User talk:Mike Teflon

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Argon233&ensp;  T &ensp; C  @ &ensp; &notin; &ensp; 22:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You said: "I've been blocked by you for relevant that I have put up. You also use the phrase multiple vandalsim with me.  I want someone to explain to me why putting a link to a site that is directly on point can be construed as vandalism.  Most of the links are either samples of what the topic is or a more detailed explanation of the definition.  Can you please explain this to me?"
 * There's no evidence that I can find that I have ever blocked you. Are you sure this isn't an autoblock?  I need to know what IP address you are trying to edit from and how you are able to edit this page if you are blocked.  --Yamla 19:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. I can see that you're interested in adding external links to our articles on law-related topics. Your enthusiasm and support for this project is gratifying. In order for you, your firm (Miller and Zois), and Wikipedia to continue to enjoy a happy, productive, and mutually beneficial relationship, it would be great if you could keep a few points in mind.


 * Please review our policy on external links. It is important that external links
 * be of interest to the readers of the article;
 * contain extensive information that is not already part of the article;
 * not be added solely to promote a commercial service or for search engine optimization;
 * be placed in an External links section at the end of an article&mdash;it isn't appropriate to insert such links into the article body.

Please use article and user talk pages to discuss edits that are contested. In general, if a link is removed by other editors, you probably shouldn't put it back.

To take a couple of examples, in Magnetic resonance imaging, you have added a link three times without discussion:, ,. The target of the link (http://www.millerandzois.com/herniated-disc-injury-attorney.html) is of limited use in the context of the article, as it doesn't show any of the images or data on which the reports are based.

In Collateral source rule, the linked pages at http://www.millerandzois.com/Collateral_Source_Rule.html doesn't expand appreciably on the information already present in our article.

On the other hand, some of the links added are – at first blush – potentially quite relevant and useful. In in limine, for instance, a link to a selection of real in limine motions seems to be on point and interesting primary source material.

Please be aware that it is extremely easy to monitor the addition of external links to Wikipedia articles. Please also be aware that Wikipedia maintains a spam blacklist that allows us, where necessary, to block the insertion of all outgoing links to a particular web site; I am, of course, confident that such blacklisting won't be made necessary.

Welcome, again, to Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "My User Name is Mike Teflon - I have been adding some links from a commerical site. But they are not advertising.  My site's primary purpose is to educate other attorneys.  It is one of the leading sites on the Interent in this regard.  Could you please look through the site it is at Miller & Zois.  Thanks."
 * Your sites are inappropriate. Once more, please reread WP:EL.  Linking to your own site is specifically prohibited.  --Yamla 18:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 18:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "No, it says normally to be avoided. Can we agree on this?  If not, show me where it says it is specifically prohibited.  I think this is completely unfair. You are taking down a link not available elsewhere on the web that would be of interest to users.  Should this not be the test?  Can you please tell me how I go about protesting this if you will not reconsider?  Take a look at the topic.  Take a look at the overall context.  I'm sure you are a nice guy and, like you say, you can't pick up tone on the Internet.  But I don't think you flip response is correct or fair to us or the readers of Wikipedia."


 * You agree that the link shows up in the links to normally avoid. So you agree that Wikipedia policy states that these links should not be added by you.  There's nothing that says "specifically prohibited" because Wikipedia tries to follow the spirit of the policies rather than having people engage in Wikilawyering.  If you feel the links are appropriate, they should be brought up on the discussion pages for the articles and someone else should add them.  --Yamla 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I should point out that the site you are trying to link to looks, at least in some cases, to be a valuable resource. However, it is still inappropriate for you to link the site in to a wide range of articles.  --Yamla 19:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "The Wikilawyering comment is not appropriate. You can't call logic and reasoning Wiklawyering.  It is not fair.   You point to the "spirit" of the policies.  I agree this is what should be controlling.  Yet your initial comment makes no reference to "spirit" of the policies.  Read the category.  Look at the link.  And then tell me it is inappropriate.  I realize and appreciate the power you derive from all of this.  But, in my humblest of opinions, it might not be the worst idea to allow the best interest of the readers to trump your desire to assert your power."


 * Just to be clear, I'm quite happy for these links to be added. But only if the regular editors on the various pages come to a consensus that they would be good links.  --Yamla 00:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Okay, and I'm not trying to make a federal case out of this. But I don't like being treated like some sort of spammer.  Google something like sample deposition or sample interrogatories.  We are first on the internet on these things.  Why?  Because we are the only law firm who offers this kind of stuff for free.  So I'm trying to add some of this material into Wikipedia but only the stuff that I have screened to make sure there is no commerical message of any kind and that it is truly suitable for the topic at hand.  You raising the spirt of the rules I think was appropriate - I am trying to operate within the spirit of the rules.  And I feel like your knee jerk reaction is commerical website=spam.  But in this case, it is far from it."


 * Okay, I apologise for coming down harshly on you. The reason I did is because, with a little over 3000 pages on my watchlist, it's almost a full time job reverting spam and copyright violations.  I tend to revert and use the standard warning templates and then not spend enough time pointing out exactly what people are doing incorrectly.  I truly do hope that you request additions of your links on the various articles' discussion pages as I think they would generally be great additions.  By the way, you can sign your comments by adding --~ to the end of your comment.  That is, two minus signs, four tildes.  --Yamla 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll settle for understanding. :)  And I must say, I'm fully in support of a law company who provides free education.  As to the medical malpractice, what I'd recommend is to add a brief note to the discussion page of that article stating something like, "I'd like to add the following URL to this page.  I believe it adds information which would be of general use to readers of this article.  However, it is on a site that belongs to me so I thought I would run it past the other editors of this page.  Please speak up one way or another.  If nobody objects within a week or so, I'll add the link myself.  If people object, I won't add the link."  Something like that, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth.  Feel free to mention that you have run your actions past an administrator.  Anyway, the point is that this demonstrates you are acting in good faith and gives people a chance to object.  If nobody does object and you add the link and then LATER people object, you are quite justified in pointing out that you've gone above and beyond in your good-faith efforts regarding external links.  Anyway, I'm not dictating how you should continue, just letting you know that if you acted this way, you'd have my full support.  Additionally, if you choose to follow these guidelines, I would recommend you archiving your talk page.  This will clear off all the current warnings which, in my opinion, have now been dealt with.  I can help you out with this if you wish.  --Yamla 01:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Contributory negligence
What you did to that page was to add a citation. The link is obviously a reliable source. It's still to your site (obviously) so it's not absolutely in keeping with the policy but I'm not complaining about the link. :) It adds useful information to the article.  It may still be better to add it as an external link, mind you, because it seems to me that the link would appeal more broadly than just to people in Maryland.  --Yamla 01:15, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Could you help me out? Because while I appreciate what you suggest, I have no idea how to do it.  By the way, take a few minutes and look around the Internet.  The stuff we are making available no one else is making available.  It is not that hard to do, but no one is doing it."


 * Okay, give me a URL here and a page you'd like it added to and I'll add the comment to the article's discussion page. You'll then see how you can do this to other discussion pages.  --Yamla 01:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

You said: "http://www.millerandzois.com/malpractice-complaint-medical.html This is the link to a sample medical malpractice complaint. Again, someone is looking to Wikipedia for medical malpractice information is looking for basic stuff.  This is the legal document that initates any medical malpractice case.  There a million (I exaggerate, of course) medical malpractice cases filed every year.  Yet google "sample medical malpractice complaint."  Besides ours, which is first search result, it is hard to find another one.  We are really the only ones providing legal education of this sort using this medium. Thanks, Yamla."


 * Okay, please take a look here and see what I did. Note that I added the request to the discussion page.  When you are viewing an article, you can click on the discussion tab to go to the discussion page.  I would expect that you would monitor that page and respond to any comments that come up in discussion and if nobody speaks up, you can add your link to the article itself after a week.  --Yamla 02:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll be replying shortly to the substance of your remarks on Talk:Contributory negligence. In the meantime, I would ask you to make an effort to remain civil in your discussions on Wikipedia talk pages.  My comments have been related solely to the matter at hand – the Miller & Zois site and the articles thereon – and have not been directed at your character or personality.  I would appreciate it if you would extend me the same courtesy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

A note on threading and Wikipedia discussions
Hi, I thought I should step outside the discussion about the Miller & Zois links for a moment to address a technical matter. On Wikipedia talk/discussion pages, there are a few style conventions of which you should be aware. Applying those conventions will help others to follow discussions, and will make it more likely that your comments will be both seen and understood in context.

== New section title == Message starts here....
 * When starting a new discussion with another editor on his or her talk page, create a new section (with heading) at the bottom of the page. This makes it easy to find new comments (all the newest discussion threads are at the bottom of the page) and allows editors to carry out distinct conversations with different editors on different topics.  Create a new section by clicking on the '+' tab at the top of every talk page, or manually create one at the end of the last section on the page by enclosing the section header in double-equals signs, like this:
 * When replying to other editors' comments on a talk page, use colons to indent successive replies. This will 'nest' remarks, making it obvious at a glance who is replying to whom.  (This is particularly important when there are multiple parties to a conversation.)

The instructions at Help:Talk page have more details and examples. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)