User talk:Arteworks
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Arteworks, 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:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
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 place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
- I have also replied to your excellent idea at Talk:Austin, Texas. Hook 'em! Johntex\talk 21:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] User:Ronmaier
Can you explain why you created this user page: User:Ronmaier? According to your user page, you are not Ron Maier. If you meant to create an article about him, that should go here Ron Maier, although he doesn't appear to fulfill the notability guidelines for article creation (see WP:BIO). thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I don't understand why that is of any concern to you? He needed help with the wiki coding, so I helped him. He's going to participate in some diving discussions I think.
- It is a concern due to policies of sockpuppetry. BTW, the message you left on my page was inaccurate. I did not delete that page: [1]. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- User ronmaier is a real person and was not a sock puppet account. I do apologize, however, for accusing you of deleting the page when in fact you did not do so. ArteWorks Business Class 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- It is a concern due to policies of sockpuppetry. BTW, the message you left on my page was inaccurate. I did not delete that page: [1]. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Search engine optimization
BTW, I still strongly disagree with this edit at Search engine optimization: [2]. I don't want to get into an edit war, so I kept it in place, but I hope you can justify its inclusion in this article on the talk page. Thanks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 14:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I don't care what you think Zimmer you are not an expert in the subject and your "academic" perspective is sophomoric and irrelevant. Do not post on this page any more. If you want to discuss something with me you can call me directly the number is on the arteworks web site. ArteWorks Business Class 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the accuracy of your edit, just its placement. My "academic perspective" is not at issue here. And I would like to remind you that WP has a policy against personal attacks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I explained below, I did not realize that the questioning of one's credentials constituted a personal attack. I will review the guidelines in detail. ArteWorks Business Class 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- A perusal of Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility might also prove helpful. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- As I explained below, I did not realize that the questioning of one's credentials constituted a personal attack. I will review the guidelines in detail. ArteWorks Business Class 22:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not questioning the accuracy of your edit, just its placement. My "academic perspective" is not at issue here. And I would like to remind you that WP has a policy against personal attacks. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 19:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care what you think Zimmer you are not an expert in the subject and your "academic" perspective is sophomoric and irrelevant. Do not post on this page any more. If you want to discuss something with me you can call me directly the number is on the arteworks web site. ArteWorks Business Class 15:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Off-wiki harrassment
Hi, I hope your threat to harasses User:MichaelZimmer by contacting his academic department was a joke. If so, it is merely extremely bad taste and thoroughly reprehensible. However if you have actually done this, I will warn you that this is unacceptable behavior and is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. If you have done this, I will ask you to immediately retract this contact you have made with Michael's employers and guarantee to me that you will not attempt to do this again for any user. It is highly damaging to Wikipedia and you absolutely cannot do this. Thanks, Gwernol 19:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please assist me in understanding this. ArteWorks Business Class 21:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You wrote on my talk page:
- I believe it is highly damaging for wikipedia for rogue individuals to summarily delete posts that they are not experts in. If you can explain to me how such behavior is not damaging, I am happy to listen. Thank you.
First, the use of the term "rogue individuals" is perjorative and I would ask you to stop making personal attacks on people. Second I have expressed no opinion on the deletion issue as I have not looked at it yet. But even if Michael Zimmer was wrong to delete a particular article, even if that were true, you absolutely do not have the right to harass any user at their place of work. I have asked Michael to follow up with me if it turns out that you have done this. If you have I will push for a permanent ban on you ever having involvement in Wikipedia again. Off-wiki harassement is exceptionally inappropriate and not only could threaten the career of an editor but also opens up Wikipedia to serious legal threats. This is potential far, far more damaging to Wikipedia than the deletion of any single article could be. Thanks, Gwernol 21:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I have looked into the root issue, and it appears that MichaelZimmer did not delete anything. From the response he posted on his talk page it appears that the deletion was performed by an admin [3] not by MichaelZimmer. In fact MichaelZimmer is not an admin (see Wikipedia:List_of_administrators) so he cannot delete any page. It would seem that you have accused him of deleting an article when he has done no such thing. Unless you can show otherwise, it appears that you have been harassing this user with absolutely no basis.
- Given the very serious accusations, personal attacks and harassment that you have rained down on MichaelZimmer I will ask you to show some evidence to back up your position. Gwernol 21:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just to be clear, I am an Admin - was approved under previous login User:Mtz206, which was changed to my current one. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I do not understand your statement "recant the contact".ArteWorks Business Class 21:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- And to the extent that I made an error regarding the deletion of the third party user page I do apologize. ArteWorks Business Class 21:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- First by "recant the contact" I mean: you have claimed to have written to MichaelZimmer's employer. If this is the case you now need to write to them again and undo the damage you have done by unequivocally withdrawing the claims against him. Second are you now agreeing that there is no basis for your accusations against MichaelZimmer beyond the deletion of the User:Ronmaier page? If so then you'd better apologize directly to MichaelZimmer since you have done him a grave injustice. I will also warn you to be much, much more careful in future about making wild accusations against any editor. Any personal attacks, ill-judged accusations and particularly resorts to harassment in the future will be severly dealt with. Gwernol 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thank you Gwernol for your explanation. Let me attempt to shed some light on this subject. (1) I did not contact Mr. Zimmer's employer, I contacted his academic advisor to discuss the nature of his research. If this is also his employer, it was not my intent. According to his web site, he is a student under the supervision of the individual I contacted. The purpose was not to interfere with any employment. (2) Mr. Zimmer appears to have singled me out as a target of his criticism, I do not know why. I do not understand why it is any concern of his if I assisted a third party user in creating their Wiki code. The conclusion that I drew was that Mr. Zimmer was perusing the wiki for any edits I have made and grieving about them. If this was an erroneous conclusion I would request that Mr. Zimmer explain to me why he is concerned about a third party user page that has nothing to do with him or any area of his research or expertise so far as I am aware. If this can be explained I am happy to listen. (3) My claims are not based upon solely the deletion of the third party user account, which it is now evident he is not responsible for. My grievance also involves his what I can best describe as "posturing", and I am not meaning that as a personal attack I just do not know how else to describe it, in areas in which he is not an expert. Specifically I am referring to the topic of Google Page Rank. I am an expert in this field. I have written a number of articles on the subject. I own a search optimization firm which was ranked last month to be #22 in the world for organic search engine optimization by an independent ranking organization. So far as I am able to ascertain, Mr. Zimmer has no history of optimizing web sites for third party clients. I appreciate his interest in this field and encourage him. However, having never actually performed any optimization work (again so far as I can ascertain) I do not believe he would qualify as an expert capable of rendering an opinion on this subject. Hence my statement regarding "rogue" individuals. If the term rogue was a personal attack it was not meant that way - I don't know how else to describe it - a rogue is one who "operates outside normal or desirable controls" (source: dictionary.com). It is my opinion that a desirable control would be to have individuals that are internationally recognized experts on topic render opinions as opposed to those studying those topics. Again, it was not intended as a personal attack, just a perception that I had regarding the situation as undesirable for the wiki project. (4) That all being said, I will issue an apology to Mr. Zimmer for the accusation regarding the deletion of the third party user page. Additionally, I am not sure that additional contact with Mr. Zimmer's academic advisor would be desirable. If that party contacts me I will do my best to repair any damage to Mr. Zimmer's career as that was certainly not the intention. (5) I will review the personal attack guidelines so that I am clear as to what they are. I perhaps made the wrong assumption that personal attacks meant using foul language or making slurs based on such things as race or religion. I did not understand that the questioning of credentials constituted a personal attack. Again I will review the guidelines and refrain from personal attacks in the future. Thank you for your willingness to serve as a go-between on this matter. ArteWorks Business Class 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to (2) as I noted above, the primary concern was that an biographical article might have been made in the wrong part of the encyclopedia, and the secondary concern was regarding policies against sockpuppetry. I made not accusations, but just asked for an explanation (which you didn't provide until today). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct I did not reply until today. I do not log on every day, perhaps if I did I would have caught this in time to avoid all the trouble. User ronmaier is not a sock puppet, please see discussion above under heading user:ronmaier. ArteWorks Business Class 22:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to (3): I have never claimed to be an expert in SEO, and such expertise isn't necessary to discuss whether a particular edit is appropriate for a particular page, or belongs somewhere else. Instead of reverting your edit [4], I left a message on both the article talk page [5] and your talk page [6] addressing my concerns with the edit. My concerns with this edit centered not on its accuracy (posing no threat to your expertise or my relative ignorance), but rather whether the content was better suited for other articles in the encyclopedia. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to (1), (4) and (5): Whether they are my employer, my supervisor, my mentor or simply my colleagues is splitting hairs. Contacting people outside wikipedia to complain about behavior and suggest "increased supervision and instruction on professional ethics" is, well, professionally unethical. It is also a little over the top since, (a), a simple click of a link (or asking me) would've revealed that I didn't delete your friend's user page, and (b) the "rogue", "wiki god"-like "summarily deletion of posts" you accuse me of was a single revert that occurred back in June [7], after which a discussion between us ensued. And my reaction to your recent insertion of additional material along the same theme was tempered, to say the least: I did not delete it, but merely commented on my disagreement with it. I think it is appropriate for to "recant the contact" whether it is "desirable" for you or not. In the future, please keep cool when the editing gets hot. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No what I was saying is that it might not be desirable to you or the contacted individual for me to make additional contact, not to me. That was not intended as a statement about my desires. I did not want to create any additional problems for you. That statement was a statement about your desires...that perhaps it would not be desirable, from your perspective, to make additional contact. If you desire for me to make additional contact, I will. Again, my apology is to the extent of the false allegation of deleting a third party profile. My other concerns remain and we will just have to agree to disagree on those issues. Please clarify whether or not you wish for me to make additional contact for the purposes of clarifying the issue of the deletion of a third party profile. Mr. Zimmer please understand that I could not more vehemently disagree with some of your practices, and I say that with respect. However people don't always agree and that is fine. Please understand that I took the deletion of the third party profile as a direct and personal attack on me by you. Although I do know you did not delete that profile, and I have apologized for it and the apology has been accepted (presumably rendering the matter permanently closed), I still have concerns as to why you are perusing the wiki for my edits in an effort to single me out. Even given this, if you had read the profile in question and compared it to my profile you would have noticed the two are entirely different. The educational achievements and colleges attended were different, the state of residence was different, business interests and hobbies were different, background was different. Although I must say that it is a compliment in a way for you to attribute me with the ability to so creatively create a sockpuppet persona! The user is a real person who I was helping out. I guess I just don't understand your interest in my editing activity on the wiki that do not pertain to your areas of study or expertise. I certainly do not go through the wiki looking for your activity. I am uncomfortable with the fact that you have taken such an interest in me, but perhaps that is the way of wiki that I just do not understand. I apologize for being long winded. To sum up - if you desire additional contact with the individual in question, please specify so, and specify what you mean by "recant the contact". That is what I don't understand. A contact can't be recanted - it has already been made - only a statement can be recanted. So that is the source of my confusion, as I have no idea how to recant a contact. I am happy to recant my statement that you deleted a profile which turned out to be untrue. Seriously please know that I made a mistake for which I am sorry. I read in the wiki guidelines that it is okay for people to make a mistake - that people do that - as long as they correct it. I have attempted to do that by my apology. If additional action is required then I will take it, however, I am not comfortable with the threat of permanent ban when it is clear in the guidelines that mistakes are made and people are allowed to make them so long as they correct them, which I have tried to do. ArteWorks Business Class 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- (a) At this point, additional contact with my colleagues outside Wikipedia is not required. (b) In response to your statement "Mr. Zimmer please understand that I could not more vehemently disagree with some of your practices, and I say that with respect": Can you provide examples? As I've noted a couple of times above & on my talk page, I did revert an edit of yours in June, and then we had a discussion about it. I took no action on your most recent edit to SEO other than commenting on it. What is so vehemently disagreeable about that? I don't think any of my actions were outside Wikipedia rules & guidelines. (c) Finally, I am not singling you out, I just noticed that you had created a user page for someone other than yourself who hasn't made any edits. Since that is odd, I asked you about it. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Michael, can we please just end this now? Here - let me be clear. I respect you and your acheivements. I have read your entire web site and you have a lot to be proud of and a lot going for you. You are a man of honor, respect and dignity. Although I believe I have already stated my concerns, I'll do it again but I really don't want to keep going around and around, as neither your mind nor my mind will change. My concern is that (1) you initially summarily deleted a post, even if back in June, which I believe given your otherwise stellar credentials you were not qualified to delete. (2) I respectfully disagree with your statement that a non-expert can question the placement of an edit without questioning the substance of an edit. It's just a disagreement we have - that is all - and my mind won't change and yours won't either. So we disagree. (3) I don't like the fact that you peruse the wiki for my edits. It's wierd to me. I don't understand your interest in me, and it makes me believe there is a personal situation here between us, which in my mind you started. But then again, maybe that is what happens at wiki. Either way, I have not said you violated any rules. I just don't like it. But hey - me not liking it is my problem, not yours, and I should not have made it your problem. I am sorry that I made it your problem. (4) And in response to your other question about user:ronmaier not making edits, I believe it did say that he was intending to make edits on spearfishing and freediving. Perhaps he should have been prepared to make the edits immediately before the creation of a wiki page - I don't know. But it did clearly state under editing activity what his intentions were. Michael this is really starting to affect my livelihood now. I have many clients and am very busy. I have spent several hours in the last couple of days trying to make things right. Can we please stop this discussion? I AM SORRY that I accused you of deleting that profile. I am also sorry that I responded to a perceived personal attack with an inappropriate personal attack of my own. There is nothing more I can do, except to modify the way I respond in the future. Please understand that the hours I have spent on this are taxing on my business, I really ask that this matter be closed. I am sorry, it won't happen again, and regarding our other disagreements no amount of debate is going to change each other's mind. I wish you continued success. ArteWorks Business Class 16:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- (a) At this point, additional contact with my colleagues outside Wikipedia is not required. (b) In response to your statement "Mr. Zimmer please understand that I could not more vehemently disagree with some of your practices, and I say that with respect": Can you provide examples? As I've noted a couple of times above & on my talk page, I did revert an edit of yours in June, and then we had a discussion about it. I took no action on your most recent edit to SEO other than commenting on it. What is so vehemently disagreeable about that? I don't think any of my actions were outside Wikipedia rules & guidelines. (c) Finally, I am not singling you out, I just noticed that you had created a user page for someone other than yourself who hasn't made any edits. Since that is odd, I asked you about it. --MichaelZimmer (talk) 16:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- No what I was saying is that it might not be desirable to you or the contacted individual for me to make additional contact, not to me. That was not intended as a statement about my desires. I did not want to create any additional problems for you. That statement was a statement about your desires...that perhaps it would not be desirable, from your perspective, to make additional contact. If you desire for me to make additional contact, I will. Again, my apology is to the extent of the false allegation of deleting a third party profile. My other concerns remain and we will just have to agree to disagree on those issues. Please clarify whether or not you wish for me to make additional contact for the purposes of clarifying the issue of the deletion of a third party profile. Mr. Zimmer please understand that I could not more vehemently disagree with some of your practices, and I say that with respect. However people don't always agree and that is fine. Please understand that I took the deletion of the third party profile as a direct and personal attack on me by you. Although I do know you did not delete that profile, and I have apologized for it and the apology has been accepted (presumably rendering the matter permanently closed), I still have concerns as to why you are perusing the wiki for my edits in an effort to single me out. Even given this, if you had read the profile in question and compared it to my profile you would have noticed the two are entirely different. The educational achievements and colleges attended were different, the state of residence was different, business interests and hobbies were different, background was different. Although I must say that it is a compliment in a way for you to attribute me with the ability to so creatively create a sockpuppet persona! The user is a real person who I was helping out. I guess I just don't understand your interest in my editing activity on the wiki that do not pertain to your areas of study or expertise. I certainly do not go through the wiki looking for your activity. I am uncomfortable with the fact that you have taken such an interest in me, but perhaps that is the way of wiki that I just do not understand. I apologize for being long winded. To sum up - if you desire additional contact with the individual in question, please specify so, and specify what you mean by "recant the contact". That is what I don't understand. A contact can't be recanted - it has already been made - only a statement can be recanted. So that is the source of my confusion, as I have no idea how to recant a contact. I am happy to recant my statement that you deleted a profile which turned out to be untrue. Seriously please know that I made a mistake for which I am sorry. I read in the wiki guidelines that it is okay for people to make a mistake - that people do that - as long as they correct it. I have attempted to do that by my apology. If additional action is required then I will take it, however, I am not comfortable with the threat of permanent ban when it is clear in the guidelines that mistakes are made and people are allowed to make them so long as they correct them, which I have tried to do. ArteWorks Business Class 15:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Reply to (2) as I noted above, the primary concern was that an biographical article might have been made in the wrong part of the encyclopedia, and the secondary concern was regarding policies against sockpuppetry. I made not accusations, but just asked for an explanation (which you didn't provide until today). --MichaelZimmer (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you Gwernol for your explanation. Let me attempt to shed some light on this subject. (1) I did not contact Mr. Zimmer's employer, I contacted his academic advisor to discuss the nature of his research. If this is also his employer, it was not my intent. According to his web site, he is a student under the supervision of the individual I contacted. The purpose was not to interfere with any employment. (2) Mr. Zimmer appears to have singled me out as a target of his criticism, I do not know why. I do not understand why it is any concern of his if I assisted a third party user in creating their Wiki code. The conclusion that I drew was that Mr. Zimmer was perusing the wiki for any edits I have made and grieving about them. If this was an erroneous conclusion I would request that Mr. Zimmer explain to me why he is concerned about a third party user page that has nothing to do with him or any area of his research or expertise so far as I am aware. If this can be explained I am happy to listen. (3) My claims are not based upon solely the deletion of the third party user account, which it is now evident he is not responsible for. My grievance also involves his what I can best describe as "posturing", and I am not meaning that as a personal attack I just do not know how else to describe it, in areas in which he is not an expert. Specifically I am referring to the topic of Google Page Rank. I am an expert in this field. I have written a number of articles on the subject. I own a search optimization firm which was ranked last month to be #22 in the world for organic search engine optimization by an independent ranking organization. So far as I am able to ascertain, Mr. Zimmer has no history of optimizing web sites for third party clients. I appreciate his interest in this field and encourage him. However, having never actually performed any optimization work (again so far as I can ascertain) I do not believe he would qualify as an expert capable of rendering an opinion on this subject. Hence my statement regarding "rogue" individuals. If the term rogue was a personal attack it was not meant that way - I don't know how else to describe it - a rogue is one who "operates outside normal or desirable controls" (source: dictionary.com). It is my opinion that a desirable control would be to have individuals that are internationally recognized experts on topic render opinions as opposed to those studying those topics. Again, it was not intended as a personal attack, just a perception that I had regarding the situation as undesirable for the wiki project. (4) That all being said, I will issue an apology to Mr. Zimmer for the accusation regarding the deletion of the third party user page. Additionally, I am not sure that additional contact with Mr. Zimmer's academic advisor would be desirable. If that party contacts me I will do my best to repair any damage to Mr. Zimmer's career as that was certainly not the intention. (5) I will review the personal attack guidelines so that I am clear as to what they are. I perhaps made the wrong assumption that personal attacks meant using foul language or making slurs based on such things as race or religion. I did not understand that the questioning of credentials constituted a personal attack. Again I will review the guidelines and refrain from personal attacks in the future. Thank you for your willingness to serve as a go-between on this matter. ArteWorks Business Class 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I accidentally came across your threat of off-wiki harassment, and was horrified. I am even more appalled to read the above dialogue and to see that you actually carried it out. Let me be clear: your personal contact with another user's academic supervisor was totally out of line. No one should have their academic career in any way jeopardised in response to actions taken in good faith as users or administrators at Wikipedia. I am glad that you have apologised, but please note that I will consider any further such actions to be inconsistent with your continuing involvement in this project; I don't expect that many other adminstrators will disagree with that assessment - in fact you are lucky not to have been banned already. This was not just any old "mistake"; you went out of your way to interfere with someone else's real-world life. It is important that you understand the difference.
-
- That said, it would be good if this debate stopped for now. I respectfully suggest that you both leave it where it's gotten to. Given my comments and those of Gwernol, ArteWorks Business Class knows where he stands. Metamagician3000 09:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
