Talk:Shoreline Entertainment

Creation
I am creating this page on behalf of Shoreline Entertainment and Morris Ruskin as I am an employee of the company. The bio and photograph, which are also posted on imdb, are written by myself and therefore there cannot be a copyright issue. In fact, if you check the imdb page, the items are listed as being "from Shoreline Entertainment". Additioanlly, the text here is a rephrased and summarized version of what is on imdb.

This is our official company profile and the photo of Morris we had taken ourselves. The profile also is whats used on our web site and press releases.

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Mikey younesi 22:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC) (version without headers)

http://imdb.com/name/nm0750830/bio it clearly shows here that the mini biography was posted by us. if this is not enough, please let me know what to do.

I edited the text so that it no longer matches the imdb page. Let me know if this works. Also, I have read the Conflict of Interest page and have made sure to keep a neutral, informative tone on the article.

If there are no other problems, as there shouldn't be, please remove the speedy deletion text box. Thanks--66.238.87.175 23:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)Mikey Younesi


 * Ok, you've made your case for not speedying, and there is clearly notability here, but there are some things seriously wrong with this article. First, it was improper for you to write an article about your company. Despite your statement above, the article is not neutral, as it currently sits. It clearly reads like a promotional piece, and Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote or otherwise write about your company. Your article reads like spam, and I'm half tempted to delete it for that reason alone, as Wikipedia takes a really dim view of spam and people using the encyclopedia to promote their companies. I'll give you one chance to clean this up, and if it's not done, I'll consider this spam and treat it accordingly. Please review our Manual of style for things like use of bold text.  AK Radecki  00:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Instead of threatening to delete an article which you yourself agree has merit, could you please guide me as to how it would better fit the intent of this program. I tried my best, and went through the review process of several wiki-editors, and I believe the the article is neutral and informative. If you feel there are segments that are embellished or subjective, please point them out specifically and I will be happy to conform to the norms as outlined. This article is about an important and noteworthy company - deleting it for imperfect style would be harmful to the goal of wikipedia. --207.215.252.21 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Mikey Younesi

I've made some additional changes - hopefully this should suffice--207.215.252.21 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Mikey Younesi


 * I'm sorry you feel like I'm threatening, I'm not. I'm merely informing you as to what will happen per our policies should the article's tone not be siginficantly changed. Our criteria for deletion includes this: "Pages which exclusively promote a company, product, group, service, or person and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic". Find a paper encyclopedia and read the tone of any article and then compare it to what you have written. You'll find that yours is written like a sales or promotional brochure, while an encyclopedia is written in a rather dry, academic style. You have liberally used bolding, which is not appropriate, and the article lacks a lead paragraph. The additional changes, unfortunately, do not suffice. I had suggested that you read the material I posted on your talk page, which covers what should - and shouldn't - be in an article, but it appears that you either haven't or have chosen to ignore it. I don't mean to be rude or harsh to a new editor, but you have continued to edit in a conflict-of-interest situation when you were advised not to, you have continued to upload photos that are in violation of our copyright rules. If you intend to be a regular editor around here, I strongly suggest you walk away from the articles where you have a conflict of interest, and edit in a neutral area. There's plenty of film subjects that could really use your input. The fact that you have choosen to continue editing in a conflict-of-interest situation, despite having been counselled not to, strongly suggests that your interest isn't in Wikipedia, but rather only in these particular articles, because they promote the company you work for. If you are being directed by your boss to do this, I'm sorry that you are being put in an awkward situation, but your boss needs to understand that this is simply not what Wikipedia is for. Now, if you are genuinely interested in learning better how to do all this editing stuff, read the material I gave you.  AK Radecki  05:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm unsure about what "material you posted on my talk page" that I can use as guidelines. Again, i'm new to this, so if there's anything you posted that isn't in the discussion above, I'm not sure where to find it. As for using encyclopedic style, I feel this is now as neutral as I could get it. If there are any further suggestions, I encourage you to improve upon them so that the article may be useful and not read like a promotional brochure, as this was not my intention. Again, if this article needs to be adjusted, so be it, but please don't delete it as this would be counterproductive and unjustified.

Also, after reading a plethora of other Wikipedia pages on filmmakers, producers, companies (both film and in other industries), and general bios, I feel the tone of this is absolutely within the realm of acceptable wikipedia articles. I have simply followed the format and style I have seen in these pages. I would be happy to name examples should you need them.--207.215.252.21 06:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Mikey Younesi


 * Ok, I had a little time, so I trimmed it up. The Morris material belongs over on his page. I've removed all the hype language that made it look like a promotional piece. Now that you have an example of how it should be done, if you want to go fix those other pages you were referring to, that would be a good thing.  AK Radecki  14:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)