User talk:Ott jeff

October 2009

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! I noticed that you recently added commentary to an article, MonaVie. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. However, keep in mind that even on the talk page of an article, you should limit your discussion to improving the article. Article talk pages are not the place to discuss opinions of the subject of articles nor are such pages a forum. Thank you. Dac04 (talk) 02:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. 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 ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address 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) 17:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Request

Hi there. I noticed you left a request for a third opinion on WP:3 involving the MonaVie article. I have edited your entry to the list so that it corresponds with the instructions on the third opinion page to provide a shorter, more neutral description of the dispute. I suggest you create a new section at Talk:MonaVie that details what is involved in the dispute and how you think it should be resolved, and invite the other editor involved to share their side. Once you do this, it will greatly increase your chances of receiving a third opinion. Thanks! Mildly Mad^T_C 20:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of your recent edits

Hi! I'm concerned that your recent edits may not be appropriate, so I've asked for neutral administrators to review them here. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the link, which was to the wrong place. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring, possible COI, violations of Neutral Point of View

Above you mention that you are reviewing this article as part of a project. Is that an academic project, or is it a project sponsored by the company or it's public relations agency? I see that you have been edit warring to sanitize the article of sourced criticism.[1][2][3] Wikipedia is not concerned with presenting companies in a favorable light. We reflect the view of reliable publications. This company appears to have been the subject of considerable criticism within reliable sources, and thus the article may include that criticism in proportion to what is found in the sources. Even if you are right that the criticism is excessive, you must not edit war to get your way. Instead, use dispute resolution to settle disagreements with other editors. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 22:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MonaVie Active

I've redirected this to MonaVie. I'm not sure I see the need for a separate article on the subject. Perhaps any new material can be added there? --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is still whether the product is notable enough that it merits a separate article? If you think so, feel free to create it, but just bear in mind that you need to demonstrate the notability of the product (as distinct from the company). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm somewhat skeptical, but I'll reserve judgement until I see the page. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 01:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, I've looked at the page, and it appears to be largely promotional material for the drink/company, and not really distinct from the MonaVie article. Just to let you know, I plan to take the article to AfD. --Bfigura ^(talk) 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of MonaVie Active

I have nominated MonaVie Active, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonaVie Active. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ott jeff. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your promotional contribs.

Please stop. I don't mean to be rude, but you are at a high risk of getting blocked indefinitely, as explained by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) on WP:AFD/MonaVie Active.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your promotional contribs.

Please stop. I don't mean to be rude, but you are at a high risk of getting blocked indefinitely, as explained by FisherQueen (talk · contribs) on WP:AFD/MonaVie Active. As he had explained, you only work on MonaVie related articles.----_{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Having reviewed your contributions, you have not demonstrated an understanding that promotional editing is not allowed, nor have you showed any desire to change this pattern. Despite being warned and blocked for this behaviour, you have continued to insert promotion into the MonaVie article; so per this ANI thread, I have blocked your account indefinitely. You may appeal using {{unblock}} or by following the instructions at WP:APPEAL. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing your own article on Wikipedia

One of the things I wish that Wikipedia had was an example of a before and after article that would show writers with COI how poorly their articles look next to well-written neutral wikipedia articles. You're not going to get free advertising with this article. Readers are going to look at silly phrases like, "all has not been rosie for monavie," and instantly take this article for what it is: advertising.

You're not doing the company any good. In my opinion the biggest reason that COI users should earn blocks is for writing badly. MonaVie, if it's a company that is known and written about in the press deserves to have an article as well-written as the best wikipedia article can be.

And, well-written article does not mean barely-disguised, rather badly written advertisement.

Please reconsider your position regarding this article and leave it alone. If you do, I will ask some good editors to check the article and rewrite it to represent a well-written wikipedia article.

You simply won't be allowed to use wikipedia as free advertising, so you might want to think about this. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is going on. To learn the in and outs of Wikipedia editing I did what was writen in the new contribution section tutorials; I found a subject, learn about the subject and attempted to make edits. While making the edits there were people there that would simply delete my edits (it was very fustrating). After trying my hand at editing an article I decided today to maybe create a page myself. Because of the knowledge that I had gained from the topic I had been covering, I decided to write something along the same lines. I fully expected that the article would be edited but figured atleast I could see how a wiki editor would fix my mistakes. I wrote the article, walked away from my computer and returned to find that I an banned from editing. I completely don't understand this place and what is going on.Ott jeff (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's work on it. The administrator who asked that you be banned agreed to support dropping the ban if you agree to stay away from the MonaVie and Acai articles. This does not mean that you have to stop editing in an area that interests you, but other editors will require that you follow rules about creating and editing articles. To help with this I suggest you start by editing in user space. I can show you how to do it, and I will be glad to help you, and other editors will, learn how to write and edit articles on wikipedia.

The most important thing to remember is that this is a collaborative effort to write an encyclopedia. This requires community consensus about editing. So, if a lot of editors disagree with you, then stepping back to understand why helps. I think that everyone has been very aggressive with you, partly out of frustration with what appears to be your conflict of interest with the company. Still, a little more patience from the start might have helped. Also, because it is an encyclopedia, the sources have to be secondary or tertiary sources that are considered fairly neutral and reliable. You can't write an article about a company using only that company's information to write the article. It all has to come from the news or journals or reliable sources in some way.

The MonaVie article is a seriously problematic article. It shows that editors have been edit warring over it. A group of editors will rewrite it to a neutral article. There are other editors, not involved in the dispute, and not as impatient with the article as I am, who can check and monitor it for neutrality.

Appeal your block by agreeing to not edit the MonaVie or Acai articles, find something else you'd like to edit, and I will discuss how you can appropriately edit and improve a wikipedia article. It can be an existing article or a new article you would like to write. Let me know by posting here. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you create another user ID (a sockpuppet) and continue to edit these articles, you will be permanently banned, though. So, please don't go that route, as it won't help. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, I opened a discussion at the administrators' incident board, and other administrators agreed that you should be blocked from editing, because Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for advertising and promotion, and your contribution history indicates that you are only interested in writing positively about MonaVie, and not interested in Wikipedia's mission, which is writing a better encyclopedia. However, User:IP69.226.103.13 has advocated for you, and at his urging I've agreed to support an unblock for you if you're willing to avoid writing about MonaVie or Acai. In that way, we'll know that the good of the encyclopedia, not the good of your company, really is your priority. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 12:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to both of you. This issues kept me from sleeping last night, it has been really frustrating. I do not have a need to post in the MonaVie article, I simply used that as a starting point because I will being do a reseach project next term (I am doing some post grad work at Ryerson U) and I want to use Canadian government regulation of the MLM industry as a topic. I after reading and several artciles I noticed, what appear to me to be, some issues with the MonaVie page. I decided that this would be a good place for me to start editing. After making my first edit it was undone within a few mintes. Some of my edits were undone then word-smith and entered as someelse's work, I felt my work was plagiarized and that was frustrating too. When I created the MonaVie Active page I did not think that it would be an issue. I my opinion, at the moment, there was a Diet Coke page and a Coke page, I simply saw the MonaVie Active as a Diet Coke (so to speak). Anyway, so is the history of my experience thus far with editing in wikipedia. I agree that I will not edit the MonaVie page. As I will continue to do research of the MLM industry as a possible project topic, should I come across new information about MonaVie or other acai products then maybe I can contact one of the editors of that page simply to highlight the issue or maybe I just keep the issue to myself? I thank you for your assistance. Again, I agree not to edit the MonaVie page.Ott jeff (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also add that you should probably ensure that your edits won't be viewed as promotional. It's fine if you want to look at multi-level marketing, but you need to make sure your articles don't come across as advertising. Also, with regard to editing, when you (or me, or anyone else) submits writes anything here, it is licensed under CC-BY-SA, which means anyone can edit it in anyway (since your original contributions are preserved in the history of the article. (Not quite sure if that addresses your point about plagiarism, but just wanted mention it. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 15:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the MLM article is very poorly written and it could use editing. If you come across information on MonaVie that is essential to the article you can add that to the talk page and ask editors there if it is appropriate and it can be added if agreed to. However, for now I suggest you stay completely away from that topic, say for a month or so, if you are restated. We can deal with things one at a time. Like, let's start by your suggesting user space edits, meaning, find something you want to edit, and discuss it here on your talk page, the specific edits you would make.

Bfigura is correct about the plagiarism. If an editor removes your content, then decides it was actually appropriate, they can just reinsert it, as everything you contribute to wikipedia requires that you agree to the CC-BY-SA licensing. If you are uncomfortable with that licensing you should not be editing wikipedia at all, because there's no way around that. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thank you both. I am going stay away from the MonaVie page. I do not really mean plagiarism; it just left like that. I spent hours researching and writing only to have someone else remove it and then place it somewhere else under their name, I kind of felt that they did not want me to get credit in my contributions that I did. Anyways, thats is not really important.Ott jeff (talk) 23:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per discussion above. Please work with your mentor on the areas mentioned and avoid editing MonaVie.

Request handled by: TN X Man 21:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Ott jeff (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, at AN/I, and at FisherQueen's user talk page, I will work with this editor to help him learn how to edit and source en.wiki articles, keeping him strictly away from MonaVie articles and the Acai article as recommended by FisherQueen. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's go about this slowly, post here or on my talk page, letting me know of a specific article that needs editing that you would like to edit, and some idea of what type of edits. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The topic that I would like to write about is the Liberation Treatment, by Dr. Paolo Zamboni. Ott jeff (talk) 17:59, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, probably the doctor and the treatment should be in one article, although if you get enough reliable sources separate article would be fine. My suggestion, please feel free to disagree, though, is to start an article on the doctor at Paolo Zamboni making Liberation Treatment or Liberation treatment a redirect to the doctor for now, expand the doctor's article, then, if you get enough information and good sources, make the Liberation Treatment article a separate one.

The sources you should probably start with are at [4]. You can use the doctor's academic biography, if it is still available as a source for basic information about the doctor, but most of the information should come from the news sources.

Start the article in user space at User:Ott jeff/Paolo Zamboni and we can go over details bit by bit. --69.225.10.237 (talk) 20:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]