User talk:Mgillim

Welcome!

Hello, Mgillim, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About COI[edit]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Portland Spaces, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Katr67 (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Portland Monthly, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Portland Monthly, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Cirt (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Portland Monthly, you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Portland Monthly. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. Cirt (talk) 17:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Mgillim, you have been blocked from editing for a short time. Your removal of content from Portland Monthly is not acceptable -- especially without explanation, and without engaging with other editors. While you're blocked, you should probably read up on edit warring. It's not something we have a lot of patience for. -Pete (talk) 17:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm updating the Portland Monthly page to reflect company changes (I am a director at Portland Monthly). Could you please remove my block? Mgillim (talk) 17:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no indication that you've read or comprehended the guidelines linked above, so no, the block won't be removed early. That gives you 3 hours to get up to speed before taking another crack at editing. -Pete (talk) 17:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, written after Pete's initial warning)

I'm going to assume a tiny bit of good faith here. Sometimes new editors don't know why their edits didn't "stick" and think there's something wrong with the software or their browser, so they end up edit warring (and reverting edits so fast they miss the warnings). If the edits you made seem to have disappeared, be sure to learn to check the page history and read the edit summaries. Then you need to start engaging in a discussion on the article talk pages.

That said, editing articles in which you have a COI are strongly discouraged. Please be sure to read the above COI notice (click on the blue links to find the pages about the relevant policies) and also read our business FAQ. If you see something that needs to be changed in a article in which you have a COI, it is better to request those changes on the article's talk page. Communicating with your fellow editors in this way, as well as getting into the habit of leaving edit summaries will go a long way towards learning how we do things around here.

Be sure to note that requests to remove large swaths of sourced information are likely not to be honored. As an enyclopedia, this project is not here to provide free advertising space to your company. Articles are supposed to be neutral and factual. You are not allowed to put your "spin" into them. Besides which, the fact that Portland Monthly is a GA-rated article should already be of some benefit to you. Removing sourced information from such an article is only going to make your company look worse, not better. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is much company information on here that is outdated. Current editor is Randy Gragg. This needs to be updated in the 2004 - present section. Also the reference to the website is incorrect. We don't use the website that way anymore. It should read that it is a resource/directory for finding arts, entertainment, dining and outdoor activity listings.

I think that you'll find that Wikipedia editors are generally very interested in keeping things up to date and accurate. However, in order to do that together effectively, we have to be able to work together. The various policies and guidelines that people are suggesting to you are the best way to get acquainted with the collaborative norms of our community. If you disregard this sort of suggestion, you're going to have a hard time accomplishing your goals here. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict--and I also agree with what Pete said) Great, we can certainly fix that! Updates like that are not a problem (unlike the unexplained removal of sourced material). Do you have a source we can cite for the change in editors? (a third-party source would be ideal, but a listing on the magazine's website would also work for now.) P.S. Don't forget to sign your posts with 4 tildes: ~~~~ Katr67 (talk) 19:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.oregonmediainsiders.com/node/1893 -- That sites the change in editors. It hasn't been Ted K in awhile. Thank you. Mgillim (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009 redux[edit]

Your first action after your block expired was to again make unsourced changes to an article [1]. Please do not make unsourced changes unless you can provide sources satisfying WP:RS and WP:V to back them up. Please take a look at WP:CITE and WP:CIT as to how to properly cite information to reliable verifiable sources. Let me know if you would like help with this, but please take a moment to read through these pages, and the other pages other have recommended to you, above on your user talk page here. Cirt (talk) 20:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the source above will work. Katr67 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to [2], which is a blog with Oregon Media Insiders: News, commentary and rank gossip. at the top of it, that fails WP:RS. Cirt (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't know that, but I'm washing my hands of this situation. Good luck. Katr67 (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um okay, just saying - "News, commentary and rank gossip" and "blog" is posted very clearly at that source, if you just click on the link. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to mend fences[edit]

Mgillim, I think you may have got a rather unfortunate introduction to our community of editors here. I'm largely responsible, and I really regret that. Please feel free to get in touch. email or 503-453-9766) I think the encyclopedia could really benefit from your contributions in the future, and I hope we haven't chased you away. -Pete (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]