User talk:Wolfman97

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You are using Wikipedia merely as a vehicle for your website. This is not acceptable. In addition, I am not the only person to have a problem with what you are doing. Others have been removing your links as well. A quick look at your contribution history shows all you do is spam article after article. And no, I will not restore them. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I would like to point out our guidelines on external links: WP:EL. Particularly, I would like to draw your attention to links normally to be avoided: "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Thanks, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so we have to play silly-ass games. Point made.

Well, thank god for stupid people because without them I wouldn't make nearly so much money.

Just let me get this straight. So if I just have these links posted by other people, you would be OK with it. Is that the picture? OK, you have no idea how many friends I have around the world.

And, BTW, is there this same "neturality" rule about US Government links? Just FYI, the US Government has had an official and openly stated policy of lying about drugs since 1925. That's not my opinion. I can give you the references (if you actually care to read them). So what is this nonsense about "neutrality"?

Hi. Please stop harrassing Sarah Ewart. As far as I can see, she has acted correctly in removing your addition of links to your own website to Wikipedia articles. I suggest you read the policy (WP:EL) she referred you to above, and then follow her advice by suggesting on the talk page of each article you wish to add a link on, and achieving consensus that way. Thanks. --Guinnog 15:39, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all, she isn't telling the truth about this because she was deleting relevant references even before she knew who was posting them. So don't tell me she is "neutral".

I did read the policy. Did you happen to look at the articles involved and the references I posted? All were 100% appropriate for the subject, and they were the best available research on the subject. If Wikipedia is open to the world, why would have I to go through some "neutral" person like Sarah to post it?

And BTW, what is to keep her from pulling the same stunt again if someone else posts the link? After all, she didn't know who posted the links in the first place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfman97 (talk • contribs).

I did review some of the links she deleted, yes. Did you read the policy she and I both referred you to? Your site looks interesting, but it can only be added if it meets our standards, as clearly laid out there. Please do as I suggested and raise the matter on the discussion pages of the articles you want to add it to. That is the way forward, not assuming bad faith on another editor's part. As well as WP:EL, I now request you review WP:AGF as well. Thanks. --Guinnog 15:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I knew from the start who was posting the links because in one of your early talk page edits you stated your full name and acknowledged the site was yours. I don't appreciate the aggressive tone you are taking towards me. I'm sorry I didn't respond to your demands straight away but I am not on call. In addition, I have been here for a year, hardly "so new". Please stop ranting on my talk page. If you wish your sites to be linked to, please follow the guidelines and post on the relevant talk page. Then independent editors will be able to decide if your site is relevant. Franky, your attitude and tone is doing nothing to help your situation... Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:09, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is the post I refer to. I knew all along it was your site. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 16:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, then let me ask -- exactly what is your expertise in any of these areas that would qualify you as an editor? I hope you will accept that as a polite question. It seems appropriate to ask since this is an encyclopedia and, presumably, the editors know the subjects they are editing.

It also seems appropriate to ask because I suspect my web site was world-renowned on the subject while you were still in school. You may correct me if I am wrong.

Pardon me for saying so, but some people might argue that, unless you have a pretty good set of credentials in the area, that you ought not to be interfering with perfectly logical and appropriate links that are relevant to the subject and were placed there by someone who was probably studying the subject before you were born.

So what is your expertise in this area, anyway?

BTW, Sarah, just to let you know -- one of the links you removed has already been on another page for years. You also removed the link to the book "Traffic in Narcotics" while you left the link to a single article that was taken from the book. Are you beginning to grasp that this might look silly to some people? A link is allowed on one page -- and has been for years -- but the same documents aren't allowed to be linked from another page.

I specifically have formal credentials in drug treatment. But that is beside the point. All you need to do is list your site on the talk pages of the articles you want it listed in and the regular editors there will list it if they think it's suitable. I don't know why you're making such a drama of this. We're just asking you to follow the guidelines. What does my schooling have to do with anything??? Let me assure you that I finished school and university a many years ago. As for your site, no one has questioned the validity of it, we have simply asked you to stop spamming articles and follow the established guidelines. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 14:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't mean to demean you but I have met an awful lot of people in drug treatment who wouldn't be remotely qualified to edit an article on the subject. I do think it is an issue. Accuracy and completeness of the entries is an issue isn't it? You do want people who are authorities in the subject to contribute to the articles, don't you?

Just FYI, part of my purpose was to start cleaning up, correcting and expanding some of the information in Wikipedia. You know, like the very idea of the wiki suggests. You see, I thought that was a perfectly appropriate thing to do, seeing as how I am a central world resource on the subject, and have been for years. Honestly, there is still a pretty fair amount of trash and incomplete information in those articles. If you don't see it -- then what can I tell you about being an editor on the subject?

And there was nothing at all "spam" about it. All were basic, essential references for the subjects. They weren't opinion pieces, they didn't talk about me at all, and they were all dead on target for the subject. Like it or not, I put those basic essential references online before anyone else. You either link to my site, or you have a page on Anslinger that tries to pretend things like the collection of Anslinger documents doesn't exist.

And just FYI, one of those links you deleted links to the same documents that have been linked from another article for many years now. So, according to you, the link to those documents is OK on one page but "spam" on the other. Get real.

The link to the article "Traffic in Narcotics" is OK because it comes from the UNODC web site (oh, there is "neutral" for you) but the link to the full text of the book from whence it came is "spam" because it is on my site. Yeah, that really makes sense.

And why am I making a big thing of it? Oh, probably for the same reason that you might get a little peeved if a third grader was correcting your spelling. And because calling a link on one page "spam" while the same documents have been linked from another page for many years now seems a little less than completely rational.

[edit] Talk pages

Just so you know, new comments go on the bottom of talk pages, not the top. This is to preserve the order they were brought up in and is important when it comes time to archive the page. Thanks for all the work you are doing. HighInBC 16:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

I have removed this post of yours due to copyright violations. This[1] seems to be from here[2].

It is fine to post links to relevent information on the talk page but copying large blocks of text constitues a copyright violation. Wikipedia needs to maintain it's content in such a manner that it is free to be copied by others, copyrighted material is incompatable with this goal. Don't worry too much about it I know you are still learning here. HighInBC 16:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that page. I am Clifford Schaffer. I wrote everything except the quote from Anslinger which comes from the transcripts of the congressional hearings for the marijuana tax act -- which is a US Government document and, therefore, in the public domain. I am aware of the copyright issues and would not violate them. There is no violation here because it is my own work.

Please restore the post and feel free to use any or all of it in editing the Wikipedia page.

Thanks.

Ah, I see. Ok. I have returned it. HighInBC 17:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)