User talk:Docdownload

December 2009
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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. 7 11:38, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Additions of http://.docdownload.com.au
If you are affiliated with 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 or creating 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; and
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Code of ethics (corporate ethics)
Hello.

Thank you for your edits at Code of ethics (corporate ethics). However, there is a much longer and more comprehensive article on this subject at Business ethics so I've redirected your article there. Feel free to edit that article. andy (talk) 11:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 7 12:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Code of conduct. Favonian (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, A number of problems in my first attempt to clean up the Wikipedia dealing with "code of ethics" has lead to me immediately being seen as a spammer and a vandal so i need help, as my intention was not to be those things.

(1) VANDAL charges The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_code page was poorly written and failed to recognise three different levels of "ethical code". I have done a lot of work oiver the years in making those distictions clear. It was directly linked to a page that was just wrong (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct). I introduced three definitions "code of ethics", "code of conduct" and "code of practice" to the Ethical_code page. When you do that it becomes obvious that it is the "ethical code" page that is like a disambiguation page, giving you links to those three levels. I was trying to clean up the mess and did the wrong thing and i apologise. I was trying to move the information that was on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_conduct page (which is useful information) to the higher level page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_code thereby freeing up the Code_of_conduct page to talk about what "code of conduct" is really about, which is rules placed on the employee by the employer which he or she must follow in order to continue to be an employee (code of conduct), not about what an organization considers to be "right" and "wrong" (code of ethics) or about what a professional body requires of its members for them to operate correctly to continue to be a member of the professional body (code of practice). I understand now that you can't just go ahead and "move" things because it requires deletion and you are then seen as a vandal. But I am still unclear how I get that stuff removed from "Code of conduct". How do I identify who I need to negotiate with to make a change like that? "Code of conduct" should not be a disambiguation page. It should speak directly about the relationship between the employer and the employee. The fact that lots of Internet sites get it wrong and misuse the term should not allow them to cloud the issue and muddy the waters. Otherwise, we are the mercy of all the lowest common denominators, and that is not what wikipedia wants or needs. It also highlights that to have "code of ethics" as a disambiguation page and only allowing one to discuss "business ethics" is also limiting in its outlook and misleading to the reader. "Code of ethics" is a lot more than business ethics. Code of ethics is the coming to terms with a moral belief structure and writing down a code that will ensure that when decisions are made they are made with those moral principles in mind. I am not trying to destroy anything. I am trying to add value and clarity to ideas that are often bundled together and therefore lack that clarity. But I am happy to leave it up to wikipedia to sort out the mess. (2) SPAM charges As I said, I have done work in making definitions clear and precise and my website is well regarded for this. I tried to introduce those definitions into the debate. I gave myself credit for those definitions in a reference that showed the latest publication of those definitions in 2007 on my website. This was immediately seen as SPAM and deleted. I have no problem with this. If wikipedia don't want those definitions I am happy to delete them and I have done that. But it seems naive and arbitray to say that if they are published in a book they have a right to a reference but if they are published on a website they can't. All academic Styles promoted across the world such as APA Style Australian (AGPS) Style CBE Style Chicago (Humanities) Style Chicago (Scientific) Style Harvard Style IDRC Style MLA Style Vancouver Style give clear indication that that should not be the case. The alternative is that i include my own definitions on wipipedia without reference to where they come from and then from that moment on they are owned by wikipedia and the publishing of my own material on my website is seen as copyright restricted and i need to quote wikipedia! If i dont do that I am in breach of copyright and anybody reading both pages on the Internet will immediatly assume that i have borrowed those definitions from wikipedia without reference and will rightfully accuse me of fraud. Is that really what you are trying to achieve? That seems like nonsense to me and it ensures that i cannot properly deal with the issues on wikipedia's behalf without endangering my own development. This seems to restrict wikipedia from ever becoming the encyclopedia that it says it wants to become. An answer to this question would be appreciated.

The second SPAM violation occurred when I made an external link to my well researched Ethics Dictionary Online at http://www.docdownload.com.au/document/content.psp?group=corporate,25577,48908&content=84065. This was immediately seen as SPAM and deleted. The other external link on the same page which led to me to assume that mine would be quite acceptable http://ethics.iit.edu/index1.php/Programs/Codes%20of%20Ethicscoe.html is not regarded as SPAM. I cannot see the reason for this. Is it because of the source or the content. This needs to be properly explained. If it is source, it seems to be implying that only organizations that promote themselves as non-profit can be referred to in an external link, regardless of content, because both sites have members and both sites sell things. Assuming that non-profit organizations are a useful link and others are not is your prerogative and i have no problem with that but why not just come out and say that? rather than allowing me to mess up my relationship with you by trying to give wikipedia a link to one of the best dictionary pages on the Internet? If it is content, then i need to know what the problem is. The dictionary is well researched, it has links to the UN and it breaks new ground, it is innovative and is way ahead of anything else that i can find. If you have problem with the content, then i need to know what that is so that i can clean it up and resubmit. Just to call it SPAM is not good enough.

Kind regards Docdownload Docdownload (talk) 23:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I will reply to the SPAM issue as I am the one who has tagged and removed the references to your own commercial site. Please note that there were 4 links to 4 different pages, not 2 as you mention above.   The main relevant policies are WP:EL and WP:SPAM - please clearly read through those.  Since you were trying to cite your website as a source you should also read through WP:RS and since you were citing research that you yourself wrote on your site you should also read WP:SELFPUB.  The other .edu links are valid references and they are not trying to get people to attend their school and they don't charge for their info.  Your site provides little free content, is not "reliable" as defined above, and attempts to get users to buy templates for the types of documents you are talking about.  Lastly, as I was researching your questions I see that in at least one version you have directly copied text from here which is a violation of WP:COPYVIO even if it is your text (as it appears to be).  There is a process that you can follow for donating copyrighted materials, but even still that doesn't fix the other problems mentioned above.   I am sorry if this sounds like I am coming on too strong, but if it is not clear from the issues listed above this type of activity is not permitted here.   Regards.   7  23:25, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for your quick reply. I will read through the policies you offer and see if i can generate a basis for taking part as i have a high regard for wikipedia and hope for it to have a big role in the future. Kind regards Docdownload Docdownload (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * In adition to the content advice user 7 has given, You should change your username at Changing username. Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address (docdownload.com.au) are not allowed and violates our our username policy. Eventually this account will be disabled. see Inappropriate usernames.
 * At this point it it's best to stay away from linking to the site which you are directly related. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
 * SPAM
 * Reference spamming
 * External links policy
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * Law Of Unintended Consequences
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting a site
 * Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)