User talk:Delarge1818

October 2014
Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Pregnancy fetishism because it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I fail to understand why the link is inappropriate. The website is adult-oriented -- should a disclaimer be included? For someone interested in gaining an understanding of pregnancy fetishism from the perspective of a pregnancy fetishist, where should one turn? Can you point to a superior resource? Delarge1818 (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pregnancy fetishism with this edit. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links may include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:29, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

It's quite inappropriate to assume that the addition of the link is ill-intentioned. I'm a member, as I disclosed on the TALK PAGE. This is something you'd know if you bothered to visit and contribute to MY discussion. The link is not intended to serve as a promotion and I gain nothing in restoring it. I'm genuinely interested in this community and the topic itself. Delarge1818 (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pregnancy fetishism with this edit. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Claiming I'm spamming or adding a link for advertising purposes doesn't make it so -- the burden rests with you. Visit the talk page of the article and discuss the matter there. The link stays.

This is your last warning; the next time you harm Wikipedia, as you did at Pregnancy fetishism with this edit, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided a reason as to why the website should be excluded beyond claiming, ipso facto, the inclusion of the link constitutes "advertising" and "spamming". Please elaborate on the talk page or here. If you're intent on reversing my edits, I expect more than an empty explanation Delarge1818 (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would blacklisting the site matter if you constantly delete links to it? The website is related to the topic of the article and is the most extensive resource on the topic, from the fetishist's perspective, of which I'm aware. If you visited the talk page, you'd know that I am indeed a member however I have no stake in the site. Delarge1818 (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Because I fail to see how the link contributes to the article at all. If you want it readded since you are apparently a member of the site, it's best that you do it via proxy by using the requested edit template.
 * And actually, blacklisting will result in bots removing the edit. So it'll actually get removed even more quickly. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

This is tripe. I've just told you that I'm NOT RESTORING THE LINK BY VIRTUE OF BEING A MEMBER. Are you not able to comprehend a member of a fetish site having a natural interest in a Wikipedia article on that subject? You claim to not see the value in the link -- that's another empty excuse. You're abusing your privileges. Elaborate or I'll escalate this matter. Delarge1818 (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

How is this more valuable than the link I added?

http://sexuality.about.com/od/sexualpositions/a/pregnantsexposi.htm
 * Of course, I'd understand the concept of you having an interest in fetishes. I just find it odd that you would insist on adding links to a website that you're a member of. Whether or not you consciously recognize it, you do have a conflict of interest. If you wish to escalate things, be my guest.
 * And that link should probably be removed. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 04:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Now you're accusing me of having a conflict of interest because I've been honest and disclosed my affiliation with the website? Good Christ. Which is it? Is the link of no value, am I a spammer, or do you simply feel the need to insert yourself in matters of which you're ignorant? Both links should be restored. Delarge1818 (talk) 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

You're appallingly incompetent and this page does a good job of reflecting that. Hopefully others will see your blatant inconsistency and bias. You are simply biased against me and the website to which I've linked. Delarge1818 (talk) 05:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Third party?
If you insist on not engaging me or the article directly, you have no business editing the article. I'm going to restore both links unless you can produce something resembling an argument. Offensive and baseless claims of "bias" and "spamming" do not count as legitimate reasons -- I've made a POINT of disclosing my membership in the interest of remaining as honest and transparent as possible. You've decided to attempt to use that against me. Why would a spammer announce such a relationship? I was acting in good faith, and you're being very silly and petty.

Alternatively, if you'd like, we can involve another party in the discussion.

User:Redblueball is who I have in mind. Delarge1818 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Does - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12466527/ - meet your standard? It's of less substance than the thread to which I linked. If you insist on enforcing this nebulous, biased and excessive standard, I'll help out until you start conversing. Delarge1818 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Link
If you choose to abuse Wikipedia's blacklist function for the purpose of avoiding discussion and suppressing a link you simply dislike, as evidenced by your inconsistent claims, I will ensure that you are penalized. I have a primary account with an excellent reputation and I'm friendly with a couple of administrators who'll lend help if needed. Having said that, I would prefer not to have my chief account associated with this content -- that's why I initially dealt with this article anonymously, and today, created this secondary account. This constitutes "good reason" for multiple accounts. If necessary though, I will use my principal account to move you out of the way. Also, I would ask that you drop the pretense of being an administrator; you're clearly unfit for such a task and shirk discussing matters and instead rely on threats, intimidation and accusations of spamming. You have until tomorrow to respond, after which point the link will be restored and a proper, thoughtful discussion will commence if you choose to participate.

You've made it clear that, for your purposes, instead of being honest and forthright, I should have concealed the fact that I'm a member (hence my knowledge of the thread). You actually recommended sock-puppetry via a proxy and intimated "unconscious bias" on my part. Why in God's name would a spammer, something of which you've accused me without good reason, announce his affiliation with the site he's supposedly spamming? How long have you been on the internet? What would a spammer stand to gain by volunteering his relationship with the site he's spamming on a platform like this? If you attempt to behave in a heavy-handed manner and push for a blacklisting, you'll be laughed at once administrators review what happened.

Discuss matters like an adult, not a petulant little girl. Delarge1818 (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been on the internet since I was a kid hanging out on the then-trendy AOL kids-only area.
 * You'd be surprised on how many people will, on one hand, kinda-sorta acknowledge that they have a conflict of interest, but will never explicitly state it, ever. "Oh yes, my boss has asked me to write an article about the company I work for. What? Me? Conflict of interest? No way." Also, I've never seen someone so persistent at adding a link. Seriously, I've never seen this before.
 * I also have a decent reputation as a vandal/spam fighter, and to get any admin action that gets me "out of the way" to stick would probably require community consensus.
 * I never mean to have a "pretense of being an administrator". I simply have been editing a long time, ever since I was an immature 17-19 year old who was prone to half hearted attempts at WP:CLEANSTART. Because of this, I am frequently mistaken for an admin.
 * I'd find it easier if you wrote in shorter paragraphs (for some reason, probably due to the way my ataxic cerebral palsy slightly affects my eyes, they tend to skip about longer paragraphs that makes it hard to read them) and chose one place--here, or the article talk page--to have a discussion.
 * It's not an issue that I simply dislike this link. I really do have concerns over your connection to this community. To reply to a question you asked on the talk page, a subscriber to a newspaper probably doesn't have near the connection that you have, so that analogy is moot. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 09:17, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, I appreciate it. Your main objection at this stage isn't the content of the page, which arguably surpasses every link within this article and the article itself in terms of insight, but a theoretical conflict of interest. It also seems that you've taken my desire to include a link as a sign of having a vested interest, which is fallacious.

I'm adamant about including this link because, first and foremost, I believe it's of value to people investigating pregnancy fetishism, which is of personal interest. It provides a raw overview of the nature of this preference from "fetishists" themselves. Secondly, I'm interested in helping people, particularly females, understand this preference and place it into context. Though I'm not optimistic this can be done, I would like to reduce the degree to which a fondness of pregnancy is viewed as odd, incomprehensible or disgusting. Finally, I feel slighted by the charges you've levied against me, especially that of spamming, when I've acted entirely in good faith.

The parallel between my being a member of the linked site versus a subscriber to the WP is far from being moot. On the contrary, the site is largely anonymous and most members, including myself, never post. I view content and occasionally rate threads and "like" posts. For the sake of not being personally associated with a "freak" fetish community, I have no connections with anyone on the site. As mentioned above, I've never posted so much as a picture. Every measure has been taken to insulate my personal identity from my profile on that website -- a profile which wouldn't exist if having a user account wasn't a requirement for viewing content. These fetish-type sites are content-driven with community aspects, not community-driven. I don't network on fetish websites.

These days, a young consumer of news is highly connected and networks considerably, ranging from following journalists and outlets on Twitter, Retweeting posts, commenting on news articles and authoring blogs/opinion pieces. I'd go further in claiming that the average Wikipedia contributor is probably more enmeshed in the news websites (to which he routinely links) than the average consumers of news. He's certainly more connected to his preferred news sources than I am to this fetish website. Again, the parallel holds to this extent. Where it begins to fall apart is NYT/WP subscribers who overlap with educated Wikipedia contributors; this group has a greater stake than I do in an anonymous/pseudonymous site. I have no vested interest in drawing attention to a pregnancy fetish thread and I gain nothing (nor does the site, arguably) by publishing a link. Consistent with your tendency of forming baseless assumptions, you mistake me for being ignorant regarding SE indexing and Wikipedia's policy of "nofollow". I'm aware this is done to prevent abuse and to mitigate a poor inbound/outbound link ratio for ranking purposes.

I'll repeat what I've said already: I have acted entirely in good faith. The point in disclosing my membership was to be forthright. I could easily have not volunteered this information, but instead I opened myself to criticism. In sharing my relationship with the site, which is tantamount to a subscriber of the NY Times sharing his, I also hope to increase my credibility as a person who has knowledge of this preference and what constitutes a useful source of information. It's offensive to question a person's motives and frame his effort for transparency in service of dubious accusations.

I would appreciate an agreement, if only temporary, to include the link. Upon reviewing the content you'll find that it sheds light on a cross-section -- probably a fairly representative one -- of the characteristics of this fetish group. The "Open Discussion" sub-forum is useful too. I'd be happy to address any questions or concerns you might have. I would like to restore the link later today or tomorrow. Delarge1818 (talk) 11:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and post it; however, realize that I, too, acted in good faith. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a &#123;&#123;Talkback&#125;&#125; message on my talk page. @ 11:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)