User talk:85.18.136.96

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. discospinster 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Where is the spam?

I'm not spamming: virtualization.info is the oldest source of virtualization news since even before a "virtualization" term would be added to Wikipedia.

There is actually no knowledge on virtualization, Wikipedia articles are incomplete or totally missing, while virtualization.info instead covers every single news or bit of knowledge about the topic.

If you would take a moment to check the Virtualization Industry Roadmap and the What is Virtualization presentation you would discover they are value-added contents and NOT a mere advertising or external links.


I don't see a single moment in which adding virtualization.info links should be considered spam.

Thank you.

That site is just a jumble of other news links about the virtualization industry, and does not provide any specific knowledge that is relevant to the articles it is being added to. (An acceptable link would be one that continues to provide future visitors of that link approximately the same content that was first there, not some continuously changing list of industry chatter.) See also Wikipedia is not a repository of links -- Bovineone 19:12, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


comment by roland k./system engineer: Wmahan - sorry, but you seem to have lots of spare-time left over.... why are you removing an important link to an important site and start such big discussion about such tiny issue with this? btw: are you "into" virtualization technology at all? can you give a judge about the relevance/importance of virtualization.info? i wonder, why the german wikipedia pages about virtualization.info also provide this link and i wonder why a link to a not-so-important-site like run-virtual.com is still existing, but virtualization.info being removed. quite illogical


[edit] Modifications on virtualization topics

These links were taken off the articles because they weren't directly related to the subject. Most of the articles were about specific brands of virtualization technology, so the external links were specific as well. However, in the general article Virtual machine, the link to the blog is relevant. ... discospinster 12:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Virtualization Industry Roadmap is relevant

Sorry but I have to argue on this: Virtualization Industry Roadmap tracks all releases of all virtualization vendors in the market, providing a unique tool for customers and analysts looking for details about a company or another.

I think it's quite relevant even in every single page about vendors.

Your opinion about the site's relevance would be more credible if it didn't appear to be self-promotion. Your actions make it difficult to assume you take a netural point of view: you added links to many articles, you added multiple links within a single article, and you didn't contribute any new information on the subject, as far as I can tell.
If you have a vested interest in the site, it might be better to wait and let someone else add links to it, if they find it relevant.
Also, you said above that the virtualization articles "are incomplete or totally missing." Any help you can provide in improving the articles is welcome. -- Wmahan. 18:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Now User:84.63.120.160 is continuing to add links to virtualization.info without discussion. Wmahan. 16:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan and Discospinster: you are actually applying censorship, not spam cleaning. The last addition wasn't from me but from else. PLEASE prove virtualization.info readers you are not censors: come to the post I wrote about this issue, read it and read comments (which contains enough argumentations for your "self-promotion" excuse, and explain WHY you are using 2 different judgement systems: http://www.virtualization.info/2006/05/wikipedia-reviewers-censor.html (and just in case you are thinking about it: no, this is not another way to spam the "free" Wikipedia)

I'm sorry you saw my actions as censorship. It looks like you are trying to provide a useful service with your site, and I wish you well. I removed the link because in my opinion, it didn't appear notable. I realize that I could be wrong, and I'm willing to listen to why you think so.
Any Wikipedia editor can restore the link if he or she disagrees. However, I don't think anonymous IP addresses restoring the link without discussion is the best way to go about it.
I respect your right to anonymity. However, you seem to imply that you are Alessandro Perilli, the maintainer of the site. Clarifying exactly what your interest is in the site might help demonstrate your good faith. Wmahan. 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


(the following answer is posted here and on the virtualization.info mentioned post, so I cannot also be imputed of escaping from discussion)

Wmahan, in 1 week of this I wrote 2 times on the my user talk page (identified by IP address), 1 times on the Discospinster user page, 2 times on the virtualization.info post I wrote.

After all of this both you and the other reviewer still continue to submit me Wikipedia guidelines which are, as I said so many times, debatable if applicable in this specific case.

But, after all of this, you still failed to explain WHY 2 identical External Links had 2 different destinies. That is the real point of discussion.

It's clear I'm loosing time with someone which doesn't seriously want to explain reasons of such inequity. So: take your reasons (and censorship) for Wikipedia. I think at least readers of this blog have now a clearer idea of how the whole thing works.

One last thing: more than one External Link you decided to save from censorship, regularly bounces news posted in this site, evidently considering it a reliable source. It's pretty strange I'm not mentioned while someone quoting me on daily basis is, isn't it?

Please explain why the guidelines are not applicable in your case. I'm not endorsing or opposing any other external link; I'm only talking about virtualization.info. That said, the difference between your link and the others is that you added your own site. I don't think the other links were added by their site owners. Thus, your link is self-promotion, while the others are not.
To summarize my view:
  • You added your own site, in which you have a financial interest, as an external link on several articles.
  • According to your comments in the article you linked, you did so anonymously, so Wikipedia editors would not know that you are the site's owner.
  • You started criticizing the editors who removed your link on your site, calling us "censors", rather than arguing your case here.
Please stop accusing me of "censorship". It's clear we're talking about virtualization.info; anyone is free to go there and form his or her own opinion. I've asked for input from other users at Talk:Virtualization. What's not clear is your relationship to the site. Once again: do you have a financial interest in virtualization.info? Wmahan. 00:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendations

Possibly an IP address shared by multiple users. For the user(s) interested in Slavic or Greek Macedonian issues I would recommend to have a look in WP:MOSMAC and create your own account (see WP:WHY).

[edit] Goran Pandev‎

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Goran Pandev. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

[edit] Tijana Todevska-Dapčević

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Tijana Todevska-Dapčević. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

[edit] Darko Pančev

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Darko Pančev. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

--157.228.x.x (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Goran Pandev. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --157.228.x.x (talk) 09:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing, such as the edit you made to Tijana Todevska-Dapčević. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --157.228.x.x (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

But you are the one who does disruptive editing because of your primitive greek nationalism

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Goran Pandev. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button Image:Signature_icon.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 18:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goran Pandev

There are many Wikipedia articles for people born in countries that no longer exist in the same form. The Wikipedia consensus is to be accurate about stating birth locations. For example, the Jaromír Jágr article says

born February 15, 1972 in Kladno, Czechoslovakia, now the Czech Republic

and the Maria Sharapova article says (in the infobox)

Place of birth Nyagan, Soviet Union now Russia

This is exactly what the Goran Pandev article should say, and the consensus edit does that:

(born July 27, 1983 in Strumica, SFR Yugoslavia) is a football striker from the Republic of Macedonia

The location of birth is accurate, and the lead sentence clearly establishes his home nation by linking to Republic of Macedonia. Changing this lead to say he was born in a country that didn't exist in 1983 is factually wrong. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Земја на раѓање

Мораш да сфатиш дека на Википедиа за земјата на раѓање на личностите се пишува онаа земја која постоела тогаш кога се родила личноста. За статиите за македонците родени пред 1991 година мора да стои SFR Yugoslavia но во инфобоксот може да стои SR Macedonia, SFR Yugoslavia. Тоа не е грчка пропаганда, верувај ми јас се борам против тие пропаганди. Се надевам дека бев од помош. Поздрав, Isavevski (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2008 (UTC)