User talk:Ewrobbel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Look, as an act of good faith, I didn't make a stand on the mention of your books as they have been for the last month or two. Understand that those could have been removed under the terms of WP:SPAM and WP:VANITY and I could have made that stick with the Admins. You have had this explained to you at length both at the admins noticeboard and by e-mail
If you keep trying to push you website at Wikipedia I will have your I.P. blocked and I will remove all mention of your books from every page it is on.
I hope I am making myself abundantly clear. --DV8 2XL 08:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know when you sent this (time zone differences), but I just discovered it May 28, 9:35 AM PST (California). I've never used this User Talk. Sorry, but I already put the link back but with the note asking you to PLEASE tell me what you want done to the destination page so that it is NOT spam. I will do it. The pix and info are valuable to those interested in Walkman history. Help me make this a GOOD link of which you can approve. By the way, I don't know your name. Eric--Ewrobbel 16:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
No you don't know my name and I choose to remain incognito, you may call me DV8 if you wish. The rule are very simple - no links to commercial sites, and no self linking. Any entry that shows a link to your website will be removed - and if you persist there will be sanctions. Please note that I don't make the rules, however...
...To put this in perspective, I am a consultant that charges 250USD/hr to help small manufacturing concerns with process design issues. I have been as a consequence of my work in several cities in North America. I depend on contacts I make at industry shows and my website to advertise my services. There are any number of pages I could drop my URL in here at Wikipedia to drum up more clients. I never have and I never will, because if this sort of thing is not controlled the wiki would be buried in this type of spam.
Now if I can't use these pages to push my business what makes you think you're going to? Your not stupid and nether am I - driving traffic to your site is why you want to do this - don't insult me by stringing me this line of bilge about how you have the article or the readers welfare in mind. Spam, astroturf, viral marketing, whatever you want to call it, is a violation of the rules and I will report infractions. If you really are interested in showing the picture, put it in the public domain and upload it to the article - without a backlink. --DV8 2XL 17:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Try to understand me. My Radio of the Month Page is not business. It is my hobby. I don't sell any books on the Walkman. I have nothing to sell anyone interested in the Walkman. Have you even looked at the page? http://www.ericwrobbel.com/rom0509.htm. How is this spam? You tell me and I will fix it. Otherwise you will have to answer to the Admins for depriving Wikipedians of valuable info without cause.
Have you looked at the links you let stand? Why do you single me out? Is it because I'm creative and perhaps you're not? That I can write and perhaps you can't? That I have a respected position in my field and perhaps you don't?
Yes, let's get it in perspective. As the leading author in the field of collectible transistor radios and crystal radios, I have "Reading" mentions in those articles. Not even links. That seems pretty modest to me. And what I'm trying to do here is link to one of my hobby pages concerning the Walkman. That's it. I'm not all over Wikipedia. Like you, there are PLENTY of places I could add a link, but I'm no spammer. I only want what's right. THAT'S perspective.--Ewrobbel 18:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Look you put it in, I'll knock it out, you want to try and report me again, go for it you won't get any farther than you did last time out - but if you persist you will get blocked. Your call. --DV8 2XL 18:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Be reasonable. Look at the page. Tell me how to fix it so it satisfies you.--Ewrobbel 19:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I am tired of this exchange. You will not use Wikipedia as a vehicle to drive traffic to your website. I will not help you make an end run around the rules even if I could, and even if I did, some other editor will pick up on it and you will be back where you are now or worse. My advice to you is leave well enough alone - or if you want to bring his to a higher level do so and get it over with. You will lose. Your not the first that thought they could use the wiki in this way, and you won't be the last and the powers-that-be around here will not likely let you set a president. --DV8 2XL 19:56, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Mediation Response
Hi, I considered all of the points you made in the mediation case and thought it out thoroughly, I added my opinion here and I would ask that you reply indicating your agreement / disagreement with my comments.
Thanks again for making this a freinfly and easy process. cheers -- Tmorton166 (Errant Emote) talk 02:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] ArbCom
Go right ahead and open a case against me at ArbCom. It won't be the first time I have had dealings there. They like spammers too. --DV8 2XL 00:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Calling me a "spammer" again--as you just have--is what I am talking about when I accuse you of abusive treatment and uncivil conduct.--Ewrobbel 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- You have desperately misinterpreted the mood at Wikipedia if you think that any self promoter will go unchallenged, and underestimated the intelligence of the members of ArbCom if you think they won't see straight through you. The funny thing is that you are going to come out of this worse than you were going in because others (and it won't be me) will remove your books from the reading lists now you have drawn attention to the fact that you put them in yourself, which is against the rules. If fact you will now have more editors aware of what you were trying to do, and more of them putting you on their watchlists than just me. You will come to realise that you did get your compromise from me the first time when I didn't make a stand on the reading list solution. Your loss. --DV8 2XL 18:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
DV8 2XL, you have misinterpreted my motives all along, though I won't try to explain them to you because you are quite sure you know what they are. And it has been seen that you don't take in new information, you just spew out what your pre-conceived notions are and bully people until they tire of you.
Speaking of which, I thought you were tired of this exchange? This is like the fourth time you've said goodbye. So goodbye already!
I couldn't care less what happens with the mention of my books on Wikipedia. If you don't think they ought to be there, pull them out. If someone else thinks they do, they can put them back. Then you can fight with them. I don't care. I think you just want someone to fight with, anyway. I put up a defense against you because you were so darned abusive to me. You brought all this argument on yourself. But then you just wanted someone to fight with, I guess. Now, trusting you've said goodbye for the last time (finally!), I'll say goodbye to you as well. I hope you've learned a little something about treating people humanely. If not, let me tell you: even people who are accused deserve to be treated civilly. And even when clearly guilty (as you believe I was), they STILL deserve civil treatment. So long...--Ewrobbel 21:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Don't let the door hit you on the way out. --01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the previous unsigned rude comment: Perhaps it is the anonomous nature of the internet that fosters this incivility, or a general decline of social skills in an era more concerned with technology skills. In any event, the sender of this rude comment, again DV8 2XL, reveals himself for what he is very clearly to all with comments like that.--Ewrobbel 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter (1/4/0/0)
- Reject. No evidence has been presented of DV8 2XL's bad behaviour, and looking through their edits in this matter DV8 2XL was at worst a bit curt. - SimonP 18:17, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Accept Fred Bauder 19:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reject. Perhaps the user in question could have gonne about the conflict better, but there's nothing to be gained from arbitration at this point. Dmcdevit·t 05:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reject, as per Simon. James F. (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reject as above. Though it's always better to be more civil than necessary to avoid such things. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
2:30, 18 June 2006 Tony Sidaway →Editor Abuse, Threats, and Uncivil Conduct - Close, more than one week old and four rejections
That was the last place you could lodge a complaint - it's over and you have lost --DV8 2XL 03:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
