User talk:Hammerhard18

Self promotion

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a place for blogging or promotion. So please do not try to use Wikipedia to promote yourself or your family, band, product, or company. The subjects of our articles have to meet certain notability requirements and be written from a neutral point of view. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time, even if it's on your user page. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing here, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest and your username

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Miami Fox Publishing", may not comply with our username policy. Please note that you may not use a username that represents the name of a company, group, organization, product, or website. Examples of usernames that are not allowed include "XYZ Company", "MyWidgetsUSA.com", and "Foobar Museum of Art". However, you are permitted to use a username that contains such a name if it identifies you individually, such as "Sara Smith at XYZ Company", "Mark at WidgetsUSA", or "FoobarFan87".

Please also note that Wikipedia does not allow accounts to be shared by multiple people, and that you may not advocate for or promote any company, group, organization, product, or website, regardless of your username. Please also read our paid editing policy and our conflict of interest guideline. If you are a single individual and are willing to contribute to Wikipedia in an unbiased manner, please request a change of username, by completing this form, choosing a username that complies with our username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PaulByrnes Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Fox Publishing, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Miami Fox Publishing! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

HostBot

It’s not SELF PROMOTION if i’m NOT the person & I’m including a critical response to the film by another person!!! If it was self promotion i’d be promoting my self Paul and talking about myself!

If the in-put I’ve included is considered self promotion then 90% of WIKI should be removed!

In fact any company name Dread Central for example who has made a critic could also be deemed as blogging on wiki for self advertising.

The quotes I inserted came from a film critics website and to have my in put removed makes a mockery of WIKI!

Paul Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we've not been clear. Bryn Curt James Hammond is the CEO of Miami Fox Publishing. An account using the 'Miami Fox Publishing' name to add reviews from him to an array of movies is operating on behalf of that person, thus self promotion. I placed a warning above regarding the conflict of interest issue, and the username issue. Within that warning was also a link to our paid editing policy. It is clear from your edits that you are editing on behalf of Bryn Curt James Hammond, as every edit to mainspace that you have so far made is quoting/referencing him and his website. This is a violation of our conflict of interest guideline as well as our paid editing policy. Wikipedia is not a link farm. Adding links here will not increase the visibility of your company on the Internet nor aid in SEO. Further, regardless of whatever username you may choose to edit here with, you need to abide by the aforementioned conflict of interest guideline. Imagine, for a moment; what if every film critic in the world were permitted to add their own particular take on any movie for which we have an article; the article would be absolutely overwhelmed with the movie critic's comments and links to their site. Obviously we can not allow this. Thank you for your understanding. If any of this is unclear, please let me know. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft

Bryn Curt James Hammond is NOT the CEO of Miami Fox check with Company House! Bryn Hammond is NOT promoting himself it’s a critical review by him on a film it fits in with Wiki’s guidelines perfectly. If you disagree with that and this is incorrect then I’ll happily help rectify other Films on your behalf to fit in with your guidelines Hammersoft.

I’ve made it clear and you can check with company house to verify that if you want to be picky with posts that help wiki. Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Fox & Bryn Hammond

Bryn Hammond is NOT CEO of Miami Fox this can be checked via company house UK so there is NO conflict of interest here.

From my impression Hammersoft obviously has some sort of personal conflict with the critic and is allowing his own emotions to get in the way of helping Wiki supply varied opinions to its readers.

Based on this alone my additions should stay. He has cited two separate arogumentd to fit into his narrativevto remove the critic from wiki.

Personal tastes or likes should not get in the way of supplying varied opinions to wiki’s readers.

I can happily supply evidence to show Bryn Hammond is Not the ceo and has no financial interest in the company that’s extremely easy to do. Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Bryn's LinkedIn profile, he is currently the CEO of Miami Fox Publishing [1]. I'll take his word on it. Now, let's assume for a moment that what you are saying is true, and he's lying about his being the CEO of the company. Fair enough. That still leaves [2] which shows that Miami Fox Publishing acts on his behalf in selling his books. This still creates a decidedly connected, financial relationship which places your edits in violation of WP:PAID.
As to your speculation that I have some sort of personal conflict with Mr. Hammond; sorry, no, I do not. I've never heard of him before today. I invite you to read Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. While I understand the temptation to attempt to besmirch me as a means to leverage your position, it will not work here. I encourage you to remain focused on the issue at hand, rather than make further attempts to buttress your position by making speculations about my motives. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're not improving your case by referring to me as a bigot. --Hammersoft (talk)

Hammersoft

Hammersoft deletes information and links based on there own feelings of a person & does not have Wiki’s best interest at heart.

In fact each deletion was made based on an opinion and not anything factual. While Wiki has a high volume of traffic & is still the site to go to, other sites are being created daily and sites that were around for decades have gradually become obsolete.

I posted 4 critical opinions by Bryn Hammond, 1 by a critic on Roger Erbert and 1 by TNN.

All have been removed and linked to conflict of interest & self promotion. Had I used Miami Fox and built a Miami Fox account then of course these would be valid reason to edit & remove such an item. If the posts were links to an item by the person I’ve included in the post then once again I could understand the reason they would consider removing it.

The inclusions were in support and against a film in the critical reception and I included were the review was from. This was giving Wiki users a varied insight into opinions by critics. It was not in anyway, shape or form free promotion.

When part of the ever changing face of the web you need to change with it or find yourself part of history instead of the future.

The Editor may have been part of wiki for 11 years but it doesn’t mean they no what people want from today’s landscape. People become stuck in there old ways and become lazy.

I have read wiki’s guidelines and my edits will be reincluded as they do not breach any terms of use. I will continue to add them as I know what my rights are as I’ve digested every last claws.

Regards

Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 01:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved this comment from my talk page. We can keep discussion here. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no point to continue to post this to my talk page. We can keep it here. I understand you're energized about this. If you feel I have acted out of line, you may feel free to start a new thread about my supposedly bigoted actions by starting a new thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I'll be quite happy to go along with whatever the administrators there decide to do about me. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hammersoft 11 years doesn’t make you ‘god’ none of my inclusions would earn me money from a critical opinion made about a film which would help wiki readers have a varied view of a film. None of the links, link to paid content. None of the links, link to anything but the review of the film were the quote was taken from. You clearly have beef with Mr Hammond and it’s fogging your judgment. Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I was God. I have no beef with Mr. Hammond. As I said above, I never heard of him before today. The reality is that everything you have edited in mainspace so far has been to mentioned Mr. Hammed and link to his website. I've provided proof that there is a financial relationship between your company and Mr. Hammond. Mr. Hammond himself claims to be CEO of your company, a fact from his LinkedIn profile which you deny. Fair enough. Deny it if you like. My stance in regards to your edits nevertheless remains the same. So far, your attempts to convince me otherwise have failed, even with your speculations about my motives and claims that I am lazy and think I am God. I linked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents above. Please start a thread there. I am confident you will be heard, and appropriate action taken. All the best, --Hammersoft (talk) 01:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edit

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Amityville: The Awakening, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Miami Fox Publishing. Please make sure to be careful when marking edits as minor and should only generally do so in certain speacifc cases such as those listed in Help:Minor edits#When to mark as minor changes; for example, this edit and this edit as well as some others you made are not considered minor edits per relevant Wikipedia guidelines. You seem to have just started editing and this is a common mistake made by many new editors; in fact, many new editors seem to check the "This is a minor edit" by accident without even realizing it. You probably should avoid checking anything as a minor edit until you are a little more familiar with Wikipedia editing.

Also, related to #Conflict of interest and your username above, your really going to have to change your username since names of companies, organizations, etc. are not allowed per WP:ORGNAME. You can make a request for a name change at Wikipedia:Changing username, and I suggest you do so as soon as you can because accounts with these types of names do tend to be soft-blocked by default until the name is changed to somehting which complies with relevant guidelines. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MarchJuly

Thank you I’ve added a name request change & thank you for clearing the ‘Edit’ button information out. Miami Fox Publishing (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

April 2018

There have been two problems with this account: the account has been used for advertising or promotion, which is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia, and your username indicates that the account represents a business or other organisation or group or a web site, which is also against policy, as an account must be for just one person. Because of those problems, the account has been blocked indefinitely from editing.

If you intend to make useful contributions about some topic other than your business or organisation, you may request an unblock. To do so, post the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page. Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:CentralAuth to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy. Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In that reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the kind of edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} at the bottom of your talk page, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Orange Mike | Talk 03:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked account

Based on this I have screengrabbed all of my discussions and I will be making this public on all my media platforms & name & shame the hypocrisy of these claims & ask my media platforms to make official complaints to wiki.

Under NO circumstance we’re ANY of my posts ADVERTISING and do NOT fit into that category. To further make my point I will speak with a consumer watchdog & provide a detail summary of the situation & will ask them to make direct contact with WIKI in regards to you people to whom have made this decision.

It shocks me that EDITORS on WIKI have no understanding of the difference between ADVERTISING, SELF PROMOTION & inclusions for a varied opinion. Wiki needs a shake up & the deadwood needs to be outted!

Regards

Paul Hammerhard18 (talk) 10:01, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patato, patato. Regardless of what you consider to be self promotion, your original username and the fact that every single one of your edits has been about this specific critic both indicate a bias and that this is a single purpose account. I would suggest listening to other users and reading WP:COI to understand why you were blocked, and consider taking a look at WP:SOCK before creating another account or using an IP address to make the same edits. Blocks are preventative, not punitive and this one was justified. Dark Knight 2149 14:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect and I’ve took this to a public media platform several I’ve evidance I posted more than one critics quote yet only one has been highlighted but all have been deleted!

Below is a highlighted EXAMPLE of one of my edits and it was removed for conflict of intrest! DarkKnight2 you should pipe down before getting involved! The editors Hammersoft and Orange Mike have both made school boy errors and I’ve included all information on TWITTER and many other media Platforms.

Brian Tallerico gave Mute an unfavourable review with a 2 out of 5 star rating.<ref>Tallerico, Brian. "Mute Movie Review & Film Summary (2018) | Roger Ebert". www.rogerebert.com. Retrieved 2018-04-09.

I’ve took

This public and will name and shame this political landscape Hammerhard18 (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2018 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Hammerhard18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21155 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 15:23:38. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-admin advise) Making threats is not going to encourage administrators to accept your unblock request. I would advise you to spend that energy going into detail on how your edits were unbiased and "balanced", how your future edits will be unbiased, and apologising for any threats/incivility. But that's all up to you. Dark Knight 2149 15:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Darkknight2149 if they hold the decision to block me then they hold it! I’m standing up for everything that’s wrong with what has occurred to me & will Not apologies for the injustice that occurred based on Hammersofts personal feeling. Had Orange Mike reviewed mine and my wife’s inclusions to Wiki he would have seen my inclusion of other critics and before I had been able to concluded the sided opinions to the page which the pages referred to ‘mixed reviews’ Hammersoft kept deleting my content coming back with another reason for deleting my content and eventually leading to Orange Mike blocking me. Others may accept such unjust treatment I do not - others may not have the same volume of follows as I do on other media platforms to highlight these issues with any real effect to occur, I do and if that comes across as a threat so be it. After my blocking I researched online the people involved in the decision to block me and others have suffered the very same fate and even when it comes to correcting an incorrect date they pull ranks. This is an encyclopaedia to help people with a balanced view yet the editors do not run the site like that. If they want to run WIKI that way and only allow a close group of editors to decide what they accept they should not allow external content. This monopoly over acceptable narrative would certainly make a good article in the press. WIKI is often used in popular culture and in the current media landscape of exposing how power effects people what I’ve experienced will fit right in. My experience has shocked me & as I’ve screen shots of all my inclusions I can prove the decision made was unacceptable and unwarranted.

Regards

Paul

I have read and understood the guidlines

I have also taken this public due to the fact my inserts were deleted even quotes that were separate to the highlighted critic I included in posts. All my posts were removed and deemed self promotion, advertising and spam. I followed guidelines and changed my name but the edits to the films were valied edits and I stand by my edits! As I’ve stated in my public posts I will not be treated like this by EDITORS who have just as much right as me to make edits to help topics. My wife also included edits to films and didn’t even include the critic that Hammersoft raised issues about in the first place. I’ve spoken with a consumer watchdog who has agreed with my posts and do not fall into Self Promtion, Advertising or Spam. The two other critics I added to films do not even fit into Conflict of Intrest which was later added so shouldn’t have been removed. I have found other users online today (many) who have had the same issue when making corrections of dates. Even with proof certain editors pull ranks and block them. This is NOT ok. Hammerhard18 (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look. It seems to me that you are inserting reviews (yours, then, I suppose?) published on a website/blog not deemed to be a reliable source. It's the combination of the two that led to the block, no doubt. I don't see any reason to disagree with Hammersoft's comments or Orangemike's block. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do not write reviews for Roger Erbert or Times of India and I’m not Bryn Hammond. All are reliable critics and in fact all have featured on the film studios promotional campaigns. Denise if you had gone over my edits then you would have seen my inclusions I’ll highlight the PULLING RANKS again on an uninformed decision.

BLOCKING MY ACCOUNT

I have made various contributions to various titles none deemed acceptable all deemed Self Promotion, Advertising and Spam. All have been removed and I have been blocked.

All critics i included have reputable sources of reviews.

All critics have been included with the studio's promotional campaigns which i am not associated with.

WIKI is a public encyclopedia for the public to be able to add content that will help the page and support the title or topic and inform WIKI readers and visitors information based on fact or factual opinion.

The quotes i included were from a critic from Roger Erbert's site, Times of India website and a British author and journalist who was the Editor of GZ Magazine - a worldwide publication now no longer retailing but is still active within the industry.

My wife Lisa Woodwood later made an edition to the Candyman film page which has retained by another critic whom has little online impact and could be considered an unreliable source yet it remains.

Hammersoft deleted my pasts based of fogged judgment over the critic included not on the content provided - instead of reading my entire edits he/she removed everything i posted and stated the reasons were Conflict of Interest, Self Promotion, Advertising, Blogging to name just a few without reading my inclusions. Had he/she read them they would have seen my inserts of critics from Roger Erberts site and Times of India but they were quick to remove all content without even reading it.

Hammersoft then got Orange Mike involved and pulled ranks blocking me completely and as i highlight if this wasn't the case and had he read Hammersofts claims and read my edits then the reason for blocking me would have been entirely different. Since the blocking and me filing a ticket to have this issue corrected others with the same period of time have made the same claims and even gone as far as to state they have read my edits an conquer with the decision.

This highlights they haven't read my edits and are also simply pulling rank to disallow anyone who doesn't fit there narrative.

I have screen grabs of all my edits and i have all of the reason's made by both Hammersoft, Orange Mike and the most recent addition to the party Drmies. I can OFFICIAL prove none of these editors made any real effort to validate what i am saying before there overall decision they simply pulled ranks and went by what one individual thought without reading over my input. It makes a mockery of WIKI and so called editors.

I wont let this go and if it takes months to be heard it will take months but i have been treated terribly and i truelly believe Hammersoft and Orange Mike are on a power trip and this has to stop!

And with this, I've removed your talk page access. No one is on a "power trip" as you claim, your edits have been in violation of out rules with regard to self-promotion. You may file a request at WP:UTRS to be unblocked, however if you continue to attack the multiple admins that have agreed that your edits have been promotional, your unblock will likely be denied. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Hammerhard18 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21163 was submitted on Apr 10, 2018 18:43:43. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]