User talk:Chexed

Revelry
Hello! Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so I have deleted your dictdef article. If you want to add dictionary definitions, Wiktionary is the place to start. Regards,  (aeropagitica)   07:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Addition of http://.chexed.com
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest. --Hu12 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

In response to Hu12 from Chexed I think you have removed two pieces of two different articles because they link to my web site. I'm not sure if you're familiar with this information, but it's quite common that many wikipedians (not all) often steal fact based information when citations are not needed to prove accuracy (e.g. the list of video hosts). Keeping a link to my fact based page ensures that my content will not be stolen. Where do you think wikipedians get their unreferenced fact based information? They just "know" it? When a list of video hosts the size of mine on magically appears, unreferenced you wonder where it comes from. lol.

The other page you removed. I made a poll specifically to help wikipedians out independent from wikipedia so that not only wikipedians can take part in, but even people who don't visit wikipedia. Why should that type of thing just sit until someone finds it, then no wikipedians had a chance, and it would likely be referenced down the line. How is that fair to keep that information from everyone? I didn't know it was possible to have such a poll on wikipedia anyway.

The reason I submit links to my own work is because I know my own work "like the back of my hand" and I make sure my work is of the highest quality when I submit any part of it to wikipedia. Doesn't it make more sense to link to that which you trust most? I spent two days making that list of web hosts and that it was accurate.

That video hosting service article basically only destroyed itself linking to video sharing article. I tried to give that article more substance than it had. It's undoubtedly an under-written article, and when I added something to it that no one else has, you took it away. Why not just delete that article and make it link directly to video sharing?

I feel like what you've done is an attack on me personally and my credibility. Check my track record, look at my website, and don't just stereotype, generalize and discriminate me because I have a website. Before you delete someones article, see where it links to and if it is actually relevant, how relevant, and if it truly adds to the article. When someone goes to "video hosts," it seems to me at least the slightest bit logical that there may be a reference of a "list of video hosts." You should know better than I do that eventually there will be a "list of video hosts" somewhere on wikipedia. Someone can't give a reference for where they found each individual link, yet they can't copy the entire article legally so they wont link back to it or people will find out, so they'll just copy it and say they just "know." That article is a stub right now and you're helping keep it that way. Barely anyone else has even been interested in that page, so how is it a "conflict of interest" when no one else is interested? If Jesus Christ spoke on Earth right now and was asked to clear up some things about him on Wikipedia, he may say "sorry, the wikipedians have forbidden referring to ones own works, only work by independent third parties is trustworthy." That article I linked to had more substance than the article it was linked to from.

I understand your point, that conflicts of interest do arise, but guidelines are just that, guidelines. They are the same in the law in the respect that they are an attempt to establish what is right and wrong, to generalize, so that when the human judge intervenes, he may investigate. It is an unfortunate event when a judge becomes tired of investigation and accepts that he is there to uphold the law and not to make sure that the law is right.

I think wikipedians should consider giving the authors of content a chance to establish authorship before it is stolen. I hope that all things work out for all of us.


 * http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=2776&pid=12697&st=0&#entry12697
 * http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3014807.htm
 * http://encyc.org/ReasonsNotToContributeToWikipedia
 * http://neosmart.net/blog/2007/wikipedia-steals-link-juice/

Can my opinion be censored on my own user talk page?

If I'm wrong, sorry for trying to add to wikipedia in a way that gave credit to the author and sorry for writing about something that I write about at other places too.

Oh well, I guess wikipedia doesn't matter much anymore anyway.

Speedy deletion of VuMe
A tag has been placed on VuMe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  KJS 77  02:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

April 2020
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI JS signature icon LTR.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. 331dot (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)