User talk:Vaseghi

Guidelines
Please indicate which WP guideline asserts that "it is common that a list of "Editions in Print" is added to books' presentation". Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:20, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

De facto it is not against any of the wikipedia guidelines and psotively in the full accordance with all guidelines for providing accurate encyclopedical information on wikipedia. See for instance (example of article): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_Concerning_the_Two_Chief_World_Systems

and hundreds of other examples are available if you search through wikipedia for "Editions in Print".

It makes sense to keep record of these editions as it makes also sense to keep record on other information on the books.


 * I see blatant advertising in that article - Folio Society editions are commercially available. Just because overworked WP editors have not got round to removing such violations does not mean that it has official sanction. Take a look at WP:LINKSPAM and especially in this case WP:OTHERSPAM. And learn, in future, that you should sign your messages with four ~s. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I dont find a precise location in WP:LINKSPAM or WP:OTHERSPAM that refers to this. Most I read is about explicit "links". Or potential for search optimisation. Please learn to make your reference in an answer precise. I am not insisting in having those information, but as a researcher find it a lack if not available. I think rather that you feel touched and emotionally uncertain on the issue, that is perhaps why you dont point out the exact construct of your reference factually based. A blatant advert is not obvious. However if the Print Editions section should be removed, then as a good editor you should remove it from all books cross wiki and not on only few. Learn to be consistent. I guess,other editors are not overworked but diligent and competent. Vaseghi (talk) 15:49, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I suggest under the same aspect you may remove parts of the Bibliography on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-DadaVaseghi (talk) 16:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A bibliography of works consulted while researching an article is different from advertising a commercially available work and creating a special section for it. Reflections on my diligence and competence transgress yet more WP guidelines, by the way. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 22:30, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I can not agree with regard to the "hyperlinks" set on bibliographies such as found in the example I demonstrated above. That is commercial spamming and violation. One can not distinguish biased becasue one might be personally, intellectually involved or commercially dependent upon a certain article. Learn to remain unbiased please. Biased decisions transgresses yet more the WP guidelines. The hyperlink is unnecessary and redirects immediately to a commercial advert of the product on google books, which functions as a Look Inside option and search engine optimizer for that product/book. Hyperlinks of this type are exactly what WP:LINKSPAM and WP:OTHERSPAM address. The ==Editions in Print== however doesnt contain any commercial value, particulalry because they dont hyperlink or associate any commercial KPIs (technical or non-technical). Since I am definitly NOT an expert myself into this, I have advised today and passed the case to our law department and the team that works with wiki. There will be further a call for action with other publishers liaised with us. I suppose that the consequence of your editorial action - what I appreciate - and the distinguished handling of the two cases, will be that the publishers' community connected to us will call their associates/empoyees to actively recharge the ==Editions in Print== on all books downstream. That will result in an institutionalisation and legal anchoring of the matter. So far my suggestion was fair that you may escalate early the case and remove the sections from all entries for books on wiki, in case you want to insist on your standpoint. I shall exit the talk at this point. Thanks for kind help, making ==Editions in Print== established, formally and rigidly. This seems to take now its sound progress thanks you and of course our lawyers.Vaseghi (talk) 11:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your message seems to indicate that you are linked to commercial interests. That is a sensitive point on WP. So too is threat of WP:LEGAL action. In addition there is one more guideline that you seem to have overlooked and better point out to your legal department: WP:BOOKSPAM. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016
Contrary to what you say, your editing does seem to be aimed at drawing to the attention of readers the publications of a company, with the view of making it more likely that those readers will then buy those publications: in short, that you are editing for promotion. That is contrary to Wikipedia policy. It also seems to be implied by what you have written that you are professionally involved with a business on behalf of which you are editing without having declared that you have a paid interest: if so, that is not only contrary to Wikipedia policy, but a violation of the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use, and therefore illegal. Either of those would be sufficient grounds for being blocked from editing, if you persisted after warnings. However, there is a more serious and immediate problem. Although your comments above are very confused and unclear, making it difficult to know exactly what you are trying to convey, it is at least clear that you are indicating that you are contemplating legal action against either the Wikimedia Foundation or one or more Wikipedia editors. Wikipedia policy is that anyone in legal dispute of such a nature may not edit Wiki8pedia while legal action is under consideration, pending, or in progress. Your permission to edit Wikipedia is therefore withdrawn, and will not be restored until you indicate that no legal action is still being contemplated.

In view of the above, this account has been blocked from editing, except that your access to this talk page has been kept, so that when you no longer have any legal action under consideration or in progress, you may post a request to be unblocked. To do so, add the text at the bottom of this page. (Replace the words "Your reason here" with an explanation of why you think you should be unblocked. That explanation should state that you no longer contemplate legal action, and also make it clear how your future editing will be different from what you have done in the past, so as to avoid breaching Wikipedia policy on promotional editing.) I advise you to read the guide to appealing blocks before posting such an unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)