User talk:AlexHammer

Welcome!

Hello, AlexHammer, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

The Web 2.0 field is extremely well recognized, as per the long article on Wikipedia. Business 2.0 is very well recognized, with a significant magazine also by that title. The influence of the Interent and specifically Web 2.0 technologies and processes in Politics is exploding and well known. The term Politics 2.0 is increasing signficantly in use as a descriptor of those processes. I (and I hope others) will be greatly expanding and fleshing out this entry in the next couple of weeks, there is a huge amount of references and documentary support that can be included, and I'll draw upon the best of it.

Thank you

Your recent article creation

Please do not add inappropriate material to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:List of bad article ideas. Michaelbusch 20:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and let me too welcome you at Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I too think that your article on Politics 2.0 stands little chance of surviving here. It sounds like a neologism. You'll need reliable sources to back up that it's an established term - blogs and the like don't count. Let me know if you have any further questions or need help. --Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The field of Web 2.0 is extremely well recognized, as evidenced by one example by the long Wikipedia listing for that term. Business 2.0 is similarly well recognized, including with an influential publication bearing that title. The role and influence of Web 2.0 technologies, processes, strategies, etc. in political campaigns is exploding and well recognized, with the term Politics 2.0 increasingly being referenced in regard to that area. Over the next couple of weeks I will be improving and fleshing out this article in substantial detail, there is a huge volume of leading reference and support material from which to draw upon. Thank you. {{AlexHammer 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)|AlexHammer}}[reply]

Hm, I have no problem giving you a few days to improve it, but honestly, I'm not holding my breath. You'll need a lot better sources. Not more sources, better ones. One that you currently have is apparently your own blog; another is some discussion forum where the term is actually not even being used as far as I can see. Has it ever been used in some reputable print source, like some well-known newspaper or something? Let alone a scholarly book? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:53, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully GigaOm and The Politico is a good start, each which have major articles on Politics 2.0, which I have referenced. These are major sites as you know. Also, additional information detailing the scope of Politics 2.0 references, as well as its underlying contents is being added. I have full time responsibilities, so I hope you will be a little patient as I get this up to speed. I'm sure (or trust) that if you just do a quick web search yourself that by itself would make you receptive to this additional evidence. I appreciate it. Thanks! AlexHammer 12:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sign your posts

You have been posting on Politics_2.0 AfD without signing, and I suspect on one occasion without logging in. First: Sign your talk page posts, per WP:TALK. Second: always sign in, so as not to infringe on WP:SOCK. Finally: the AfD page is not the place to put long-winded attempts to justify the article (Wikipedia is not a soapbox). Michaelbusch 21:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC) AlexHammer 12:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC) Hopefully this helps (signing via th ~~). I am looking forward to learning and following all Wikipedia rules. As you know, there is a bit of a learning curve, as not everything is readily intuitive (has to be learned). I come here with very good intentions. Just as a touch of background that I bring something to the table, I am a former candidate for Governor of Maine, fomer owner of five division publishing company outside NYC with multi-year contracts with MLB and other large corporate partners, and before that academically a USAA National Scholar, #1 graduate in my College, and all Eastern United States Division 1 Athlete. I try and work hard at things and make a very positive and valuable contribution. As mentioned, I am open to feedback. Thanks!![reply]

Blogs are not reliable sources

Your recent edit to Hugo Chávez used a blog as source. Please check WP:RS, blogs are not considered reliable so they only can be used in a few exceptional cases. I already replaced the ref in the article[1] so don't worry this time but please consider this in the future. Thanks and happy editing. -- JRSP 16:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, all of your recent edits have consisted of adding references to your blog to various political articles. As JRSP noted, blogs are not reliable sources. More importantly, adding links to your own blog constitutes a violation of WP:VANITY. Referencing only yourself is not a good thing. Also, please don't remove content from your talk page. This is not formally forbidden, and all material is still available in the page history, but it can sometimes be a breach of Wikipedia:Etiquette. Michaelbusch 18:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am impressed with how good the Wikipedia oversight group is, thus far from what I have seen. Wikipedia is unlike anything I have ever seen before, and maintaining the quality is paramount. I am seeking to add to that quality the best that I can. Anything referenced is new information that adds (and fits into) the course of the article. Every blog post that I have in my popular blog is a short excerpt, with link back to the original source which are major news and media sources, the title of the posts generally match word for word the original source and reference by name that source also in addition to the link. I possess a strong background in New Media. For a decade, until 2005 when I returned to Maine to run for Governor, I ran a five division online media company outside NYC, HSC. Our largest division was sports, and we had multi-year repeat contracts with MLB and other large corporate partners. We published (in that division alone) a half dozen recurring publications hundreds of pages in length.

I have used Wikipedia numerous times in the past but mostly for educational purposes. I used it alot about a year ago, and I find that the quality and depth of the articles has progressed substantially since that time, which is one of the reasons that I am so impressed. Protecting the community is of course always paramount, but moving it forward as well - one lone voice but I'm sure some others would also agree, is important if not critical as well. I would guess that those two are likely, at least in some general respects, more compatible than antagonistic, but as stated I am new to editing and learning. Hope this isn't too long! Thanks. AlexHammer 18:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Bill Gates.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. · AndonicO ^Talk 00:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to iPhone and Bush White House e-mail controversy and Michael_Moore and many others...

I know you might not have had time to read the above notice, but lots of wikipedians are annoyed and are reverting your edits. Please don't spam with links to your blog.

Morcheeba 04:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming

Please stop spamming your blog link. If you continue you are likely to be blocked. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for spamming. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You have been blocked indefinitely for continuing to spam despite several warnings and having been blocked previously. -SpuriousQ (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]