User talk:PeetMoss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
If you leave a new message on this page, I will reply on this page unless you ask me to reply elsewhere.

Welcome! Please leave me a note and I'll respond. If you are here because I deleted a link you created please review the information posted on my user page first.

apollobailbonds.net[edit]

Dear PeetMoss:

I think it's unfair to have links to Family Bail Bonds and Dog the Bounty Hunter. Both sites link to a commercial bail bond sites. The apollobailbonds.net link has useful information and links to educate the public about the bail business. Please reconsider your edit. The page added is not selling anything. The pages has useful information about bail and easy ways to locate inmates, jails, and courts in Southern California. Please be fair.

The link to Apollobailbonds.net is inappropriate not only because Apollobailbonds.net is a commercial site selling it's own services but also because Apollobailbonds.net is not what editors would consider a reliable source. In addition, the information you've linked to on Apollo Bail Bonds is available from non-commercial reliable sources. Family Bonds and Dog the Bounty Hunter are well known TV shows and thus considered notable. Hope that helps. PeetMoss 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

businessrecords.com[edit]

Dear PeetMoss,

Why did you delete a link I added to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure page? The article in question is an original editorial and was meant to inform, not sell, but you explained it as a "commercial link." To refresh your memory, the article was about the ramifications of the FRCP and how no businesses are immune, no matter how small. Was it simply because the article was originally posted on a company's website rather than a media or legal site?

Thanks... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.135.218 (talk) 20:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

1) Your source is not a reliable source per WP Guidelines 2) The information makes numerous statements of fact with no reference to their source 3) The article is short (enough so to be included in the article if relevant) 4) The article ends with Email us at brmdetails@businessrecords.com for more information, which clearly makes it spam in my opinion. More can be found here: External links and if you like feel free to use the FRCP discussion page to discuss including your link, or any others, on the front page. Hope this helps. PeetMoss (talk)

Affair[edit]

Just a note, when you sought to revert the linkspam on Affair, you inadvertently didn't clear the spam out. For some odd reason I happened to catch this, but normally would've passed over it, assuming you'd taken care of it.

No worries, but thought you'd want to know.

--Quintote (talk) 19:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


Crisis Control Group, LLC[edit]

Ok I am new at this this is the first of 5 companies I am writing about and how they impact the industry they are established in. I did not write the article any different than other sites for example Kroll Inc or Control Risk Group perhaps you can tell me what I did wrong and I can correct it. I see a college of mine did it for me, and how do I get added to the spam watch list I like the idea of monitoring for spam but how do you tell the difference. I am interested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlcmgmt (talkcontribs) 02:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read: the guidelines on spam, citations, reliable sources, verifiable and Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. These articles, especially the last one, should help you understand Wikipedia's policies when it comes to creating an article about a company. The article you wrote did not contain any references to reliable and notable third party sources of information about the company.

pursuitmag.com[edit]

PeetMoss,

I am writing in hopes to better understand why you deleted the external link to Pursuit Magazine (http://pursuitmag.com) and identified it as "spam" on December 17, 2008?

Pursuit Magazine (PM) is a free private investigation industry vertical portal with over 100 relevant *original* articles written by qualified and recognized authors and experts exhibiting the Wikipedia tenets of "verifiablity" and original content; this is information that is not readily available to readers interested in private investigation from other sources. New articles, association events and resources are added regularly.

I would contend that it both meets and exceeds the "reliable source" test often applied by Wikipedia editors as defined in Wikipedia and makes a quality, relevant contribution to the private investigator wiki as an external link. While the website is ad-supported, it would be a stretch to conclude that the content is biased or would not meet the scholarship test as a result.

Lastly, having reviewed the Wikipedia External Links page I believe that the link meets Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion and does not run afoul of any of the 17 reasons listed for external links to be avoided. I do concede that as the editor of PM, I did submit a site to which I maintain material control however I believed that the link met editorial guidelines and did so in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.5.140 (talk) 10:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider your edit.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated review and reply to my request.

Scott Harrell CompassPoint Investigations Editor of Pursuit Magazine http://pursuitmag.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.5.140 (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

You haven't given any details on why your magazine "meets or exceeds" the following guidelines: the guidelines on spam, citations, reliable sources, verifiable and Wikipedia's general notability guidelines. Discussing those details on the talk page of the article in question, so that you can develop a consensus among editors, is what you should of done before posting a link to a site you are an editor of. In my opinion you will not be able to get a consensus on it and I don't believe it's worth the havoc it will cause if you did (every Tom, Dick and Harry will be back trying to get links to their sites on that page once they see a link to your site). PeetMoss (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


As an editor of this Wiki page, have you bothered to even take a look at the website in question before marking it as spam? My server stats and visitor logs indicate that you have not. I've read the entire talk page and it seems to me that you, specifically, are editing from a point of view entirely out of context of the spirit in which Wikipedia was developed- something to the effect of "I'm removing all of the links and we'll let them prove to me why they are worthy enough to be included." We are not all Wikipedia experts as you might want us to be prior to making a post- so I did not read the talk page prior to posting; this was my first submission to Wikipedia and as first experiences go, not a good one... not for not getting a link posted to the page, that's not really that big of a deal at this point, but because of the cavalier attitude with which you have chosen to treat a visitor and potential contributor.
Not allowing an external link to a valuable related resource which clearly meets the Wikipedia guidelines for suggested external links because it might cause you some extra work weeding out "every Tom, Dick and Harry" seems silly, lazy and arrogant.
I will move this to the talk page and continue the conversation there.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.163.5.140 (talk) 21:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion the link to your website does not meet WP's guidelines. Why would you expect the rest of us to assume the burden of proof when removing a link to a commercial website you control and what's with the ad hominem arguments? Instead of attacking the messenger I suggest you present your case, if you don't people are going to assume your online magazine exercises poor judgment when reviewing articles. PeetMoss (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

After reviewing articles on pursuitmag.com (per your request), I do not believe it should be considered a reliable source of information (IMO). The first article I read was a totally biased report on agency advertising where you try to convince the reader that the only effective advertising on the net is in a directory you own on another domain. Another article, over a page long, ends with "This article is a small excerpt from The Art of Skip Tracing and Missing Persons Investigations, an online skip tracing course for private investigators. When you click on the link it goes to a site trying to sell a manual for skip tracing. In fact, article after article it seems is pulled from "The art of skip tracing and missing persons Investigations" and includes a link to where you can buy the book. Under comments on the front page the first link is something a viewer would think goes to a comment about background checks, instead it goes to yet another site trying to sell something. Another article was drawn from articles in the news, with no original reporting.

One of the worst cases for inclusion is this article where your magazine states "Outstanding books are available that specifically cover the bail enforcement industry. I highly recommend “Apprehending Bail Fugitives” as a complete reference to the bail fugitive recovery business", yet when I follow the link it turns out it's a book written by the editor in chief of pursuitmag.com!!!

The entire site seems designed to lead the reader into sites you own, control, or have something you want to sell. All of which is fine and dandy by me, more power to you, but it is certainly not a publication that I would consider unbiased or even remotely reliable, at least not as a source of information for an encyclopedia. PeetMoss (talk)



ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)