Hello, Mark7144, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! /wangi08:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Link position
Welcome Mark7144!
Out of interest, do you get significantly more hits when you're top of that list than when you're at the bottom? And what happens when you're second? RobbieC13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have never payed attention to the difference in hits in relation to its position but if it get moves down again I'll have a look Mark714415:35, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mark,
Would you put your case for Murraysworld in the fansite list on the talk page please. Your opponent has come forward, and it looks like we'll have to get the regular page editors to come to a consensus.
My observation of the facts is, originally consensed in 2006, consensus for the website was reestablished at Talk:Andy Murray#Fan site link as early as July 9, 2009 when a (now banned sock) opponent of the website said, "Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended." (Chidel 07:46, 10 July 2009) If Chidel's oppose is discounted as a sock, the consensus was unanimous to keep.
Unanimous to keep (sans sock) is an unusually strong consensus without wiggle room. If there are not other material facts that are unknown to me, Dlabtot and TRPOD violated existing consensus by removing the website link before the 30-day RfC is over.
Therefore TRPOD's charge of misrepresentation against Mark7144 is not only false, but egregiously false in light of the facts.
Accordingly, I question Dlabtot's and TRPOD's commitment to Wikipedian consensus values. If they have no commitment to consensus, they are outsiders with no welcome to be editing this project. Milo10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is wise advice. A rule-abiding COI editor is in a weak editing position, and must adhere closely to the consensus of other editors. Even if others are edit warring against consensus, as is my opinion of this situation, a COI editor must stay on the side of angels and work through WP social politics to achieve goals. And, sometimes life just isn't fair. Milo10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Although I'm doing the right thing by re-adding the link as it was based on consensus, I appreciate it might make people feel uncomfortable as I'm a COI. Therefore, can someone else kindly re-include the link until a consensus has been reached to say otherwise. Mark7144 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Publication process
Can you tell me what process you have for checking facts, before your team, which I count as eight, publishes stories to the web? (Please reply here if desired)Milo10:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The vast majority of stories are comprehensive match reports, something the official website does not provide, but we do have a contact within Andy's management that can verify the contents of a story when it's appropriate to do so. Please also know that to be a Google Publisher, the website must be evaluated and seen as an organistion with an acceptable editorial process. Mark7144 (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to Google's editorial process requirements?
While one assumes that your organization has the intent to publish accurate stories, it's useful to both your writing team and the public to make a visible commitment to do so – especially using your existing feedback process. If you don't have a publisher statement, you can easily add one now. For an example using intended British spelling:
Publishers statement
Our organisation intends and works to publish accurate statements of fact to the best of our knowledge. While our opinions and judgements may respectfully differ from yours, please send us any corrections of fact, along with your basis for believing them to be true, to (web mail link here).
I wrote this statement. My fact check by Google Web and Google News Archive searches on the major key phrases suggest it's original enough. Such publisher statements are essentially generic anyway. Of course, you should do your own fact check as well. As checked, you are free to modify it or use it as is. Milo21:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, the point of this section was to collect the areas and points upon which parties agree and not to rehash arguements already on the page. Would you be willing to remove your comments from the section and either rephrase the statements to reflect your understanding of the common consensus of the RfC or strike them if you do not agree that they reflect the consensus of the discussion? Thank you. -- The Red Pen of Doom17:52, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure... I've removed one of the comments and changed another to reflect something that is accepted as fact about the website and which is relevant to the RfC. Mark7144 (talk) 20:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a comments section, copied, and reformatted to hopefully solve everyone's problem (including mine, being lack of comment space). Editable proposals always need a comments section, which functions somewhat like a visible edit summary. Milo21:11, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andy Murray. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:
Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.
This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
Please leave that link out until the community decides. It is currently disputed and you have a conflict of interest. If you edit war by continuing to add the link, you may end up blocked from editing. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:35, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
