User talk:Antiquus

Hello, I've undid all your changes and additions of the following site. http://antiquus.prophp.org Are you by chance the owner or are affiliated with that site? Feel free to discuss on my talk page. I'm willing to undo myself if I'm wrong. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 02:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have undone some of your revisions; the site, while good-looking, does not cite its references at all and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source. If you have any questions, feel free to ask either Eagle or I. Veinor (talk to me) 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What are you guys talking about? I just loaded the link above and it's hideous. At first it didn't render in Firefox, and I was curious why. Apparently AdBlock and Filterset.G were doing their jobs, because IE loaded up every single banner ad on that page. It was so laggy that on an AMD XP 3000+ with 2gb of low-CAS PC3200, I was hardly able to move my mouse. That's a lot of ads. I didn't see any links or information of any type. Are we talking about the same page here? thadius856talk 19:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

reply from my talk page

 * If you own the site, its poor practice to cite yourself. This is a proper encyclopedia. Please read our guidelines on reliable sources. In addition adding links to sites that you own is discouraged by our external link guidelines. If you think this info is relevant to the article, please post a note on the talk page, and make it clear that you are the owner of the site, and that you have a conflict of interest''. Regards. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * please reply on mine if you have further questions. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 02:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Page is owned by you = Conflict of interests. Please review WP:EL before adding any more links to any site anywhere on wikipedia. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * To answer your question about citations.... we prefer... and expect actual essay-style citations. A link to an external website, especially a commercial is unnecessary when you list the ISDN # in the typical format.  Our system automatically generates a link to a non-profit website that provides hundreds of locations to find any book anywhere in the world.
 * If you want to know more about how we make citations see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT (for footnote styles). ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay let me get this straight, im not allowed to add citations from books that I have coped from MUSEUM copies and self published for the interest of expanding the information of a wikipedia article that has very little practical information in it?? That does not make sense to me. I have quoted directly from these books that you cannot find anywhere else except museum archives. That is why I have posted my link. If I thought you could obtain them in any other location I wouldnt have copied them in the first place.

PS: This is quite rediculous, especially since I spent the last 3 hours putting these citations together SPECIFICALLY for this purpose to have them deleted in 10 minutes. Antiquus 03:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, like it says at the bottom of every edit page, 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.' Veinor (talk to me) 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me how this is not original reasearch? This on top of other concerns is why I did the revert. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 03:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Why not just delete all of those pages then? Do they not offer nothing but hearsay and spam? I mean an uncited page is nothing but that isnt it? So just delete the entire thing. Antiquus 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * (responding to earlier comment)No, citations from the books are fine. However, linking to your store is not required to add a citation. Also, the fact that this is YOUR site and YOUR site is for-profit makes me, and everyone else here wonder what exactly the motivation for creating links to your own site is. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 03:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason I linked to the page is because I copied the link from another page here so I could get the correct code to create citations, I noticed that they had linked the citation/publisher to a location to PURCHASE the item, so I did the same being that you cannot purchase the book from any other location. But according to what you are saying you would you rather me or one of my friends or family members sign up for a new account and place all of the links and citations back there so that it can be from someone "random" and "ethically" done? You dont find that a tad bit silly? That others are allowed to link your site to this page but you arent, yet you have no way of telling if the linker is the owner of the site? If I had something to hide in my motives dont you think I would have denied the site was mine to begin with? I offer informatin I believed that people would not only find interesting but become educated through, if I did it for profit and to spam I would have just signed up for an anonymous account and denied the pages were mine. But I openly told you that the website was my own. Antiquus 04:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Having your friends or family add the link would still be a conflict of interest. And we're not saying you have anything to hide, we're saying that your judgment would be skewed by your ownership of the site. And the original citation, then, was wrong; links to purchase should never be added. Veinor (talk to me) 04:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is, we are not the place to sell items. We are not here to funnel viewers to purchase books. If the other links need fixing, feel free to fix them yourself. —— Eagle 101  Need help? 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

So you are both saying to me this is a moral/ethical decision rather than intellectual? How can you verify who posts these links? Why delete mine? Because I was honest and told you it was my site and they lied and said it wasnt theirs? So should I sign up for another account and post the links under anonymity? Will that be better? You still havent answered my question- why are you allowing uncited pages to be up, are they not just Spam/Hearsay?? Under the definitions you have told me and showed me from the wikipages, these articles have no place being up when they do not have cited material. Correct? You should just remove the entire page completely under all morality. If youd like, I can remove the link from citation. Is that what you would like me to do? Its not about the actual link but the fact that the page has citations on it that was important to me, as I said before, I just copied the link style that I took from another page (who also didnt include an ISBN btw).Antiquus 04:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you add it anonymously and we prove its you (which is possible), you will be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. And what I'm basically asking for is to not link to your site at all, even in the citation, and to cite the books directly (though it'd be much better if you could find a different source). And the other page's style was then wrong. As for the question of other uncited pages, Wikipedia is not perfect. Sometimes there are links that shouldn't be there that are there. Personally, I think astrology is total BS. But that's just me, and I try to maintain a neutral point of view. Veinor (talk to me) 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thats why I stated friends or family members could do the exact same thing. But thats not the point I was trying to make. I simply do not understand why you allow some links and not others when you cannot verify if the poster of the link is the owner of the site or not. Secondly, why would anyone posts links on subjects they know nothing about or are not interested in? If you are interested in a link you are posting doesnt that mean that you yourself are indeed posting a link that is not neutral since you favor it? Now you are telling me that Wikipedia is not perfect. Well maybe some of these "rules" arent either? I think its important to choose your battles, you have absolutely no interest in Astrology therefore I fail to see how this is even important to you. If my website is conflicting to something someone else has read, then I will talk with them about it but your lack of interest in this topic makes it quite futile to even discuss the validity of this because you are arguing with regards to something you dont even know or care about. You say you are neutral but the fact you call Astrology BS proves that point isnt true. If Wikipedia isnt perfect, then the rules arent either and therefore there is room to work around them. Antiquus 04:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, let me try to make this clearer, you must admit you have a conflict of interest (please do read what that is and all). You were honest to me and told me that you were the owner of the site, thats a good thing, and something that I thank you for. Now that we have that aside, rather then trying to come up with "ways around it" lets look at the current situation. You have links that you want to get into Wikipedia, as it does not seem like a simple reference without the link will do for you. So the best way to continue from here is for you to select one page and post on the its talk page, the various information. Some of the concerns that need to be addressed are as follows; is the an accurate "re-mastering" of the original document, is this by any chance a case of original research. Editors on the talk page of the article will be able to work on figuring this stuff out. If you need help with this, feel free to ask me, I'm willing to toss a few pointers you way. ;) —— Eagle 101  Need help? 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * (reply to Antiquus) Wikipedia may not be perfect, but the original research and verifiability guidelines are policy; they're a rule that is in widespread acceptance with everybody. And I am indeed neutral with respect to your link; I don't have any feelings towards or against it per se, just as an addition to Wikipedia. Veinor (talk to me) 16:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Aries (astrology)
I've removed the link to your site from the aforementioned article. This is blatant WP:SPAM, as the target page ( http://antiquus.prophp.org/Library.html ) is merely a page of banner ads. I've placed the page on my watchlist. Please do not re-add it.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. thadius856talk 19:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)