User talk:Berzon

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add your reference to the article. Thank you.

Because the article you cite is one you wrote yourself, this falls under original research. You appear to be new to Wikipedia, so I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:No Original Research and the welcome page. Netsumdisc (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning[edit]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Kenneth Fisher. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. The article you link to is written by yourself. Please don't use Wikipedia to self-promote.Netsumdisc (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you censoring my link?[edit]

Why are you censoring my link to the article on Fisher Investments from the Ken Fisher page? It is in no way vandalism, it is also not original research nor original thought. It is simply information that people investing with Fisher must know before choosing Ken's firm to manage their money. Fisher Investments representatives choose to avoid these very important issues in their sales process and skirt the issues if clients bring them up. Having only links with complimentary information is very one-sided and biased. In the interest of presenting a balanced view, please stop removing my link.

Please review Wikipedia guidelines[edit]

I can see you are new to Wikipedia. Welcome. There are some guidelines, as a newcomer, you may not be aware of just yet. I suggest you review:

WP:CIV
WP:NOR
WP:NOT
WP:CENSOR
And perhaps the most important, WP:FAITH

Your thoughtful contributions are welcome. To avoid edit wars, getting warned, and possibly blocked, please review these and the welcome page.

Your link to the article you wrote was removed because it was self-authored, and therefore considered original research, an opinion piece, and could be viewed as self-promotion or advertising. Also, bear in mind Wikipedia is not a battleground. These sorts of things should generally be avoided. Hope that helps clear things up. Netsumdisc (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am assuming you are acting in good faith. Please note: Wikipedia is not a place to air personal grievances, nor is it a place for product reviews. Please review WP:NOR, WP:SOAP. Netsumdisc (talk) 18:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop that nonsense![edit]

I posted a link to an article I wrote on the subject. I did not change information on the page itself. Such links are permitted and are throughout wikipedia. It would be ridiculous to require sources for all the data provided on all the linked pages and there is no such requirement, as far as I can tell. If it is forbidden, please point to the exact sense, which you think makes it so. As far as self promotion, I have nothing to promote. I am not a money manager and the article is posted as a blog on the site of a Russian language newspaper! You, on the other hand, have no business editing pages on the subjects where you can not remain unbiased. Please don't do it again.

Berzon 18:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. You are adding links to sites in which you have a commercial interest. Please review WP:SOAP and WP:BATTLE.

I will change the link to Fool.Com version of the article[edit]

Look, if you have a problem with providing unbiased information, please remove yourself from the editor role. Your behavior is ridiculous and unacceptable. Every time you come up with a new reason for threatening me with being removed. Is the real reason you are doing it that you have a commercial interest tied to Fisher Investments?

If the problem is the site where this article is posted, I will provide a link to the same article on another site that I have no interest in whatsoever. However, I do not believe that this is the issue here, since the newspaper site I linked to is not investment related. Please, refer this matter to a neutral editor for speedy resolution and in the meantime I will change the link to the Live Journal version of this article.

February 2008[edit]

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Berzon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have never added any spam links.

Decline reason:

Yes you have been promoting your website. — Haemo (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Berzon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Links to contextual newspaper articles are not spam. I authored a wiki section today about Marina Goldovskaya, a documentary filmmaker who spent decades filming Anatoly Rybakov. Odesskiy Listok interviewed Marina after the movie was released. In this interview, Marina shared never before published details of Rybakov's life and likes. I posted a link to this article from the Rybakov page. How does that constitute spam? The Kenneth Fisher link is a matter that has been already discussed at length and I thought it has been resolved in my favor. If you feel that you need further information/explanation or that my explanation is too long for reading, please feel free to give me a call at (303) 669-1526 and I will be happy to clarify further.

Decline reason:

If "Marina shared never before published details of Rybakov's life and likes", then wouldn't it be a great idea to use the article as a source for further information to be added to it? That would be responsible editing. To just add the links without adding any relevant information from them to the article looks like you're just trying to increase traffic to your website.— Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Daniel, thank you for that insight and your suggestion. I am rather new to this and appreciate your explanation of the right way to do things on wikipedia. I hope to find time to extract the most interesting facts, translate them into English and embed them into the article some time soon.

Sockpuppetry case[edit]

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Berzon for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Netsumdisc (talk) 03:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standards for Biography of Living Persons[edit]

This wikipedia page is a BLP (see WP:BLP) and is therfore held to specific policies and guidelines. Reliable and verifiable sources must be used (WP:RS) and posts must be neutral and impartial (WP:NPOV).

Your inclusion of other financial companies included in BW's Best Places to Launch a Career was clearly negatively biased since those firms have all been recently subject to buy-outs or bankruptcy. It apprears that you are trying to associate Fisher Investments with such firms. Additionally, inclusion of other firms on this list doesn't add anything to this article.

Your re-posting of lay off information was sourced, but the source does not qualify as reliable or verifiable. Wiki is an encyclopedia and should only include information verified by reliable sources. Wiki is not the place for passing along gossip and rumors. (WP:RS) Neither Fisher Investments nor its representatives have confirmed or denied the lay offs, and the article is not conclusive either. The information about lay offs in the article were made by an anonymous source and can not be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ranin06 (talk • contribs) 20:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]