User talk:Paper33d/Archive1

26 January, 2006

Hi. I noticed you have added external links to a website (your own?) to many many pages. This is considered Spamming. Please desist. Morwen - Talk 12:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Go read the Wikipedia:Spamming policy closely. If you respond with defiance I am going to block you. Morwen - Talk 12:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look, you should work with your head not prejudices. I'm not adding viagra or whatelse garbage! When a visitor is reading on the particular landmark he may find interesting to look at the reconstructions made from paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs)

These are unnecessary commercial links. Please stop adding them. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you consider by "unnecessary"? Are you a God or only visitor of Wikipedia? Are numerous maps and companies featured here okay and models not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs)

The community consensus on what is unnecessary is set out in WP:SPAM. Please familiarise yourself with what is and what is not acceptable. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are bulk adding a only vaguely relevant external link to a commercial site, which provides no actual information, to dozens of articles, and then calling the entirely justified removal of such spam "vandalism". It simply doesn't matter whether you are advertising viagra or paper models or hotels (or whether you are merely trying to promote a website). It's not allowed. This is not a discussion. If you want to stay and help build the encyclopedia you can, which is why I didn't block you on sight, but consider yourself warned. If you are aware of any other people doing mass adding of commercial links that we haven't caught, then please tell us and then we can get them too. Morwen - Talk 12:51, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Pschemp | Talk 12:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC) dude, even your user name is suspicious.[reply]

Regarding your edits on many pages: Every single edit of yours has been reverted, often by multiple editors. This should tell you that your spam is not welcome here at Wikipedia. Hu 12:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Benon 12:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You, the clever people, is it okay with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sears ?

A simple thing that everyone does, and that you need to do to, Paper33d, is to sign your postings with four tildes, ~~~~. You can cooperate, which is the way thousands of editors have succeeded here, or you be truculent and obstinate and uncooperative. Hu 13:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is alright for an article about a commercial enterprise to link to the website of that enterprise. It is not alright to add links that are asdpam. -- ALoan (Talk) 13:23, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aloan, continue - can I create an article about any "commercal enterprise" or just big ones? :) Paper33d 13:25, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (not sure if this is signature but anyway) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs) [reply]

You can create any article you like, but it will be deleted if it is not sufficiently notable or encyclopedic (which is usually defined by what Wikipedia is not). -- ALoan (Talk) 13:30, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me think Wikipedia belongs to big companies, not "We the people" ... what a pity :( Paper33d 13:35, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact this is ridiculous (About notability). If I need to look inside the encyclopedia I would be happy to find as much information on the subject as possible. Paper33d 13:41, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, you now have been blocked. If you apologise I shall unblock you. Your of "belongs to big companies" is absurd. We do exactly the same for anyone mass-adding commercial links, and your failure to distinguish between having a relevant link to a corporate website and irrelevant spammy ones is fallacious and self-serving. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your of "belongs to big companies" is absurd. We do exactly the same for anyone mass-adding commercial links, and your failure to distinguish between having a relevant link to a corporate website and irrelevant spammy ones is fallacious and self-serving. Morwen - Talk 13:55, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry for the block. I accidentally misread your edit. Whilst it was petty and uncalled for, it did not justify the block. I have just unblocked you. Morwen - Talk 13:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While your spamming-suspicious policy is still a mistery to me, I thank you for not beeing a b**** Paper33d 14:05, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to blank pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Pschemp | Talk 14:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC) For blanking your own talk page.[reply]

better than threathening you could tell me how to keep the actual message at the top not the bottom of the page. I don't like those many assaults to be here anymore. Paper33d 14:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way to do that. Talk pages run with the new text at the bottom and a record of the previous conversations on the top and can't really be changed. Since they also function as record keepers, they shouldn't be erased. I'm sorry. Pschemp | Talk 14:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just blanked it anyway as a courtesy. By the way, the site is linked to from card model still (I actually checked, because I was going to add it if it wasn't, to demonstrate in practice what this means), and I'm happy for it to stay there. Morwen - Talk 14:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great, otherwise I though that less content is a criteria for a better encyclopedia (kind of "less you know better you feel"). Even Google thinks so. Anyway, Martini to your account! ;)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs)

I have restored this page against the blanking of the discussion and warnings and the blocking messages and unblocking messages. I think that it is absolutely wrong to whitewash this for the convenience of somebody who can simply go to the end of the article to read the page, just everyone else does on their talk pages. Get used to it, it is easy. In this case, the blanking also whitewashes the blocking / unblocking action. It is wrong to deprive editors of the discussion when they want to see what the controversy is about, and why there was blocking and unblocking. It is Wikipedia policy to very much discourage wiping talk pages out, especially while an issue is being discussed. Please do not say, Go look at the history of the page, because that is not what the history is there for. It is not proper to require editors to laboriously dig through a history summary to try to follow a discussion. This page is for the discussion of the issues and we can all deal with it calmly and easily by effortlessly going to the end of the page to read new comments. Hu 14:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have nothing else to do but discuss here. okay, I know there are such people. And btw, there is "no discussion" going on as Morwen said. I'm not allowed "to discuss", this page is for warnings and threats on me, so go on. Paper33d 14:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I read a good article about Wikipedia, but now I think differently. Or was it about another Wikipedia? Hmm... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs)

Another Wikipedia policy you need to know about is "No Personal Attacks". Further, you are allowed to discuss, Paper33d, and the fact that you too have been discussing proves it. Hu 14:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry again Paper33d

By the way, I support Morwen that your link on card model is entirely appropriate and a useful addition. Hu 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, you can see it was never removed as we do think you have good things to offer to Wikipedia. Pschemp | Talk 15:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, but all those good things are deleted soon.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paper33d (talk • contribs)