User talk:Cruisemates

December 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. -MBK004 21:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. -MBK004 21:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello - I strongly disagree that I was engaging in advertising. Any links that I included go to informational websites that do NOT sell anything. I am a recognized journalist in the field to which I was contributing, and I was adding information that I felt was vital and additive to the page I was working on. In no way was I engaged in any advertising and I would ask you to prove that I was. I would like to know who I can appeal this to as I feel you have misjudged my intentions. Cruisemates (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if you want to talk about "soapbox" considerations I suggest you look at inclusions by "cruisejunkie" on the same page regarding "Hurricane Katrina." That was such a small and innocuous event in othe overall scope of the article that it is ridiculous to even bring it up. The man is a known industry agitator Cruisemates (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for what I do not know about wiki coding, and I hope you get my messages. Cruisemates (talk) 22:19, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

ONE FINAL NOTE: CruiseMates, the website for which I am the editor, is one of the premier web sites of Internet Brands, the parent company of Wikitravel.org. I hope that would help to establish my credibility to add to Wikipedia. Cruisemates (talk) 22:35, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Your actions are the issue here. Your account has been used for sole purpose of adding links to a website with which you have a clear and self-stated conflict of interest.  That conflict results in any additions of the link appearing as self-promotion of the site with which you have the conflict.  In addition, your very username could be in violation of Wikipedia's username policy as it's clear that due to the COI, the username is promotional for that site.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I am new at this, but as I read COI definitions it says "When editors write to promote their own interests, their contributions often show a characteristic lack of connection to anything the general reader might want to consult as a reference." - THAT CERTAINLY DOES NOT DESCRIBE WHAT I DID. The links I added are considered vital and important within the cruise industry, they are unbiased, not promotional or self-promotional, and they are certainly additive information for the subject at hand.

If you are to say that about me then I would have to argue that all of the other links on the page have the same issue - self-promotional.

The way you explain it, the only people that would be allowed to use CruiseMates as a source of information would be people NOT affiliated with CruiseMates. That hardly makes sense.

I re-iterate, I am not selling anything at my website, nor am I promoting myself in the website. I only included links to informational sources.

I fully understand your concerns. I just believe that you are mistaken in saying what I have done is not additive to the web site and purely self promotional. Your goal is to provide information on topics of which I am an expert. For what purpose is "external links" or the ability to edit an article if it is not for experts like me to contribute? Cruisemates (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You should also take a look at WP:ELNO and WP:NOT. Wikipedia's purpose is not to provide an internet directory to links, nor to be a travel guide.  --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:57, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Having read the articles you cite (Barek), I now see that I should not have used CruiseMates as the cited source for what I added to Carnival, as the same information is readily available on other pages. For that I can see your "advertising" argument. Yet, even though I would argue it was not advertising as no self-promotion was included in the informational text I added, I will avoid the semantic definition of advertising argument.

As for using CruiseMates as my username, it is merely a habit I have which I use on EVERY web site where I contribute to via comments, message boards or whatever. If that is a problem I will change my username.

I still do not see anything in your Terms of Service articles that say my external links do not qualify, however, because they are highly relevent, non-promotional, are contained within sites that are recognized sources of accurate and unbiased information, and not affiliated with any lawsuits, biased points of view, etc...

The key thing about Cruisemates, the site, is that you appear to be jumping to the conclusion that it is a promotional site. That is not true, it is a news and information site. It is regularly cited as such in newspapers and other media. If I am incorrect about this then the only reason those external links are not allowed is because I added them myself, (I believe that is what you are saying). If that is the case then you can take them down. Seems kind of silly, however, as they are perfectly valid resources for the article topics - I am sure an editor would agree. I assume we agree that if they had been added by a non-affiliated third party they would be allowed.

I did not add anything of copyright, all information I added is verifiable.

So - tell me what you want me to do. At this point I am frustrated and disillusioned that you perceive my actions as being solely self-promotional and not additive to spirit of Wikipedia. Cruisemates (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

HOLLAND AMERICA
Cruisemates (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I see also that the information about Holland America's newest ship, Eurodam - which is indeed relevent, accurate and additive to the article, has been taken down.

Now I am very confused. As noted, I am known as a reliable resource for cruise information. I can show you TWO requests from newspapers (San Fran Chronicle and Boston World) in the last week alone asking me to tell them what is new in the world of cruising for 2009.

If you do NOT want contributions from people like me in Wikipedia then I have to question the very basis of credibility for Wikipedia. I am an authority on a source commenting on a topic I do not own or make money from. What is the problem?

Please tell what the next step is for me for appealing the actions you have taken to censor my contributions to Wikipedia. Cruisemates (talk) 23:34, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

WHAT SHOULD BE LINKED
What should be linked: Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

The above text describes what I added to several articles in Wikipedia - external links to a web site that contains Reviews and interviews - now I have been told that my links were self-promotional and not allowed. This means thaat as an expert in a given field I cannot cite myself, or my personal knowledge contained in an outside web site, yet it is perfectly valid for a third-party to do it.

And now - the very people who "warned me" about my actions are not responding to my concerns about what is acceptable here. Cruisemates (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)