User talk:Olekp


 * }

Your edits
That site is not a reliable source, and it seems you are spamming this site. Please stop, and discuss further edits first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop censoring me, I have the right to add links to pictures that I made as refs. You have no right deleting my contributions and wth would I want to spam for? Its a no follow site -_- Just take your time and check the site.. it's reliable and good. --Olekp (talk) 10:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As I asked, discuss. Note that there is already an account blocked for spamming this site.  Please start discussing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will, but that still doesn't give you the right to delete all my backlinks to MY copyrighted content. I'll start discussing and use less backlingks, but don't delete these ones. Please stop, and discuss further edits first.

As for that account, it was not me. It could have been someone else trying to promote it but I don't see the point in doing so on wiki as all links are nofolow hence, useless. All I want mine up for is to get the vredit that I deserve for the work that I put inot the articles from whom I've put info on wiki. --Olekp (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "MY copyrighted content", please read WP:OWN, and WP:COPYRIGHT. Still, the references you are adding are to a forum, and hence, they are NOT reliable sources.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You saying that proves that you did not even check the links and therefore your argument is invalid. You can't just assume that a site is invalid if you don't know it, so stop now and go do something productive. --Olekp (talk) 10:51, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed the link, it is a forum, plain and simple. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:54, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I stand slightly corrected, all but one of the links are to the forums. The forum links are not suitable as reference.  The references to the encyclopedia itself may be suitable, when properly attributing the content (note, that on the image a link to the source is necessary).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

So you won't delete the ones of the encyclopaedia and main page articles? I will post direct links to the pics and the articles and not to the forums. Would that do? --Olekp (talk) 11:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * To the main site will not do either, they should be to the information in the encyclopedia, I can't imagine that the mainpage of the site is attributing the image. As WP:V states it "...and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.", the http://www.parascientifica.com 's mainpage does not support the material clearly ...  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yea that's what I meant, let me get a go at it and I'll post you some links in a sec. Tell me if they are good. --Olekp (talk) 12:18, 15 July 2010 (UTC) Here we go: Pics: http://www.parascientifica.com/img.php?name=WaterAllergy.png http://www.parascientifica.com/img.php?name=Pressureurticaria.JPG http://www.parascientifica.com/img.php?name=Dermatography.JPG

and the life as we know it one: http://www.parascientifica.com/index.php?t=5094

You already saw the rat king. I'll check the rest when I'm back got to do something now. --Olekp (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't have articles online that you can link to (the articles that contain these images)? That might be even better  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

They don't have corresponding articles as I just have the conditions and not really a desire to write articles about it. Anyway I looked up the other links and I'd got these articles, which I agree look more reliable than a forum http://www.parascientifica.com/index.php?t=5688 http://www.parascientifica.com/index.php?t=5352 http://www.parascientifica.com/index.php?t=5713 I also tried to add a pic to the last one but they deleted it, because that was not mine.

So do u agree I put the links back with these non forum-articles?--Olekp (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the Dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. I can e-mail you the login information if you like? There is still a lot of potential for many new articles and redirects. Just let me know. ---kilbad (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well I could try but my knowledge of it is very limited =/ What exactly would you like me to do? --Olekp (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * If interested, I can e-mail you the login information for the online edition of "Dermatology," by Dr. Bolognia, if you like? (see WP:DERM:MA).  Then pick a letter, and make sure we have a stub on every disease/condition found in Bolognia.  Does that make sense? ---kilbad (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked
You have been blocked indefinitely for disruption. (blocked by –MuZemike 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

You may contest this block by adding the text below, but please read our guide to appealing blocks first.

Please read the section right above the "save page" button:

"You irrevocably agree to release your contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. See the Terms of Use for details."

You agreed to release said contributions when you hit the "save page", and you cannot revoke them, hence why I blocked you. –MuZemike 17:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. Exactly... but they took my links and blocked the site without any warning or reason (read the page). If my site is spam then the content is spam, you can't deny that. So if you delete the link, you delete the content and not just the link. So I helped the guy who forgot to delete the content.. --Olekp (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I just read that I have to address you and appeal for my block to be lifted. Well I think that you got all the info, I promise not to revoke anything if the source is not randomly deleted. I am a reasonable person if I am addressed and already had one discussion related to it. Someone told me that forum links are not reliable as a source and I agreed and took all those links down. He also agreed and didn't go into the matter anymore.

Then some other guy came out of the blue and deleted all my links and blacklisted my site without contacting me or giving me any kind of warning.. That kinda made me crack, and I wanted to just take my stuff and go. But then you came along and pointed out that I can't do that, although you also pointed out that I am entitled to a backlink.

So please, read it over and check if i am telling the truth and unban me and my site. I really like contributing on subjects that I have any knowledge of but the source has to be there, for both my and the users sake.


 * So, what I am gathering is that this is about references in which you own the copyright. Because your link is not allowed, the material being referenced should also go since there is no way to reliably source it. Is that right? –MuZemike 19:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I understood it. I didn't agree with it but thats what I got from it. --Olekp (talk) 19:29, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I've went ahead and unblocked you as it looks like we both understand what is going on. On the surface, it looked like you were adding in stuff and then revoking while claiming your own copyright. After talking to User:Beetstra and looking more closely, it doesn't look like that was the case. –MuZemike 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its great to hear that. Sorry for my behaviour but I just kinda lost it. Anyway do you think that you could unblock the site if I gave you some examples of the articles that I've used as a source and which I think are wrongly noted as spam? --Olekp (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Olekp, I think there is a misunderstanding here. You have provided those images, and, on the image description, there should indeed be a backlink to the content.  Note, that everything that you provide here is from then released under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license.
 * When you use the image, then there is no need for a backlink with every use of that image, as you are there linking to a free image. However, if there is a statement with it, then that statement (probably) needs a reference, preferably to a reliable source, which backs up the information.  If it is just a caption, which links it more clearly to a properly referenced statement in the text, then it likely does not need a reference.  That should not be a reference to the image, that should not be a backlink to the image to show that it is yours, it should be attributing the information (see WP:Verifyability).  The only link that did that, and that is the one I re-inserted, is the one on Rat king, the other were to forum pages, which are not reliable sources, and most of which did not even attribute the caption you gave.  I asked you to find the proper articles in the encyclopedia part of the site you are linking to, but you said that they were not there, and I think I did sound a bit unconvinced when you wanted to link to the image on the server itself.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

^This is User:Beetstra right? So I can only add a backlink if I add information to an article. But does this for example also apply to the new television technology that I posted "Laser Phosphor Display" I mean this should have a source right and if its a non-forum article then it is OK, or am I mistaken? The pictures I indeed should not have linked to the server or added sources where the pic was posted but just added a name, but what I really don't get is why they got deleted(am I missing some rule here?)

I never really was good with licences and giant rulebooks so sorry if I did misbehave. --Olekp (talk) 07:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It was me. Sorry.
 * It is not a 'backlink', it should be a reference. If you add information, then one should be able to see if the information is 'true' (a better term is: 'verifiable').  Some 'truths' are universal, but a lot of them need the verification.  That is why we need references.  Forums, blogs, &c., are generally failing reliability (anyone can write anything there, though there are exceptions).  Articles written by authorities, peer reviewed publications, generally are (see the reliable sources guideline).
 * Images are deleted for a variety of reasons, the images have to be totally free, or copyrights have to be properly transferred. You say you own the copyright on the images, which means that that has to be properly transferred if you transfer them to Wikipedia, otherwise, even if you uploaded them yourself, Wikipedia would be hosting them in violation of copyright.  That is probably why the images got deleted.  I think this is one of the deleted images, you see that EugeneZelenko deleted it, please ask him what exactly you should do there.
 * Don't worry, we are all learning here, and some who are here for a long time know a bit more about the local customs (and I am even learning, and there are things I do not know, e.g. about the images I don't know too much!). I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yea I meant reference/source but called it backlink. But how does it work with the stuff I put on? For example this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand_transplantation#History The bottom one "On June 22, 2010, a Polish soldier received two new hands from a female donor, after losing them three years earlier while saving a young recruit from a bomb." should have a reference right? Otherwise it could be just made up. So I linked it to this: http://www.parascientifica.com/index.php?t=5688 (First to the forum but we had a discussion about that) What I'm trying to say, there should be a source/reference to stuff like this right?


 * Indeed, that is it! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

But somehow my site is blocked, do you know where I could ask this to get unblocked? --Olekp (talk) 13:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)


 * But it isn't .. you just linked it in this discussion .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:34, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I get this when I try to post it anywhere else: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

* To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save. * If you feel the link is needed, you can: o Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you). o Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia.

The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://www.parascientifica.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Return to Rat king (folklore)--Olekp (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Bump --Olekp (talk) 07:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)