User talk:Urod/Archive/January-March 2007

Edit summary

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary. Thanks, and happy editing.

-- wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Link spamming

add Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 policy 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, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. (Requestion 20:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. (Requestion 23:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC))

As you may guess, I don't add external links in order to alter search engine rankings. I am completely happy that Wikipedia uses nofollow tags. Adding external links is not "spamming", like it is not a "link farm" or any other name you are going to invent. I suggest you to follow Resolving disputes rules. --Urod 01:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but Wikipedia is not a web directory. It really is that simple. (Requestion 01:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Sorry but it MAY contain external links. Why shouldn't you go to the Arbitration commitee? I will obey any ArbCom decision. --Urod 01:50, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course, pages may contain external links but not in the way you did with List of screen capture software. Going the arbitration route is your choice but I highly doubt that you will succeed. I am a member of the Wikipedia anti-spam team. Breaking up link farms and stomping out wiki spam are what I do, I'm quite good at it too I might add. So here is how it is going to go:

1) This goes to arbitration were I am almost guaranteed victory. If for some reason I fail we go to the next step:

2) I put List of screen capture software up for deletion. If for some reason that fails we go to the next step:

3) I call in my superiors, they go back up to step #1 and we repeat.

I have a compromise solution for you. You agree to keep the red-linked external link free version of your list and you add article stubs for the software in your list. These stubs would have a description, an external link, and anything else that you think is appropriate (a screen shot for example). You know my opinion on the non-notability of your list and the software on it but I would be happy with this compromise. In exchange for your support in this manner I would offer you my support of a "Keep" vote if this list or any of its stub articles come up for deletion. I am philosophically against the rampant deletion that some adminstrators delete stuff with so I have no moral problems with this agreement. I'm just trying to make Wikipedia a more beautiful place. This is a pretty good deal. Think about it. (Requestion 04:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Who are "your superiors"? Superiors in what sense? Your bosses at work? --Urod 18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) (typo fixed by --Urod 19:07, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

"I put List of screen capture software up for deletion." So you are NOT trying to make Wikipedia a more beautiful place, you want to make point and win at any price - even deleting the article if nothing else helps.

"I call in my superiors, they go back up to step #1 and we repeat." So you are NOT trying to make Wikipedia a more beautiful place, you want to make point and win at any price - because flooding ArbCom with repeating the same claim again and again and again is certainly not a way to "make Wikipedia a more beautiful place". I am tired of your bogus threats. No deals with you. --Urod 19:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a zero tolerance for Wikipedia link spam. This isn't about winning, it is about compliance. I am trying to compromise with you here. (Requestion 20:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC))

Complaince to your orders? If you want people to be complaint to your orders, you are power hungry by definition. Or you mean compliance to WP standards? It is ArbCom who is the ultimate authority in the topic, not you. --Urod 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Continued spamming

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to C++, you will be blocked from editing. --Yamla 02:20, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Manipulative language

Yamla calls it "last warning" as if to make an expression that there were many others. But I never got any warnings from admins. And no, adding relevant external links is not vandalism. --Urod 04:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No, but you did get warnings about inappropriate external links from Requestion (talk · contribs). I'm not sure why you think warnings are only relevant if they come from an admin. --Yamla 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Any user can warn. --Tractorkingsfan 04:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Can I warn Yamla? --Urod 04:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if he vandalized or added spam or made test edits to articles or some other things covered on WP:WARN. His record makes it, to say the least, unlikely that he would do so, but sure you could. I'm not saying you did anything at all, because I haven't looked, I was just intrigued by the thread on Yamla's talk page and thought I'd chime in for a second. The messages left by Requestion are warnings, and any user can make them. Not all of them are reasonable or made in good faith, and it is frowned upon to leave them without good reason. The reason we use standardized warnings is to avoid confusion, maintain a neutral tone, and follow a set protocol before blocking a person. This is all much more clearly covered at WP:WARN, but I'm just giving you an overview that I think is accurate. In short: Yamla's statement to you was okay, as you have received other warnings. Whether or not those warnings were legitimate is something you should take up with that user, as it sounds like you already have. I'd be careful though, because a final warning makes it easier for you to be blocked. --Tractorkingsfan 05:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a sidenote (and this is covered better on that page also), in the case of very experienced users, the standardized warning messages are often replaced by more personal ones out of respect. But I wouldn't warn Yamla because he's acting in good faith. --Tractorkingsfan 05:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the only link which I added to C++: List of books and tutorials about C++

Since when adding one on-topic link is called spamming and vandalism?? --Urod 06:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I went to the website, and it seems like a lot of free information, which is more like a legit reference than spam. But I'm not experienced in these things, so you would really have to ask Yamla, without being angry, what exactly the problem he found with the link is. There seemed to be some advertising on the website, which is the only thing I saw (see Wikipedia:External links). But I have another question. You have various warnings on this page. Are they all talking about the same one time you added this one link to one page? Have you had other controversial problems with adding external links? That would make your statement on your userpage (the same one you said to me) less reliable. Since I'm not an expert on links, the only advice I can offer is in terms of conflict resolution. Yamla's not a bad guy, and nobody is stalking you. Just ask him, again without being angry, what the problem with the link is. --Tractorkingsfan 06:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I had, but the controversial page (list of screen recording software) had been deleted. This page contained lots of external links, but I believe that software listing may have an external link for each piece of software. Maybe I was wrong, but this is not a vandalism, and anyways, I am not going to restore the deleted page.

I am from Russian wikipedia, where I am a long-time contributor and wrote 3 featured articles. On ru.wiki.x.io I never had problems with external links. --Urod 07:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems like we may have just a simple misunderstanding on our hands. But something made Yamla think your edits were disruptive enough to warrant a final warning. What that is I'm not sure of. If you are concerned you should ask him. Cheers, --Tractorkingsfan 07:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I only edit in the English Wikipedia but I do know that the different language Wikipedia's all have different sets of rules, policies, and guidelines. Maybe this is the ultimate source of the conflict. Urod is doing things that are perfectly acceptable on the Russian Wikipedia but those rules are slightly different here? I'm in an extremely WP:AGF mood today and this seems like a great explanation to me. (Requestion 23:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC))

Your insults

You said: "I am going complain to the arbcom both about your removal of my link in C++ article, and your insults. As you know very well, Wikipedia:Vandalism is a delibrate attempt to compromise the integrity of wikipedia."

"As for the link, it is about C++. It is more important than most of other external links. I know very well that you, probably together with some other admins, are now going to follow me, call my editions "vandalism" and/or "spam" becuase your friends asked you to do so, and use any opportunities to ban me from editing english wikipedia."

As has been pointed out to you previously, your external links are often inappropriate for the Wikipedia. Nobody asked me to leave a warning on your page. Nobody had ever mentioned you to me. I saw your inappropriate link added to C++, saw that you had been warned repeatedly, and added a warning about your further violation. I would suggest that there is no conspiracy against you. --Yamla 15:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Please also note that the link you added was full of commercial referral links to amazon. That alone makes the link totally inappropriate. Even aside from the fact that this is simply a list of books and links. --Yamla 15:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You mean that (a) external links to lists of books and links are prohibited in wikipedia? (b) external links to pages which, among other, contain referal links, are also prohibited? --Urod 20:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Your AMA case

I have taken a preliminary look at your AMA case. Please visit there and feel free to add your thoughts to it. —Pilotguy (go around) 00:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I am also on the AMA case. Cocoaguy ここがいい _contribs^talkTodays Pick 23:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the link http://freecomputerbooks.com/langCppBooksIndex.html

Three different wikipedians (independently on each other) suggested to talk to you about removal of the link [1]

• Can you please elaborate why did you remove it? The page contains links to 41 freely avaliable documents (the documents are opened in the browser; for these documents there are no links to amazon.com or other similar links) and 9 links to documents avaliable both freely and from amazon.com (for each of these links, there is a choice between reading it at the browser and buying at amazon.com; the amazon.com links have a refid, however)
• Are you sure that removal of the link was right?

--Urod 06:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (slightly rewritten --Urod 06:36, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Okay, let's take a look through the criteria outlined for WP:EL. As you know, external links should be kept to a minimum. We are not allowed to link to sites which violate copyright. This may or may not be an issue with this particular link. I did not see any copyright violations in this case but it's worth checking out whenever a site provides a PDF of a book. But again, I don't think that's the case here. So, let's see how the link fairs under "What should be linked to". It debateably meets the third criteria there. However, we already use a number of C++ books as references in the article itself. We also have a number of links already. And many of the other links could better be provided by linking to a DMOZ category.

So, let's take a look at links to normally be avoided. It definitely falls prey to number 4. The site primarily exists to make money on amazon referral links and to sell "deep discounted Computer Books [sic]". It may also fall prey to number 3, though probably not. Note, though, that I am assuming this is not your site. If so, please let me know and I'll explain the problem there.

Okay, so we know that Wikipedia does not like external links. We prefer keeping the list small, so on an article like C++, adding a new link requires justification. This particular link debateably meets one criteria for inclusion but definitely fails a criteria for no inclusion. Also, the link does not add substantially in a manner that a link to a DMOZ category would not do better. For all of these reasons, the link should not have been added. Remember, the "links to be considered" does not cancel out the "links to normally be avoided". A link should normally be added only if it avoids all reasons not to link. --Yamla 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's definitely not my site. --Urod 16:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Urod, well then why do you care so much about that link? It's not a great link and there are a zillion better C++ links out there on the Internet. It is like you are being defiant just to make a WP:POINT, again. You know, I'm not even sure what your point is. (Requestion 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

First, I think that this is a very good link, much better than many others existing in the articles. Second, I think that you and especially Yamla want to make a WP:POINT here. Why do *you* care so much about removing this link? --Urod 16:40, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained why. And please stop comparing this to other links in other articles (or even to other links in C++), you are already aware that many other links violate our policies. Finally, I am disappointed that you would request that I disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Yamla 16:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And I am disappointed by your suggestion that I made a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia (the word "vandalism" in your warning above.) --Urod 17:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the link, and recommend deleting one of the three or four following it, all of which seem less informative. AnAccount2 21:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2

Thank you for wasting my time to write a statement. Femto 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I never asked or wanted you to write a statement. You did it on your own will. You opposed me in the dispute by your free choice. I never asked you or anyone else to participate in a dispute against me. --Urod 17:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC) --Urod 17:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

They asked me to write a statement too. I wonder if they still want us to write something since Urod's AMA case has been closed? My hope is that Urod is going to honor the AMA decision and follow the WP:EL rules from now on. (Requestion 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC))

Since Urod wants the case closed, that's no longer necessary. I'll work with him on a separate case. Thank you for your time. —Pilotguy (go around) 15:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)