User talk:SuperPacMan
October 2015
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia while the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. Huon (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
I am the trademark holder on this business name and was not aware I was unable to make a "threat" in regards to a person's attempts to vandalize it. I only wish to protect my page. Please consider un-blocking and allowing me to defend my page against the vandal.
Question regarding your trademark claim
US Serial Number 86718839 indicates that the current status of the mark U.S. NATIONAL VIDEO GAME TEAM is: "New application will be assigned to an examining attorney approximately 3 months after filing date." Are you saying you hold the previous trade mark or the current trademark? Has an attorney been assigned to the matter yet? In either case, your editing articles about the U.S. NATIONAL VIDEO GAME TEAM is clearly a conflict of interest. I am sorry you are having difficulty understanding why people are upset with your approach to editing this article. A contributor must not be in a conflict of interest, must appear neutral, must not be promoting their own services or websites. You should not link to your own paid articles as proof of notability, but we covered that already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.96.183.9 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
SuperPacMan's Answer
As I've noted repeatedly myself, my "difficulty understanding" stemmed more from the fact that this page has existed for almost a decade without there being any issue before, despite the page being put up by the founder and edited over time by people formerly involved. Then the issue turned to admins who, for whatever reasons, decided the content that has existed here for a decade was not worthy of being there now. The frustration then flew higher as admins seemed to reply to my remarks after skimming over them and, frankly, in a rather condescending way.
If your call is what it is, that's fine. But considering that this page existed for 9.5 years with what could be considered similar issues, one can hardly blame me for taking it somewhat personally. To boot, I can point to no less than 100 edits made across Wikipedia by the trademark holders of brand names and/or people editing their own information, and that's with me only looking at a glance. Again, I note consistency. It's crystal clear that others are doing this, but no Wikipedia admins have taken issue with any of those people's edits, but did with this one.
If Wiki admins called such things across the board, there never would have been any "difficulty understanding" SuperPacMan (talk) 11:59, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Further Comment
SuperPacMan, you did not answer the question. Do you own the trademark? You claim you do. You also claim to be the current owner of the organization along with a business partner Sprinkles451. You deflected the question by pointing out that other organizations edit their own Wikipedia pages. Do you understand Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources? Also you need to read and understand notability.
Do you understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort by all of Earth's people? I am getting the impression that you did you read the source of those references or are having difficulty comprehending their meaning. (If English is your second or third language please forgive my comments regarding this, I know first hand the challenges of becoming multi-lingual).
If you have found over one hundred cases where trademark owners are editing articles about their properties please do the right thing and revert their changes. Let them know the rule violation they are guilty of and encourage them to become better citizens of the Wikipedia Universe. We would more than welcome the changes, and would happily enter you into our family of editors. This is my only goal with your modifications.
In attempting to further your own cause however you are now contributing to the corporate pollution. If you were caught speeding down the high way would you argue with the arresting officer and carefully point out the other speeders that are not getting caught -- thereby justifying your own immunity to the law -- or would you acquiesce, pay the fine, and try not to break the law further?
If you are not the current trademark owner you should stop making statements to the contrary. Your argumentative and combative stance could possibly lead others to believe that you are actually not affiliated with the team/organization and are in fact (and in deed) attempting to sabotage both the history and the future of this allegedly important organization. 66.96.183.9 (talk) 14:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
SuperPacMan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Was not aware of such a rule. Was simply trying to defend my page against a vandal. SuperPacMan (talk) 01:17, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Accept reason:
Legal threat retracted. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
- If you want to be unblocked, you will have to explicitly retract the legal threat. You can edit or litigate, not both. Huon (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
How and where do I do that? This page is the only thing I'm allowed to edit now. Do I say here that I retract the legal threat, because I do. I can no longer find the post in question and any attempt to edit the page itself gives me the block.
- May I ask what your connection to User:Sprinter461 is? Peridon (talk) 18:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
He is a longtime friend and current business partner.
Comment
- Please keep in mind that the pages and articles do not belong to one person, but to the world. Our goal is to promote quality pages. Please re-consider sourcing your additions with real-world sources. Paid blogs, press releases (written by you!) etc. are not allowed. We welcome your contributions but they must pass the quality test and not be part of some larger PR campaign conducted by you and your business partner. Also, I stress again, it seems that the U.S. Video Game Team has such an intertwined history with Twin Galaxies that it really should be moved back to that page.
Difference of opinion. The USNVGT was only intertwined with TG from 1983-1987. In 1987, the USNVGT actually purchased TG and there are documents to show this posted online. It continued to run from 1987-circa 1995 before it faded away, a far longer length of time than the original "intertwining" and, considering that TG folded for a long period during this time.. the USNVGT actually existed for more years in the 20th Century than TG did.
Also, as previously noted, the articles (not paid blogs) on Peters and Nauert were written by me well before any business interests came into play. It is unfortunate that it would be assumed such older content would be part of a PR blast, especially when one can argue this page was originally set up by the founder almost a decade ago, and nobody ever had an issue with him adding in himself and his own articles on what was at the time his own site. But opinions are like... something everyone has.
This history, sadly, has hardly been told out there. Even more sadly is that admins have come in and erased long standing history in an already short page to boot.
At the present time, I've thrown my hands up at fighting with admins on this matter. Too many inconsistent and arbitrary decisions in addition to a lack of knowledge on the subject, such as I noted in these very comments. My interests were not to promote anything other than adding to the missing history.
Instead, I will make those contributions elsewhere as time allows. I added a missing fact for the classic Pac-Man yesterday, for example. Over time, I'm hopeful these contributions will add enough to the overall knowledge base on here that I won't have these issues in the future. As it stands right now, Wikipedia is proving to be an obstacle rather than an ally in our continued efforts to capture and catalog the full and rich history of a great many things that, right now, have not been handled well.
Thank you for your input. SuperPacMan (talk) 15:00, 13 October 2015 (UTC)