Talk:Ten O'Clock Classics

message: Dear Wiki Community:
I hold the copyright to the text in question for Ten O'Clock Classics, and I am permitting use of this text in Wikipedia. I will email a text to the foundation to this effect. 
Thank you for your time and consideration,
Ronen Segev, Ten O'Clock Classics
Please read Wikipedia:Copyrights for information on how you can license your material to Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 00:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Please do not post, revert, or otherwise add to this article any material regarding one of this musical group's members' unfortunate experience trying to lodge a complaint against a well known travel website.  If you would like to know why, take a look at the WP:RFP report here.  Doing so after being warned to stop may result in temporary blocking to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia and/or temporary protection of this article to prevent edits.  Thanks,  Wikidemon (talk) 02:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: BLP

message: As seen above, this page has been largely written by a biased source, Ronen Segev of Ten O'Clock Classics. The neutrality of this page must STRONGLY be called into question when it is, in effect, merely a billboard for his organization.
Further, Wiki editors have wrongly protected Segev and this page, incorrectly citing BLP rules. In fact, the rules state, "Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability." Segev is most notable for his clash with Priceline.com. It is what brought him to national attention in the first place. It made newspapers across the country, was all over the web, and received plenty of commentary. Sources are abundant. By any imaginable standard, this incident is CLEARLY relevant to his notability. The fact that he is a squeaky wheel about it should have no relevance, but since he has been allowed to write his own page - again, making it essentially an advertisement rather than an unbiased page - editors like Wikidemon are ever vigilant.
And wrongly so.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.114.49 (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The page survived a deletion nomination. The consensus of editors is that the organization is independently notable. The decision that this material is inappropriate on WP:BLP grounds is mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive147#Ten O'Clock Classics and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive60#Ten O'Clock Classics, and the matter apparently got Jimbo Wales' attention as well as some site administrators. I've cautioned you about this on your talk page, and will go ahead and revert again on BLP grounds. You seem to have made a hobby of this page, so perhaps you are the same editor who's been pushing this point for years?  If you are here in good faith to edit Wikipedia and not just to disparage this particular individual, please take a look at some editing rules like WP:BLP, WP:AGF,  WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:EW, and spend your time making meaningful improvements to the content here instead of getting involved in silly fights and accusations over article content. I'll go ahead and revert on BLP grounds.  You're welcome to discuss here or on some notice board, but as a last caution, do not try to edit war this content back in.  Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Held Hostage

message: What about his use of Reputation.com to edit his own article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.99.48.192 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reputation.com