User talk:Hugh Aguilar

December 2011

Hello Hugh Aguilar. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Slide rule, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about following the reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 04:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my link?

Your message said that posts about myself can't be overly flattering. My post wasn't flattering to my software; it just provided a one-sentence description of what my software does. The software does work, it has been working for nearly a year now, and it performs a straight-forward job. The software is open-source BSD license; it can be used by anybody who is manufacturing slide-rules.

My software generates CNC gcode or PostScript for slide-rules. That is relevant to slide-rules just as much as links to software that emulates slide-rules or links to websites describing people's collections of slide-rules, or links to websites providing instruction for slide-rule use --- all of which you do allow.

Hugh Aguilar (talk) 05:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This was a general message and tried to cover all the bases. Sorry about that. However the warning which applies to you is:

Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please avoid linking to stuff which you have produced yourself. This is called conflict of interest WP:COI and is spammy, IMO. If you still don't believe me please go to the external links noticeboard and ask them for a second opinion by clicking WP:ELN. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also please note: You added this link before on 12 August 2010 and it was reverted by an administrator on the 30th of August 2010. When multiple people revert your edits this means that the proposed edits have a problem. I hope this helps. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what arguments do work?

Please tell me what argument Derek used to successfully get his link included: http://www.antiquark.com/sliderule/sim/index.html I will just use the same argument to get my link included. That would be a simple and easy solution for everybody.

My software is actually much better than Derek's in that I produce both CNC gcode and PostScript images. Derek wrote his software after seeing mine in an effort at showing me up. He is being careful to avoid saying anything about building aluminum slide-rules however, because he doesn't want to undermine the antique slide-rule market. He just generates images that can be viewed on a computer screen or printed out on an ink-jet printer --- he is not supporting CNC etching or photo-lithography of anodized aluminum slide-rules.

Also, Wtshymanski initially reverted my addition of a section on slide-rule building. He then himself provided a link to my webpage in the external links. I'm okay with just having a link to my webpage, as my webpage provides sufficient discussion of building slide-rules.

I don't consider a link in your external links section to be spam. What is the external links section for except to provide links to relevant webpages? How is a webpage containing software for building slide-rules any different from a website containing software for emulating slide-rules, or a website describing somebody's collection of antique slide-rules, or a website containing instructions for using slide-rules? Writing software requires a lot more effort (about two months of work for me) than producing a website such as this one: http://www.sliderulemuseum.com/ This is all presentation and no substance. ISRM never wrote any software. They just produced a big glitzy website describing slide-rule users as "hairy-eared engineers." ISRM is totally devoted to the hobby of collecting antique slide-rules. In the 1970s when calculators knocked out the slide-rule market, some people bought boxes of slide-rules at a huge discount from manufactures that were going out of business (or got the boxes of slide-rules for free if they were employees of the manufacturers). Those people are now members of the ISRM and are selling those slide-rules on eBay at a minimum of a 2000% profit. They are senior citizens who consider themselves to be mighty clever in their investment in the 1970s, and who expect to make a huge profit now by selling off those antique slide-rules one at a time on eBay (they always claim to have "discovered" a new-in-the-box slide-rule in their attic, as if it were the only one they owned, but the same people do this repeatedly). ISRM is strongly opposed to anybody building new slide-rules now because this would kill the market for antique slide-rules --- it is all about money.

When you give ISRM a link, but refuse to give me a link, you are supporting ISRM's effort at profiting in the antique market and preventing new slide-rules from being built. Why take sides? It is not Wikipedia's business to support some people in making a profit, while excluding other people. Also, I'm not actually making any money off of my software; it is given away for free. My motivation in writing the software was altruistic, whereas ISRM's motivation in producing that website was to make money.

My advice: Please take these arguments to WP:ELN. They are the experts on external links and they can discuss these issues with you in a much broader scale than we ever could. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Slide rule shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 01:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "take these arguments to WP:ELN." So I did. Over there you said: "go ahead and include it." So I did. Now you are telling me that my behavior may result in my getting blocked from ever editing any Wikipedia article ever again. What behavior? I did what you told me to do in both cases. I think when you told me to "go ahead and include it," you were trying to trick me into doing something that you could then ban me for. Hugh Aguilar (talk) 01:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Slide-rule". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 February 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Slide-rule, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, WGFinley (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

February 2012

This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:Slide rule, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Slide rule shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 14:59, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Hugh Aguilar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! WGFinley (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your initial greeting was a little stern so I've added this one to help you out a bit. You really need to look at these policies so you understand where others are coming from regarding including a link to your web page. --WGFinley (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]