User talk:Newnameisnewname

Welcome and a question

Welcome to Wikipedia. I've noticed that you are deleting material from the article on Theodore Sturgeon; can you say why? Part of it is sourced so I have restored that. Do you believe the material to be inaccurate? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:12, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete material that is sourced without explaining why. If you have some reason why you think it should be deleted, please say so, and we can discuss it. If you don't explain what you're doing, it looks like you're vandalizing the article. I've changed the article back. Also, you should be aware that Wikipedia disapproves of editors changing an article back and forth; the rule is that you can reverse someone else's work only three times in a day, or an administrator may temporarily block you from editing. Please don't change the article again without discussing what you're trying to accomplish. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for leaving a note on my talk page. The hidden code you refer to is not really hidden; it appears again at the bottom of the article as a footnote. It's the source for the statement that you and Sturgeon were married; the article linked to is this one, which says you were married to a science fiction writer named Ted, and your last name is Sturgeon. You said that the Wikipedia article was incorrect about the nature of your relationship; the version you were removing says "Wina Sturgeon was married to him, and uses the name professionally." Is that not accurate? If you could provide another source that gives a more accurate picture of the situation we could use that.

You explained that the reason you wanted to remove the information was because it was harming your own visibility in search engine results. I can understand the importance of that to you, but I'm afraid we can't remove accurate and sourced information for a reason like that. However, if you can provide another source we could use that instead, and perhaps in that case the search engine results would change, though there's no guarantee of that.

I see you've removed the information a couple more times since I left you the last message. As I said yesterday, this can lead to an administrator blocking your account so you can't edit Wikipedia any more. I'm going to return the article to the way it was; please don't edit it any more or you may be blocked. If we can find another source to correct the data, or if you can convince the editors of that article that it's inaccurate, then you may get what you want, but just repeatedly deleting it when you have not convinced other editors that that's what should be done isn't going to achieve what you want.

You can reply here or on my talk page, or you can comment on the talk page of the article; whichever you prefer. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:52, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MIKE:

As I asked you previously, please remove coding for my copyrighted work that is causing your Wikipedia page on Theodore Sturgeon to take precedence over my work, like my front page New York Times story in the June 11, 2011 edition. Obviously, anyone searching the terms 'New York Times Wina Sturgeon' or 'Wina Sturgeon New York Times' is looking for MY work, not for Theodore Sturgeon.

In internet copyright law (which of course is still being established), using coding that misdirects searchers to an unconnected source can be considered theft of services and/or restraint of trade. Theodore Sturgeon is absolutely unconnected to any of my New York Times work. Just because you are able to "source" MY work as a writer does not give you the right to use it to advance rankings for your page on Theodore Sturgeon. In addition, some other information on that page is provably inaccurate, regardless of how it is "sourced." Since you are the editor of the page, I believe you will defend what you have written, legitimately sourced or not, thus you may defend your use of my name and the term "New York Times" to hijack my rankings and transfer them to yourself. But such actions are not defensible.

You say, "If we can find another source to correct the data...you may get what you want..." What kind of data do you suggest 'we' find that will resolve this issue? I ask that because I would prefer to resolve this problem without a fight and without taking it to Wikipedia dispute resolution.

Please know that I will vigorously defend my work, my career and my brand. If you wish to use Ted's name with the term 'New York Times,' here are two links that connect the term with Theodore Sturgeon: http://sfscope.com/2011/05/more-than-sturgeon-at-nyrsf-re.html; and: http://www.nndb.com/people/207/000048063/. Perhaps you should do more research to find if there are other, more legitimate sources that link Theodore Sturgeon's name with the term "New York Times," but I will not accept the unconnected use of my work, and my greater visibility in the New York Times, to give your page an undeserved higher ranking in search engines.

Wina Sturgeon

Wina, first let me clear up a misconception; I'm not "the editor of the page"; there is no single editor of any page on Wikipedia. Anyone can edit any page, including you. However, there are rules which every editor (me and you included) must follow. I'm happy to explain those rules to you so you can edit the page successfully, but I have no privileged position here beyond the fact that I've been working here for a while and know the rules, so I can help you.

One rule you should know about is that any editor who decides to take legal action against Wikipedia or who makes a plausible threat of doing so is not allowed to edit Wikipedia until the legal action is concluded. However, in your case I don't think we need to reach that point; I hope I can help explain what's going on here so that we can work together to improve the article.

The coding you are referring to is a reference to show the reader of the Wikipedia article that the information is verifiable. The article in question (on the ABC4 website) is nothing to do with the New York Times; it is an article you wrote in which you say you were married to Ted Sturgeon. The article is simply citing the source of its information; there is no theft of anything going on here. The only reason to remove this information would be if it were demonstrably inaccurate. If you can show me how we can improve the article, removing inaccuracies, I would be delighted. What we can't do is just delete it for personal (or business) reasons.

There's no intent to link Ted's name with the NYT. We simply use the reliable sources we find with useful information; if those cause changes in the way search engines return results, that's not something we can control.

Can you show me what's inaccurate in the article?

Finally, I need to reinforce something I said earlier. You cannot keep reverting another editor's actions without discussing it; when you revert more than three times in a twenty-four hour period you may be immediately blocked by an administrator. There are two editors who disagree with you in this case, myself and another editor, who goes by the name of Sir Rhosis. Will you please commit to leaving the information as it was when you found the article, and discussing any further changes? If you do not, I will ask an administrator to temporarily block you so that you cannot edit that page for a while. This is a key rule here -- discuss disagreements; don't just edit the article back and forth. Please let me know. I will change the article back later today and will expect you to leave it that way until we have come to an agreement on next steps.

Please believe that I am willing and able to help you; but you have to let me help you. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just deleted the part of the article you object to without logging in; I rather suspect this was you or someone you asked to do it for you. Doing this to avoid limits on number of reverts is also against Wikipedia rules. If you want to have a constructive conversation I will be glad to help but as it stands you are likely to be blocked, which won't get you what you want. Let me know if you are willing to cooperate. In the meantime another editor has reverted the change. I can assure you that continuing to edit in this way will not get you anywhere. I have offered to help and the offer stands but you have to cooperate to get any benefit from my help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Theodore Sturgeon. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent edit

Another editor just reversed your most recent edit to Talk:Theodore Sturgeon because you edited old comments. Because those pages form a record of conversations, it's much preferable to simply add more comments at the end of the page -- it gets extremely confusing if you change comments in the middle of the page, because that might render the replies meaningless.

I couldn't figure out what you were trying to do or say with the change but if you would like a reply please post another note at the end of that page, or here, and I'll respond. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]