User talk:Zennie

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Zennie, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Underneath-it-All 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted a recent edit you made to the article Oakland Raiders. You did not provide an edit summary, and I could not determine whether the edit was vandalism or a constructive contribution. In the future, please use edit summaries. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. cholmes75 19:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

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. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. mtz206 19:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 16:22, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Greetings. There's nothing wrong with adding an external link to one's site if -- and only if -- that link adds value to the content. I think there's also a kind of knee-jerk desire to -- one the part of some "policers" -- harm those who have websites of their own. Remember, blogs contribute to the communication of information on various aspects of society. Please do not threaten to have one banned for adding content -- even if it benefits that person's blog. It goes against the nature of the Internet and in the sprit of that perspective such action will be met with an equal reaction, thus banning the policer. It's a little much, your reaction. People commonly go from one site to the other; it's not appropriate or sound to get upset about this common online dynamic."

Sorry, the sites you are adding are inappropriate for Wikipedia. This has already been pointed out to you. I suggest you reread WP:EL and WP:SPAM. --Yamla 16:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Yamia, your interpretation of the Wikiepedia rules is wrong and off-base. Not including a "commericial" website means you would have to elminate 90 percent of the links installed in this system, including very relevant links to -- for example -- a MySpace page. That's a commercial link. I suggest some training in Internet history and function, because you're not understanding of how this works and therefore present a danger to others - Zennie"
A great many of the links on Wikipedia are irrelevant. However, commercial websites are appropriate in many circumstances. A link to Microsoft's website is entirely appropriate on Microsoft, for example. Similarly, a link to Wil Wheaton's MySpace page (if he has one) is appropriate on his page. However, these are special cases. Please read WP:EL to understand what is and is not appropriate. The fact that links are appropriate on the Internet at large does not imply that they are appropriate on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 16:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You said: "Again, I ask that you stop this rather pavolvian habit. It's damanging the free flow of information online. Moreover, you do this not in the sprit of Wikipedia's design, but in the need to satistfy only your view of the World. That's not right or good."
Please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a link repository. Also, please note that new comments go to the bottom of my discussion page. Thanks. --Yamla 16:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!Yankees76 17:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please reread WP:EL. Blogs are generally inappropriate to add to Wikipedia articles and is certainly inappropriate in the Female bodybuilding article. -- Yamla 20:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Yamla but I've already communicated this information to the user in a discussion - there's no need for other editors to reiterate the info. Let's assume good faith unless the violation is repeated. Yankees76 20:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Okay the violation has been repeated. Zennie, please do not continue to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia articles. I'm placing a final warning. Yankees76 20:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.Yankees76 21:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links will not be tolerated. The next time you insert commercial content and/or links into a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Yankees76 21:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page

I note that your user page is a direct copy of this text. Given that this is (presumably) describing you, however, your user page is almost certainly not a copyright violation. Is it okay if I confirm with the email address at sportsbusinesssims.com that Wikipedia may use this text? I'd send the email to zennie at sportsbusinesssims.com so if this really is you, there shouldn't be a problem. Thanks for your time. --Yamla 16:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. --Zennie 9:59 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, your interpretations remind me of a line Mr. Spock used in "Star Trek": "It's applying it's own, relentless logic." I emphasize the term relentless. I've examined your edit warnings to others, and they're failing far ourside the sprit of the Wikipedia design. More to the point, they seem to reflect an anxiety -- defined as a fear of something that will not come to pass. --Zennie 9:59 19 May 2006 (UTC) - - While Wikipedia is not a "link repository" it would not be of value to anyone without links. The unfortunate fact is that one person's "non-commericial" website, does not exist. Wikipedia itself is a commericial website. So under the way you interpret the rules, Wikipedia itself must not exist or be linked to. Please think about this. --Zennie 9:59 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You said: "Wikipedia itself is a commericial website." That is not correct. WP is a non-profit encyclopedia operated by the Wikimedia Foundation --mtz206 17:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not debating that some external links may be appropriate, only that the links you have been adding are not appropriate under WP:EL and WP:SPAM. I'm not the only person who thinks so. --Yamla 17:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with this. The link was relevant to the subject matter. How can you justify the other external links and not this one? That's a weird form of discrimination and seems without merit. - Zennie

Verification email sent. I'm also trying to resolve our conflicts through that email. --Yamla 17:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
You have refused to confirm that you have licensed the text of your user page under the terms of the GFDL, although you have already explicitly agreed to this license when you uploaded the text initially. As such, I will mark your user page as a copyvio and it can be resolved appropriately. While I agree that it is extremely likely that you or the corporation you run owns the copyright on that text, you also seem to be refusing the GFDL. My belief is that you did not actually agree to license your text under the GFDL and as a result, the text should be removed from your user page. For the record, it is clear to me that you have not deliberately committed a copyright violation. You do not seem to understand that you must license your contributions under the GFDL, however. --Yamla 17:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict

Zennie and I clearly have a conflict. This conflict is over what constitutes acceptable external links and whether Zennie's contributions are licensed under the GFDL. I intend to take this conflict to an RfC to have comments from a neutral third party. I believe Zennie intends to go straight to Jimbo Wales which is certainly his right. Nevertheless, I am marking my intention to RfC this matter. I plan to do this over the weekend. --Yamla 17:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Zennie, please take the time to familiarize yourself with the external linking and spam guidelines. Wikipedia is not meant to be a place for anyone to link to their own blog or commercial site if they happen to have a post related to a WP article. The content of this encyclopedia must stem from verifiable and reliable sources, and if every blogger or publisher of original research started to include their posts, the goals of this project would be difficult to attain. --mtz206 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yamia -- Chris -- This matter of a GFDL is silly as hell. I created the original text, own 42 percent of the company, and run the website. Please stop this. Zennie 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Read WP:OWN. All your contributions to the Wikipedia must be licensed under the GFDL. You have refused to do that, thus we have a significant licensing issue. --Yamla 18:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
On mtz206's advice, I will not start an RfC unless Zennie continues to violate WP:EL. This is not binding on Zennie, of course. --Yamla 21:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...I disagree with this in that if I were to link to someone else's blog as a source, this discussion would not exist. I will wait for Jimmy. Oh, he links to his own for-profit site, I must add - User: Zennie

Zennie, I have started an RfC (part of the official dispute resolution procedure here at the Wikipedia) concerning your unwillingness to license your contributions under the terms of the GFDL (as required by WP:OWN). I encourage you to state your point of view at the appropriate page, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Zennie. You are not required to do so but the whole point is to resolve this part of our conflict. --Yamla 19:27, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I marked Zennie/Temp as a copyright violation as well. As you can see from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems (and from WP:OWN as has already been pointed out), all your contributions must be licensed under the GFDL. If you are not willing to do so, please refrain from contributing to the Wikipedia. More specifically, please stop uploading text that is currently marked as a copyright violation. --Yamla 18:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attempt to resolve copyvio

Folks, this disagreement has gone on for long enough. Lets try and resolve it.

Firstly, the text appears to be the same as published on the website, therefore it infringes copyright in that website. This infringement can be avoided in two ways:-

  1. The website is marked as being published under the GFDL, that means it is useable within the terms of that licence and thus can be used on wikipedia. The web page in question must be marked with a suitable version of the GFDL for this to apply
  2. Permission can be given to wikimedia to use the material on wikipedia. To achieve this, an email needs to be sent to permissions at wikimedia dot org, from an email address relating the website in question. That will result in an authorisation number being given, which can be used to certify that the material is used with permission.

Although this may sound petty, without the above-steps, there is no way of confirming the permission to use is genuine and that user:zennie is who they say they are. Of course, a further solution would be to simply rewrite the section to avoid the infringement.

If one of the above-steps is not taken within 7 days, the material will have to be deleted. Kcordina Talk 08:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Zennie here...All of this could have been avoided with the acceptance of a simple rewrite, as I asked. But the person I was communicatating with seemed rather --- less than mature about this matter.

[edit] Inappropriate external links, 3RR

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. This is in reference to your recent edit to Female bodybuilding. Additionally, you are now in danger of violating WP:3RR. --Yamla 20:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

And this is your last warning. Any more attempts to inappropriately police what I do wil result in your eventual removal from your position in Wikipedia. And this is no idol warning. I'm very serious about this. - Zennie

It is an idol warning. This user has not done anything wrong in what he has done, certainly nothing to remove his admin powers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
(It's idle warning - not idol). Zennie you are not in any position to make threats. I would strongly suggest you cool off and assume good faith WP:AGF. Edit warring and threat posting is not the way to constructively add to Wikipedia. Discuss your edits properly on the talk pages of the articles you wish your link to be inserted in and get feedback before you go inserting potentially controversial material. Enough editors have reverted your link inclusion - you should be wondering why. Yankees76 21:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I'm afraid the notes left for you are correct: you will be blocked by an administrator if you continue to add spam links in opposition to Wikipedia policy. If you believe the links should be included, the correct avenue is to discuss on the talk page of the article after it has been removed. Generally we suggest people do not add links to their own site since it is often difficult to be objective.
Please do not threaten other editors like you've done several times with your comments directed at Yamla. Wikipedia has a very clear policy against personal attacks. Shell babelfish 21:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait. Yamia has threatened me. You're terribly wrong here. I do call for Yamia to be fired. That's not an expression of harm in the way you present it. Yamia can certainly do something else. But I'm serious about this as a way to cast light on how biased the judgements of gate keepers are at Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zennie (talk • contribs).

After reviewing the conversations on this talk page, Yamla has not "threatened" you other than to post standard templates as warnings given to those who do not follow the policies and guidelines set out by the community. I would strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:RULES before you continue in this line of thinking. Yankees76 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


In response to the comment left on my talk page -- Unfortunately your blog grossly misstates the situation. To protect copyright holders and itself, the Wikimedia Foundation has a specific process to follow if you are including text from a website (or other source), even if that website is your own. The two methods available have been explained to you. This is not Yamla's policy and not optional to follow. If you need any assistance understanding those options or completing them, I would be happy to help.
In the meantime, please take a step back and understand that Yamla is simply following Wikipedia policies. He is not picking on you, singling you out or overstepping his bounderies. You're welcome to bypass our dispute resolution mechanisms and email the board, but its only fair to tell you that you will be told that content disputes are not resolved via email.
If there's anything about policy or editing that I can help with, please let me know. Shell babelfish 21:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
From what you said, it seems like there's been some disagreement over the content and links for the article. Most of the time you can resolve these differences by using the Talk page of the article to talk to the other editors about your concerns; develop a consensus on the material and how the article should be changed or updated. You may want to include a list of things you feel need changing and the reasons you think they should be changed - other editors can comment and a solution can be worked out. If this doesn't resolve the dispute, the next step is usually a request for comment on the issues. This step lets you engage other editors in the Wikipedia community that might not normally visit the article. It can help to have those outside opinions and may provide a resolution. There are further steps available, such as mediation - a full descriptions of the different options can be found on WP:DR.
One way to avoid conflict with other editors is to discuss only the article and its problems and not refer to other contributors whenever possible. There's a good discussion about this on WP:NPA and WP:COOL. There's a really great essay about resolving disputes at WP:BRD that might also help with some ideas. If I can be of any assistance in the future, just let me know. Shell babelfish 22:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do it that way. I think what would end any future conflict is for you all to suggest alternative methods rather than just crits. Thanks -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zennie (talk • contribs).

Not a problem - you'll find editors with many different personalities and styles :) By the way, I'm not sure if someone's mentioned, but if you want you can sign your posts by typing in ~~~~ for get your signature and the time/date stamp. Shell babelfish 23:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On your block

Greetings,

I don't think such efforts (blocking? Really?) are the best way to resolve a problem. I have not "badgered" Yamia, what you wrote is a complete falsehood. Why not just plain negotiate with me, as it's obvious that I do want to resolve this problem -- and your warlike tactics don't work. -- Zennie

I have blocked you for 24 hours for threatening Yamla and your general badgering of him. Again, he is only following out policies, and hopefully, this block will alllow a time to cool off and re-evaluate your contributions here. Regards, RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh wait, you may find discussion relevant to your block [1] here. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 21:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../z/e/n/User_talk%7EZennie_3ad2.html"