User talk:Atsme

'You are out of line, my friend. I have followed Wiki guidelines for EXTERNAL LINKS. It is not promotional in nature, rather it is EDUCATIONAL. A link to non-profit educational institution IS NOT PROMOTIONAL.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Paddlefish ‎. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 02:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Sorry, but you are misinformed. The link to Earthwave Society meets the guidelines as set forth by WIKIPEDIA. Have you even read the guidelines? If so, please send me the exact quote from the Wiki Guidelines that state my link is unacceptable, and why. It appears you have your own perception of what purpose external links are to serve, which is why I have contacted two Administrators to resolve this issue. The link I added to the Paddlefish site happens to be a link to a very important resource for students, teachers, and researchers. I'm not here to play games with you. There is extremely important information on the Earthwave website that needs to be included as an external link on the relevant Wikipedia pages. I tried to modify the link in an effort to avoid further confrontation you, but nothing seems to work. If you are bored, and need something to do, why don't you pick on the thousands of other sites on Wikipedia that have external links to sites that truly are commercialized, and promotional instead of picking on a legitimate non-profit organization's site that actually has, and still is doing some good in the area of conservation and endangered species. The video documentation we provide is NOT FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES. They are VIDEO DOCUMENTARIES meaning they actually DOCUMENT THE LIFE HISTORY CYCLE OF A PARTICULAR SPECIES LIKE THE PADDLEFISH. Most are one hour long with no ads or commercial breaks because they are DOCUMENTARIES, and contains information and rare copyrighted footage that researchers won't find anywhere else. Earthwave Society and it's Board of Directors are not concerned about search engine rankings - we are already have top ranking, and have been since 1992. We are educators not retailers. Your misguided efforts have tripled my work load this evening, and have prevented me from getting important work done - work that is needed in conservation education - work that could potentially save an entire species. I don't mean to sound impolite, but don't you have something more constructive to do with your spare time? Atsme (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

earthwave.org and Sturgeon, Crayfish, etc

I am unsure how often you check your e-mail inbox, and in any case this should be recorded publicly, so here is my response to your e-mail dated 13:46 12 September 2011 (UTC):

Thank you for contacting User:JeremyA and User:Kevmin. If an editor

does something on Wikipedia that you disagree with, the first course

of action is always to contact him or her directly. Now that you have

did so, I can look into the matter and give my view.



Having looked at the website you are trying to link to, I must say

that I agree with Jeremy and Kevmin. Wikipedia has very strict

guidelines, set down at at

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_to_link>,

about what external links can be included in its articles. If you read

that link, and especially under 'Links normally to be avoided' that

"Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the

article would contain if it became a featured article." Wikipedia also

has guidelines about what sources we can use by means of verification

of the contents of our articles, set down at

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources>.

I am sure that your website is strictly educational in nature, but I

regret that it cannot be accepted as a source because of §3.1

'Questionable sources'.



As with anything from 'Naturalis Historia' to 'Encyclopedia

Britannica', Wikipedia is a formal encyclopedia, and there is an

exceptionally high bar for what material and sources we can use to

validate the contents of articles. Jeremy and Kevmin reverted your

edits because the link you were trying to include, with the greatest

respect, did not meet these standards.



Perhaps you might use your knowledge in this field to instead develop

the contents of Wikipedia, rather than by adding links to

earthwave.org. We would certainly welcome your contributions!



Please let me know if you have any further queries.



Regards,

Anthony

Regards, AGK [•] 17:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, as a general matter it is exceedingly rude to use all-caps in your edit summaries. Please do not do so in future. Thank you, AGK [•] 17:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Anthony - I actually do understand the use of CAPS in my responses. I'm one of the pioneers of online etiquette dating back to the beginning of message boards LBFB (Long Before Face Book). Were you around when GeoCities was THE place to be? I'm thinking it was back in the late 80s or 90s?? I was one of their first Liaisons. FYI -- GeoCities paid us with stock shares, so the time we invested turned into SUBSTANTIAL monetary rewards when Yahoo! purchased the company - stock values quadrupled, and kept climbing. Of course, the rewards we got from helping others was a nice little pay-off as well. It was a win-win. Anyway, I've decided to take this issue to the highest level at Wiki as there are too many contradictions in the policies. For example, can you or anyone else explain why the following site and its links are allowed on Wiki..... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Monsters (they sell videos/DVDs, and it is a PAID channel not free to the public as is PBS which is where EWS programs aired) external link - http://animal.discovery.com/tv/river-monsters/ (comes complete with commercial advertising - the EWS site does not have any commercials, and it asks only for contributions as does Wikipedia)

I really would like to know why that site was accepted along with its external links, and not the Earthwave Society site as an external link??? There are MANY others at Wiki doing the same thing. I do want to thank you for the time you've devoted to this issue. You have been one of the most courteous volunteers to date, even with the discrepencies. ;-) Atsme (talk) 21:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

In that case, I will leave you to take this up with the Arbitration Committee. Regards, AGK [•] 22:18, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nearing an end....

To All Editors & Administrators - my most recent email correspondence to Wikipedia's Arbitrators, roger.davies.wiki@gmail.com, CoolHandLuke@gmail.com, kirill.lokshin@gmail.com, newyorkbrad@gmail.com, is included below.....

Following is the Talk correspondence between PhilKnight and I:

Phil stated.... I agree with Kuru's assessment that adding links such as this are an attempt to promote a product. Specifically, this particular video costs $15.95. From my perspective, saying that you're adding links to videos, which are for sale, is essentially correct, however I recognize that you hold a different view. Regardless, the addition of these links is against Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so I confirm that my advice to discontinue adding external links to your website.PhilKnight (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

MY REPLY..... Again - it is NOT my website. Question: if the resource materials at Earthwave Society's site were typewritten pages instead of on a DVD, would still feel the same? If a non-profit organization offers free viewing, and free resource materials, and all you have to do is pick them up, do you think that's acceptable? Do you truly believe a non-profit organization should eat the bill if someone asks for a duplicate copy of the resource materials to be shipped Fed Ex to their home in England? Sorry, but all I've heard so far is some extremely shallow thinking. Wiki is in serious trouble if that's the mindset today. You have completely overlooked the fact that the DVD is as much a RESOURCE as any publication, or manuscript, and offers 10 times more. The input I've heard so far sounds more like a You-Tube mentality. You have no clue what's involved in the documentation of a species life history cycle. Do you realize how big that manuscript would be? Multiply it by 7 species in the same genus. If you truly believe in conservation and the environment, you'd be weaning yourself off paper documentation. You really need to surf around on some of the other Wiki sites, and follow some of the links. I deleted 3 yesterday - one of which was blatant commercialism. People who are looking to Wiki as a viable resource will soon start looking elsewhere. Can't say that I'll blame them. Based on recent events, it certainly has lost its appeal for me.

PHIL'S REPLY... The assertion that it isn't your website is splitting hairs. Otherwise, have a look at item 3 of Wikipedia:External links#What can normally be linked. PhilKnight (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

MY FINAL REPLY....AN IMPORTANT ONE AT THAT..... Thank you, Phil - I have reviewed the guidelines over and over again. I truly believe what you and all the other editors & Administrators need to do is review the following section from that same page...... Advertising and conflicts of interest Shortcuts: WP:ADV WP:EL#ADV Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. Wikipedia uses the same standards for evaluating links to websites owned by for-profit and (real or purported) non-profit organizations. Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link. Earthwave Society falls within the proper guidelines. Period the end. All this rigamarole, and misinformed discourse over a few external links to a world renowned, highly praised EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATION has been for naught. Perhaps its my innate desire to correct, and educate that kept me here trying to resolve this conflict. My years of experience tell me I'm right, and that there's been a grave misunderstanding and misinterpretation of Wiki's own policy. I do hope you all can get your heads together and resolve the issue. I will be forwarding all of this correspondence to the Arbitration Committee. I sincerely do thank you for the time you've devoted to this issue.

==============

In response to the guidelines and correspondence I include above, I add: (1) Earthwave Society does not own, maintain, or represent any of the sites on which we added a link; (2) Earthwave Society is a bonafide verifiable Sect 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as per the U.S. Internal Revenue Service Code, and the Texas State Comptroller's Office (3) Earthwave Society is recognized for its contributions to education, research and conservation by such reputable organizations as National Geographic, The Nature Conservancy, and the US Fish & Wildlife Service, to name a few. I can verify this information via correspondence from those organizations, and reciprocal links.

I do pray the committee will re-evaluate Earthwave Society, and act appropriately to clear up this very unfortunate misunderstanding of the editors and a few Administrators. Your reply will be greately appreciated..... Atsme (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

Posting personal information

I have blocked you because earlier on, you posted 4 email addresses of wikipedians. Please do NOT post personal information of others on wiki.

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our policies concerning neutral point of view and biographies of living persons will not be tolerated. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:58, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Again - I did not post PERSONAL addresses. Why did you not include a reference to this so-called offending post? If I did post anything, the information was public, and readily available to EVERYONE, otherwise how did I get it? This is sooo childish. How old are you, anyway?

I have asked Beetstra to reconsider this block, as the email addresses posted were publicly available at WP:ARBCOM. The Cavalry (Message me) 16:40, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I have reconsidered and unblocked. You posted email addresses in a post higher up this page. I thought they were copied from replies of emails, your post seemed to suggest that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)