User talk:Mcmcrecords

Reply

 * Clearly acting as a judge and a jury, you are assuming I am paid and blocking me for no reason other than what you believe, rather than can prove. I am not paid, I am clearing changes made to an article that were not true and adding new articles. I want to be apart of this community with no payment to justify why I am here, however you really are abusing the authory you have in my opinion based off of your inturpeted assumptions that I never stated. I NEVER stated I was paid, I AM NOT PAID. I can say I represent who I like, I represent what I edit. Regardless, the article was changed and I changed it back. Do I have to be one of the lawyers who made the edits previous to me for you to not be so over the top in blocking me from edits. It seems the lawyer who is paid and works for the person that made those initial edits changing "personnel," etc...was able to edit with none of these issues. Seems everything is very intrinsic here at Wikipedia. I have shown you my interests. I want to make edits in the music industry based articles as I am indeed a concert producer. I make money from this (being a concert producer) not making edits or having clients. I'm a person interning to transfer information to the public; from a neutral standpoint, is not promotion, nor for anything else. You're assuming alot of things you cannot prove. You really abuse your authority.

December 2013
Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. '' Instead of making multiple versions of the same page, just make one. Please read WP:Redirect. &#9790;Loriendrew&#9789;   &#9743;(talk)''  06:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Mcmcrecords, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited was MCMC Records, which appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles and they will copy it to your user page.

One firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! clpo13(talk) 06:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The plain and simple conflict of interest guide
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.
 * Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?


 * What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead. If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  07:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

reply
Sarcasim is not Appreciated here James. Many people here edit on behalf of a business, hence anyone can edit. In english context, what other way can you say it? I follow the business on twitter, facebook, instagram and their website. I made the post as someone who knows what's going on with the business. I am allowed to make an article regarding it as long as I have made statements from a neurtal stand point. Clearly I did, I just did so without the citations. I am an independant executive producer and interning as well. This is part of Public Relations and Reporting. To write articles, I had to create an account to edit as a username. I would like my username re-instated simply, I wont use it to edit-no problem.

Thanks


 * I have no idea what about my message you saw as sarcasm, but it was certainly not intended as such. I declined the unblock request because it is clear that your intention is to edit on behalf of a business to promote that business's interests, and I simply attempted to explain that to you. As for your saying "This is part of Public Relations", you seem to have failed to grasp the following fundamental point about Wikipedia: editing for promotion of any kind (which is what "public relations" is) is not permitted by Wikipedia policy, and It is precisely because you are attempting to use Wikipedia for what you call "public relations" that you are blocked. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for email. There are two separate issues
 * You cannot use a name that represents a company or organisation. If you think that your current name does not violate that policy, the pink box tells you how to appeal. If you accept that the name is not permissible, you can ask to be allowed to create a new user name. The procedure for that is also in the box. I won't make the decision since it would not be fair to you for me to do so.

The deletion of the article is a separate issue. I deleted your article because
 * it did not provide independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines for music or companies.
 * it's all about what the company, little about the company itself. No locations (US is a bit vague). How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors? It seems to be intended to promote the label.

I created several different accounts of "Maybach Music Latino" - The Music label is having someone claim ownership of the label and I am trying to protect them by creating other pages to link to the pages I have made with the correct information.—Again, you seem to be editing on behalf of someone other than yourself. Anyone can edit any page, you cannot own an article, and you should not be editing on behalf of a commercial company.

You have an obvious conflict of interest when it comes to editing articles about these subjects. If, after reading the information about notability linked above, you still believe that your clients are notable enough for a Wikipedia article (and that there is significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources), you could, if you wish, post a request at Requested articles for the article to be created. See also Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest.

I'm watching this page now, so you will probably get a response sooner if you post here rather than email  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  10:39, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Reply
Jim,

Thank you for your timely response, it is extremely appreciated.

I would like the username re-instated--Please (MCMC Records). I will not use this name for editing, but it is a service mark pending on the company's behalf and must be held be active by myself for those purposes.

I have no issue with changing the username and adding the appropiate history/citations/links along with it. I understand the formality of not associating a username with content published. However, there was nothing promotional about it--Merely simple facts I just did not cite-Understood. As I said, I am new to coding HTML and just wanted to initiate the page; Namely "MCMC Records."
 * It's not a matter of whether the user name is used for editing, it is not permitted. You can appeal against my block, but the fact that you use clearly promotional and COI statements like a service mark pending on the company's behalf and must be held be active by myself for those purposes is unlikely to help your case. No company has any right to "own" Wikipedia pages  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding this statement:
"How many employees? Turnover? Profits? Has the company ever received negative publicity? Who are its competitors? It seems to be intended to promote the label."

Not all companies are public, and not all companies on wikipedia are public. In the case of MCMC Records-It is a Limited Liability Corp. Therefore, information of that nature (Profit, Turnover) would be considered confidential and proprietary. Regarding (negative publicity, competitors) in my opinion would be cross branding a name with another for promotion. Negative Publicty can be furnished if there is a publication regarding an exhibit, however there is not.

We all have different opinions of the term "Promotion." I am confident to say there was nothing promotional about the page at all. This should not be neccesary to provide encyclopedic information about a music label that has produced live shows in other countries or in the United States; who it was founded by and the year founded. Indicative of many other articles, noting music labels specifically--there are many articles that do not include more information than I have provided to just iniate a "neutral" article. I could understand your view on the page personally, however I just failed to cite. I can provide links for the new page.


 * I understand that you may not want to release financial data, but obviously the less information, the less the chance of satisfying notability criteria. Headquarters location, staff numbers and similar non-financial data are not usually withheld by companies. I repeat, there are no references to support the claims made in the article, and it's not clear to me why the company meets the notability criteria even if the claims are verifiable. Other stuff doesn't really help you, I'm concerned at present only with your edits.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * similar non-financial data was provided, such as date founded, location, website, founder and key people. I believe the information was satisfied. It is solely your opinion at this point.


 * Once again, I note you do appear to act as your own jury and judge in my opinion. If something is verifiable, you still say it is not clear to you. To be honest, based on the rules of Wikipedia, it doesn't have to be clear to you, only what the facts are supported by. With all due respect. It seems it's a two stage process of appeasing the administrator and having factual citations. Based on what I see from Wikipedia guildlines. Any company, doing anything relevant to the industry they're in (big or small) as long as the claims are verifiable should be approved for an article. I repeat, as I did many times-understood that I failed to link citations and independant verifiable content linked to the page. I understand, I feel it is a bit of the administrators opinion that takes presedence over anything factual here. I appreciate the back and forth but it's pretty clear to me that it's based off of the decision of an administrator and how much they're willing to work with you. Not to say you have not, I appreciate the time. It seems proofreading by another editor is the best way to have an article published. So, I will prompty send over an article first before it is published. I would like to be able to do so. In addition, there is no paid relationship

Regarding Maybach Music Latino
One contradictory statement made is that I should not edit on behalf of a commercial company. Wikipedia states anyone can edit, Commercial or not.
 * It's correct that anyone can edit, but it's strongly discouraged because, at best, it's difficult to be objective about your own business, at worse a paid relationship makes it likely that issues of ownership or selective editing will arise  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The individual suggesting work product should be valid, assuming the appropriate citations are made. I failed to cite many things, which will have will to be put forth next time-no problem.

I, however, respresent many commercial music labels--just not on the wikipedia platform. Legally, by consent of the band, namely "Maybach Music Latino" I am in fact allowed to edit on their behalf as they are the sole proprietor(s) of the service name and business. Unfortunately, We cannot let other people malliciously post content--changing personnel and deleting content that was previously accurate; Maybach_Music_Latino as the url. This is my explanation for creating the pages and updating the information. Simply using a search engine to clarify the information is the same as I shared. If you search through the edit logs of that article, you will see it was changed.

To avoid the defamation, harassment and other situations that arise, I was authorized to secure the article by the acting principal(s) and lawyer representing the case.
 * See previous comments. You are clearly not here to make an encyclopaedia, but to represent your client's interests. We try to keep articles accurate, which is why independent references are required, especially for biographies of living people where libel needs to be avoided. This isn't a forum to debate legal issues though, and in fact threats of legal action result in an immediate indefinite block  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * you've created more of a threat to me being blocked than me giving an opinion or noting terms. I never threatened legal action, I am trying to resolve this matter of my edits and article with you in which you seem to not want to help me in attaining what I would like. Understood.

In terms of owning an article, I would assume one that creates the article has scope that others may not, relating to the article published. Hence, why I created several articles to link. I am very sure you deal with this throughout the day many times, along with the very large amount of work you recieve here as an administrator. Please excuse me for any ignorance related to this matter on my behalf.
 * NO, that's wrong. Anyone can edit an article, creating it doesn't give any additional rights  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope we could work together to resolve these issues. I am sure you understand very well how I am approaching this matter, it just has to be done within the rules and guidlines of Wikipedia--Which I have no problem with.


 * anyone can edit an article, but the person who makes it can lock the article based on what I've read.

If providing Pending Patents, DRL of the proprietors, copyright of music work product, etc...would this allow us to hold semblance over the article Maybach Music Latino?

Also, May I be unblocked and have my username re-instated? I will create a new username/new account to edit information and inform you of the new username. I appreciate your time an dedication, I know it is extremely overwhelming.

I can also be reached at michael@saintpresents.com or m.mcmcbooking@gmail.com

Thank you very much Jim
 * As I said, the unblocking procedure is described above. On principle, I don't act as judge and jury on my own blocks, but I have to say that nothing you have said would encourage me to take such an action anyway  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  13:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * If you see any improper editing, you could just block me again...Is this really a one strike system? seems like a dictatorship if you ask me. Not civil or diplomatic in my opinion. With all due respect


 * It's a one-strike system with an appeal procedure. Several blocks that I made recently were unblocked by another admin because it became clear that the participants had no real coi and had simply chosen the name of their articles (a university in most cases, a book in the other) through carelessness. This is clearly not the case here. You are a paid editor, and you have repeatedly made it clear that your only reason for being here is to protect your clients' interests, not to create an encyclopaedia. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just noticed that you added a message to the top of the page. It's best to add your messages to the bottom of the talk page, or they may be overlooked. You referred to your clients, which implies a paid relationship. If you are in fact working for nothing, then I withdraw my assumption. Otherwise, nothing has changed. You are here to represent your client's interests, assert ownership of articles and follow your agenda. You can appeal against the block again, but since you clearly intend to pick up where you left off, I wouldn't be too optimistic


 * I never threatened legal action. I know that, but since you started talking about lawyers, I thought you should be aware of the policy. <b style="font-family:chiller; color:red;"> Jimfbleak - </b> talk to me?  12:56, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

In Admin Category
This user is listed as a admin willing to provide copies of deleted articles though he is obviously not EoRdE6 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * EoRdE6 (talk) 23:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)