User talk:Whitman2010


 * }

August 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Master of Finance has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.msinfinance.wordpress.com. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 06:55, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

February 2013
This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, 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. ''Do not go against consensus. Your site is spam and does not belong. '' Biker Biker (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It is not spam. There is no consensus. I have provided multiple links which discuss this website and validate it as a resources for students.Whitman2010 (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive additions of http://.MSFHQ.com on Master of Finance
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--Hu12 (talk) 19:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

HU, I just want to talk with someone about this. I have people calling me a spammer, not discussing their rationale with me, etc. If you go to the talk page on master in Finance you can see my lay out a thorough argument on why it should be added. Why do I care? Because I used the source in making my decision to get the degree that the topic discusses. I mean really, do you think a spammer would write half a novel defending a site? My IP address clearly shows I am in the states and I have been arguing this point repeatedly. I step by step defend the inclusion of the site and my only response is "it is spam". No one wants to talk about this with me.

I've provided now 3 validating sources. Two of which are wikipedia approved links. I don't know what else to do. Help me out. I will happily provide to you what I am using to support my stance. Thanks. Whitman2010 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've just looked at your site. Spam. Your attempts to add it, going back to 2010, are egregious. This site (and its variant domains) should be on the blacklist by now. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What? Back in 2010 I added that first link, which became what is MSFHQ now. Man, wiki is real heavy handed. How about you go to the talk section and see the argument. If the website is such worthless spam why is it referenced in the 3 links I provide. Oh, btw, two of which are included and verified Wiki resources. Whitman2010 (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources where MSFHQ is quoted or referenced:

Vanderbilt Master in Finance - http://blogs.owen.vanderbilt.edu/tamifassinger/vanderbilts-msf-program-offers-career-boost/

LSU Website (Wiki Approve Link in MSF topic) - http://www.bus.lsu.edu/academics/finance/faculty/dchance/MiscProf/MSPrograms.htm

Quantnet Guide (Quantnet is featured as a resource multiple times on the Master in Financial Engineering Page) - http://www.bus.lsu.edu/academics/finance/faculty/dchance/MiscProf/MSPrograms.htm   (Page 19-20)

Ohio State University - https://fisher.osu.edu/blogs/gradlife/2011/12/05/meeting-the-master-of-masters-in-finance/

So that is 4 links which validate that this is a resources and from a knowledgeable source. Whitman2010 (talk) 19:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Some neutral insight to help you with your current problem
HI. I have noticed you are having a problem regarding an external link on an article. First, a disclaimer. The only party in this dispute I have any prior interaction with is User:Biker Biker, and that has only been very tangential. I do not edit articles about academia. I became aware of this issue by seeing the notice at ANI. My only goal here is to try to help you clarify your thinking about what is going on and I have no side in the issue.

That being said, here goes. The problem of linkspam is a large problem all over the web. Due to the algorithms used by search engines, the more times a link is placed, the higher up the list of search results the target of the link is shown. That is the reason linkspam occurs and it is fairly obvious I think.

You have been citing sources for the use of the link, and that is how you should defend your position. Unfortunately, the citations you have given are all blogs. Blogs are never considered reliable sources for anything on Wikipedia, as they are not fact checked in any way and pretty much, can say whatever the particular blogger wants to say. Even blogs hosted by a University are suspect. The university I am sure doesn't take the time to fact check entries on blogs it hosts. Reliable sources are sources that have some level of fact checking in place. That pretty well limits you to established academic journals, newspapers, magazines and books. The online versions of the newspapers, magazines and journals are fine and in fact preferred, for their ease of verifying.

The reason why vetted sources are needed in this argument is a common practice you may be aware of, and indeed appears you are possibly suspected of. It is not uncommon for some (?less than ethical?) businesses to either hire out or internally place links in blogs (and on Wikipedia) to move up their algorithmic scores on search engines. There have been cases where it was discovered that hundreds of entries in blogs under hundreds of names have all come from the same IP. Please note that I am not saying you are doing this. But surely you can understand that even the possibility that you are doing this is a reason to maintain a high standard?

Please don't take what I, or anyone else, has said in this dispute personally. My only goal is to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia, and it is the proper way to think that that is the goal of the others involved in this dispute also. It is also the proper way to think about your involvement in it and I hope I have conveyed that as my intention. We call that WP:AGF. Hope this helps. I wish you well and happy editing! Gtwfan52 (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, cool. I appreciate the clarification. I will keep this in mind in the future. May I suggest something for new topics is possibly a looser definition of what qualifies, at least until something gets more well known. As it stands right now there is no really journal or source. Would a reference in say Businessweek or something of the sort be enough going forward? Whitman2010 (talk) 21:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A detailed article about the organization would. A mention, not so much. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:19, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about like a paragraph from say the Financial Management Association (http://www.ssrn.com/update/fen/fenann/ann12426.html) or a write up from a university?

Oh, one more thing. Can you place un-black list MSFHQ.com? My intentions were to help, not hurt the site. While I understand it might not qualify for Wiki, it is still a valuable resource for students. The owner of the site helped me out a lot and I wouldn't want to hurt him or what he does. I won't re-add it until there is verifiable source material and then only until you or another mod approves it. Thanks!Whitman2010 (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, no, and no. I am not an admin, I have no control over blacklists.  And as of right now, I am no longer a neutral party here.  Your comments above make it abundantly clear that you are here with an agenda other than improving Wikipedia and I will be linking this discussion to the discussion at ANI. Gtwfan52 (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

An agenda? Not improving Wikipedia? Wow. Adding a link that I thought would be a helpful resource to anyone coming to Wikipedia to research that Master in Finance degree is the definition of improving Wiki and trying to help people. My only agenda was to put a link up, one that I used, so that others who wanted to learn more about the MSF could use the same resource that I used.

I literally cannot believe what goes on behind the scenes on this site. Thanks for linking this to whatever ANI is. Whitman2010 (talk) 23:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Not sure about any behind the scenes issue, this contributor has been open with you. It all seems very up front, as are all our logs. This is an encyclopaedia, so it is about the best information available from authoritative sources, and where necessary with quality links, not about "oh this has some relevance" (to note that this is not a listing service). We look to maintain a standard, and that includes to protect from conflict of interest.  Good reading for you would be External links and Citing sources, then consider the very best links for an article that is relevant to a worldwide English-reading population. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To note, I do not see that the domain to which you refer is on a blacklist, either from a visual check or a [//toolserver.org/~seth/grep_regexp_from_url.cgi?url=msfhq.com&userdeflang=en check by the system tools]. — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

This is what I am talking about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User_Spamming

I've said before I won't keep re-adding the link. It was more out of confusion in the beginning since I didn't know what the talk section was. Then it became a disagreement and a valid re-add since I laid out what I thought was an appropriate argument. Whitman2010 (talk) 23:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I am not assuming good faith here, but the following direct quote from you makes your intentions more than clear. "Can you place un-black list MSFHQ.com? My intentions were to help, not hurt the site." If you are here to help another website, you are at Wikipedia for the wrong reason.  Add that to your questions looking for minimum sourcing to get the link you want here, and the truth to me is pretty obvious.  If improvement of Wikipedia is not your primary reason to edit here, there are plenty of blogs you can post your link to.  Gtwfan52 (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow. Ok. I am here to help other MSF students in their research. I thought MSFHQ was a good resource. It helped me. Is is mentioned by admissions offers at schools I applied for. Sites that Wiki links to have it mentioned as a resource. So I thought it was appropriate. The dude who owns the site answered a bunch of my questions and was a nice guy.

So 1) I wanted to help MSF students who comes to wiki 2) I wanted to help wiki because I thought adding this site would make it a better resource and 3) I didn't want to HURT a site that helped me.

I am not shilling for the site. I just don't want the thing blacklisted because I tried to do some good.

When you add a link to an outside source are you helping that site or wiki? Are they mutually exclusive? If you add a link to Investopedia, are you helping them sell ad revenue (since they have ads) or are you expanding Wiki's knowledge?

End of the day I just don't want to screw over someone who helped me. If it isn't banned, fine. But this got to be far too big a deal. And I was not asking about the minimum sources needed. I was trying to get clarification on what a reputable source would be. I included numerous sources, all from schools which I considered to be reputable. All I wanted was an absolute definition.

All I know is I was having a spirited debate on the talk thread and then people started coming out of the wood work, posting on a bunch of different wiki pages about talking about me and the site. If you go back to the Master in Finance talk page you can see me laying out my argument and going back and forth with the person who originally claimed the link was not valid. Then another user came in a deleted it and called it spam. When I questioned it I was told that I am not worth an answer. Whitman2010 (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In this situation, the talk page is the best place for you to put the link, it sits there with an explanation on why you think it relevant. for now, let others now do the heavy lifting and consideration of the relevance. Getting into an edit war does nobody favours, it is the equivalent of desk thumping and we all know that only works so far.  Try to put on a neutral hat, it helps when others change anything that one adds, which will always happen. In the end it really works well in getting the right article in place, sure it is not perfect. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:27, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
VQuakr (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2013 (UTC)