User talk:Worldwalker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, 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! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! --Wikiacc (talk) 18:17, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NexusTK WorldWalker!

  • It is great to see you here WorldWalker. Judging from your community board experience you're going to make a great Wiki head :) Shall we get started on the new NexusTK article?

LentaLL / InTersTaTe LentaLL 18:49, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] BigCow, Sean_Howard article

I was thinking that to resolve some of the controversies on the article we have a couple options:

Take votes on a lot of the major issues, inclusion or exclusion of different parts, or vote on some wording or editorial changes to try to find some compromises. The problem with this is that the article is not likely to be stable as long as people still care about Squidi, and he still cares about his own reputation.

Reduce the article to an extremely summarized version and document events in more detail off-site, with an external link about that section. Sean_Howard already has his blog entry where he tried to explain things in detail in a light favorable to him. We might be able to take an old version of the page, publish it on some other web page, and link to it as an alternate, quite possibly POV, interpretation of events. This would also allow us to include more links and relevant information, and keep a lot of the discussion off wikipedia since we don't have many secondary sources to rely on anyway.

If you think you might be able to set something like that up or think it's a good idea, let me know. --BigCow 00:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planetinverts url spams??

Hi. It says that the url's that I have been putting into the articles are spam. I understand about the advertising part. I am not longer putting my store url in there. However, my main website www.planetinverts.com and the article links that are on there, are not commercial whatsoever. My store is completely different and is virtually unadvertised on the main website except for a small link on the sidebar along with all other internal site links.

Is there anyway that you can "un-spam/un-ban" the urls that I have put into the wiki articles on here? I feel that banning urls for sites that have valuable information, simply because there is a store located somewhere on that site, is not fair. There are many informative sites that have a store somewhere on it, but that does not mean that the site as a whole is completely commercial. In the shrimp hobby it can be hard to find good shrimp, so that is why I sell mine on the site along with all of the information there.

Please check my website www.planetinverts.com and you will see what I am talking about.

Thanks, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetinverts (talk • contribs) 20:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am quite familiar with your website. In fact, I was planning to order some shrimp from you in the spring (after it warms up a bit) until you started spamming Wikipedia with your advertising. Repeatedly. I'm also quite aware that it's hard to find good shrimp. However, that doesn't exempt you from the Wikipedia policy that articles are not to be used for commercial advertising, nor from my personal policy that I do not do business with spammers. Worldwalker (talk) 08:59, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

spamming? I do not understand how I spammed. There are other urls on every page that I had my urls on that are the same as mine. I simply do not understand how I spammed anything. I contributed information and also put my url. Doesn't make sense to me that others' url's are allowed there but mine are not. I am not linking to my main store.

Just delete my account along with any and all contributions that I made. I don't feel that I have done anything wrong especially since there are other urls from other people just promoting their site.

How you spammed is simple: You added a link to your store to every relevant Wikipedia article. Before you added them, there were no sections marked "Commercial Links" in the articles on shrimp. There should never be any such section in any Wikipedia article. This is an encyclopedia, not a store directory. You added such sections in order to list your business. You went through all of the freshwater shrimp articles and added links to your business.
When your advertising was removed, you did not discuss the issue on the articles' talk pages; instead, you went and put the links right back in. Several times, in some cases. That's considered very bad etiquette on Wikipedia, and tends to make other users view you and your edits in a negative light.
As for the other websites that are linked: On one of those sites (theshrimpfarm.com), there is a very small text link, down at the very end of their articles, that goes to a commercial section; on yours, the link to your sales section is one of the most prominent links on each and every page of your website. Also, that link was not (so far as I know) added by the owner of the website in question, nor was it ever placed in a self-created "Commercial Links" section. Aside from that one with the almost invisible link, the others are entirely non-commercial (though one, which I noted on the talk page, seems to intend to go commercial at some point). Further, when you added your links to those sections, you put them at the top of the list. That's the Wikipedia equivalent of cutting in line, and makes people suspicious of your motives for contributing at all. It appears that you also removed other links, and did not explain why, other than that they appeared to be competitors of yours. You might not be trying to turn the freshwater shrimp articles into promos for your shrimp business, but your actions to date have certainly looked that way, and that's all we have to judge on.
You contributed some good content. That, however, only gets you brownie points, not an exemption from the rules. No amount of contribution to any article entitles you to use it to promote your business. If you wrote a stunning article from scratch that was a unanimous favorite for daily featured article on the first possible day, and set the standard for what a good article should be, you still would not be entitled to put a "Commercial Links" section in it and direct people to your store. Nobody has that privilege. Not you, not me, not anybody.
There should be no link from any Wikipedia article "just promoting their site." If you find such a link, it needs discussion at the very least.
As with any encyclopedia, the purpose of a Wikipedia article is to provide comprehensive coverage of its subject. Of course, for some subjects, a single article cannot cover it in depth. For example, there have been hundreds of books written about George Washington; an encyclopedia article can only give a brief biography of him. But when the subject is something which can be covered completely in the article -- and as much as we're obsessed with them, I think we have to admit that aquarium shrimp just don't have the same complexity as the life of George Washington -- then it should be. For example, there is nothing in your page on CRS that you could not have incorporated into the article itself. If your purpose is the improvement of the article rather than the promotion of your business, then you should have done exactly that.
Then there's the matter of the photos. Again, you've got your URL branded on each one of them. That's inappropriate. Also, there's the rights issue. You're retaining all rights to the photos (not appropriate for a contribution) and claiming they are irreplaceable, which is clearly not true. The only photo in existence of a historical event is irreplaceable; a picture someone took of a shrimp can be replaced by another picture someone else took of a different shrimp. If you want to contribute those photos (and they're really, really impressive, so I hope you do) you need to remove the URL and use the proper licensing.
It comes down, I think, to a difference in outlook and purpose. Everyone else is trying to build the best encyclopedia we can. You're trying to use it to promote your business, and attempting to "trade" contributions for advertising. It just doesn't work that way. If you want to help Wikipedia and the aquarium hobby, then welcome, glad to have you; get writing! If you want to promote your business, there are lots of ways to do that, but Wikipedia isn't one of them.
Worldwalker (talk) 03:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

There were already commercial links before I even used wikipedia that had links for other websites. Just delete my account along with all contributions. I am not going to get into a debate. I already removed the commercial links that I put on the articles. My website link to the store is a lot smaller than the store link on the other website. I dont understand how you expect to have an encyclopedia where contributors cannot at least post a link to their website if it is directly related to information they are updating.

I'm actually a business owner myself. (nothing to do with shrimp; they're just a hobby) Do you see a link to my website anywhere on Wikipedia? This is a community-built encyclopedia. Nobody is rewarded for contributing, except by a warm fuzzy feeling inside. Nobody earns the right to put links to their store by contributing something. Not you. Not me. Not anybody.

No I did not just post links to my site without contributing. No I did not come here with the sole purpose of promoting my website and making money.

Contributing does not entitle you to post links to your store. And your sole purpose has nothing to do with it. It doesn't matter. If you want to contribute to the encyclopedia, then contribute. If you don't want to contribute, then don't. But there is no way in which you will be paid (which includes promoting your website) for contributing.

If you believe that my sole purpose of coming here was to make money then please delete my account along with ALL CONTRIBUTIONS I have made. All photos, text, and new articles created. Remove the SNowball Shrimp article please. Remove the information that I added in both the Cherry Shrimp and Crystal Red Shrimp articles. OF course delete all the photos that I added as well. Sorry but when I take high resolution photos of my shrimp I am not letting anyone free use of it. I have more than a right to put my url on there. Just delete it all please. Oh yea, and remove the 4-5 links to my main website along with all of the rest, but make sure you leave all the links to the other websites people have added within the past month. Only someone naive would believe that those links were not put there by the website owners themselves.

No, you do not have more than a right to put your URL in the photos if you contribute them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a place for your advertising. And if you do not want to permit free use of those images, then do not contribute them to Wikipedia. Yes, they're spectacular pictures; I've never seen better. But they are not necessary to the article. Any reasonably representative picture of the proper species of shrimp would do the job. This is a free encyclopedia -- not just free to read, but free to use the content from however you want. With a very few stringently-controlled exceptions, such as small images of record album covers, low-res pictures of historical significance, etc., which cannot be replaced in any way, all images on Wikipedia (like all other content) is free for anyone else to use.
As to the other website links, I've spent rather a lot of time examining them. You'll find my comments on them on the CRS talk page. One has a prominent "store" link that goes to nothing. Just a dead link, and no, I have no clue why it's there. Another has very good articles with a very inconspicuous text link to their store down in the footer; there isn't even any link for it in the navigation menu. That's on very shaky ground, just for having that link at all, and is certainly something that's going to be looked at. The others are entirely non-commercial. Whether they are sufficiently valuable or not is another issue, and again, something people need to look at. There have also been other commercial links inserted, and subsequently removed, since the articles were written.
But again, you did not just tuck a link to planetinverts.com down at the end of the link list. If you had, it's doubtful that anyone would have noticed. Instead, you went all-out. You added a "commercial links" section to the articles to put your website link in. You worked it into the text. When you put it in the "external links" list, you pushed it right to the top. You uploaded pictures with your URL prominently displayed on all of them. You just barged in and converted a Wikipedia article into a PlanetInverts advertisement, and that made people maybe a little more sensitive than they might otherwise be to anything you did afterwards.

Bias hinders ethics...

Hating hinders the hater... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetinverts (talk • contribs) 22:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what bias, what ethics, or what hate you're talking about here. There's no bias against you. You've been treated the same as anyone else who contributes to Wikipedia. We all have to follow the rules, which include not using Wikipedia for commercial purposes. You have to, exactly the same as I have to, or anyone else has to. If my best friend came in here and did the same things you did, he'd get exactly the same edits that you did, and a chewing out IRL to go with it. Nobody is persecuting you; we're just editing a Wikipedia article and cleaning out inappropriate advertising.
But it's Christmas Eve, and I'm not about to argue personalities here. Contribute to Wikipedia and be welcome; just don't use it to promote your business. That's the same rule that goes for everyone.
Worldwalker (talk) 02:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Please just let me know how I can delete all of my contributions including the Snowball Shrimp page. I want all of my photos removed from the website. Please tell me how I do that. There is no point in me having any of the photos up if (a)They are free for anyone and (b) I cannot have my url on the photos.

Just point me in the right direction on removing all contributions made by me. I do not want this to go any further.

Thanks, Ryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetinverts (talk • contribs) 05:00, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

You can propose the Snowball Shrimp page for deletion, but it's doubtful that will be approved. It's a good page, and there is no reason for it to be removed. I've replaced all the links to your pictures with links to appropriately licensed ones; since they're orphaned and non-free, your pictures should be auto-deleted.
It's sad to see someone say that there is "no point" to helping others unless it makes him money. It's early Christmas morning as I type this. If sharing, if giving a little the common good, is pointless to you even today of all days, then I suppose nothing I can say — nothing less than a ghostly visitation — could change that.
Worldwalker (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

That was one of the best examples of putting words into someones mouth that I have ever read. Little do you know how ignorant you sound. Thank you for removing all of my contributions. Thanks for at least giving me credit on the snowball page even though you conveniently remove the link to more information about that species on my main website. Please, do not remove the seven links on the Crystal Red Shrimp page to other websites (some of which are linked more than once). There is almost as many characters in the links than there are in the actual article.

If I was only concerned with making money then I would only have the tiny store (there are a total of 9 products on my store). I would not have the main website with many pages as well as the forum with many more (there is more than 10 pages on just crayfish on the main website). From the Snowball Shrimp page: This article does not cite any references or sources. (December 2007) Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed." This is of course after you removed the link I have to the species information page on my main website: http://www.planetinverts.com/Snowball%20Shrimp.html

I am going to find out who put you in charge. You obviously have a biased toward my site, especially since you are a self-admitted hobbyist.

Merry Christmas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetinverts (talk • contribs) 05:49, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

"Self-admitted hobbyist"? Since you make it sound like I'm admitting to being a pedophile, you apparently think there's something wrong with aquarium hobbyists. That's an odd position to take towards your own market. If I wasn't interested in, and involved with, freshwater shrimp, why on earth would I be helping improve articles on them? But it doesn't matter if I'm Takashi Amano or a 10-year-old boy with a pet shrimp named Herbie. The rules regarding advertising on Wikipedia are the same for everyone.
It seems that's what's got you upset: you expected to be rewarded for contributing to the shrimp articles with an exemption from the rules, and by being allowed to use the shrimp articles on Wikipedia as an advertisement for planetinverts.com. As I've been trying to explain all along, nobody gets that privilege. Not even people who have been with Wikipedia since the beginning, who have dozens of articles and thousands of edits to their credit, and who have done more work than any other ten contributers put together to make Wikipedia what it is. I don't know how I can explain this any more clearly. Nobody gets to use Wikipedia to promote their business.
You said If I was only concerned with making money then I would only have the tiny store..." You're still missing the point. It doesn't matter if you're only concerned with making money, or if you're independently wealthy and you sell shrimp for the fun of doing business. Your motivation for inserting advertising for your store into Wikipedia articles is not the issue. You could be donating every penny you make from shrimp to starving orphans and it still wouldn't be the issue. The policy is that you can't use a Wikipedia article to advertise your business.
The CRS article (exclusive of links) is 323 words; the links are 31 words. That's not "almost as many." I've explored the links in question and commented about them on the article's discussion page. We should continue this discussion there rather than here.
Having a link to your website would not satisfy the requirement for citations. As for your comments about removing your contributions and giving you credit, I'm tired of trying to sort out straightforward statements from sarcasm. If you'd be so kind as to clarify what you meant, I'd appreciate it.
Before you started trying to advertise in Wikipedia, I had two basic thoughts about your website: 1) Come spring, I need to order some snowball shrimp from this guy, and 2) ouch, thumbnail those pictures, even on broadband they're slow. The "bias" you think you are seeing is nothing more than a reaction to your actions here on Wikipedia. You expected to have an exemption from the rules against advertising a business via a Wikipedia article because you contributed to that article, and I explained no, you have to follow same policies as everyone else. Your unwillingness to accept that Wikipedia policy has led to a lot of wasted time on both of our parts when we could be working on improving the articles.
This discussion should really be carried out on the discussion pages of the articles in question, not here in this backwater talk page that nobody else will ever read.
My original position is still valid: Please contribute to Wikipedia. Please don't advertise on Wikipedia.
Worldwalker (talk) 09:01, 26 December 2007 (UTC)


You seem to be missing the point of what I am saying. I already admitted that linking to the store planetinverts.com/store was inappropriate. However, I completely disagree with not being able to have any links at all to the main website planetinverts.com as well as the forum planetinverts.com/forum You seem to be under the impression that my sole purpose of posting the other urls (main and forum) is to attract people to the store. Compare the amount of information on the forum and main website to the 10 or so pages on the store and anyone would conclude that planetinverts.com is not about making money. There are a lot of hobbyists out there that are interested in additional species of shrimp and have a very hard time finding them. The store was implemented many months after the main website and forum were active.

Please don't come to the conclusion that just because there is a store on a website that the entire website is about making money. Having said that, there is no reason why links to the main website and forum should not be allowed. Especially since there are links to other sites that have even less information. Read all of the posts on my forum that I have made and you will see that I have no interested in sending forum members to my store. I actually host contests giving away free shrimp (photo contest, article contest, and a photo contest at aquaticplantcentral.com ) Once again, the /store link was not appropriate, I admit that. The other links were fine IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Planetinverts (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)