User talk:Hollowpointr

Hi, I noticed you copied and pasted a Wikipedia article onto Australian institute of applied sciences. Did you know you can simply redirect an article instead of pasting redundant material already in existence on Wikipedia?  - Jameson L. Tai   talk ♦  contribs  00:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Telstra
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Bidgee (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Telstra
The edit warring has gotten well out of hand on that article. You're already in violation of our three reverts rule. I should block you, but since you're new here, I'll assume you didn't know about that rule, and cut you a break. Don't violate it again but.

Anyhoo, Wikipedia also has a no original research policy, which, in a nutshell, says we're not allowed to be the first to say anything; we only repeat what others have said. Sure, you've got a reference for your raw data, but you don't have a reference for what you're inferring from that data. And "Telstra appears to be in a spiralling nosedive" is a really big inference. An irresponsibly big inference.

I have removed it again. Don't re-insert it without a solid reference.

Hesperian 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The evidence has been given... what is your problem? The inference is that Telstra statistics are in a nosedive.. which any idiot with a computer can view for themselves.. what is your issue with this?

You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Hesperian 10:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

I have unblocked you because I just realised that your last edit, which had edit summary "undid last edit... " was not a straight out undoing but an attempt at compromise. Hesperian 11:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Why am I still blocked then? My edit of Telstra was simply "According to Alexa statistical analysis of Yellow Pages traffic, Yellow Pages online website traffic is dramatically down over the last year.[24]", which i feel is highly acceptable. --Hollowpointr (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It is unfortunate that some long term users like to give newer users a hard time on wikipedia, seemingly giving less relevance to their edits than those of longer-standing members... I am refering of course to the other user who kept making me change things by re-editing them all the time. Anyway, thanks for dealing with this. --Hollowpointr (talk) 12:36, 23 April 2008 (UTC) Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --Matilda talk 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that bidgee was editing my comments constantly... without even bothering to ASK for references... this type of edit warring is also against policy. I appreciate your comments, but I do not feel that it is useful to have long term users act as police. It is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and gives the impression that my input is less valid than HIS input. Many people have already battled with this same user, and I can see why. Look at his archives and you can see for yourself that this user has a history of editing posts without regard for anyone else. It really detracts from wikipedia, and that sort of elitism should be stopped. --Hollowpointr (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowpoint Marketing
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Hollowpoint Marketing, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.hollowpoint.com.au. 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.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Hollowpointr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! --Matilda talk 05:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk page comments
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. --Matilda talk 05:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you will find that bidgee was editing my comments constantly... without even bothering to ASK for references... this type of edit warring is also against policy. I appreciate your comments, but I do not feel that it is useful to have long term users act as police. It is not in the spirit of wikipedia, and gives the impression that my input is less valid than HIS input. Many people have already battled with this same user, and I can see why. Look at his archives and you can see for yourself that this user has a history of editing posts without regard for anyone else. It really detracts from wikipedia, and that sort of elitism should be stopped. --Hollowpointr (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I really found your comments suggesting he might be a troll or was personally flaming not appropriate hence the note above and I appreciate that you have taken it in the spirit in which it was intended. In discussions with other users, no matter of how long or short standing, you really need to focus on the content issues and try to get to the bottom of the reason why you are disagreeing. Wikipedia does rely on verifiability and thus the citation of reliable sources and usually disagreements are resolved when assertions are supported by citations.

I have added a welcome message above this post which has some useful links on policies and guidelines. You are quite right that everybody's edits are welcome and equally so, but that equality is based on observing the project's policies and guidelines. I appreciate editors of longer standing are at an advantage that they know this and of course it should be beholden on them to share that knowledge! Some do that better than others.

I have found him to not be civil and cooperative, so I guess we disagree on that. He often makes edits without advising the other party, and if you take a close look at his archives, many people have already had issues with him. I am going to have to delete your comments regarding Bidgee being civil, as this is clearly a POV, and not one I would want to share on my own userpage. You are of course free to put those comments on someone else's page though, but as this page is mine, I will have the last word on that. But anyway, as long as he stops the edit war, I don't see further issues. --Hollowpointr (talk) 06:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FWIW I have found both Matilda and bidgee to be curiously aligned in editing patterns. Since one is mature and the other not I doubt they are sock puppets, but of course there are other possibilities (mum- they're picking on me). However, that is not my main point. I agree with your comment on user bidgee's attitude. And I am most amused to see THE MACHINE swinging into action in his defence. My response is basically, get a grip it's only teh internets, and frankly, if wiki carries on this way then it will rapidly disappear up its own rectum. I quite enjoy a barney when I'm drunk, but when I'm sober and adding content then if some spotty-face reverts it I just think why bother? Greg Locock (talk) 13:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowpoint Marketing
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hollowpoint Marketing, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --> Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Additions of http://.hollowpoint.com.au
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. --Hu12 (talk) 02:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hello Hollowpointr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they have helped improve Wikipedia and make it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions. Some resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! --Matilda talk 05:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Hollowpoint Marketing
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Hollowpoint Marketing, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --> Bidgee (talk) 12:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we also delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publicis_Mojo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4MMM http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brisbane_Times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Brisbane http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson%27s_Bay_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gannett_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toei_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._W._Scripps_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabian_%28company%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_%28company%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eli_Lilly_and_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._F._Martin_%26_Company http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_%28company%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTA_Bus_Company

as these are companies. should we delete Telstra, Ebay, etc? Who decides what is relevant? How do you judge the relevancy of an article by a company? Simple answer is, you don't. --Hollowpointr (talk) 21:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Some information on policies regarding your company and editing in relation to Wikipedia;
 * Conflict of Interest is first and foremost your have a COI, and editors shouldn't edit article about yourself or company. Wikipedia isnt advertising space its an encyclopedia.
 * Notability for a subject to have an article its needs to be considered notable based on this policy. That means it needs to have been the subject of multiple independent coverage reliable sources.
 * WP:CORP has more detail in relation to companies, note the WP:CORP Wikipedia isnt web advertising space. For Australian companies one guide used is whether they are list on the ASX and there are still companies in the S&P/ASX 50 that dont have articles.
 * Etiquette, No personal Threats, and WP:THREAT this edit is of concern I suggest that you withdraw it, all editors actions can be questioned but making threats will generally see you WP:BLOCKED.
 * Please read these policies as they are what decides how Wikipedia assesses subjects and the expectations of how editors interact. Gnangarra 01:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a threat, Garra, that's stating my intent should the delete not be reversed. I am well within my right to lodge a complaint, and it is not for you to decide if I can or not. This is still a free country, so if I decide that I will lodge a complaint, that is my prerogative. Are you telling me I cannot tell someone that I am lodging a complaint? Your comment about getting blocked for lodging a complaint is a threat. If you are suggesting that I will be blocked (threat) for stating that unless an item is removed, I will be using my right to lodge a complaint, then that is a threat in and of itself. I will NOT withdraw the statement.

Hollowpoint Marketing is NOT a company, it is a trademark of a marketing method, as you would have found out had I been able to go back into the article and add some more detail. There are currently 3 articles online from reliable sources that pertain to this method, and once this issue has been resolved and the article re-instated, I will go back in and reference these third party articles. It is a matter of public interest, it is a trademarked method, and about to become a patented method. As for having a COI, can you seriously tell me that no one from Telstra or Ebay supplied any information on THEIR article? I do not believe that. The whole way this has been handled (from speedy deletion to your comments) is ethically challenged at best. I should have been advised to provide sources/evidence/etc from the outset, instead of the deletion. I should have then had the opportunity to correct any errors or omissions, as per Wikipedia policy, BEFORE an admin decided that it was a policy violation. This is all making me wonder what interest the admin has in web design or marketing, and I suggest that I will be lodging a complaint about the process forthwith, AS IS MY RIGHT. --Hollowpointr (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What are the three articles on line, please provide links Gnangarra 02:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is already a discussion abouty this at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard please join the discussion. Gnangarra 02:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have posted my comments.... suggesting to other users that I 'threatened' another user is a serious allegation. I respectfully ask that you either withdraw the allegation, or elaborate on exactly what the threat was. --Hollowpointr (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just a courtesy note I have answered at Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard so as to keep the the discussion in one place rather than it getting further disjointed. Also can you please provide links to the three online articles on that page. Gnangarra 02:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Helpdesk edits
The helpdesk is not the place to contest the speedy deletion of a page; that belongs at deletion review. But even if it was, your edits there constitute forum shopping, and thus violate our overall guidelines against canvassing. Furthermore, the listing of a page as being under a particular WikiProject does not mean that it cannot be speedily deleted if it fits one of the criteria; there is no such thing as a 'jursidiction'. Veinor (talk to me) 04:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna bet? I don't care if you call it deletion or authority, it is NOT for Hu12 to delete a page that forms part of the WikiProject Education. --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is your last warning, stop canvassing or you will be blocked temporarily for disruption.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

And ONCE AGAIN!!! it is NOT canvassing, as I was TOLD to go to that page, and I am following the process for re-instating a deleted page! Read the process, follow the links, and you will see for yourself! It says if you can't get it resolved by an admin, then go to the help desk and request it. --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where it says that; the closest I could find was on Why was my page deleted?, which says that the help desk is for if you're confused about the process. The deletion review page specifically states: "Deletion Review is the process to be used to challenge the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion."
 * And regarding your statement about WikiProjects: The point of a WikiProject is to encourage collaboration among users who share a common interest, not to make a clique so that only members of that WikiProject can delete a page. Admins are perfectly within their rights to speedily delete a page if it fits the criterion no matter how many WikiProjects it's part of. Veinor (talk to me) 04:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WELL DELETE AUSTRALIAN COLLEGE OF NATURAL MEDICINE THEN! THAT IS THE EXACT SAME PAGE AS THE ONE IN QUESTION!!!!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_College_of_Natural_Medicine  AND I WAS CONFUSED ABOUT THE PROCESS! DID I NOT MAKE THAT CLEAR! --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, you seem to be rapidly approaching a block from further editing the encyclopedia. It seems very unlikely you will achieve your goals of introducing self-serving material about your company into the encyclopedia, particularly not the way you are going about it. If you do wish to stay and contribute constructively to the project I suggest you review some of the policy pages others have referred you to, and take it from there.  Some others to keep in mind are WP:CORP, WP:V, WP:CSD, and WP:EW.  Wikidemo (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

LISTEN, THIS IS MY TALK PAGE, NOT YOURS! I CAN PUT WHATEVER I WANT ON MY OWN TALK PAGE! AS FOR BEING BLOCKED, IF THIS IS THE WAY THINGS ARE RUN, THEN LIKE IT MATTERS! I DON'T REALLY CARE WHETHER HOLLOWPOINT MARKETING STAYS THERE OR NOT, BUT TO DELETE THE AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF APPLIED SCIENCES, WHICH IS A COLLEGE FOR GOD'S SAKE... WHERE IS THE SENSE IN THAT???? --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your talk page is not yours; you do not own any page. For instance, you're not allowed to continually be hostile and attack other users. And colleges are not exempt from our deletion criteria simply because they serve a noble goal; if we decided to allow articles about beneficial services violate our criteria, then where do we stop? Charities? People who just do good deeds? It's a can of worms the Wikipedia community would rather not open. Veinor (talk to me) 04:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

IF THIS WAS UNBIASED, YOU WOULD DELETE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_College_of_Natural_Medicine AS IT IS MORE SELFSERVING THAN MY ARTICLE WAS! IF YOU WANT TO SHOW YOU ARE UNBIASED, DELETE THAT ONE AS WELL! OTHERWISE, IT STARTS TO BECOME PRETTY CLEAR THAT THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ARTICLE, BUT RATHER BULLYING BY SENIOR MEMBERS. --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

ANYWAY, HAVE YOU EVEN READ THE ARTICLE? HOW DOES THIS DIFFER TO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_College_of_Natural_Medicine OR ANY OTHER PRIVATE COLLEGE'S PAGE? IF YOU CAN JUSTIFY THE DELETION, THEN DO SO, BUT DON'T HARP ON ABOUT WHAT YOU ADMINS CAN AND CANNOT DO WITHOUT JUSTIFYING IT. --Hollowpointr (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

FUCK YOU, FUCK YOUR LITTLE POWER TRIPS... SARAH, GET FUCKED. I DIDN'T START THIS, BUT I WILL FUCKING FINISH IT, I PROMISE YOU

Blocked
Hollowpoint, I've reblocked your account. You seemed to be engaged in a disruptive and aggressive campaign regarding Hollowpoint Marketing and its clients. I also have concerns about your username as it would appear to represent your company. Your username, coupled with your aggressive attempt to list your article, appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. You have ignored warnings and advice from a variety of different administrators and editors are continuing your very disruptive talk page postings and threatening to report administrators should they not restore your article, therefore I have reblocked your account. Sarah 04:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)