User talk:Greg Harmaan

Sockpuppetry and self-promotion
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, 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. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

=NOT SPAM= Seeking Alpha Seeking Alpha is the premier website for actionable stock market opinion and analysis, and vibrant, intelligent finance discussion. We handpick articles from the world's top market blogs, money managers, financial experts and investment newsletters - publishing approximately 250 articles daily. Seeking Alpha gives a voice to over 5,000 contributors, providing access to the nation's most savvy and inquisitive investors. Our site is the only free, online source for over 1,500 public companies' quarterly earnings call transcripts, including the S&P 500. Seeking Alpha was named the Most Informative Website by Kiplinger's Magazine and has received Forbes' 'Best of the Web' Award.

Self-promotion
If you're published, you should be able to add material that you are an expert at. What if I was Albert Einstein, would you ask Einstein not to publish and reference his own work on the theory or relativity? Here I'm writing on a subject that I have mastered and you delete my work and reference. Does anyone not see the irony here?
 * You're honestly comparing yourself to Albert Einstein? Being a contributor to SeekingAlpha isn't much different than being a contributor to Examiner or Scribd. Yes, the publishers don't accept contributions from everyone, but opinion pieces from that publication will rarely if ever meet our WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm not comparing myself to Albert Einstein, I'm simply laying out an example. "Being a contributor to SeekingAlpha isn't much different than being a contributor to Examiner or Scribd" This is true. However, the WSJ does not allow information to be published on Wiki. You have to ask for permission and rarely do they grant information to outside sources, including Wiki. Most of the material is hijacked by individuals "editors" from Wiki. I clearly demonstrated that today, when I added information from the Brookings Inst. and referenced them. I didn't call the Brooking Inst. and ask if I could "borrow" there information on tax policy. Not one person questioned my material. --or-- if it was self-promotion! It seems like this is personal. > Jamie < Talk
 * Occasionally the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater given the day-to-day self-promotion/spamming I deal with. If you want to reference the WSJ or Brookings, feel free.  Avoid referencing what amounts to your blog posts on a popular financial site. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 03:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

=NOT JUST A BLOG=

Yes Seeking Alpha has blogs, and they have published articles!!!
No permission = ILLEGAL
 * I'm surprised a scholar of your caliber would want to be associated with such a project in that case. Either way, add promotional links to yourself once more and both of your accounts will be blocked indefinitely. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

People write and publish to earn a living. It is the wiki "editors" that steal what's not yours and distribute the material without permission.

Well if you want to continue publishing works of others and earn a revenue stream (contributions) under the guase of a "non-profit", your employeer Wikipedia will be sued.

=U.C.C.=

♦Invasion; Commercial Appropriation
a.) Unauthorized use of material, picture, video b.) Used for defendats (Wikipedia) commerical advantage.

• i.e. utilizing Search Engine Optimizaton SEO to garnish "contributions" with material the defendant is without permission to distribute.

♦Theft
-- Wikiepeida has no defense, other than implying that they are a "non-profit", yet they earn over 10 million in annual contributions every year for material they don't even own.

Legal threats
You have been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your . Vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

When and where after your first warning?

You banned me for a comment? On my user talk page?? this is laughable

I think we need a judge to decide who's right here.

Legal threats???
I'm citing Tort Law

Just as you cite your Wiki policy threats!

=Who is right >> The U.C.C or Wiki?=

If the foundation does not make a policy change regarding authors/bloggers ect. own work published on wiki, than a court will have to inforce the change.

James I think this discussion is way over head I think we should take this to the magistrate.