User talk:Ethansdad

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Analytics do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kuru (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Pricing. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Kuru (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ITERATIONS

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on ITERATIONS requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. NTox · talk 22:46, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infonomics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Infonomics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RSD. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Ethansdad. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Ethansdad. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI

I am guessing you are with Gartner? Your edits add hundreds of links to Gartner websites. You need to stop doing that please, and declare any link with Gartner per WP:COI. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page references related work and thought leadership by those from other organizations, including Gartner competitors, and has fewer than "hundreds of links to Gartner websites." Furthermore, all others are encouraged to share related links. Thanks. Doug_Laney (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad[reply]

So that's a "yes", is it? You sign as Doug Laney, whihc means you coined the term. You should not edit the article directly, at all. I may be better equipped to judge what is appropriate content for Wikipedia than you are. I have been here over a decade and have more than a hundred thousand edits across Wikipedia projects, spanning tens of thousands of articles. Guy (Help!) 21:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While appreciate your vast experience and input, understand that this article references dozens of sources including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Forbes, various research organizations and universities, and others involved in and helping to develop this new economic concept. Is not about me or my employer. We own no IP or other rights whatsoever to the infonomics concept. I look forward to your constructive (rather than destructive) ideas on how to make this article more useful to others researching the topic. Thank you. Doug_Laney (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad[reply]

OK< so at this point I need to be really clear with you: if you continue to promote your own term on Wikipedia by editing this article, you will be in violation of our WP:COI rules and you are likely to end up blocked or banned. I don't care how many other primary sources you've added, you are bigging up a term you coined, and that is not acceptable. Guy (Help!) 18:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At this point it seems you are intent on merely censoring a concept that is in use within universities, by business and IT publications, and consultancies, along with the compendium of articles and references from a variety of sources I have shared. Listen, whoever you are, you are known to be a "Wikipedian in Disrepute," (https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Document:Wikipedians_in_Disrepute_-_%E2%80%9CGuy_(JzG)%E2%80%9D) so why don't you please try to add some value to Wikipedia, instead of dumping on those sharing knowledge. Doug_Laney (talk) 03:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad[reply]

Three things that do not endear people here: writing about their own endeavours; howling "censorship"; and referencing offsite attacks by griefers. If you had done any research at all, rather than just looking for reasons to discount the advice of an experienced Wikipedian, you would have checked the references to Rupert Sheldrake, promoter of the pseudoscientific concept of "morphic resonance", who hates the fact that Wikipedia accurately reflects the rejection of his ideas by the scientific community. Wikispooks is a site written by conspiracy theorists unhappy with Wikipedia's preference for empirically verifiable reality.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Guy (Help!) 06:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First, I am sharing about the endeavors and ideas of a growing community of information professionals, valuation experts and economists (even including Gartner competitors) who support the concept of information as an economic asset. I'm not sure why that's so difficult for you to understand. Perhaps you're the one with a conflict of interest hiding behind a pseudonym? Second, whether you or "people here" like it or not, censorship clearly defines what you are doing. Third, your initial concern started off with a blatant lie about the links on the page, so I'm inclined to side with those questioning your judgement/intentions. I'm afraid your MO seems to be more troll than editor. Doug_Laney (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad[reply]

That's what you think you are doing, but your perspective is skewed by your vested interest in the term and is not informed by any significant experience of Wikipedia policies and practices. As for the rest of your commentary, I advise you not to go any further down that route. Long experience indicates that accusations of that sort tend to rebound. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

Your recent editing history at Infonomics shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bishonen | talk 21:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a more detailed rationale, please see [1]. Bishonen | talk 21:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

File:ITERATIONS Overview.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ITERATIONS Overview.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Matthew_hk t c 17:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]