User talk:JerFT

Continuing from User talk:66.166.91.226

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all. Femto 16:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Requesting an Unblock
Femto,

This is not in the spirit of Wiki.

FluTrackers provided general information on pandemic influenza.

We are not promoting a product or obtaining any money for the work that is done at FluTrackers.

What is your problem with FluTrackers?

JerFT 16:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Jeremy


 * May I please type out the block notice first before you complain about it?


 * [[Image:Stop_hand.svg|30px|left]] You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links.  Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions.  If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text.


 * It's an inappropriate link to a forum per WP:EL and you spammed it to several pages. I have pointed you to the appropriate guidelines. You knew that you should not re-add your links. You're obviously not interested in helping to remove other inappropriate links, only in adding yours. What else do you expect? Femto 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore
Those guidelines also say that blogs should be avoided to be linked as well unless they are referenced by an authoritative source.

Well, FluTrackers is referenced by an authoritative source. It has been referenced by the New York Times, and Indian Pedatric Medical Journals for information regarding infectious diseases.

It is used by many government organizations on a daily basis to get the latest information regarding pandemic influenza from around the world.

Authoritative Sources
This first source is from the New York Times:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=990CE0D6143EF93BA2575BC0A9609C8B63&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This second source is from an Indian Pedatric Journal: http://www.indianpediatrics.net/nov2006/nov-1015.htm

If you notice, on the Indian Pediatric Journal, FluTrackers is listed as a source of information, so is the CDC, ECDC and wouldn't you know it, Wikipedia.


 * It does not follow from there that several Wikipedia articles must link to you. You can try to convince other editors on the appropriate article talk pages why adding the site would be encyclopedically necessary and in compliance with WP:EL - after your block for repeatedly adding those links against all warnings expires. Do not evade the block from another IP address. Femto 17:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Femto,

Fine. When I am unblocked I will link it to 1 Wikipedia article.

Avian Flu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerFT (talk • contribs).


 * This is not how it works, you don't bargain over the number of links. Without consensus it remains linkspam and will get removed as before (and not only by me, I might add, as these links were considered inappropriate by at least two other people). Femto 19:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, as far as I am aware there was only one person who originally objected to the link. That was WAS 4.250. That user was the one who removed FluTrackers from the links. I have explained my position in the talk section of Avian Flu. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerFT (talk • contribs).


 * If you remove all the copyright violations from the site AND only place a link to the site one place, I won't remove it - but others might. WAS 4.250 19:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I find this very interesting.

Femto says, "This is not how it works, you don't bargain over the number of links."

Than WAS 4.250 responds by saying "If you remove all the copyright violations from the site AND only place a link to the site one place"

So I guess there is bargaining for links.

It is clearly obvious that there exists some issue for you two editors in regards to allowing FluTrackers to be a link in Wikipedia.

What that issue is? I have no idea.

I guess I have to take this to arbitration since neither of you can give me a consistent response. And by the way, I didn't realize you were both legal experts, judge, jury and executioner. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JerFT (talk • contribs).


 * There's gonna exist some issue if you continue to misquote other people and twist their words. Not only contains it an unlikely condition and is obviously meant rhetorically, the quote continues "I won't remove it - but others might." There's still no bargaining with me. It will suffice that there is no community consensus for adding these links. No matter how

much noise you make about it. Femto 15:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Another online source for researching news regarding the impact of pandemic flu can be found at the Avian Flu Talk discussion forum.