User talk:Newspaperpublisher

Welcome

Welcome!
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia:

Respect copyrights – do not copy and paste text or images directly from other websites.
Maintain a neutral point of view – this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
Take particular care while adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Particularly, controversial and negative statements should be referenced to multiple reliable sources.
No edit warring and sockpuppetry.
If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
Do not add troublesome content to any article, such as: copyrighted text, libel, advertising or promotional messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Deliberately adding such content or otherwise editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism, doing so will result your account or IP being blocked from editing.
Lastly, if you are editing an article about an individual or group of people, please adhere to Wikipedia's Biography of Living Persons' policy.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 03:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. I'm assuming good faith but another user pointed this out to me. You have only edited one article and you username is "newspaperpublisher". Just want to make sure there isn't any issue. :-) ZacBowling ^(user|talk) 03:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zac, thanks for your comments. I have read the Police Gazette for many years and continue to enjoy the publication.

The reason for the deletion of the website entry is that it purports someone else to own a trademark it doesn't own as the Patent and Trademark Office clearly shows another person owning the trademark, namely Mr. Barrera. The federal trademark office shows the trademark and service mark being used since 1977 "Magazines in the field of current events and sports. FIRST USE: 19770102. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19770102". Thus that would clearly be a trademark violation would it not on the part of SHBpedia? And since notices state that "content that violates any copyrights will be deleted," I would naturally assume that this would equally apply to trademarks and the site citation claims something under "Legal notice" on the first page which claims ownership of a trademark which is not the case. I would assume that the Patent and Trademark Office citation to be valid over the statement issued on that particular site, www.policegazette.us. Please advise me as I am trying to adhere to the policy guidelines listed here. Thanks again!

Why was the 2005 footnote reference deleted?

"And the winner is…after 160 Rounds…The National Police Gazette!". The National Police Gazette. September 2005., Vol. 161, No. 1.

I took that reference directly from the print edition of the magazine. Shouldn't that be restored?

By the way, SHBpedia’s sole entries are for the Police Gazette, they have only edited one entry and that is solely the Police Gazette, so I don't understand as they appear to be the ones apparently protesting here. The Police Gazette are not my only entries.

If I am wrong, I apologize, I am trying to follow the correct procedures, policies and guidelines here.

I plan other entries on Wikipedia shortly and hope my contributions will be useful. I don't want to give the impression that anything is for promotional purposes as I am trying to share my historical knowledge. I stick to facts and not preconceived interpretations of the facts. My entries are succinct and to the point and are referenced to credible sources.

P. S. The only other thing I find troubling is the illustration on the page purported to actually be an 1847 Police Gazette. I can assure you the publication never printed an illustration that large during that particular time period. It is not an actual page from the Police Gazette although it distinctly gives that impression. Thanks again! --Newspaperpublisher (talk), (UTC)

I think the conflict of interest has now come to light. And it's clearly SHBpedia. And it appears there are multiple violations here. Look at what he has done since you cleaned up the stub. It is abundantly clear that SHBpedia has complete disregard for anything that is not to his liking.

We are not entering negative comments on here about the www.policegazette.us website like SHBpedia is doing with our entries for the print edition of the Police Gazette. It is also quite strange that this insertion happened in November 21, 2007 and all of a sudden a user named SHBpedia is protesting. This in itself is suspect. The facts are abundantly clear. First, a federal registration is a valid trademark and service mark under the law and they are officially registered marks. It is the one that remains in force. Secondly, the federal trademark states it was first used in commerce in 1977. This precedes any other trademark. This contributor is trying to insert inappropriate comments which is totally unacceptable behavior. It all falls into the category of self-published sources proclaiming them to the be the first and last word on everything pertaining to the Police Gazette. Everything I have referenced points to reliable, verifiable sources. SHBpedia doesn't do that. SHBpedia's only references are the website itself and a page pointing to (and clearly written by themselves) to something that in their estimation has more credence than a federal government reference.

Self-published sources (online and paper) Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets, etc., are largely not acceptable.[4]

All the inclusions of the www.policegazette.us site are promotional and self-published. This would definitely be a questionable source. And on top of this, they are boasting to have a trademark as the sole merit because they self-proclaim to have one which in their estimation supersedes a federally registered trademark and service mark registration! Likewise the registration clearly states the date as first use as 1977 which precedes by 30 years their claim.

You have dealt with the matter very professionally and in a very nice way. While I didn't personally agree with everything you did in your cleanup, it appeared to be as fair as it could be from your point of view without knowing all the facts. I think that the Conflict of Interest should be sent to SHBpedia instead. Thanks again!

As a closing sidenote, based on the weight of the evidence, PoliceGazette.com which is part of the Telequery.net website has been up and running since 13-Aug-1998, that precedes SHBpedia's purported claim and use of the name "Police Gazette" as well and thus their use of the name has additional claimants before it does excluding the print edition of the Police Gazette.

Thanks for your comments. I greatly appreciate them. I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest opportunity.

Below is what I specifically referred to earlier in this user talk message about the original entry into Wikipedia:

Revision as of 21:20, 21 November 2007 (edit) (undo) 65.209.84.210 (talk)

Next edit → Line 5:

Musician Dan Hicks has claimed that he derived inspiration for some of his witty, satiric lyrics by stories he had read in The Police Gazette.

The website, www.policegazette.us[1], mimics the Police Gazette style in coverage of current events and contains some archival materials from the original publication that give a taste of its late 19th century flavor.

--Newspaperpublisher (talk), 21 March 2010 (UTC)