Laddergolf

May 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Response to your note

Thank you for your note and for clarifying the matter of the UK game. My question about your company's notability still stands. What it comes down to, basically, is whether your organization meets the notability guidelines for companies. As I indicated at the talk page of your IP address, we look for multiple references from unconnected sources talking about organizations before we include them. Are there other sources that would make the inclusion of your company appropriate at this point? If so, I'd be happy to help establish an article on your company. I presume that you would be in good position to know how much press your company has received. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had some time to work on this. The company does not seem to yet meet our notability guidelines, but it seems that the game probably does. I am checking the reliability of content by ARAContent. Meanwhile, I have utilized newspapers that do meet our verifiability policy.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to reflect what other, previously published sources say about subjects. We strive to be neutral and to fairly represent all aspects of a subject. Hopefully, the article in place will attend to that. I will seek additional review at the conflict of interest noticeboard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

The sources cited to support that information name Matt Peterson. Our verifiability policy requires that we reflect what reliable sources are saying. Moreover, I wonder if you read the text: "Ladder Golf LLC, who owns the trademark, discovered the game on campgrounds in the early 1990s and believes it probably originated there" makes no sense. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

If by "external links" you mean references, they are the citations for the material in the article. All information in Wikipedia articles should cite to reliable sources to meet one of our core policies, Wikipedia:Verifiability. (Two of our other core policies include neutrality and the policy forbidding previously unpublished information or conclusions.) If you mean the category at the bottom, it helps group similar articles together, so that "Ladder Golf" is listed at Category:Lawn games. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Fine.. If you are not going to look at official government documents then please just remove all use of the trademarked term Ladder Golf. It's amazing that you will look at random blogs and adsense spam sites as references before you look at ACTUAL US Trademarks or Patents.. If this is not satisfactory then please send me an address on where to send a letter too formally requesting removal of our term from your site. Also please look up the difference between a Trademark and a Patent. We made up the name of the game and Trademarked it, that has nothing to do with the game itself it is simply a name that we trademarked. It's also amazing that I am arguing with some random person about a company that I built from the ground up for the last 5 years. Please remove all mention of the Trademarked term Ladder Golf and we will just go away.

I will try to be more helpful now. I felt the need to vent a bit.. Here is a link to the USPTO.gov site. They do not allow linking but if you search for Ladder Golf you will find the owner of the Trademark to be owned by Ladder Golf LLC. Y

You will find the same with the Patent. http://assignments.uspto.gov/assignments/q?db=pat for Patent # 6308956 you will also see that Ladder Golf LLC owns it.

Sorry, but the blog site that you references is not correct. Which is why I changed it. and then you banned my account.

"the term is also sometimes used generally to describe the game" this sentence blatantly tries to render our trademark generic. Please remove this sentence. Ladder Golf is a brand name that is protected by Law in the US and is not supposed to used to describe other peoples products "generally". We could legally stop any commercial company that is advertising other similar games using our term, why can't we come to an understanding that we as a company need to protect our trademark otherwise it will become generic. We must defend our mark or we risk the chance of losing it. Please understand that.

Aside from my short rant above, I think the article is close to being satisfactory.. and it is most likely good that you banned my account. I would rather just present you with the facts and hopefully you will create a factual representation of our brand and company.

Thanks for taking the time.. I know this stuff takes a lot of time especially with people like me.

I'm sorry. I understand your irritation, but I didn't block your account. Another administrator did that. Your username is a problem under our rules, particularly when it is coupled with what seems like promotional edits to the article. You may appeal your block to change your username. I would just urge you to be careful to remain within WP:COI when editing the article. You would probably do better to seek assistance from others in almost every case, though you should be safe to remove simple vandalism.

The Columbus Dispatch is not a blog; it's a newspaper, and it is the kind of source that Wikipedia favors. I don't know how familiar you are with Wikipedia overall, but our goal here is to build an encyclopedia that summarizes information published on subjects in other, reliable sources. Primary sources can be used to add information--so I can certainly add information on the ownership of the name. But primarily we exist to summarize material that has been written in reliable, secondary sources. Newspaper articles, where are subject to peer review, are a frequently used secondary source.

As far as noting that the term is sometimes used generally, I promise you that there is no effort or desire to render your trademark generic. I recommended moving the initial article on the general game to a general title precisely because I understand your need to defend that property. The text in that article on the general use is by no means endorsing the dilution of your trademark. But I do not believe that it is within Wikipedia's mission to ignore this element in the sources.

As a tertiary source, we strive for the neutral point of view in reflecting what other published sources say. From that policy, "The neutral point of view is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject: it neither endorses nor discourages viewpoints.... Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view." and "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In researching the topic, I found the general use of your trademarked name in multiple news outlets, only a few of which are cited in that article (you can see many of the sources I used at [1].)

That said, I have strengthened the reference to your trademark and am seeking additional feedback on the question of whether this is accurately described to reflect the sources in such a way that respects your rights to the title. (For example, see also Airfix, Cuisinart; two other trademarked products that are sometimes used generally but have not genericized.)

With respect to ownership, I have been able to use your information on the patent (since the official site named the previous owner) to locate another usable source that gives a more detailed and accurate summary of the history of the patent, which I've included. Generally speaking, college newspapers are not highly favored, but this information should be non-controversial, particularly since the basic details are supported by the primary source, which I have also cited. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

conflict of interest; blocked

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia, because it appears to be mainly intended or used for promotional purposes of a company or group. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

In addition, accounts are for individuals only, not for companies or groups or other collective editing, and your username should reflect this.

Wikipedia is not a promotion website; this kind of activity is considered spam on Wikipedia, and forbidden by policies, and usernames that appear to be promotional also violate our username policy. Editing on Wikipedia is not intended to be used to promote anyone, or anything, and its use for that purpose will result in blocking of the account involved.

If you feel that there has been a mistake, please appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below or contacting the administrator who has blocked you. Your reason should include a clear response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy. Please check that your new username has not already been taken here.

--Orange Mike | Talk 01:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Article

Thank you for clarification and your help. I will take your advice and just run the facts through here to you and let you edit the article. Although it would be nice to not be banned since these articles get spammed so often. Here are a couple details. Robert Reid never worked for Ladder Golf LLC. We simply purchased the patent from him. He is still a postal worker as far as I know. Also I have never heard of this putting game and cannot see this on the references that you list. Can you clarify the details on this putting game that you found? I clicked the references but did not find anything about it.

The link should be visible under references 8 & 9. Here's a direct link to reference 9: [2]. Let me know if that's not viewable. I've removed the reference to Reid being an employee of the company, since the only indication I see of that is in the college newspaper. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you again for all your time. Would it be possible to remove the reference to the book since I cannot find any other reference to that on the web and I have never heard of this type of golf play. If you can find sufficient material to leave it then it is fine, but I cannot find anything else except this random book on tropical plants which I think is referring to grass seeds for golf courses or something. Very random and confusing.

Thanks again! I cannot believe you guys go through all this for the whole site. WOW.. new respect for this site.

That's not the only source. It's also mentioned in the other book cited. You can see reference here. It's also here, dating back to 1907. It's been around a while. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)