User talk:Sembiance

Welcome!

Hello, Sembiance, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Rray (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note

Hi - I actually made a couple of comments on some of the talk pages for the articles you're interested in, but I wanted to point you in the direction of some links which might be helpful as you participate at the Wikipedia:

Notability
External links - Please take a look at the part about links normally to be avoided, which includes links to sites you own.
Civility (I'm pointing out this last link because I noticed you've been shouting in some of your edit notes. Typing in all caps is considered shouting on the Internet, so it's probably not the best way to make your case here.)

Anyway, I hope those are helpful. Rray (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood what Wikipedia was all about. I never realized that it was so... narrow in it's focus of only cataloging 'notable and important' information. My edits on some of those articles I made out of trying to help the user, and I didn't realize the bar for Wikipedia inclusion was so high.

I still plan to at some point update all the Solitaire game pages with:

A common template so all solitaire game pages share a common look and feel with consistent information
Accurate rules. Many pages are missing rules or are wildly incorrect or don't detail variations
Screenshots. Many pages have no screenshots of the game. This makes it very difficult for the reader to visualize what the game actually looks like

Would such changes be welcome at Wikipedia? Sembiance 15:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think I intended to discourage you from editing here in any way. Be bold and make changes. I just wanted to point out some stuff you might not have been aware of. :) I think all of the changes you mentioned would be excellent additions. There are copyright issues with screenshots I don't fully understand. You might want to familiarize yourself with those ahead of time to avoid frustration. If I can help in any way, please don't hesitate to leave me a message at my talk page. Rray (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay Cool

Hey. I'd recommend you don't shout in edit summaries or make comments along the lines of "what part of . . . don't you understand?". In my experience, it just makes people think you are a troublemaker. Take a look at WP:Civil and don't get worked up. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Wikipedia discourages editors from adding links to their own sites. I've noticed that you seem to be involved in some edit warring related to the addition of links to your own site, and your edit summaries seem strident. I'd encourage you to rethink your approach. Rray (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be a good idea for you to read WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM for some general rules on what you should and shouldn't be linking to. Thanks Paul20070 (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I think I'm just going to refrain from editing Wikipedia altogether. It's narrow vision is far too limiting and the arguments between editors is just too much to handle. If you look at the Spider Solitaire discussion you'll see MANY people who disagree with you. Since Wikipedia clearly doesn't work when people disagree (since no one is willing to submit that the other is right) I'll just wait for Google or some other competitor to come out with a more open and less narrow minded site. Good luck.Sembiance (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the whole process of when and when not to link to things is a minefield, so don't lose heart. I've fallen foul of it myself from time to time. In general I think linking to websites you're personally involved in is discouraged (regardless of how useful they are), but if they are of genuine use (which might be the case here), another editor will add them. I'm not going to do it myself though because I'm not experienced enough in this matter. Perhaps another editor can give a more definite opinion.

It would be a pity if you were to stop editing because of this, as I'm sure you can still make some very valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your only goal here at the Wikipedia is to promote your website, then it's probably better that you move on to more appropriate venues for that anyway. That will prevent hard feelings on your part and on the other editors' parts. (And I'm not assuming that this is your only goal here, but what else am I to think, since you've threatened to leave if you're not allowed to do so?) Rray (talk) 16:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. My main reason for linking is that it's a 100% free, non-commercial, no ads, no installs, no plugins requires accurate implementation of the Solitaire versions. I take pride that I've implemented it as the rules show and that I allow anyone to come and see them. I get joy out of seeing people who are looking for something find what they are looking for. I can guarantee you that 99% of the time someone viewing the articles that talk about these solitaire games will find the site's implementation very very helpful and useful. I'm not doing this out of a desire to drive traffic to the site (which just costs me money, doesn't make anything). I'm doing it out of the same desire you edit Wikipedia, to be useful to people to help people out. You and Paul both refuse to answer the question on why you only impose these highly debatable restrictions on 'some' of the solitaire pages and not others. I believe you both probably truly do feel that the link in question is useful to people and does deserve to be there but because I'm the one submitting it, you won't let it stay. In my opinion you can't see the forest for the trees in this case.

I don't doubt your good intentions in launching and promoting your website. But you need to understand that Wikipedia isn't the correct venue for promoting your site, and that edit warring and being rude to editors who disagree with the appropriateness of your links isn't helpful. Threatening to not participate here anymore if you can't promote your site doesn't endear you to anyone or help build a consensus that your links should be included either. The appropriate way to suggest links to your own site is outlined in the external links article that's been referred to you a couple of times now. Rray (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This only just occurred to me, but you might consider applying to be an editor at DMOZ. They specialize in listing useful websites. Joeant is also a volunteer-edited directory of websites where submitting your own site might be appropriate. Rray (talk) 17:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks. DMOZ has a whole host of issues all it's own. You still fail to understand that my reasons for linking is not to 'promote my site'. It's to help people and I know that my site is useful. It's the same reason most editors edit Wikipedia articles. I will be a much happier person if I just avoid contributing to Wikipedia altogether. Too many contradictions and fights between editors. Several people disagree with your opinion on the Spider Solitaire discussion board yet because nobody is in charge articles are just a continual war between people of different opinions. It's just not a healthy environment and in the end the end user suffers. I still laugh though every time I see how other editors keep the links on other pages and you fail to bring your power there yet on other articles your power holds. It's just laughable :)

Works for me. Being happy is more important than any silliness on the Wikipedia. Good luck to you. Rray (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Please review WP:SPAM. In particular, review the section called "How not to be a spammer". Then look at item #5. Implying that I've been less than level-headed is unfair, as I've been completely level-headed in every discussion we've had. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean that they're not level-headed. Rray (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe (nor do several others) that it is spam. I'm also not spamming it since I'm not adding it over and over to any pages. In fact I have refrained from adding it to the pages to prevent any conflict of interest possibilities. I am instead following WP:EL guidelines and submitting them for discussion. I have requested additional editors be brought into the discussion as to whether or not these links are valid. We will see what the outcome is from that.Sembiance (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note

I replied over on my talk page, but just in case you don't see that, thanks for your note. I won't be holding anything against you, and I hope you'll continue to contribute here. Rray (talk) 14:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]