Mark54ems

Welcome!

Hello, Mark54ems, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Metapress, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may not be retained.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! OnionRing (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Metapress

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Metapress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. OnionRing (talk) 00:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from Metapress, a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. OnionRing (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits to Metapress while logged out. Making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of more than one account or IP address per person. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. OnionRing (talk) 00:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with Metapress. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Contest this speedy deletion, which appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the article's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the article. And please stop logging out to remove the speedy deletion tag. If you continue, you will be blocked for abuse of multiple accounts, as explained above. OnionRing (talk) 00:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove speedy deletion notices from pages you created yourself, you may be blocked from editing. OnionRing (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I apologize, I wasn't aware of this editing rule. Will not happen again, please let me know feedback on revised edit. Thanks Mark54ems (talk) 00:57, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Metapress

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Metapress, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your feedback! I'd welcome any rewording you might contribute to provide a clear, neutral point of view (if you do not agree that this is currently up to standards). I believe this is an organization of merit, but do not aim to promote them, simply clarify the history and significance associated. Please let me know your opinions, thanks again. Mark54ems (talk) 03:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Metapress for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Metapress is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapress until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

the tag will be removed when the discussion has finished and is closed by an administrator. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Content management system. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Grayfell, these are not inappropriate in any way, you seem to have a vendetta for anything I contribute. Have you read Metapress? They have been around for years, and are established as a thought leader regarding CMS, so it makes sense that their post carries weight to the conversations I've just added. I don't know them, and am not affiliated, I just know their history. Please re-add both references you've inappropriately removed. Thanks. Mark54ems (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't the first time I've removed that specific link, so I assume that's what you mean by Vendetta. Spam is not acceptable, and the content you have been adding doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources. It's a self-publishing platform, which your article makes clear. If you have a conflict of interest, which your actions strongly suggest, you shouldn't be adding these links or writing these articles. Grayfell (talk) 03:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I would concur with Grayfell's assessment that these external links are spam, and that these seem to be self-promoting. Metapress is not a thought leader on CMS's. However, that is irrelevant, as there is definitely a conflict of interest. RSTech1 (talk) 03:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not believe that these are spam edits, and I certainly have no conflicts. I simply am familiar with this entry, having created the initial Metapress stub, so whenever I read Wikipedia entries related to similar topics, I try to add what I believe are useful edits. I see that I am outnumbered about these two revisions, and will not attempt to re-add these again in the future. I also notice that I have been tagged in a sockpuppet investigation. I'd like to add that I can understand the skepticism, although I didn't know who Alex Jasin is until researching him, and found that he is CEO of Metapress. The young gentleman certainly has an overlap with his involvement in both companies and organizations, but that's all that I can add to this conversation at this time, as I do not know anything more about this man or the other entry, Limbitless_Solutions. I also see the maintenance tag on the Metapress entry and that references have been removed. I disagree with these changes, and would ask you to reconsider these removal edits, but as is I would request the removal of the maintenance tag. I apologize if this is incorrect forum, I do not edit as often as you both do. Thank you for your assistance. Mark54ems (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not have a source for the third section of Metapress being "Relaunch", but while doing research to initially create the stub, I contacted and spoke with a representative at the company by email. I was told that the acquisition was of journals, and that their current iteration of online distribution was separate from Atypon. I am not sure how to source, possibly you can help, or contact as I did. Please see how to revise, as this is presently inaccurate. Mark54ems (talk) 04:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned on the other editor's page, the level of coincidence here is just too much to accept. If anything, it's gotten worse with your behavior. You wrote and published the article mere hours after the other account was called-out for an obvious conflict of interest. That means you likely started the article either right before or right after the response was posted. How slack-jawed and incredulous would we have to be not to find that fishy as hell?

Metapress added a link to the Wikipedia article to the site's main page. Right below that link is the "how to build a website" article you and the other account have been slow-burn spamming on Wikipedia and apparently other sites, such as Wikiversity. It's all just tacky spam. Hypothetical emails are not WP:V, so it doesn't belong in the article. Find a real source or leave it out, but no matter what you do, the article's talk page would be the proper place to discuss this. Grayfell (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Mark54ems (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• I don't understand why I am being penalized for some other user's actions and the timeline of the user's events. I began the article when I gathered references, and have been assisted several times by kinder users, in an effort to make the Metapress entry strong, as I am a newer user and have unintentionally made mistakes with guidelines. It would be "fishy" had I any knowledge, and I understand your reasoning, but I had no previous knowledge. It does look like spam, but I am being punished for other users based on a coincidence of time that I began my entry? I seriously understand your skepticism and disagree strongly, but would request permission to make future Wikipedia edits, although after this discussion I will not edit the Metapress entry.
• How would hypothetical conflict of interest negate the value, validity, and neutral point of view? I see several new tags on the entry, but references are from highly reputable universities and organizations.
• I would like to request input from Dennis Brown, who previously wrote "Notability isn't temporary, so current growing pains" do not make difference.
• I would like to request input from DGG, who previously wrote "The version of Metapress that was notable was the earlier system, which was not a journal or a reprinter, but a publication platform for publishing journals. It was used by a variety of publisjhers, many of them highly reputable. The best source for its nature is section 3 of [1], a blog, but a blog by a well-known expert in scholarly publishing. I consider it a RS.". This reference has since been removed, which I believe was in error.

Thank you, Mark54ems (talk) 04:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Checkuser verified abuser of multiple accounts. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 04:36, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.