User talk:Wvogeler

Evolution of the Amateur Astronomy Wiki[1][edit]

Welcome to the evolution of an academic journal in the Wiki community.

I created a journal called Amateur Astronomy at Academic Publishing Wiki, a new Wiki project. "It is meant to give people with original ideas a means of obtaining peer review and constructive criticism, and also to publish these ideas in wiki format for the free use and benefit of others."

In the short history of its evolution, Amateur Astronomy is now a part of three Wiki communities. These include: Academic Publishing Wiki[2], Wikiversity [3] and Wikia Central [4].

Thanks to all Wiki editors who helped promote this project, including those editors who removed references to Amateur Astronomy from Wikipedia articles.

See my talk page[edit]

I don't know if you're watching my talk page, so I thought I'd drop you a line here just to say I've replied to your message on my talk page. Thanks Tom H 00:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang, the Fabric of Space and the Apple[edit]

I'm sorry to inform you that an article which you created, The Big Bang, the Fabric of Space and the Apple, was recently deleted. When reviewing whether an article is appropriate for Wikipedia, administrators follow certain guidelines based upon things such as encyclopedic notability, the ability to verify accurate information, and conflicts of interest. Your article didn't match one or more of these criteria, and as such, it was erased.

Please don't let this discourage you from taking part in Wikipedia — nearly every editor here has had contributions removed at one time or another. If you're new and would like some help on getting used to the encyclopedia, there's some useful resources at Wikipedia:Introduction and Wikipedia:New contributors' help page.

Thanks for your understanding. Tijuana Brass 03:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you found a place for it. Thanks for the note. Tijuana Brass 19:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Academic Publishing Wiki[edit]

Please note that external links should be to relevant content only----Wikipedia is not a directory or link farm. WP:LINKS ask that you only link Wikis with "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". And finally adding links to a whole set of articles and multiple times within an article like you have is considered SPAM. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 February 2007[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Astronomy. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.

andy 14:59, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For your information, Academic Publishing Wiki is a Wikia community website [5], and it links to the Wikipedia Astronomy article [6]

WVogelerWvogeler 03:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Astronomy Moves to Academic Publishing Wiki[edit]

Hello Wiki Users: I invite you to visit Academic Publishing Wiki, which is a link to the Academic Publishing Wiki community. "It is meant to give people with original ideas a means of obtaining peer review and constructive criticism, and also to publish these ideas in wiki format for the free use and benefit of others." I am supporting this new Wiki project by linking to it where appropriate. For example, the Wikipedia entry for "Astronomy" is appropriate because it makes references to amateur astronomers: "Historically, amateur astronomers have contributed to many important astronomical discoveries, and astronomy is one of the few sciences where amateurs can still play an active role . . . .[7]" You can support Academic Publishing Wiki, too, by submitting articles and making links where appropriate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvogeler (talk • contribs) 16:23, 3 February 2007

Spam block[edit]

W

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. You have been blocked from editing for 24 hours for continued spamming and removal of warnings from your talk page. Vsmith 16:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted user blanking of warnings and block notice. Vsmith 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your link and invitation to visit "Academic Publishing Wiki". Unfortunately you seem to have a misconception of what Wikipedia links are for. Reference links are usualy put up by the person doing the editing at the time-- any content/statement should have a supporting reference. They reference specific material (written or on the web) that meets Wikipedia's reference guidelines. Your attempt to use them as an advertisement for "Academic Publishing Wiki" are pretty transparent and people are reverting them as Spam for good reason. And as I said before (in TALK on this page that you since have deleted) "Academic Publishing Wiki" DOES NOT meet Wikipedia's guidelines for an External link because WP:LINKS ask that you only link Wikis with "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors". I would suggest that you look at your own motives because you belief in advocacy for this site will only earn you blocks and maybe even blacklisting. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 00:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Astronomy Promotes Academic Publishing Wiki[edit]

Please do not take offense, Fountains of Bryn Mawr, at this response to your comments.

But it appears, according to you, that adcovacy for Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia articles is considered spamming. I find such a policy unfortunate because the Academic Publishing Wiki project is a good idea, but the project will not be as successful as it could be if users cannot promote it through Wikipedia.

In any event, I will leave you to "blocking" ideas and other limited forms of discourse. In the meantime, Amateur Astronomy will continue to promote Academic Publishing Wiki [8].

No offense taken and "blocking" ideas is far from my goal (although you will notice other editors don't share my "sense of humor"). Again your mistake is that you think Wikipedia exists for or is a good place to "promote" something. It is not and any type of "promoting" is considered spamming. I really cannot to tell you how to achieve the goal you think needs achieving (have you considered getting this attached as a sister project?), I am only giving you friendly advice. Fountains of Bryn Mawr 06:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Astronomy" and "Amateur Astronomy" Articles on Wikipedia[edit]

As users can see here, I have had some trouble trying to promote Academic Publishing Wiki and a new journal I created there called Amateur Astronomy.

Basically, I linked from Wikipedia articles on "Astronomy [9]" and "Amateur Astronomy [10]" to Acadmeic Publishing Wiki and Amateur Astronomy because the articles said that "amateur astronomers can still make contributions to the science." Unfortunately, some Wiki users said I was spamming and then blocked me from editing.

I have stopped linking, but I think it would help Academic Publishing Wiki if users could link to it from Wikipedia where appropriate. It seems inconsistent to ban links to another Wiki community, especially when other Wikipedia links abound to less reliable sites.

I notice that the Academic Publishing Wiki has not grown very much since it was created in 2005, and so I suggest a change to the policy about linking from Wikipedia to other Wiki communities. Otherwise, I fear that Academic Publishing Wiki may fail like its predecessor from lack of exposure.

I would appreciate an intelligent discussion on this subject.

WVogelerWvogeler 14:17, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Promotes Academic Publishing Wiki[edit]

Despite claims to the contrary, Wikipedia promotes Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia to Academic Publishing Wiki.

Please refer to Wikipedia's policy page on original research It reads:

"This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."

Under "Further Reading," found at bottom of the page, is a link to Academic Publishing Wiki.

Further comment is appreciated.

WvogelerWvogeler

It is being linked at that page purely as a redirection to a place that is welcoming of original research (in contrast to Wikipedia, which is not). Note also that it's a meta-page (project namespace) not an article (main namespace), so somewhat different rules apply to what gets used as examples/links. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --Quiddity 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Standard welcome template above. I just wanted to add in concise terms, that Wikipedia does not exist to promote external sites in order for them to become notable/useful, rather it links sites that are already notable/useful. See the guidelines linked above for details. Thanks. --Quiddity 20:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur Astronomy Listed at Wikia Central[edit]

I appreciate your comments, Quiddity, but I do not think you addressed the basic issue. Despite claims to the contrary, Wikipedia promotes Academic Publishing Wiki by linking from Wikipedia to Academic Publishing Wiki.

Please refer to Wikipedia's policy page on original research It reads:

"This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow."

Under "Further Reading," found at bottom of the page, is a link to Academic Publishing Wiki.

In other words, Wikipedia's official policy page links to Academic Publishing Wiki. That's all I was doing --- linking from Wikipedia articles to Academic Publishing Wiki.

WvogelerWvogeler

The basic issue is being addressed. Wikipedia is not here to promote your or anyone elses website. I have fixed the link you mentioned above - as the previous one was a bad link. The link is on a policy page as a courtesy link to a wiki that accepts original research for those Wikipedia editors who would rather use that venue. It remains improper to add external links to the site within Wikipedia article space. Vsmith 00:31, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Vsmith, for deleting your previous comment about promoting Academic Publishing Wiki. For the record, however, I want to keep my response on this page as part of the dialogue on this issue. As I said:

I hope you are not "promoting" form over substance.

You focus on a negative connotation of the word "promote," but you miss the substance of my use of the word. I use the word "promote," as Merriam-Webster defines it, to "promote understanding [11]"

In any case, I appreciate that you recognize Wikipedia's policy page links to the Acadmic Publishing Wiki. It promotes understanding.

WVogeler

Since you asked, here is why dropping links to Academic Publishing Wiki into an article can be a violation of Wikipedia guidelines (that guideline being Wikipedia:External links):

Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

The linked Academic Publishing Wiki articles contain no "further" information (at this point in time)

Links normally to be avoided:
- 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
- 12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

A "Featured" Wikipedia article would not contain original research so a link in an article to Academic Publishing Wiki would matches point 1. Academic Publishing Wiki does not have "a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" so it matches point 12.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr 13:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Academic Publishing Wiki does have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors."

For example, the following Wiki sites are listed with Academic Publishing Wiki as part of the Wikia community [12]:

Central Wikia - Scratchpad - Calgary - Creatures - NeoPets Guilds - Computing Knowledgebase - Protoscience - White Wolf - Poker - Join Me - Understanding the code of phpBB - WikiPagan - Genealogy - Lord of the Rings - Real Life Soap - Wikifun - Depression - Baby Names Wiki - Neverwinter Nights - InheriwikiEs -

See Wikia Tour

If you contend that Academic Publishing Wiki does not have a "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors," then please explain the reason it is listed with the above-referenced Wiki.

WVogelerWvogeler 03:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in those lists that "substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors" is a criteria for inclusion. They just seem to exist. It's subjective and would be remedied with time (as something like "Academic Publishing Wiki" expands), but even if "Academic Publishing Wiki" did eventualy meet the requirements of being "substantial" it could never be an external link as a source in a "Wikipedia" article because "Wikipedia" articles do not contain original research so a link there could never NOT violate:

Links normally to be avoided:
- 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.

Fountains of Bryn Mawr 15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, Fountains of Bryn Mawr is only one editor. As demonstrated above, there are a substantial number of editors who understand the role of Academic Publishing Wiki. See also Wikiversity [13], another Wiki site dedicated to original research.

Amateur Astronomy Joins Wikiversity[edit]

Thanks to growing support from Wiki editors, Amateur Astronomy is now a part of three Wiki communities. These include: Academic Publishing Wiki [14], Wikiversity [15] and Wikia Central [16].

October 2008[edit]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to California Proposition 8 (2008), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Also, please note that one of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Mike Doughney (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to California Proposition 8 (2008), you will be blocked from editing. Mike Doughney (talk) 04:18, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]