User talk:Dcmn9

Welcome!

Hello, Dcmn9, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Northern Lights Minnesota Author TV Series, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content protocols, and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are struck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at the our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

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 have any questions ask me on my talk page or you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Antila ✉ 06:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Northern Lights Minnesota Author TV Series

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Northern Lights Minnesota Author TV Series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Antila ✉ 06:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Dcmn9. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:16, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thanks for message. First, of course, you can promote something even if there is no financial transaction. If I said Donald Trump is a great president, that's promotion even if I were not getting paid to do it. You said you were not paid, but it appears that you still have a conflict of interest that you need to declare I was encouraged to compose and submit this article by readers, the authors and publishers themselves, and even librarians! . You should not be writing at the behest of those making the series, and you need to clarify your connection with said "authors and publishers" You also said I was the one with the most knowledge of the history, development, production and success of the series... we are just looking for good venues to offer information. Again, clarify your connection, and explain who "we" are.

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. Sources that are not acceptable include those linked to the subject or an affiliated organisation or company, press releases, YouTube, IMDB, social media and other sites that can be self-edited, blogs, websites of unknown or non-reliable provenance, and sites that are just reporting what the company or organisation, claims or interviewing its management. Note that references should be in-line so we can tell what fact each is supporting, and should not be bare urls. You had absolutely no references at all, let alone in line, so we have no way of checking anything you claim.
Without in-line independent third-party sources, you can't establish notability, even if the series actually is notable.
it was written in a promotional tone. Articles must be neutral and encyclopaedic. Examples of unsourced or self-sourced claims presented as fact include: most well-known and beloved writers... great interest and opportunities to interview... some acclaimed national authors
there shouldn't be any url links in the article, only in the "References" or "External links" sections. That's particularly the case when they are spamlinks to affiliated sites.
the article was created in a single edit without wikilinks or references, and looks as if it might be copied from an unknown and possibly copyrighted source. Copyrighted text is not allowed in Wikipedia, as outlined in this policy. That applies even to pages created by you or your organisation, unless they state clearly and explicitly that the text is public domain. . We require that text posted here can be used, modified and distributed for any purpose, including commercial, and text is considered to be copyright unless explicitly stated otherwise. There are ways to donate copyrighted text to Wikipedia, as described here; please note that simply asserting on the talk page that you are the owner of the copyright, or you have permission to use the text, isn't sufficient.
Also note that we cannot accept original research

The fact that other articles have not been deleted doesn't help you, either they met the criteria or should be deleted as well. See What about article x?. In any case, you specifically mentioned Breaking Bad, but if you look at that article, although it's not outstanding, it has over 200 in-line references compared to your zero, many wikilinks, and no in-text external links.

You said It seems your guidelines and what you publish are rather ambiguous between what exactly is “information” and “promotion”; information is neutrally written and verifiable. Promotion is something like yours: a list of episodes and "how to view", with no sources or evidence of notability, no costings or other financials and lots of in-text links to external sites. Half your article is actually promoting series other than the one you are supposed to be writing about!

Before attempting to write an article again, please make sure that the topic meets the notability criteria linked above, and check that you can find independent third party sources. Also read Your first article. You must also reply to the COI request above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:11, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2023

As previously advised, your edits, such as the edit you made to Northern Lights Minnesota Author TV Series, give the impression you have a financial stake in promoting a topic, but you have not complied with Wikipedia's mandatory paid editing disclosure requirements. You were asked to cease editing until you responded by either stating that you are not being directly or indirectly compensated for your edits, or by complying with the mandatory requirements under the Wikimedia Terms of Use that you disclose your employer, client and affiliation. Again, you can post such a disclosure on your user page at User:Dcmn9, and the template {{Paid}} can be used for this purpose – e.g. in the form: {{paid|user=Dcmn9|employer=InsertName|client=InsertName}}. Please respond before making any other edits to Wikipedia. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were cautioned about this by User:Jimfbleak, but did not reply. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TO: Magnolia677

Please see my response and request for "unblocking" below, or I can send you information directly. I did not see these notices until today. Dcmn9 (talk) 02:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised that my links to relevant interview programs with various Wikipedia page authors and topics was blocked. I did not see the notices several days ago about the blocking until now. I believe one of the issues is you think I am getting paid or otherwise benefitting monetarily from providing these links on Wikipedia pages. The Northern Lights Minnesota Authors Interview TV Series was always produced by library systems, non-profit organizations or government agencies and appeared only on public television and cable TV systems. Although I worked on the programs up until 2002, I am now retired and have absolutely no financial stake (there are no sales or fees or other compensation). Many of the links are to the digitized videos from this series on the University of Minnesota's Digital Collections website which can be accessed for free. I am proud of this series and believe these programs offer an excellent opportunity to learn more about these authors or topics and is in line with Wikipedia providing the widest range of information and is very similar to other external links you routinely allow. I know there is interest because the number of online views of these videos greatly increased after publishing on Wikipedia. I am happy to provide more information or fill out the appropriate forms (it seems my blocking is preventing this). I had thought the only issue was my attempt in June 2020 to create a separate page for the TV series did not meet your guidelines. I welcome your response and certainly hope that this can be rectified. I have told many interested people to use Wikipedia to access these links to the programs. Thank you very much.

--Dave Carlson (Dcmn9), WIkipedia Supporter

Dcmn9 (talk) 02:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I have found that links to other video/non-commercial television programs besides the Northern Lights Minnesota Author Interview TV Series have also been "reverted" (or removed). I can assure you I have no monetary interest or reward for these programs either. In good faith I was diligently providing these links because I strongly felt that they would be of value and enhance the information available that you present for a person or topic. I am sorry if for some reason I did not follow proper protocol but I was careful in adding relevant information and double-checking all links. Being a former librarian and communications professional, I feel these links are as relevant as many of the other resources and links that have been allowed to be on these pages. As I said, I would welcome the opportunity to speak or discuss with you why this sudden blocking and removing the links. My e-mail is [email protected]. Thank you! Dcmn9 (talk) 02:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]