User talk:Uriah923/Archive1

Hello Uriah923/Archive1, and

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also
  Wikipedia:Topical index
  .

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. --85.166.8.211 14:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. tregoweth 06:45, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

See discussion on tregoweth's talk page and below concerning these allegations. Uriah923 19:22, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

You've been warned before against adding innapropriate links. Please also understand you must respect copyright laws. If you copy any more material into Wikipedia without having proof you are the copyright holder, you will be blocked from editing. we'd rather have you make positive contributions. - Taxman ^Talk 16:43, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Please show me via direct quotes from Wikipedia policy what rules I have broken. Let me do the same to show why I've provided the links: From Wikipedia: External links, What Should Be Linked To:

• That's not really how this works. You see, I look for good faith efforts to improve the project within the rules. I will continue to assume good faith until you continue to break the rules, and then I won't any more. I've moved the discussion here, please respect that. I will watchlist this page and respond when I return on Monday. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I have provided good faith efforts to improve the project within the rules. Your accusation of copyright violation is purely assumption and I'm positive it will completely go away once the OmniNerd people put up a copyright policy. Until that time, however, I will refrain from cutting-and-pasting any content into Wikipedia. Uriah923 15:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are trying to play with in the rules, great, but fact is you weren't successfully doing so, at least on the copy and paste, which is a direct copyright violation. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate you are not making a copyright violation, not the other way around. This is because Wikipedia can't afford to violate copyright. As long as you don't cut and paste anything into Wikipedia you haven't written (or don't have clear proof of agreement to relicense under the GFDL, then there won't be any problem relating to this. - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

#2 - Sites that have been cited or used as references in the creation of a text. Intellectual honesty requires that any site actually used as a reference be cited. To fail to do so is plagiarism.

#5 - High content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article at which point the link would remain as a reference.

I've tried #5 - added links to high content sites with neutral and accurate material not in the article, but tregoweth erased all of them. So, I tried #2 - added substantial and applicable information to the articles and then linked to the referenced site. Again, these links AND content have now been removed by tregoweth. Tregoweth provides no coherent reason for the deletions. As the content I've added adheres to policy and makes significant contributions to the articles edited, I can see no reason for its removal other than a personal vendetta. A perfect example is History of Islam, in which I inserted content in sections that were marked 'to be written' and then provided a link (per policy as stated above). The content was high quality and filled a noticeable gap in the article. Why was it deleted?

Also, Taxman, what copyright violations have been made? Brandon 19:19, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that it's a "vendetta," but I dislike the use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. By adding links to Omninerd articles, then excerpts from OmniNerd articles with "footnotes" that happen to link back to Omninerd, you are doing just that.

Also, by posting material here, you are licensing it under the GFDL; but there don't seem to be GFDL notices on Omninerd. You may want to look into this. tregoweth 20:01, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

If your reason for deleting is "self-promotion," it is completely unfounded. According to the policy you cited:

"Self-promotion. While you are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in, remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other. A very few somewhat famous Wikipedians have significantly contributed to encyclopedia articles about themselves and their accomplishments, and this has mostly been accepted after some debate. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is not acceptable."

The content I've posted that you've erased is not about myself or projects I have a strong personal involvement in. How, therefore, can you use "self-promotion" as a reason for deletion? Uriah923 00:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you continually add links to one specific site, it's pretty obvious you're trying to use Wikipedia's high search engine ranking to benefit your preferred site. If you really aren't associated with the site, then just go find other high quality sites and add links to all of them. I haven't checked over all the links you've added so I don't know if they are high quality at all. Your assessment of high quality may be well less than what Wikipedia normally considers to be so. Personally I care a lot less about adding links to sites than I do about copyright violation. We have to be careful to avoid that. But we also can't add indescriminant links to sites that aren't all that relevant. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• I will not (and have not) added any indescriminant links. OmniNerd has a lot to add to Wikipedia, and while I understand the desire to prevent abuse, I think it dumb to prevent the addition of quality content simply because it comes from the same source. In the future, once the copyright issue is cleared up, why wouldn't each individual addition be evaluated simply on its merit? Uriah923 15:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be but if you are just adding links to one specific site, it is obvious you are only promoting that site, so those additions will likely be scrutinized much more closely. If you read Wikipedia:External links you see links have to provide something valuable on the topic. A blog post, or editorial that is not from a prominent source is generally not counted as valuable. Wikipedia needs high quality, verifiable sources, not everyday opinions. There is a difference in quality among different sources of course. - Taxman ^Talk 15:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

If I can obtain a GFDL policy from OmniNerd, how do I make it available to Wikipedia editors? Uriah923 00:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Taxman, in reference to what you used as a reason to delete some content I added - Please tell me how I 'demonstrate I have the copyright' or show I have 'permission to GFDL the text' (whatever that is)? Uriah923 19:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That's up to you. You need to find some way to prove you wrote the material you are copying to Wikipedia, or the person that wrote it (and thus has the copyright) has assigned the copyrights to you, or given you permission to license the material under the GFDL. Read what is at the bottom when you edit every page: "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources—this does not include most web pages." You've got some reading to do. You need to read and understand the GFDL and understand copyright. Here are some links to read up on it:

• Wikipedia:Copyrights
• WP:GFDL
• Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ

The additions you have made are obviously violations. You have copied word for word material someone else wrote. You will be blocked from editing if you do it again. Like I said, we'd rather you became a great contributor. Also read through the links in the welcome message above, they'll help you learn how to contribute successfully. - Taxman ^Talk 02:47, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the info and thanks for being reasonable and explaining what you are looking for. Hopefully, once this copyright thing is taken care of my additions will be free to be evaluated on their content and quality - which would allow me to be a "great contributor." Uriah923 15:03, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if you clearly have permission to GFDL the material, then it is fine, but keep in mind the above too. Quality is important. High quality sources, such as
  Wikipedia:Cite sources. - Taxman ^Talk
  15:56, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

One of the contributors to History of Islam has decided to add a link to an Omninerd article because they think it's useful. That's fine. What you were doing, solely adding links to Omninerd in many disparate articles, appeared to be spamming.

If you have your own material to contribute, and don't mind that it will "be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will," by all means add it. tregoweth 15:32, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, then. I will add quality content to Wikipedia articles that lack it. Following the form of what Jmabel did on History of Islam, if I find an external article that, adhering to Wikipedia policy, has content that is not a part of a lacking Wikipedia article, I will add a link in External links. I expect you to treat each case individually based on the content of the article, not simply the url. Uriah923 15:51, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You recently wrote "Recursion is a primary method through which computers perform tasks." However, it turns out that this is not the case. The text that you replaced was a far more accurate description of 'Recusion in Computing' (not 'computers' by the way).

In computing, which is one of the accepted terms for 'programming computers', recursion is where a function is defined in terms of itself.

Computers do not use recursion as the primary method of performing tasks. In fact, it is rarely used. But don't take my word for it...look it up in a few published books dealing with computing terminology.

Thank you for justifying your reversion and at least adding something helpful when you reverted my edits in the article. I really hate people who just put a blank "Reverted edits by so and so to so and so." With no reason why it was reverted. --Tykell 17:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to sign under the section Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Researcher99#Users certifying the basis for this dispute since you did try to resolve the dispute? Number 7, 8, 10, and 13 are instances where you tried to convince Researcher99 to provide an outline. Nereocystis 14:42, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has been moved to a sub-page. Uriah923 06:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, stop. You've lost the consensus where it matters and now you're just trying to divide and conquer. If you add any more ON links to talk pages under the guise of trying to have discussion around them I will block you for spamming. And yes, that is very clearly in the policy. - Taxman ^Talk 19:07, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

The consensus against your links is so obvious, it's over. I'll strengthen the above by noting that if any links to ON appear anywhere, we're going to start blocking on sight. - Taxman ^Talk 23:04, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to comment on every talk page that you are now raising the issue, that's why we created the centralized discussion page that you are now ignoring. In case it needs further clarification, I too oppose any instances of ON on Wikipedia.

t

23:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

I think there has been some clear misunderstanding here. I've been doing everything the way I'm supposed to. I tried to follow Wikipedia policy in adding content and a reference, and the reference was attacked. This didn't make sense to me, so we had a conversation. The consensus of this was that OmniNerd articles are not worthy of being a reference - and so I conceded. We then had a consolidated conversation to try and figure out what should be done with the content, and the response was dismal. So, without a consensus, Taxman proceeded to not only remove OmniNerd references, but remove any and all links on Wikipedia anywhere - even though such links were replaced by users other than me. I then decided the only way to approach the situation was to make a suggestion for an external link on a Talk page and then let the consensus decide if it should be there. If I included links it was only in a quote of what was removed (would a link on a Talk page really affect SEO anyway?). Then, the admins start swarming and acting like I am adding linkspam when all I am doing is asking for a consensus about the addition of an external link. There is nothing wrong with that. Uriah923 13:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still with the trying to play innocent eh? This is getting old. You repeat so many times that there is nothing wrong with what you are doing, but to anyone that follows this whole campaign of yours it is incredibly obvious that the only thing that interests you is getting as many links to ON as possible. That's called linkspam and we have policies against it to prevent the exploitation of Wikipedia for spamming and SEO. Again to repeat because you keep spreading this coversation over different areas to try to dilute the opposition, if your interest was actually in improving Wikipedia, you would have stopped this campaign to preserve links to ON a long time ago, and would have looked to try to get better links and references for Wikipedia. I removed only the last of the so called "references" to ON because there was a clear consensus for that. Finally, the response wasn't dismall on the subpage where the consensus was reached, it was just clear that no one wanted to repeat their opinions for each article, and they had already weighed in on the important part. There was also clear consensus that there shouldn't be links to ON unless other, long standing contributors add them. Your game is over, just stop wasting everyone's time. - Taxman ^Talk 15:12, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Still trying to play the linkspam thing, eh? This is getting old. You repeat so many times that there is something wrong with what I am doing, but anyone who will objectively look at Wikipedia policy will realize that suspicion of links should result in a discussion and then action on the consensus - which is, suprise, exactly what is happening. Again to repeat because you keep spreading these linkspam accusations over different areas to try and brainwash everyone else, if your interest was actually in improving Wikipedia, you would have stopped this campaign to banish everything OmniNerd a long time ago and would have looked to try to get better links and references for Wikipedia. I started the conversation on the Talk pages (only 4 of them, btw) because that is clearly the correct action and results in no links to be called linkspam. Finally, the response was very dismal on the subpage where no consensus was reached, it was clear that no one wanted to take the time to read the material and make objective decisions for each article, and they only weighed in on only the fact that the references should be removed, not what should be done with the content. Your game is over, just stop wasting everyone's time.

Maybe now that it's in your own language you will see that it's pointless to repeat yourself over and over. I'm done with this conversation. I am moving on to objective discussions where people talk about things that actually matter, instead of going on rampages and spouting buzzword accusations with no support. Uriah923 16:22, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well the parody you've done above is so easy to refute, I'll just skip that and move on to more useful editing, which I have a long history of, and you don't. I'll repeat what's above for clarity: if you add links to ON or spread the discussion to more pages instead of the one where the discussion is proper I will make sure you get blocked. If need be, I'll run it up the flagpole and make it permanent. I've been very patient with you and assumed good faith all along, but instead you've proven your intentions are only to get links to ON which is against our policies. - Taxman ^Talk 17:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the extraordinary consensus against you on the issue (see here for clarity), if you add any more arguments anywhere but on that page for adding ON links I'm going to initiate efforts to get you permanently blocked from editing and a formal decision to not allow any links to ON. Yes I have the ability to block you myself, but I'd like to make it clean. I'd rather just make improvements to articles but as an administrator I've got to deal with stuff like this instead. I'd also rather you were free to edit and make good contributions, but it is clear you are not doing that. We've asked you multiple times, very nicely to stop your actions and contribute productively. You still have that choice, it's up to you. - Taxman ^Talk 20:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the consensus you mentioned, I have not and will not add any OmniNerd article links as references. However, I do not see a reason not to open up conversations on talk pages to discuss if an external link is appropriate. The community can then decide if the link is added to the article or not. Uriah923 21:44, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Considering you would be discussing the ON page on every talk page that would constitute the exact same thing that the consensus has established we don't want. It's pure exploitation of WP for your benefit which isn't allowed. Besides, you do reallize that in the interest of fairness, a link to the consensus would have to be added to each discussion and that after that the result would be exactly the same as the discussions so far. Since that is a waste of everyone's time involved, and we've already been through several rounds of this BS, I suggest you find somewhere else to advertise your site. For the 83rd time, why don't you either contribute here according to our guidelines or don't edit. It's clear we don't want what you're trying to do. - Taxman ^Talk 23:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, just how bad of press do you want for your site? You're pretty much making yourself and your site hated here by your behavior. The consensus is that we clearly don't want your links or you spamming talk pages to try to get the links into pages. - Taxman ^Talk 23:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has been moved to a sub-page. Uriah923 06:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation has been moved to a sub-page. Uriah923 06:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]