User talk:Wcfirm

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Henrygb 23:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Not Spam
Please do not add 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 article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Abu Badali 19:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. --Abu Badali 19:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is spam. External links should provide additional information about a subject. This external link does that. I have only updated this page on Wikipedia, because this particluar actor is of interest to me. The page did not tell enough by any means and I felt that I wanted to add to the information source. I appreciate your opinion, but this is a public site where people are looking for additional information on this actor. You censoring a legitimate fan site, because you do not think it should be here, is down right Un-American. To me, it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for and I think it is completely elitest and ridiculous. The top fan site is ChanningTatum.org and the person who runs the blog is a co-web and the blog links to and is linked to from ChanningTatum.org. If the fans and readers of the fan site feel that it is not helpful, then and only then should it not be considered a viable information source for this actor in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCFIRM (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Fansites
I appreciate your opinion, but this is a public site where people are looking for additional information on this actor. You censoring a legitimate fan site, because you do not think it should be here, is down right Un-American. To me, it goes against everything Wikipedia stands for and I think it is completely elitest and ridiculous. The top fan site is ChanningTatum.org and the person who runs the blog is a co-web and the blog is linked to from ChanningTatum.org. If the fans and readers of the fan site feel that it is not helpful, then and only then should it not be considered a viable information source for this actor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WCFIRM (talk • contribs) 13:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Also, as a general rule, avoid adding links to websites you're involved with.
 * You're new here and your idea of "everything Wikipedia stands for" may be non-perfect.
 * I'm not American.
 * Best regards, --Abu Badali 19:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for my assumption. You being American or not does not really matter. I still think this is a good information source for fans of Channing Tatum and I stand behind everything I have said. If anyone understood what quality fan sites do on a day-to-day basis to provide the public with free information on a topic that they are truly intersted in, then maybe they would not frown upon the sites so much. The ironic truth is that the majority of the information on this actor's Wikipedia page probably came from a fan site to begin with. Sad how you think the page is so much better than it's sources. Wcfirm 20:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)]

Excuse me? I never said the page was better than its sources. I'm saying there are better sources of information than the site that you keep listing. You are being very selfish by listing a site that is probably your own, and totally disregarding all the fansites that have been on the web for a year longer than yours, AND have more information. It's immature and I feel that we should discuss it, instead of you just adding your site because you think it deserves to be there.

Oh, and next time, please sign your name at the end so that I don't have to go on a wild goose chase to respond. EXXC3L 17:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on forgetting the my signature. That was not on purpose. If those other sites want to add there site here, that is up to them. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic. Going back and forth is not going to change my mind or your mind obviously. If you or anyone else removes the link, I will put it back, because I am of the opinion that it is appropriate and has the most up-to-date news on this actor.Wcfirm 03:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)]

Channing Tatum
Regarding the above article, please keep commentary and discussion on the talk page, not the main page. - RJASE1 04:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Will do. Wcfirm 04:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]


 * Looks like you're edit-warring - might I suggest Requests for comment to help resolve the issue. - RJASE1 04:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I would do that, but this particular user is very immature and is cussing and name calling in discussions. I don't know if we could actually have an adult conversation in this case. Wcfirm 05:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]


 * I understand, but please take a look at WP:3RR and try to avoid edit-warring in the future. Thanks - RJASE1 14:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. I will take a look at it. Thanks. Wcfirm 14:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)]

Re: Channing Tatum
I apologize, but at this time I don't have the time to deal with your issue. However, my advice is to find an administator and ask for guidance as to the Wikipedia protocol for external links. -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed 15:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Pictures-of-Channing-Tatum-Modeling2.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Pictures-of-Channing-Tatum-Modeling2.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Channing Tatum's Official Website
Please stop adding your site to the main page entry for Channing Tatum. It is an advertisement, and unencyclopedic in nature. I've started a discussion on the talk page as to the placement of external links. In addition, please note that you are in danger of violating wikipedia's three-revert rule on this topic. Please discuss this on the talk page, as opposed to entering into an edit war. Redrocket (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

To reiterate, Channing Tatum Unwrapped is the official site of this actor since August 16, 2007. Therefore I am allowed to link to and explain what this site is, especially since it provides more information than is deemed appropriate on a Wikipedia page. It is my understanding that prior to becoming his official site, Wikipedia did not allow a link or mention. Now that the site is official, that is no longer true and you and everyone else should research the topic before removing the information. Channing Tatum Unwrapped is not a fan site trying to get publicity. It is an official site that cannot be vandalized by Wikipedia members entering incorrect information and is directly associated with Channing Tatum and his management team.

This is what I don't understand about Wikipedia. Having accurate information is so important to everyone, but you allow people to vandalize pages. But you treat me like a vandal because I am explaining and linking to a reliable source for the actor that is actually associated with the actor. Wikipedia has no association with the actor at all. Channing Tatum Unwrapped and the coorresponding MySpace page are 100% associated with the actor and his management team, therefore they have a right to be mentioned on his Wikipedia page.

I had to tolerate this type of bullying when Channing Tatum Unwrapped was not official. It has been official for months now and I will not allow you or anyone else bully me now. It is unnecessary and uncalled for. I am not a vandal or a spammer and should not be treated like one.

Wcfirm

I think you're misunderstanding what I'm trying to say. Whether your site is official or not has no bearing on my point, which is that what you are trying to add to this page is not encyclopedic. The sentence "On a daily basis, fans around the world congregate to the blog which has up-to-the-minute news, photos, videos, commentary, chats, and contests that allow fans to learn about Tatum's personal life and career." is not encyclopedic, and it certainly doesn't belong in its own section in the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fan site. Your site is already linked on the page, I recall, why does it need its own section? Redrocket (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to completely disagree with you about that statement not being a fact. There is nothing in that statement is that not true. Daily Channing Tatum Unwrapped gets 3000 - 7000 visitors that utilize the features of the site I mentioned above to learn accurate information about the actor. There is nothing inaccurate in that statement and it is your opinion that it is not accurate. The readers of the site can verify it. The site is more accurate and up-to-date than Wikipedia because it is directly associated with the actor and his projects on a daily basis.

Why can't you all just focus on the vandals and leave the legitimate links alone? Channing Tatum Unwrapped became a part of Channing Tatum's history on August 16, 2007 when it was declared his official site by the actor and thus deserves an explanation and does not deserve people disrespecting that fact when they know nothing about the website. That type of attitude really gets out of hand here. Wcfirm (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to politely suggest that you read up on the guidelines and policies of wikipedia, because wikipedia isn't a collection of links. You keep claiming that your site is the ONLY source for information on Channing Tatum, when that isn't even remotely true. He's a public figure, and information in his article can and will be drawn from any reliable source. If there's an article on him on E! or Yahoo, it won't need to be quoted on your site to make it official. Information on Wikipedia has to be drawn from reliable secondary sources, but they don't have to come from your blog. With your blog being the "official" blog of Tatum, that actually draws you into a clear conflict of interest in terms of writing information on wikipedia.


 * We can all appreciate you wanting to add content to a wikipedia article, but I'd advise you to read up on the wikipedia policies you violated. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page, and I'll be glad to try and help. Redrocket (talk) 07:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Further, in reference to your comments below about other editors not respecting your site being the "official" site for Tatum, please understand that designation doesn't mean anything to wikipedia in terms of secondary sources. Your site isn't being kept off of the page because it's not official, but the paragraph about the site is kept off because it's not encyclopedic. All secondary sources are usable on wikipedia, they don't have to be officially endorsed by a subject to be quoted. Redrocket (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you from editing for a week due to your promotional activity on Channing Tatum that violates such policies as no edit-warring, nobody owns any article, what external links are appropriate, neutral point of view and conflict of interest. The whole affair is being discussed here, if you want someone to publish your explanation there, just leave it here, on your talk page along with tag. If you disagree with the block or promise to edit Wikipedia constructively, post here. Max S em(Han shot first!) 06:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

So the other editors automatically win, even though they are misinformed and are making their decisions on saying that the site is not official when it is. Thanks for what I'm sure was a fair assessment of the situation. I'm sure this won't be the end of all of this. Wcfirm (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We are not disputing whether the site is official or not. Indeed, the link to this official site is the first on the list of external links. However, the content you inserted with edits like this is not permitted on Wikipedia. It is promotional and violates Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. As such, you are violating a policy, although you may think you are not. Please feel free to continue editing when the block expires but please read Five pillars to understand what this site is about. Stifle (talk) 09:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is now an entry at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for longer-term treatment of this situation. As Stifle says, even if your site now has some official status, it is still not appropriate to insert an entire paragraph in the article.  In what other articles have you seen similar attention to external sites, official or otherwise?  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

If I call up Tatum's agent and/or publicist and ask if they authorized this official site (hosted on blogspot? A little strange for even an up-and-coming star, don't you think), what would they tell me? If they had, what do you think they would say about how this person they hired to create and maintain this official site was behaving over here? Hmm? Can you tell me so I don't have to make the call? Daniel Case (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, I've doubled the length of your block (to two weeks) for your edits.  Please don't do that again.  —Wknight94 (talk) 22:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I posted a message on the AN/I of his block, suggesting an extention (yes, I know I am not an admin, it is just my opinion) because the user has continued to sockpuppet, even after being warned not to. Daedalus (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)