User talk:GerdLivJalla

Welcome! (We can't say that loudly enough!)

Hello, GerdLivJalla, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We're so glad you're here! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

justlearnmorsecode.com

Hello GerdLivJalla. I did indeed offer a reason, it's called the Wikipedia:External links policy. You are correct that a lot of other links in the Morse code article also should be deleted, and that's why there's a tag on the external links section. What really did bother me, however, was your labeling Requestion (talk · contribs) as a vandal. There's a policy called Assume good faith that all editors have to abide by. Take your time to learn your way around here so that you don't trip over any more policies. Thanks and have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 10:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Assume good faith policy a one-way deal ? HE certainly threw the first rock, claiming the link is "spam".

While I understand that there might be good reasons to remove certain links, I do NOT appreciate the biased removal of one link, selected by an individual for whatever subjective reasons he has.

If he feels it is important to clean up the external links regarding Morse code, he should be willing to spend an extra two seconds to remove ALL FIVE links as they are similar with regards to their "spam" qualities.

As for the external links policy, I did in fact read it and I didn't find a single thing in there that the link in question violates. Did YOU read it ?

In my opinion, all the links in the Morse code topic are very useful to people interested in learning Morse code. Why self-appointed police officers with no interest in the topic itself feels the need to make wiki less valuable by removing legitimate links is beyond me.

GerdLivJalla 11:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also at a loss why this particular link is considered spam - it fits exactly the same criteria as the other five links and is free software. Why pick on this one? For that matter there is a dead useless link in the references 'Please sign in to ...'. G3YMC Dsergeant 12:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I myself never labeled it as spam, I pointed out that deletion is an enforcement of the external links policy. While the regular editors of the article did reduce the number or links from Twenty-eight to a dozen when I first tagged the section, that is still too many to conform with policy, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." The WP:NOT#REPOSITORY also applies to this. Therefore I will be cleaning up the external links section myself today, I think three or four links at most will be about right.

As for a broken reference, feel free to fix it if you can. That's what Wikipedia's all about.

As for behavior. You are correct that labeling the link as spam was a violation of WP:AGF on that editor's part. However, even if someone annoys you because of a poorly chosen phrase, you are still obligated to remain civil and keep your cool. We can all get worked up sometimes and write things that we perhaps shouldn't (for example, here's a time I did) but we need to stop such behavior when somebody points it out to us. I sometimes wish I could be a little kid again and have screaming temper tantrums, but those days are long gone, unfortunately, and I have to keep my self control.

As for being self-appointed police officers. Again you are quite correct. Everyone on Wikipedia's self appointed; it's not like this is our job our anything, we're all volunteers. (Well... there are those "office" people who are on Jimbo's payroll, but there really aren't too many of those.) We all choose what roles we want to do around here for ourselves; again that's what Wikipedia's all about. It's really a beautiful thing when you stop to think about it.

In closing I'd like to thank you for bringing this topic up. I have been lax in leaving that tag up on the section without doing something about it myself. Thanks again, and have a great day! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has claimed that YOU labeled it as spam. I was pointing out that YOU attacked ME for not assuming good faith even though I was not the first person not to do so in this particular case. It seems rather natural to me to react to you bringing this up while defending a person who clearly did NOT comply with the same principle.

As for keeping the external links down to three or four - what gives YOU the right to dictate which three or four stay, and which ones go ? Do you have any particular skills related to the subject at hand ?

Also, YOU re-deleted the link from the Farnsworth topic as well. This was the only link in that topic, so it obviously is not a matter of the external links list getting too crowded.

Hidden agendas, all the way down.

—GerdLivJalla 16:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is suspected of being Special:Contributions/85.165.69.221. Note that WP:AGF was nullified when justlearnmorsecode.com was added again after several warnings. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self promotion (see WP:EL and WP:NOT). If you feel that your competitors morse code links are also spam then you are free to delete them. No hidden agendas here. (Requestion 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

That response just says it all.

You can keep it your way.

—GerdLivJalla 20:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

February 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 10:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming good faith should not be a one-way deal, as outlined above.
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 18:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
There is nothing inappropriate about the highly relevant link in question, as outlined above.
With regards to your comments on Morse code: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. The attack was in the edit summary here. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is somewhat hard to comment on a contribution that was never there. And nothing beats an accurate description.
Go fuck yourselves.

I'm not familiar with whatever content dispute is occuring on the Morse code page. It sounds like you were contributing in good faith, so I'd be disappointed to see a well-meaning editor blocked for personal attacks. That's all. Leebo⁸⁶ 22:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]