August 5, 2009 - irrelevant history regarding closed conversations and resolved issues - removed....

I had a very hard time joining into this community because of my business, advertising, and PR background. My "language" and "style" tended to SOUND LIKE self promotion or blatant advertising to wikipedia editors. My intentions were always nothing but to make wikipedia better, but the staff seemed to have a hard time believing it. And so, I have placed this essay on my talk Page in hopes of expressing the idea to other wikipedians that business type people are NOT NECESSARILY bad people.

Wikipedia wishes to avoid being a commercial space. I get that and respect it. There are plenty of business directories, blogs, PR sites, networking sites, web sites, etc. Wikipedia was apparently created to be an Egalitarian space that records and makes available the factual information regarding notable human accomplishment or natural events - without the need to advertise, promote, or ask for a sale. I get it entirely, admire it, and respect it. No problem here.

Nevertheless, my every effort to join in has been rebuffed because I "sound like" somebody who is self promoting. Guys, this is my language, and my vocabulary - just as you may speak French, German, Physics, Math, etc.

I MUST go on the record to reject the very prevalent wikipedia notion that those who speak the language of commerce cannot make a valuable contribution. It seems you would rather shoot business types on sight than learn from them. Thus was my experience here - banned in only days because of passions and interests that sound businesslike. Then there was the language of commerce that I used when sharing factual human accomplishments, notable world-wide firsts (completely without self promotion, without pricing, without selling, without calls to action or requests for further communication).

Consider: Commerce is an art and science that drives EVERY other capability of advanced society. Were this not true then human beings would still be undifferentiated primal animals. What if we could not buy ANY of the things we need in our daily life? Transportation? Clothing? Food? Shelter? What if tools, supplies, etc could not be purchased? Every individual would need to make everything they need in order to shelter, clothe, and feed themselves, all by themselves - each on his own. This need would eliminate spare time, and it would prevent the advancement of knowledge. There would not even be a computer, nor wikipedia, nor any web site at all. No Desk to put the computer on. No mouse to click - unless you could build one from scratch... No one person could assemble and master all the technologies required to create what we take for granted as the modern world.

Barter would be prohibited since this too is a form of commerce. Finally, even families, groups or tribes of people could not allow members to specialize in certain tasks, freeing others from drudgery of making clothes or farming in order to work on 'bigger picture' projects. This too is a form of commerce or barter with time as the currency of payment instead of money.

As you can see, commerce underpins all that we do, even providing enough food and shelter to each wikipedia editor that they can choose to work on drives and motivations higher up the Maslow hierarchy of needs.

Without commerce, wikipedians could not spend discretionary or leisure time at this 'hobby' or avocation of theirs until they had built their own shelter, made all their own clothes, and grown all their own food.

Now, in spite of commerce having been shown to provide the very genesis of a quest for knowledge, and even wikipedia itself, the community here has chosen an Anti-Business attitude that rejects the instrumental role of commerce in society.

Further, it falsely promotes the concepts of egalitarianism and altruism. The position of the wikipedia community is actually ANTI-egalitarian, or harmfully narcissistic at best. Members feel that they are better than business people because they are not tarnished by "filthy lucre" or selfish ambition. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Consider: Discovery and expansion of knowledge take time and dedication. People must be able to charge for their time and their work or there would be none of the human accomplishments and advances so remarkably recorded within these pages at wikipedia. Art could not be enjoyed without leisure time, and could not be bought or supported except for the wealth of money and leisure time produced by commerce. It's simply not possible to invest the time and energy required to advance the human condition unless there is a hope and actuality of financial reward. Wikipedians reject the very human joy and spirit of discovery, but rush to record that which was already discovered. Where is the logic in this? Your anti-business attitude is served to your own detriment when you reject contributions by business people who speak a different language than academia. We too are trying to add to the knowledge-base for all mankind by sharing factual matters in emerging fields with which we are familiar.

Wikipedians seem to labor under the false impression that altruism is a greater virtue than ambition. However, it's a fact that people do not behave altruistically (Freud, Jung, Erik Erikson, Abraham Maslow, et al). Thus, every contributor and editor working here wants some kind of compensation for the contribution they make to the project. Were this not true then they would not even be participating. That compensation might be in the form of esteem from peers, public recognition, or perhaps simple the simple feeding of personal narcissism.

Instead of being absent of ambition in the service of mankind, I warrant that it is a psychological and philosophical truth that anybody who writes for public consumption has an agenda. Why pretend you don't?

Business people are more honest than that. We know what our agenda is. We have to. We can't go running around investing time and energy in everything that is interesting. We can only work on those things that might offer a payoff in the form of advancing the human experience enough to warrant a fair price. It makes the world a better place when we are clear about what we want and what we have to contribute. We invent, make things better, serve our fellow man. I am a businessman. That does not make me evil. It means that I wish to make the world a better place and serve my fellow man, and make a living doing so. Are any of you that different? Really?

Clearly, I understand that this is not a place to SELL or PROMOTE a business. However, it is a place to HELP people by contributing to the collective knowledge-base. Anybody who contributes should be welcome.

BTW: I choose not to LORD it over people by using a formal or pretentious vocabulary. I can, but what's the point?

FYI: Your "WIKI welcome" as listed on this page constitutes the most RUUUUUDE treatment I have ever received in at least 50 online communities to which I have belonged. I have been invited to speak at prestigious events. I have spoken at podiums where I was preceded or followed by Doctors and Lawyers, as well as captains of industry. I have been pleased to receive critical acclaim after these events. I have written many dozens of educational articles, training manuals, technical papers, even operator certification program modules of state licensing training for entire professions. I have trained state inspectors in several states. I have helped the FDA write regulations for an entire industry. I have been well informed on intellectual matters of philosophy, psychology, photo-biology, biology, physics, and more. I recite all this not to brag or aggrandize myself but to make the point that I am accomplished and respected in most circles that I have EVER attempted to join.

Nevertheless, Wikipedians would rather insult me than welcome me? After only a couple days of participating, you find me so threatening that I am BANNED from even starting over.

Really? How petty is that? What victory is won? Your site may be more "PURE" but it is also absent of real facts, completely silent on many developing technologies and trends. Don't you think this is a big price to pay, for an organization that wants to be a complete and thorough source of knowledge?

There is a darkness here, a cancer. Even in the DARK AGES of Online Communities and Publishing, message board moderators found they had more success creating PLACES to put things that they did not want on center stage - than they did at banning people or topics. If you are going to DISCRIMINATE against all things that once walked within a hundred yards of a business, or a dollar, then why not at least have a BiziWiki or something? Please note, there has never been a censoring organization online that succeeded as a strictly online venture.

I think my entire experience here is a very sad commentary on what happens when you give too much power to people who don't know how to use power for good. Are they powerless in the real world but drunk on power in here? This is a psychological compensation for some shortcoming - no doubt. Has wikipedia gone over to the DARK SIDE?

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See What Wikipedia is not. Daniel Case (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel: Thanks for the warm welcome. I love you too. IPTV Pioneer (talk) 00:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|1=There have been some unfortunate newbie mistakes and several misunderstandings.

I understand that what I wrote has been found by various editors and reviewers to appear to be:

username policy violation -self promotion (I apologized and changed asap - but then several days later was flagged again over a misunderstanding) (I have offered to change my username AGAIN even though the last one was not possibly guilty of a username violation

advertising Honestly, I thought I was sharing factual information

self promotion - COI A misunderstanding. Your own policies say that being close to the topic is not always a policy violation. I am close to the topic of the article I wrote. But I did not write a blatant ad. I work in advertising. I thought I steered way clear of an ad. But editors disagreed. I now understand their sense about this as different than mine and will respect it.)

vandalism. (denied categorically after reading your Wikipedia Vandalism page.

In good faith, I merely added to a few pages a simple one line bullet point, where appropriate, creating internal links to a new article I had written, without understanding that I needed to wait for the article to be approved first).

Wikipedia policy says, at Wikipedia:Vandalism

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles.(none of this was done - I did ad links to an article I wrote about an emerging technology in television and internet media to a few clearly related pages about television and internet media.)

also - it says

"Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.

and

:" What is not vandalism" WP:NOTVAND

Although at times the following situations may be referred to as vandalism, usually, they are not considered vandalism, as such. However, each case should be treated independently, taking into consideration whether or not the actions violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In addition, if an editor treats situations which are not clearly vandalism as such, then that editor may harm the encyclopedia by alienating or driving away potential editors.

also:

"...creating a page on a topic that is simply not notable is not vandalism."

also

"Sometimes a user will add content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate. By doing so in good faith, they are trying to contribute to the encyclopedia and to improve it rather than vandalize."

To Sum: I now know more about wikipedian thought on these matters and believe I can avoid repeating these issues. I have a strong personality, a passion for many things, but I am also reasonable, educable, and realistic. That people disagree does not make them bad. I ask you to consider that my contributions were exuberant newbie behavior that was never meant to compromise the integrity of wikipedia - but was intended to make it better and more complete. I have learned a few things and wish to participate further - in good faith. Please unblock or approve username change. Thank you.}}

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Allowing username change to WriteManWriting (talk · contribs). Please put this request in at Wikipedia:Changing username as soon as possible to avoid re-blocking. (feel free to request the other username you suggested above if you prefer) Request handled by: Beeblebrox (talk) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

:Do it again?IPTV Pioneer (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia said the only reason for my block was USERNAME.

I have conceded ridiculous arguments about what a bad, capitalistic man I am, and apologized, requested TWO different unused usernames but cannot get unblocked.

What does this look like to you?

IPTV Pioneer (talk) 00:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you need to relax. Category:Requests for unblock has been backlogged quite bit lately, there are only a few of us reviewing these requests so if one or two of us take a break from it causes slowdowns. We're all volunteers here and have our own lives. You've got three unblock requests open right now, so I', not even sure which user name you wanted to go with, but I don't see any problem with either of them. Hard experience has taught us that it is best to come down hard on users who appear to be using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion. You wouldn't believe how persistent and thick headed some of these PR types can be. An unfortunate side effect of that is that sometimes a case like yours comes along, where you are actually willing to listen and make the needed changes but you still get treated like "just another spammer." In any event, if you agree to put in a request at WP:CHU to one of those new names before returning to editing there shouldn't be a problem, I'll unblock you momentarily. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To briefly respond to some of the other points you bring up: Wikipedia is not anti-capitalist, one of the five pillars, the core policies that all of Wikipedia is based on states that Wikipedia has a neutral point of view. This means that we don't editorialize our use our own opinions as sources for article content, and that we do not tolerate anything that could be viewed as advertising. This does not mean we hate capitalism, it means we cannot and will not allow encyclopedia articles to be tainted by manipulation from persons who have a financial stake in the reputation of an article's subject. This is a two way street, we also don't allow articles that do nothing but disparage a particular organization or company. We also don't host articles on subjects that have not yet become notable and/or content that cannot be verified by reliable sources. This is not censorship, you have to understand that we have to draw the line somewhere on what type of content is suitable and what is not. I'm not trying to yell at you by pointing all this out, I think it will help you understand why you are having these types of difficulties here. Welcome back, if there is anything else I can help you with let me know. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the respectful conversation. The clarity. The well considered position, well stated. I appreciate the constructive suggestions. While I am not so sure the position is entirely neutral, I am sure people like me, who are passionate about the proper role of capitalism have to pay a certain price because of some of the spammers who have come before. You restore my faith in this process and this community. Thank you for taking the time. IPTV Pioneer (talk) 02:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above, I just discovered your emailed unblock request. I assume everything is now sorted out. If you don't mind, I'll add to Beeblebrox's post by saying that COI isn't always problematic, but experience has shown that editors with a particular stake in a subject are often unable to treat that subject neutrally. The rule of thumb for properly neutral prose is that a reader shouldn't be able to tell what the author's opinion of the subject is. To pick some examples at random, this means that PR jargonese descriptions of a product or service such as "world first", "market leading", "unique solution" etc are strictly frowned upon. WP:CORP is a useful guideline for company notability if that's the area you're interested in working in; as Beeblebrox has indicated, notability is everything on Wikipedia, and it can only be established by significant coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources (see the general notability guideline for more information).

One of the best things someone in your position can do to demonstrate commitment to the ideals of Wikipedia itself is to spread your editing net as wide as possible. Spend a little time fixing up articles outside your area (grammar, spelling and the like); join in with interesting community discussions; chase down and fix vandalism... it all buys you currency in the form of reputation and reduces the impression that you're here simply to take advantage of Wikipedia's high profile and 'free' web space (actually 'charitably donated' web space, which is why people that do come here to promote their products/businesses/websites etc get such a hostile reception).

That's it from me :) Just remember the three fundamentals and you'll do fine: notability (if it hasn't already been written about by independent reputable third parties, we're not interested either); verifiability (if it has been written about, we need to prove it); and neutrality (we can report reputable, verifiable third party opinions in a factual way, but Wikipedia itself has no opinion). All the best, EyeSerene^talk 20:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@EyeSerene - again thank you for an intelligent, constructive conversation. Please know that I don't want or need free web space. I already manage more than 50 domains of my own, a dozen or so for my day job employer, and another dozen or two for web design, hosting, and online marketing clients. I manage 2 dedicated servers, have my own nameserver, and have an unlimited domain reseller account at a major hosting company in a level 1 datacenter. I have several blogs that are either self hosted or on wordpress and blogspot type services under various pseudonyms. My intent was to contribute. Even today, before reading this, I intuitively followed your advice, and made a couple simple contributions, ON TOPIC, on a variety of topics, only to have most if not all of them immediately removed. I must say, this has been and still is a very discouraging experience at trying to join in and serve a greater good. I should probably simply withdraw from the entire concept of community service here at wikipedia. But thanks again for putting a civil face on it. At least I know there are few earnest types here who are engaged in something more than a simple power trip. Best wishes!

Thanks for your reply. You have had a rocky start and I do sympathise, but many of our best editors got off on the wrong foot (and not necessarily for anything that was entirely their fault). Wikipedia is a mass of polices, guidelines, and written (and unwritten) community mores; it can be a minefield for new users. We don't expect everyone to know everything - I've been here four years and wouldn't make that claim myself - and we're supposed to afford newcomers the time and space to settle in (while obviously correcting any inadvertent policy violations), but unfortunately this doesn't always happen as smoothly as it should. I can understand if you don't, but if you still have the desire to contribute I can assure you it does get easier! I should also add that I wasn't implying in my earlier post that you, personally, are here to take advantage of our web space - that wasn't my intention and I apologise if I gave that impression. Best, EyeSerene^talk 10:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:Blessed are the Peace Makers : ) WriteManWriting (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WriteManWriting. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And you really need to watch your tone when discussing other editors. Personal attacks are taken seriously and will get you blocked. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 22:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

YOU SAID "and you need to watch your tone". This is an imperative and critical personal attack that indicates you feel qualified to talk down to me. I AM NOT impressed. Why not stick with the facts. How would I go about REPORTING you for a personal attack?

Gentlemen, this rather mundane content dispute is now turning into a shouting match. May I suggest some options:

• Discuss the content dispute on the article's talk page so that everyone watching the article has a chance to comment
• Take your interpersonal dispute WP:WQA to get some consensus on which of you is behaving badly
• alternately you could let it go and move on (preferred option)

By the way neither of you is qualified to block anybody, and it's unlikely any admin would feel the need to block over such a minor issue. I for see some mild incivility from both of you, but nothing that seriously crosses the line. You could both do with a dose of assuming good faith instead of instantly taking a hostile approach. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beeblebrox (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith of people who invalidate others by deleting contributions in only minutes - before the references can be added - is certainly not wise, It merely sets one up for further abuse. As for taking it to the article talk page - I tried that already. To whom may I report a violation of Wikipedian Etiquette? WriteManWriting (talk) 11:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a significant improvement to the article, Real estate trends

As it stands the article is not really about "Real Estate Trends" at all, but is more about US Government or DOJ Involvement in U.S. Real Estate.

I work in real estate, and have for over 5 years. I recently added several sections, regarding the most important trends in real estate. Major shifts are occurring in agency, commission fees and broker agent splits, marketing methods, etc.

These new sections were removed within minutes, by IP USER: User talk:69.181.249.92 with no explanation, in what seems to be a breach of Wikipedian etiquette.

I was researching references to add when my WORK was deleted.

I found and used UNDO to restore my contribution, and added references. If I did not do this correctly, please make polite suggestions as to how I might do it better.

WriteManWriting (talk) 12:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've gotten some good feedback on the article's talk page from Kuru, and he's also specifically marked which portions of your contributions need proper sourcing. I know it can be frustrating to wade through all these policies and editing guidelines, it can be quite overwhelming when you are relatively new to editing here. The most concise guide to the most important core policies is WP:5. It expresses the philosophies that all the other rules and policies are based on quite nicely. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Bebblebrox: I read that and am trying to observe it. Thanks again for the patient and polite guidance. WriteManWriting (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WriteManWriting. You have new messages at 69.181.249.92's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

You seriously need to stop denigrating editors for following WP policies and guidelines. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 16:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could we stop with the baiting please? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as the personal attacks stop. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ROLLEYES WriteManWriting (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, WMW. (If you don't mind that abbreviation. Makes it easier to refer to you.) If you have any questions about anything on Wikipedia, feel free to ask me on my talk page. A few of your recent contributions have been seen as controversial and I want to help you understand the nuances of Wikipedia policy and its editors. I admit that it can be rather complicated, and editors (including myself) are occasionally very cold and unhelpful in the process of keeping Wikipedia free of what is perceived as a non-neutral point of view. So again, if you have any questions, feel free to ask me via the link above or the one on my signature, or just write a question on this page and then put a {{helpme}} template above it, and someone else will come along and answer it. Thanks for editing, and I'm sorry for any undue stress you've had because of your editing experience thus far. elektrikSHOOS 02:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx Shoos : ) WriteManWriting (talk) 03:29, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]