User talk:ProfKlickberg

December 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Mathew Klickstein has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Mathew Klickstein. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathew Klickstein (January 12)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by LaMona was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathew Klickstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

LaMona (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello! ProfKlickberg, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! LaMona (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathew Klickstein (January 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by SwisterTwister was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathew Klickstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

SwisterTwister talk 22:54, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathew Klickstein (February 15)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Onel5969 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathew Klickstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, ProfKlickberg. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. In particular, please:

• avoid editing or creating articles related to you and your circle, your organization, its competitors, projects or products;
• instead propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• when discussing affected articles, disclose your COI (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• exercise great caution so that you do not violate Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, sourcing and autobiographies. Thank you. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for adding spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I was initially just going to warn you, but a look at your edit history shows that you've been trying to add links to your work on Wikipedia since 2008. This is a fairly clear cut case of spam and self-promotion, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia and you were warned about this back in 2008 - yet you continued to do this many, many times - even going so far as to try to link to what I can only surmise was a review you wrote on Amazon. This is very, very inappropriate, so much so that I'm actually mildly surprised that you weren't caught and blocked prior to this. The last time you inserted yourself into something was in 2013, but I have to assume that since you're once again active on Wikipedia that there's a high chance of you inserting WP:ELSPAM into other articles. It's possible that you can be unblocked, but you will need to do the following:

1. State your conflict of interest. It's implied that you're Klickberg, but a formal disclosure is necessary.
2. Promise not to directly add your work to Wikipedia in any format. This includes inserting links to your writings in various articles. This is the number one requirement here. Trying to add information via an AfC submission is fine, but you will need to make sure that you do not go overboard with the self-promotion. The article you had at AfC was written in a fairly promotional manner and had fairly weak sourcing, for example.
3. Show that you understand that if you are unblocked and you resume re-adding your work to Wikipedia, you will almost certainly be re-blocked, with very little chance of getting unblocked.
4. Explain how you will edit Wikipedia on topics that do not directly pertain to yourself.

I would also recommend that you take one of the training programs such as WP:TRAINING, as a show of good faith. Now if you can show that you understand and will follow the above requirements, you might be unblocked. I'm just concerned that you've been promoting yourself on Wikipedia for the past 8 years, off and on, so I don't really see where you're interested in doing anything other than that. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• I also hate to say this... but you might not want to be gung ho heavy into writing an article about yourself. I was looking for sources and I see that you had a bit of a fallout in 2014 over a controversial interview that you held with Flavorwire. The thing about articles on Wikipedia is that they contain "warts and all" and this gained a lot of criticism, which would be worked into the article. The article you wrote about yourself was fairly glowing, so I have to warn you: if your intent is to have an article that is going to only cover the positive stuff, it's unlikely to happen. Since I do kind of get the impression that this is your intent, I'd actually just recommend that you not write about yourself on Wikipedia at all and that you consider just not pursuing an article. I don't think that the interview would warrant a whole large section necessarily, but it does seem like it would warrant inclusion in any article about yourself. Unless you're comfortable with the idea of that being included, getting an article written would likely not be a good idea. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Tokyogirl79:

I do sincerely apologize for my misstep(s) here and hope I can prove to you that I wish to make amends.

You'll excuse my ignorance here if I'm using this TalkPage incorrectly, as I'm actually quite the novice in Wikipedia. I am indeed ProfKlickberg and now understand more clearly that this is both a conflict of interest as it pertains to adding information about myself on Wikipedia and reason for blocking me as a contributing editor.

I hope you will understand that in the past, I did upload various stories I wrote about topics discussed on various pages because I thought this was appropriate. I did not realize we were not supposed to do this, and only did so when I had written for what I thought were substantive publications (local weeklies, dailies and the popular comedy blog Splitsider), aside from the one Amazon review (discussed shortly).

As a longtime journalist for many publications around the country, I've written hundreds of pieces on a variety of topics. On a rare occasion, I felt a certain piece I wrote was pertinent (and, I hoped, of quality) enough -- including exclusive interviews etc. -- to be placed on the Wikipedia page of the subject at hand. I honestly believed readers would want to see, for example, a one-on-one interview with the creator of Clarissa Explains It All on the page for Clarissa Explains It All. I did not realize this was an inappropriate contribution, but do so now that you've brought it clearly to my attention.

I did once contribute an Amazon review for one page and apologize for this now. I did not realize this was not allowed. This was, I believe, the one time I added such a contribution (an Amazon review) and only did so because I thought the review was something pertinent to the subject (Dustin Diamond).

I see that you mention a warning I received back in 2008, but I honestly don't recall receiving such a warning. I, in fact, had never to my knowledge received any correspondence from Wikipedia before recently when I decided to create a page for myself. I never thought to create one in the past, but a handful of my friends in the journalism and tech realms suggested it might be a good idea to give it a shot. I did indeed see that it was not advised for us to set up a page for ourselves, but this did not seem to mean to me that we absolutely could not and should not do so.

One of the previous editors in fact suggested I not do this, but never said I would be blocked or absolutely could not do this. When the other editors began making small, helpful edits to my page thereafter, I assumed this meant that though the act was somewhat frowned upon, it was not completely prohibited.

I will add here that I did my best to keep the information on the page as objective, brief and to the point as possible. I did not wish for the page to read like or be a promotional tool, as this was something I knew was not appropriate and would also simply look dubious to skeptical readers. I was actually a little surprised when I saw that one of the editors made the change to my page in progress headlining my projects with the Kids of Widney High as "Charity Work." I did not change this, though, as I thought that might only delay the page becoming active; I did not want to make a change an editor had made. (Even though I did feel this was not an appropriate statement; I did work with and have worked with people with disabilities for years, including the Kids of Widney High, but I wouldn't call it "charity work"; nevertheless, I wanted to be respectful to the editor who made the change and left it as is).

I wanted to add a Wikipedia page for myself both because, as mentioned, a number of friends with far more experience than I in the online world suggested I give it a try, and because I did and do feel the work I've accomplished over the years warrants such a page on Wikipedia, particularly in relation to pages I've seen of others who have more or less accomplished the same amount of work as I.

Eg, I've written for numerous publications (just today, a piece of mine ran on WIRED.com, including an embedded episode of my podcast). I wrote a screenplay for Steven Seagal and Sony (that is itself listed on Wikipedia, with my name in the credits there). I'm a longtime casting producer for one of the most popular shows on Food Network (Restaurant: Impossible).

My erotic work has been published (one book was published twice, after the first publisher closed its doors) in various places, including the internationally-acclaimed Mammoth Book of Best New Erotica series. And I wrote a book about Nickelodeon that found itself on a few "Best Of" lists and was brought up by a number of substantive publications. To many fans and nearly all of the folks I spoke to about the creation of Nickelodeon, it is a key work in the history of this beloved channel.

All of this signified to me that a Wikipedia page was in order.

Some of my work (such as my television show for National Lampoon Networks back in the early aughts) was completed back when there wasn't the kind of web coverage as there is today, meaning substantive resources online don't necessarily exist for that work; I was happy to take those credits down from my page in progress as I continued working with editors who contributed.

I apologize if I've been wrong to assume this, but I did believe that I am someone who has done enough in the worlds of film, television, writing, journalism and -- yes -- also arts therapy with groups such as the Kids of Widney High and Phamaly (the only theater company in the country to work exclusively with actors with a variety of disabilities) to warrant a page.

I do also understand that this would mean leaving the page open for continued additions to those who might add information about the unfortunate Flavorwire interview. I won't go here into my thoughts about this subject nor certain background bits about what happened here specifically, but I will say I am well aware and prepared for a page on Wikipedia that will be "warts and all." My only hope is that, because of the work I've done over the years as mentioned, "and all" will be just as readily available as the "warts."

I believe your readers and most people in general would weigh that post against the rest of my accomplishments, understanding that -- as with anyone else -- there's far more to me than one interview. Human to human here, Tokyogirl79, there's a good reason I never once spoke about the issue online or in public and have simply gone about my business over the subsequent two years until today. I would imagine you're well aware of what has and can happen with situations like these and would hope that your readers would be as aware and objective when going over the page -- warts and all -- themselves.

As you can see from my history and as you yourself mentioned about my not uploading anything in recent years until now, I am not a heavy user of Wikipedia and certainly not much of a contributor. I will promise you, though, that if the ban were lifted, I would no longer add any contributions pertaining to myself or based on work I've created. I now understand fully that this is not allowed by Wikipedia and will result in severe punishment.

I thank you for your time and consideration and wish you the best.

Humbly, Matt

• ProfKlickberg, conflict of interest is a huge problem on Wikipedia. I'd be willing to unblock you if you agreed to an indefinite prohibition on the self creation of an article about yourself as well as a prohibition of adding any mention of yourself to other articles. While you may (or may not) meet our notability requirements for a stand-alone article, it should not be you who fulfills it on the English Wikipedia. Just because Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it doesn't mean everyone should edit it. It greatly reduces Wikipedia's value when it's articles are clearly biased by their subjects and often does more harm than good. Mkdw^talk 04:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Mkdw:

Yes, I do hereby agree to cease attempting to create an article about myself or add any mention of myself to other articles.

JamesBWatson: When I do find it appropriate to edit a Wikipedia article, I'll ensure it has nothing to do with or in anyway promotes myself or my work but adds only to the necessary information about the subject at hand from notable sources that are not affiliated with myself.

• OK, so you have indicated that you will no longer edit about yourself. What sort of editing so you expect to do instead? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Tokyogirl79: Do you have any thoughts about this revised offer? Mkdw^talk 04:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• The revised offer is fine, but I want to make sure that this offer would also mean that he cannot add his own sourcing to Wikipedia. In other words, he cannot mention himself in other articles and he also cannot post his own work to Wikipedia as a source or external link. Other than that, I'd also like to see what he'd edit about since he cannot write about himself or add his own sourcing to Wikipedia, as this has pretty much been all that he's written about since he signed up. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:04, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

TokyoGirl79:

Yes, I do hereby agree to cease adding any reference to or works by myself on any page on Wikipedia. Furthermore, as someone who is an active journalist, interviewer and writer, I have access to various persons, events and research that can help me to edit pages -- without reference to myself or my own work -- when appropriate if an addition, deletion or correction is necessitated and predicated by such work. Eg, if I notice a reference to a particular event or person in the world of Nickelodeon needs revision, I will make such a change if appropriate, again without referencing myself or my own work in any way. This way, I can be a contributive member of the Wikipedia community without risking conflict of interest.

Best, Matt

• @Tokyogirl79: Editor has replied to your inquiry. Mkdw^talk 22:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Please see above ProfKlickberg (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Sounds good. Just make sure to be careful in the future - if you get re-blocked it's very unlikely that you'll be unblocked a second time. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 06:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathew Klickstein (February 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Tokyogirl79 was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Mathew Klickstein and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mathew Klickstein has been accepted

Mathew Klickstein, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

333-blue 13:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)