User talk:T54

Block and Explanation
I'll start by explaining the first block. I did not block you for your addition of innapropriate external links. You were blocked for legal threats. My action was endorsed by other administrators. Wikipedia has a very clear policy of immediately blocking anyone who threatens legal action. There's a fairly significant difference between threatening someone with a block from Wikipedia and threatening someone with civil action. If you wish to pursue such a course, you do it without our support, and certainly off of our site. Please note that you'd likely have to prosecute in the jurisdiction of the person you're threatening. T

This account was blocked for block evasion. According to WP:BLOCK, blocked users do not have the privilege of editing Wikipedia, whether that be from a separate account, computer terminal, or physical location. I'd suggest just posting any questions regarding your block on your talk page.

You really ought to read WP:EL. Although I don't particularly agree with accusing you of spamming, you were linking to a blog and a forum. Per #10 and #11 of WP:EL, blogs and forums cannot be linked. WP:SPAM does an excellent job finding and removing these links. As such, you weren't experiencing personal attacks...you were only experiencing the efforts of a committed Wikipedia user. Please respond on this page. Thanks. alphachimp 00:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Reply
OK -- no contest on the first Block. However, I did not attempt to evade the block. I had created a second account because my first account user name might have revealed some private information about me that I did not want to reveal in further discussions. I created a second user account T17, which I think-- due to a nice little head cold -- I forgot the password right away. So I started a third account -- T54 (as in Urlacher). This was probably happening as I was being blocked before I even knew I was being blocked. I went to lay down because I was feeling sick, and used another computer (in a bedroom) to attempt to contact you. That computer has a different IP address than the computer I had been on the previous hour. I wasn't trying to post anything (except to contact you) and I did not intend to contact "Milo" so functionally I was not evading the intent of the rule. Bottom line? Can you cut me a little slack off the block time. I promise I will behave.

One more thing ... I did not originate the link to the forum. I posted that out of concern for whoever posted that link (civility here) before I knew the policy. I did link to the blog.

I still think the deletions, from the Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) article, especially, are overzealous. Bottom line, I think I should eventually be allowed to link to Arlingtoncards.com (front page from the Arlington Heights, IL article and to one or two links regarding the high school archive section and the reunion and homecoming section from the Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) article. If you have any advice on how to eventually proceed or communicate with "Milo the Mindbender' or arbitrate I would appreciate that.

--T54 02:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)T54
 * OK. It seems pretty clear to me that you're not trying to disrupt Wikipedia and that you have good intentions. I'm removing the blocks, but please don't make any legal threats. They create an extremely hostile, and, quite frankly, a non-functional environment.
 * In terms of links, I'd suggest a thorough reading of WP:EL. From a purely cursory glance, it'd appear that arligntoncards.com would be ok to include, but I'm not sure about the forum and blog. I'd strongly suggest discussing the changes with Milo. I think he'd be a lot more amenable to discussion if no threats were made.


 * Just to be clear: you can't make any more legal threats (coincidentally, see Administrators%27_noticeboard). Thanks. alphachimp  07:27, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Alphachimp ... no more legal threats. --T54 14:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)T54

Arlingtoncards.com
I would like to suggest that you read WP:EL and then explain how this particular website qualifies for inclusion. Blogs and forums aren't welcome in most cases, and listing a commercial directory in a city's article seems dubious. Rklawton 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Naturally I followed my own advice and found the following. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.  In this case, if the city or its Chamber of Commerce had such a directory, that would be fine.  However, the commercial directory in question could be viewed either as spam or as having an asymmetric relationship to the subject.  Either of these conditions would disqualify it for inclusion.  Rklawton 01:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK Rklawtton, now at least there is a reasonable response. I am not sure yet that I agree with your conclusion, but thanks for offering some discussion.

I will repeat ... I did not add the forum. I'll yield to the blog inclusion because it is not a well-known blog. But it IS far from an "I just woke up and washed my dog" type of blog.

But I think there is some symmetry. Please see the following:

[Arlingtoncards.com/facts] [Arlington Tour]

--T54 02:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)T54


 * You would have symmetry if the city published this information rather than a 3rd party. Rklawton 02:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I disagree with the policy then ... I am not going to try to change the policy. I do think you are all NOT thinking outside the box and are over-reacting, and causing future readers to miss out. I have a lot of other good things happening right now, so the energy toward this discussion is probably about to end for me. My effort was good faith, but I was treated with prejudice like a spammer by other editors. I am far from a spammer. Thank you for your communication. Good luck to you.

--T54 03:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)T54


 * Consider that we deal with hundreds of editors like you on a weekly basis. From our perspective, once you've seen a few thousand cases of attempted commercial exploitation, they become pretty easy to spot.  I guess it's the repetition.  In some cases we'll call in other editors for a second, third, or more opinion.  As far as I can tell, editors representing a total of around 100,000 combined edits have reviewed this matter and it's pretty unambiguous to us.  As far as thinking out of the box goes, what other website that rates #12 or better in the world provides novice editors such as yourself this level of personal attention?  We're interested in your participation, but we're not interested in helping you promote your commercial enterprise.  Rklawton 05:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to "Milo H. Mindbender didn't even bother to respond." I feel that Rklawton and Satori Son have covered the issue sufficiently, I agree with what both of them have said. And I have to admit, some days I have limited time to edit WP and responding to complaints may not be something I get to right away. As far as "positive suggestions", I'd suggest focusing your energy here into building an encyclopedia. That's what it is, not a link directory. Many people want to link to sites that are either theirs or their favorites, there's no way we can include them all. I'd also suggest being more civil in your responses to other editors. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to Rklawton saying, "Consider that we deal with hundreds of editors like you on a weekly basis. From our perspective, once you've seen a few thousand cases of attempted commercial exploitation, they become pretty easy to spot"...

I was not commercially exploiting Wikipedia. Perhaps there was a misunderstanding, but the 'like you' tone is unnecessary from an editor that is part of a group that is supposed to promote community -- especially coming from a seasoned editor directed at a 'novice.' As far as I am concerned Wikipedia and the editors caused this problem by (1) not having a system in place that directs novice users to the guidelines regarding what is acceptable in an article, and (2) having editors simply erase links and making accusations of 'spammy links' which is offensive (especially when its being performed by some user with a weird user name like 'Milo the Mindbender' -- that name conjured up a first impression in my mind of some guy with no life that has nothing better to do but lurk and then erase other people's efforts). When the revision war started, it seemed more like a trap, than a friendly discussion. As a novice I didn't know I was being monitored by a seasoned editor. I thought I was being vandalized by a jack ass. And instead of inviting the novice to discussion, Milo dropped the violation bomb warning about revisions. This was followed by no opportunity for discussion as all of these editors basically stuck together and said 'its our way or the highway.' I am sure your intentions are to make WIkipedia a great online encyclopedia, unlike anything on earth, but I think you need to work on your public relations a little. I think your attitudes against commercialism are a little overzealous. I do have a sneaky suspicion that this kind of conflict is an ingenious part of the design of the WIkipedia process for ironing out articles and making a better encyclopedia. It seems a little passive aggressive and a little like a 'boys club' but I guess it is what it is. And to me the end product does seem pretty cool overall.

In response to Rklawton saying, "what other website that rates #12 or better in the world provides novice editors such as yourself this level of personal attention?

What other websites get the benefit of contributions of money and thousands or millions of contributors' efforts of producing articles without pay and without recognition while being fed some BS that novice editors such as ourselves are getting this 'level of personal attention?' ... or that we are trying to commercially exploit Wikipedia ...  or worse yet, that we are spammers. And that's the bottom line ... your trouble from me really started when some of your group called me a 'spammer.' You are wrong.

--T54 03:14, 16 February 2007 (UTC)T54