, but you are at a high risk of getting blocked indefinitely, as explained by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) on WP:AFD/MonaVie Active. As he had explained, you only work on MonaVie related articles.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

Having reviewed your contributions, you have not demonstrated an understanding that promotional editing is not allowed, nor have you showed any desire to change this pattern. Despite being warned and blocked for this behaviour, you have continued to insert promotion into the MonaVie article; so per this ANI thread, I have blocked your account indefinitely. You may appeal using {{unblock}} or by following the instructions at WP:APPEAL. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Writing your own article on Misplaced Pages

One of the things I wish that Misplaced Pages had was an example of a before and after article that would show writers with COI how poorly their articles look next to well-written neutral[REDACTED] articles. You're not going to get free advertising with this article. Readers are going to look at silly phrases like, "all has not been rosie for monavie," and instantly take this article for what it is: advertising.

You're not doing the company any good. In my opinion the biggest reason that COI users should earn blocks is for writing badly. MonaVie, if it's a company that is known and written about in the press deserves to have an article as well-written as the best[REDACTED] article can be.

And, well-written article does not mean barely-disguised, rather badly written advertisement.

Please reconsider your position regarding this article and leave it alone. If you do, I will ask some good editors to check the article and rewrite it to represent a well-written[REDACTED] article.

You simply won't be allowed to use[REDACTED] as free advertising, so you might want to think about this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on. To learn the in and outs of Misplaced Pages editing I did what was writen in the new contribution section tutorials; I found a subject, learn about the subject and attempted to make edits. While making the edits there were people there that would simply delete my edits (it was very fustrating). After trying my hand at editing an article I decided today to maybe create a page myself. Because of the knowledge that I had gained from the topic I had been covering, I decided to write something along the same lines. I fully expected that the article would be edited but figured atleast I could see how a wiki editor would fix my mistakes. I wrote the article, walked away from my computer and returned to find that I an banned from editing. I completely don't understand this place and what is going on.Ott jeff (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's work on it. The administrator who asked that you be banned agreed to support dropping the ban if you agree to stay away from the MonaVie and Acai articles. This does not mean that you have to stop editing in an area that interests you, but other editors will require that you follow rules about creating and editing articles. To help with this I suggest you start by editing in user space. I can show you how to do it, and I will be glad to help you, and other editors will, learn how to write and edit articles on wikipedia.

The most important thing to remember is that this is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. This requires community consensus about editing. So, if a lot of editors disagree with you, then stepping back to understand why helps. I think that everyone has been very aggressive with you, partly out of frustration with what appears to be your conflict of interest with the company. Still, a little more patience from the start might have helped. Also, because it is an encyclopedia, the sources have to be secondary or tertiary sources that are considered fairly neutral and reliable. You can't write an article about a company using only that company's information to write the article. It all has to come from the news or journals or reliable sources in some way.

The MonaVie article is a seriously problematic article. It shows that editors have been edit warring over it. A group of editors will rewrite it to a neutral article. There are other editors, not involved in the dispute, and not as impatient with the article as I am, who can check and monitor it for neutrality.

Appeal your block by agreeing to not edit the MonaVie or Acai articles, find something else you'd like to edit, and I will discuss how you can appropriately edit and improve a[REDACTED] article. It can be an existing article or a new article you would like to write. Let me know by posting here. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)