User talk:Cryellow

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Cryellow, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Deb (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Query.

Do you have a professional involvement with the manufacturer of the diana ring? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No - I did a lot of research for what I wrote though why do you keep deleting it? Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 20:38, 6 April 2008

I keep deleting it because I believe you are directly related to the manufacturers of this product. The 'diana ring' may happily vault restrictions placed on the use of her image due its production in California, but I do not believe this is important enough to be mentioned in her biography. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Come on now, can you write something do something productive instead of deleting the research others have contributed. Delete pornography not documented history. P.S. This is edit warring. I believe in this instance we have differing points of view and Wikipedia suggests that we both leave it alone for someone else in the future to edit. Others have edited what I wrote without wholesale deleting of painstaking research! Look up the Wikipedia article for Microsoft - it mentions the same sorts of issues, lawsuits and products for sale, in detail.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 00:13, 7 April 2008

The very fact tht you have added details on the diana ring, moth repellant [1] [2], and a commerative calandar [3], all products marketed by the same website, leads me to believe that you are trying to market these products. I again remind you of WP:NOT#ADVERTISING Gareth E Kegg (talk) 09:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You're crazy I researched all that - what's more you're a busybody who obviously is incapable of writing anything of your own. Write, don't delete! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 16:18, 7 April 2008

I've created over 500 articles, and made over 12,000 edits. Your edit to Princess Diana was useful, but it disintigrated into product promotion. Are you connected to the makers of these products? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I were connected to them. I just have a fascination for memorabilia and I live in California. I researched wikipedia and there are all sorts of statements like mine all over Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 April 2008

You're engaging in edit wars. I will show this page to associates who will make the final decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 April 2008

This talk page will eventually be cached in Google. This will result in negative information being connected to your name and the names you have printed above. It seems that you don't care about your reputation, but you will open yourself to a libel claim by dragging in others' names besides yours and mine. I don't want any trouble with anyone other than you, so you have no right to expose me to liability by airing your own infantile views here, and then advancing the libel towards an unrelated third party. If you wish my private email address to email me, fine, but your puerile attitude is risible otherwise and your sentences not fit for public display. And by the way, you are a very poor writer and the final version you left of Princess Diana's memorabilia section is rife with errors. If you want to edit this talk page again, add to it, do not edit any changes, or I will subpoena your IP address for further action.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cryellow (talk • contribs) 07:31, 12 April 2008

Your recent edits could give editors of Wikipedia the impression that you may consider legal or other "off-wiki" action against them, or against Wikipedia itself. Please note that this is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's policies on legal threats and civility. Users who make such threats may be blocked. If you have a genuine dispute with the Community or its members, please use dispute resolution. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

Our "No legal threats" policy cited by Barek is not meant to prevent you from exercising your legal rights (we don't have that power anyway). Instead, it's based on the notion that you can't edit here and engage in legal action at the same time. Your lawyer will tell you that it's not a good idea for your side of any legal action and I think Wikipedia's counsel has figured out it's not a very good idea for other parties such as the Wikimedia Foundation or individual Wikipedia editors. Also, legal threats chill and undermine dispute resolution methods here.
There's no need to bring in any real world names anyway. The name that Cryellow keeps removing should not be restored. Speculation as to who Cryellow or any of the seemingly related IPs may be is neither required or appropriate. See meta:Privacy policy
In my opinion it is OK to publish any domain registration data that is already public knowledge, even if it includes names, as long as no attempt is made to directly link the name in the domain registration data to editor accounts here. Note, this is just my opinon.
It really makes no difference if the editor persistently adding these links is The Mighty Quinn or the Easter Bunny. The point is that Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting products and if this spamming continues, these domains will be blacklisted, regardless of the person's identity off-Wikipedia.
Google's cache empties within a matter of days or several weeks.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comments were well spoken and well said. Now getting back to the issue at hand, why is it that outside links remain to Franklin Mint via an entire Wikipedia article on the Franklin Mint, and not to the other company I researched? What is the difference? -cryellow

First, please note the difference that the Princess Diana article does not link directly to the Franklin Mint website - instead it links internally to the Franklin Mint article.

Before going further, you may be interested in reviewing Wikipedia's guideline on notability of organizations and companies. If a company meets that criteria, and a neutral point of view article can be written about the company, then a link to that company's website from their own article would be appropriate as the link would be directly relevant to the subject of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Diana

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Diana, Princess of Wales. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Diana, Princess of Wales. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)