User talk:Sparkzilla

Image copyright problem with Image:Nova-logo.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Nova-logo.gif. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
 * That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --FairuseBot (talk) 07:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblocked
As discussed on UTRS you've been unblocked. Secretlondon (talk) 06:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just so that you know...
I am also Spud. It seems like we might see more of each other over at RW rather then here.--Simon Peter Hughes (talk) 11:19, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Newspaper
Hi, I decided to post my questions regarding RS here, because it kind off would have been an off-topic discussion. I do understand that Wikipedia is not a Newspaper neither it is the news, but take a look at this: We rely on reliable sources and according to that policy, newspapers, media, books, and magazines are such. In a case of celebrities for example, they don't appear a whole lot on say CNN or FOX unless its the Oscars. They do tend to appear on ABC's The View and various talk shows, like Late Shows for example. I'm personally a huge fan of David Letterman and The View where celebrities tell the world what they are, and what they are planning to do with say, their upcoming role in an upcoming film.

But if we will look into that Wikipedia is not a Newspaper, we can safely assume that using original research is more safe because we don't need to go through the hoops of what is RS and what is BS? Because according to Lady Lotus and that user with caps in his username, everything is BS not RS. This brings me to another question; if lets say Amal Alamuddin is dating Clooney and its a scoop is it reliable info??? Yes and no. On one hand, its a part of her bio, because besides being a lawyer she is also a celebrity in the Hollywood world. But, if that scoop is covered by magazines and newspapers, why not include it? Sure, you might point me to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but then lets remove Alexandra Kerry because she is sup-par actress and a daughter of senator John Kerry? Like really, what's the point of her having a WP article if she known for only those two instances?--Mishae (talk) 15:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * As I said on the other page, you have come up against several basic flaws in Wikipedia. The first is that editors make blanket decisions about the reliability of sources, rather than he reliability of the information itself. It's easy to blacklist the Daily Mail (or any other news source), but what happens when they have an exclusive interview that gives new information to a topic? The second flaw is that many editors are conflating news with notability. There is so much news that is not notable. a good example of this on my site is the Newsline of Jesse Biter, a local businessman in Sarasota. http://newslines.org/jesse-biter/ He is clearly not notable for Wikipedia, but he has generated over 30 news articles. The reason I created my site, was to create a news archive about people, free from Wikipedia's many constraints.


 * Ms Alamuddin is not a celebrity in the Hollywood world, she's the fiance of Clooney, and until she does something notable in her own right, then the most she should get is a line on Clooney's page. I think you would agree that we would not put every girlfriend Clooney has had on Wikipedia just because of his celebrity status. I would personally cut down the Alexandra Kerry profile to the factual information about what she has done, and check each item for its notability. That she supported her father on the campaign trail is not notable. That she made a SuperPaC is notable, and so on...-- Sparkzilla talk! 16:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I don't know. I'm personally on the fence when it comes to scrutinizing reliable sources. Like, will Star Tribune be reliable in your opinion? If so, I will be eager to substitute Daily Mail for Star Tribune if Lady Lotus doesn't like it.--Mishae (talk) 16:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * It really depends on the report, and the person. Even the National enquirer has had notable scoops. IMHO blanket bans on sources are destructive. I am not all that interested in Ms Alamuddin, I am observing this issue as a way to examine Wikipedia's structural problems. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * O' O.K. You know, I'm not interested in her either, but when a person gets a significant coverage, it is always welcomed on Wikipedia. Like lets say, my mom is an artist, but she doesn't exhibit her work, and neither do her friends which means they are not notable according to WP:ARTISTS. What we have here, is completely different situation. We have plenty of coverage on a person who despite the plethora of sources get deleted. I agree, if that person would have had a single source (and I vote delete on those, but not without searching for more first). O.K. Lets exclude Daily Mail and Radar, we still have 30 reliable sources saying the same thing as those that are not reliable. In fact, in my opinion, Lady Lotus exaggerated on what is RS and what is not as her POV. I checked WP:RSN and it turns out that New York Daily News and US Weekly can be used as an RS, so I don't know what she trying to get on?? Like, personally an American news report for me is more reliable then say Russian one (and I watch both). Like, I don't like Fox News, but other sources seem fine by me. Yes, Daily Mail and The Huffington Post are bad, but then why no body blacklisted them????--Mishae (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You still seem to be confusing newsworthiness ("but when a person gets a significant coverage") with what is suitable to be included in an encyclopedia. It is simply not true that "it is always welcomed on Wikipedia". Just because something has a source does not mean it should be included. Ms Alamuddin is simply not notable in her own right. It wouldn't matter if a million papers wrote about her.


 * The question is where to draw the line. The line on Wikipedia is arbitrary and results in these kinds of discussions. Ultimately the inclusion of pages like Amal Alamiddin, and the lack of clear rules on inclusion, devalues the encyclopedia.


 * I offer, by contrast, Ma Alamuddin's page on my site Newslines, where the standard of inclusion is much lower. http://newslines.org/amal-alamuddin/ Newslines is a news archive, and does not claim to be an encyclopedia. If you wish to avoid tiresome discussions about reliability of sources perhaps you can help out there. -- Sparkzilla talk! 19:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2015
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest
Hello, Sparkzilla. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Aronzak (talk) 04:42, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice:. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Based on the input at the ANI discussion as well as my own investigation into your editing habits, I have blocked you for an indefinite period of time for using Wikipedia as a promotional device for your own profit. You were indef blocked once before for this, for five years, and unblocked because you convinced an admin you wouldn't do this again. As a large number of your edits are solely promotional, you are not here to build an encyclopedia, and frankly, your goals seem to be exactly the opposite. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If the user is blocked indefinitely, shouldn't the block template be updated? It says he is blocked temporarily for spamming. Callmemirela  ( Talk )  &#9809;  07:01, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone fixed it. They changed the admin interface in Twinkle while I was on wikibreak, still haven't gotten used to it.  Thanks for the note, I do like accuracy.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 12:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * For the record, I didn't look at a single AFD. I looked at your linking your website on Jimbo's page, Signpost, etc.  Self-promotion is self-promotion.  No matter how much lipstick you put on this pig, it is still a pig.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You didn't look at the AfDs, nor the detail of the previous ban. Event the evidence you did look at does not support your contention: The Jimo page diff and the Signpost diff are both completely in context and reasonable posts that are part of the discussion about Wikipedia fundraising. They are not on main space and are part of talk discussions. Sure, I could have posted my entire blog posts about the topic to the pages, but a link is more than sufficient.


 * The discussion on ANI was about AfD posts, which as I explain above are part of a wider discussion about news vs notability. Looking back, I can see how the two or three posts I made to people's talk pages can appear self serving, however, the ANI admins already assessed the edits and did not recommend a ban (my site was added to the spam list). Your assessment of the Jimbo/Signpost posts is inaccurate and irrelevant, and you have made a heavy-handed reaction to a problem that was not a severe as presented (maybe ten links over a six month period, most of which are in context), and had already been resolved by the admins on the page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:26, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not a judge. I'm under no obligation to consider any of the information at ANI, and I barely skimmed it.  Instead, I went and independently found reason to block you.  You can't use AFD or the ANI to wikilawyer out of this.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 21:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Your reason is completely bogus -- both the Jimbo Wales and Signpost postings are completely in context of adding to the discussion on both pages that were about Wikipedia's fundraising. Those links were months ago, and were not even challenged at the time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 21:50, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Those two edits where not the reason, they were examples that are easy for anyone to find in your edit history and are indicative of your other edits. I'm 30 years into marketing, I know bullshit when I smell it.  You are here to promote your business, not build an encyclopedia.  Your actions speak to this.  It doesn't matter how slowly you edit, how eloquently you complain, what matters is the CONTENT of your edits, which all too often were pointers to your own website.  This is the second time you've been blocked for this same basic activity, so go cry to your forum buddies all you want, maybe they will be too lazy or subjective to look at your edits, but the edits speak for themselves, if anyone bothers to LOOK. You may always use WP:UTRS, WP:BASC, put up another unblock banner, have any number of other admin review if you like.  And by all mean, no admin needs to ask my permission or consultation to modify this block. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Nice try, but you said clearly above that your ban was based only on those two posts, which were not part of the original ANI discussion, were never contested at the time, and are totally reasonable as part of the discussion on Wikipedia's fundraising. If you had taken the time to research the ANI discussion, which you "skimmed" then you would have seen that it was already resolved to the satisfaction of the existing admins. Your aggressive attitude to my participation in off-wiki forums, and you dislike of my comments on Wikipedia's fundraising (the two comments you singled out) seems to be driving this ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is kind of funny, since I'm an outspoken critic of our fundraising, many actions of the WMF, and generally considered a Reformer, someone who tries to fix from the inside instead of crying foul or simply pouts on other websites. And this isn't a ban, it is a block.  For someone who professes to understand the policy and how this is too harsh, you should at least familiarize yourself with the policy first. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 13:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)