Misplaced Pages

your question to me

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. You appear to have a problem with another user cited as T.J. Morgan with reference to Metropolitan Registries. Please read WP policies before making attacks or allegations. You also state that the Better Business Bureau is not a legitimate source of information. Why? Maustrauser 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Amanda11"

The above message- Dear Maustrauser, Thank you for the time you have taken to respond to my request. I am just learning how Misplaced Pages Works. I did submit the same question and was told that I should work through the the following and I will do so:

However, since article content is not controlled by a central authority, we do not resolve editing disputes via email. Instead, please follow the steps outlined at <http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution>. These steps are designed to help you work with other editors and to draw upon the help of the wider community.

In response to your questions I will work wp policies regarding the problems I am having, which was not in any way meant to be an attack or allegation. As far as the BBB Report, I can give you a little background. I was asking that the link not be allowed because the BBB states in their policies they do not allow links without their consent. We are working with the BBB to have them revise their statements and hopefully become a working partner with them. We have 75,000 active members at MWW and less than a 1% complaint ratio. We realize that all complaints are unacceptable but we have a perfect record in resolving every complaint. So I please ask for your help and do let me know what I can do to not have our company listed in this area. I would like to further discuss the networking oportunities we do provide for all our members, as well as future plans we have in place to add value to membership.

Regards,

Amanda

Thank you Amanda for commenting. Please be aware that you do not need to copy material from one page to another. As I left a message on your page I will automatically be told when it has been updated. It's best to have a discussion on only one page. Perhaps we should make it this one as you have moved material across. As you appear to be intimately involved with MWW then your editing of articles about MWW should be informed by WP:COI. WP works on the basis of "no original research" and thus any comment on WP must be attributable to a reputable third party. As far as I can tell the NY BBB is a reputable third party and thus the links from WP pages to BBB are legitimate.

I was unable to find on the MWW a reference saying that their website should not be linked to. Perhaps you can tell me the web reference to that. Regardless, anything published on the internet is fair game to be linked to. If they don't want it linked then they shouldn't publish! May I suggest that your best recourse is to work with BBB to resolve the problems. Then the WP article can be updated to indicate the change in status. I'd also caution you to not add material about 'networking opportunities' and 'future plans' as they will be construed as a breach of WP:COI and WP:Advertising. Maustrauser 01:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies again I am very much trying to follow the rules and I made changes on the original page. I will talk directly on this page in the future. I am not debating the value of the BBB. MWW is working directly with the BBB to rectify the report. What I am stating is the following:

CBBB Terms & Conditions state that a link to the BBB must first be approved.

2. The CBBB may consider and approve in its sole discretion other link requests from the following types of organizations: o commonly-known consumer and/or business information sources such as Chambers of Commerce, American Automobile Association, AARP and Consumers Union; o dot.com community sites; o associations or other groups representing charities, including charity giving sites, o online directory distributors; o internet portals; o accounting, law and consulting firms whose primary clients are businesses; and o educational institutions and trade associations.

see BBB terms bbb.org/about/terms.asp and a full explanation regarding permission to link.

Thank you for your help in this matter.

I also saw a statement that had MWW listed as a vanity publication. You stated not according to the BBB. However the BBB lists MWW as a Professional Organization.

Thank you for your response. I have now gone and read the BBB terms. Frankly, I think they are a joke. They must be dreaming if they think that they can stop people linking to their pages. The only way not to have people linking is not to publish the material. I have no control over what links people put into articles and I personally believe that if the link provides context or evidence for a claim made on WP then it is valid. If BBB wishes to do anything about stopping WP from linking to it then it will have to do something about it itself. I'd also hazard to say that WP is a 'news service' and thus meets criteria 1 of its terms.

I personally know nothing about MWW. If you don't believe it is a vanity publication then remove it from the article. Be Bold. Some editor may well put it back and then your best bet is to debate it with them on the article's talk page or on their talk page. I can't recall what originally started our correspondence (I do many edits per day). I suspect I reverted one of your deletions. I tend to do that when the deletion is made without any attempt at a good explanation of why the deletion was made or if it looks like the person is trying to whitewash a bad report. I suggest that you put a comment on the talk page of the relevant article along the following lines: "I intend to delete XXX from the article as it YYY. Does anyone have any concerns with this? I'll delete it in three days time so if you have any concerns, just report them on this page and we can discuss it." That way, you avoid what is called a 'revert war', you follow due process, you look professional and the discussion is done in good faith. Not many people use this approach and then they end up in messy edit wars and complaints. Good luck Maustrauser 22:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Again Maustrauser, I thought somewhere in here I had said that I changed another article before reading what you had written, if I didn't I meant to & I do apologize. You had let me know specifically that I had a vested interest & therefor I should not be making statements. I do respect that. So yes, out of frustration you saw what looked like an ad, which was my way of giving a full explanation of what we at MWW would describe of our company. So yes of course remove the ad,(although I'd love it if you didn't, ha ha) I am starting to learn each time I log on a little more of the how to's in Misplaced Pages. Thank You for that.

G'day Cindi (you like changing names!) Advertisement removed! Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Next, even though you do not agree with the BBB on their policy, I do have a legitimate claim on that end. Can I remove the link w/out any further changes at this point? I will debate the rest when I learn Misplaced Pages's practices much better. Although I would like the opportunity to submit documentation to you that proves our membership packages start at $69.

Feel free to remove the link. Some other editor might put it back though! The best place to 'prove' things is on the talk page of the relevant article (the talk page is actually called 'discussion' but we all call them talk pages). We are currently writing this discussion on my 'talk page'. Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

In the next week or so, the BBB will be changes the report, we are in the middle of negotiations with them. If I then show you supporting evidence that we have a good report with the BBB will you allow me to remove the statement?

I guess the question is, does MWW 'sell' entries in biographical publicatons without rigorous analysis of the credentials of the applicants? I can't answer that. I have had to rely on the BBB report. I imagine I know how you will answer that. If your view is that the statement is inaccurate then of course you should remove it. If, it is an accurate statement, then removing it would be an incorrect thing to do. Frankly I don't care if MWW has 'problems' with BBB. I'm only interested in knowing if MWW 'sells' biographical entries. If I find evidence that it does and isn't rigorous in its screening, then I'm likely to put it back. Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And my last question to you is I do not understand this statement "I intend to delete XXX from the article as it YYY" What do you mean by this?

I meant by this that before deleting things, you should put a statement on the talk page saying something like: "I intend to delete the reference to MWW from the article as it is an inaccurate portrayal of MWWs activities. I will delete it after two days. If you disagree with me doing this, then please give me your reasons here." By doing this other editors won't consider you a vandal.Maustrauser 03:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I know that I have frustrated you some so just bear with me a short time longer and hopefully I will disappear, never to bother you again. Ha Ha.

No problem. We all have to learn. It's been a pleasure discussing these things with you. Maustrauser 03:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Again Thank you for your understanding and patients, Cyndi

temporary reply

temporary reply can be found on my user page
Respectfully, BenedictX 02:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

American Biographical Institute

Amanda11 21:38, 21 February 2007 (UTC)I believe here the comment about MWW should be removed. We have no affiliation with the American Biological Institute.

Hi Amanda. See my earlier comment above about how to go about deletions so as to avoid conflict. Maustrauser 22:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Calligaris: the work begins!

Dear Maustrauser, I have finally been able to start on the article. By the way, thank you very much for your "good luck" in relation to my PhD: YES! I handed it in and now it only a question of time before the viva. Yuppie! Anyway, let's talk about "serious" matters now. I have started cleaning the article from the many adjectives. I hope it now sounds more acceptable. However, I know that there is still a lot of work to do: one of this is about referencing. Here I got a slight problem and would be very grateful to have your input. Problem 1): there is one information that I gained from the composer directly:

"In his youth he had been a pupil of Luis Angel Machado who, in turn, had been personal assistant to Paul Hindemith." Since Machado is a minor figure, so to speak, in composition, there may even be a question of whether quoting him or not. Should I put a footnote like "personal communication" or something similar?

Problem 2: in a passage like the following, where I list the characteristics of his music:

"the vivid opposition between "elegiac" and "flamboyant and wild" themes; a dramatic use of rhythm; a disciplined and, at the same time, extremely complex master of counterpoint; the adoption of "classical" composing forms (see, just as an example, the use of form in the Prelude, choral, double fugue and finale op. 19)",

should I put a footnote for each review (or more than one) where these features are being discussed?

Problem 3: you pointed out that not many of his teachers have an entry in WP. Apart from Jorge Fanelli, however, all other are listed in the Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians (Jorge Fanelli is mentioned in Calligaris' entry in the same work). Shall I put a reference to the Baker's (or to other dictionaries) for each of them (or at least for the ones without an entry in WP?)?

I am sure these will not be the only questions from me to you, but they would make a good start for me! I also hope I am not over-stretching your patience! A rileggerci presto, Alessandra 16:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on your submission. A great achievement. Let's hope that the examiners aren't too rough! To business. Whilst Pers comm is quite acceptable in PhDs etc, where original research is encouraged, WP has a policy of NO original research. So I think you had best delete that bit - unless you can find a third party who has said it. As for problem 2, you definitely need to reference such statements, otherwise it sounds as though you are making them up. Problem 3. Easily solved. Write the articles for them! Now you are not working on your PhD, you will have heaps of time!  : ) But do reference where you get the data. Any more questions, do ask. Best wishes, Maustrauser 10:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Party article

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Some of your recent edits, such as those you made to Party, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Sorry, that was a bad revert unfortunately. From this edit difference http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Party&diff=next&oldid=110450716 it appeared you had added nonsense but then I double checked the history and found out that it was part of the article. I changed it back. Sorry about that! User: Hdt83 | Talk/Chat 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Easy to do! Maustrauser 01:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Glen Williams

The problem with several different lists of judges, is that the names sometimes get spelled differently for the same judge on two or more lists. I try to catch this when it happens. Alas, this one slipped through. Sorry to bother you, but I don't know what else to do. Respectfully, BenedictX 02:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

No worries. But I'm not sure what your question is. Maustrauser 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:24, 27 February 2007 (UTC)