User talk:Edwardtbabinski

License tagging

All images I contribute to the Wikipedia should be originals and/or modified for purpose of legal distribution and listed under

Regarding [1] - since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links on talk pages will not alter search engine results. Therefore, there is no need to remove them from talk pages unless they are dangerous or otherwise disruptive. JoshuaZ 20:31, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[level 2 spam warning removed] – Qxz 03:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC) Thanks – Qxz 03:01, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Helping editors to properly define and identify a "Commercial Link"

To better clarify this issue, websites such as the commercial cybersquatter link - http://yoursite.com/favicon.ico which is displayed right in the midst of Favicon - at the top of the page it reads "e-commerce", how much more blatant can the definition of "commercial" be? And http://www.match.com/ which charge fees for use of their services, are "commercial" links, but on numerous occasions certain editors have either overlooked or failed to make such a simple distinction.

I've noticed many of the articles I've created, contributed to or checked over, seem to have been vandalised more than I remember occuring in the past. Admins obviously cannot keep up with the problem. One article I repaired, had escaped attention for at least three days. Since some people insist on driving away legitimate contributors, this is to be expected, and should only expect the problem to become worse in the future. This includes the growing sentiment which has been becoming more and more prevalent around the web, e.g., simply Google Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Sharon Mooney Updated, 18 February 2007, 17:13 Eastern

That's nice. ¦ Reisio 23:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

No sir, you're quite wrong. That's the truth. Do you want a link to a forum where the users refused to accept information from Wikipedia due to its growing "reputation" as an unreliable source?

Here, I will provide it to you pro bono http://www.unrv.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3819

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius Quote: See I want to avoid Wikipedia... and the damn shame is that most of what is written about Arius or Arianism to date is from the opposite point of view so of course it will be 'heretical'. Is there any non-biased sources out there?

Another user states... Here's a collection of articles (which does include wiki)... perhaps you can at least find a proper direction within.... http://www.encyclopedia.edwardtbabinski.us/who/a/arius/

Unfortunately since the notion of Arianism was virtually destroyed by it's rivals, there's not much source material other than the rebuttals of opponents (Athanasius in particular) and who knows how much of that was altered for various reasons.

However, I have often witnessed incoming links to various articles I've researched and composed for the web and mine are regarded as having reputation as a credible source, but Wikipedia shall not have the pleasure of further contributions from myself.

Name - Amelia Fleming, PhD Location - Carlow, Ireland http://www.carlowcollegechristology.blogspot.com/

The only question remains, why have I wasted such an incredible amount of time, on such a wee tiny little troll? Posted by Sharon Mooney 18 February 2007

Wikipedia alternative aims to be "PBS of the Web"

By Daniel Terdiman, CNET News.com Tuesday , December 20 2005 11:19 AM

By providing a service they're calling "the PBS of the Web," the Digital Universe team hopes to create a new era of free and open access to wide swaths of information on virtually any topic.

"The vision of the Digital Universe is to essentially provide an ad-free alternative to the likes of AOL and Yahoo on the Internet," said Firmage. "Instead of building it through Web robots, we're building it through a web of experts at hundreds of institutions throughout the world."

Their idea is particularly timely given recent questions about Wikipedia's accuracy and credibility. A frequently raised criticism of the constantly growing repository of information has been that the millions of articles created by a worldwide community of contributors are not verified by experts.

Of course, that has always been Wikipedia's modus operandi--that its articles are written and vetted by its community, not by an elite corps of Ph.D.s. Yet there are some who feel that while the site has a satisfying populist appeal, and may be on par with the Encyclopedia Britannica when it comes to accuracy, it still suffers from a lack of true accountability.

By including articles that have been approved by experts, Digital Universe will have such reliability, its founders say.

Source: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39299490,00.htm