Mlnsports

Please don't use wiki to promote your website. Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not ccwaters 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Providing links to relevent content is not spam. If that's the case, then chuck your links to Sports Illustrated articles and the Hockey News. People who find the AHL on your system want to perhaps know what goes on there. Unless Wiki's getting into our business, then you might want to give them access to feature stories written by real reporters on the league.

Appropriate placement

Other substantial national publications are noted here, including Baseball America and Sports Illustrated. Is the greatest technology encyclopedia going to go all print snobbish and say that you have to be in print to be listed? If so, please de-list your references to yourself, and make sure that Britannica gets its props.

There are people who have added links to our publications (NOT US) in the Bricktown Ballpark and other areas. It seems fitting that they should link TO SOMETHING, so we have included a bio of our company's publications that is equivalent in nature to those for SI or Baseball America.

Further, our editors have contributed substantial content to this publication, and our articles are links to stuff (especially on the ballparks) where you're asking for more information to be contributed! We won't give you our copyrighted material, but we provide links for the courtesy of your readers who can't find the content here.

If you de-list us again, I will ask that you de-list SI and BA on the same grounds.

BMR

The difference is that the other publications you alude to are being included by third parties. Your publication however is only being included BY YOU a stakeholderin its advancement. None of your contributions as added any content, they're all just to advertize your business. Seriously, I wish you luck, just stop trying to take a free ride here. Didn't we have this discussion before?? ccwaters 23:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Seriously, the whole purpose of Wikipedia was the addition of public content, and easy access to it. Does it really matter if I, or one of my readers, bothers to include it when we're here? It's still valid content, regardless of who made the contribution. You telling me that if we provide depth where you cannot, that is not a service to the Wikipedia reader?

You get some tiny warlord in here like you who has appropriated the spirit of the open flow of information into some sort of facist proprietary thing and you corrupt the very spirit of the Wiki movement. The fact is that we have valid original content of interest to the reader on the subject, so why not include it? Only because it offends your sensibilities? Then it's not an information resource on sports, it's ccwaters personal sports fiefdom. Get a life, get a blog, and get out of here, if you are going to restrain the flow of valid information to readers.

See: WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:NOT, and in general: WP:POLICY. ccwaters 16:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

So if I give Wikipedia my copyrighted content, that's not a spam violation, but if I link to valid content, it is. I checked those. Your interpretation of same misses the principal litmus test.

Is the content valid? Yes. Will it last? Yes. It is of VALUE TO READERS. Yes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlnsports (talk • contribs) .

I don't see any requests for "copyrighted" content. If there is content violating your copyrights you should make note of it here: Wikipedia:Copyright problems. ccwaters 17:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

mediation case

Hello Mlnsports and Ccwaters --

First of all, please read the "tips" section at the end of my signature.

Mlnsports made a request for the mediation cabal; I am here as part of that. Ccwaters, if you don't wish to participate, please let me know.

I have looked over the dispute. It seems pretty clear-cut: Mlnsports has been adding external links to his own publication, MLN. Ccwaters has been removing them. In addition, Mlnsports has made personal attacks ("get a life, get a blog, and get out of here"), in violation of WP:NPA.

My suggested solution is very simple. Mlnsports should refrain from adding links to his own publication, something that is informally discouraged on wikipedia. On the other hand, Ccwaters should exercise restraint in removing links to MLN added by occasionally by users other than Mlnsports. If the links to MLN are truly valuable, others will add them gradually in the usual process of wikipedia.

If the two of you agree to this, please reply briefly to this message here. If not, we will have to discuss further. My main interest is in the quick resolution of this conflict, and I believe my solution is fair-minded. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 23:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I don't think I've done anything different than what is proposed. Let me know otherwise. ccwaters 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We have content that you don't. We're not giving it to Wikipedia, but, as you say, in the interest of improving access to INFORMATION, we've been offering them links. You want readers to put in links to it? Dandy. We'll let the readers do it. Otherwise, you have to rely on the very limited resources of volunteers like ccwaters here, who has neither the reach of access nor the depth of information to provide Wikipedia readers with the same level of information. Pity. You're on your own.