Jump to content

User talk:Numismatica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]
Hello Numismatica, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Numismatica, good luck, and have fun. --E4024 (talk) 19:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of http://.Coinproject.com

[edit]
Accounts

Coinproject (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
numismatica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

This is the only warning that you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing without further notice. --Hu12 (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT an advertiser. I listed TWO or THREE links which ONLY contain relevant content. Look at the links yourself! BOTH sites (coinproject.com and Wildwinds.com) are NON-COMMERCIAL. A great deal of what we know about Roman history as it pertains to the emperors and their families comes from ancient coins. To summarily remove such links is a disservice to wikipedia users. If I had linked to my business I would certainly agree, but you are clearly not investigating this properly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Numismatica (talk • contribs) 14:29, 7 December 2012‎
It would appear your contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Coinproject.com, User talk:Coinproject. Please read:
Spamming is never appropriate, particularly when it there is a conflict of interest as it violates Neutrality (a fundamental principle by which Wikipedia operates).--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued promotion of CoinProject.com

[edit]
It has become apparent that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links or self-promotion, so it has been blocked indefinitely.
User Numismatica is the blocked account User talk:Coinproject, operating with a Confilct of interest and an open intent to use Wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of continued promoting Coinproject.com...as stated by Numismatica;
"My ID is going to be used to provide links to numismatic data where available"
Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will also have their websites blacklisted.

--Hu12 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing to be "neutral" about. I was not linking to something controversial, some grand conspiracy theory. I was posting links to websites that include factual content. Nothing controversial or subject to interpretation whatsoever. Once again, you should actually look at something before condemning it and/or accusing someone of something they are not. If this is happening to me, I cringe to think at what other valuable information is being kept from Wikipedia because you (or other moderators) choose to interpret opposing views, theories and opinions (not talking about wacko, conspiracy material) or because you decide that something is "spam" when it is not.

I am unable to respond via "talk" in the areas where Hu12 have responded, so I am doing so here:

Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Understood, however the link does fail WP:EL also. The site itself states; "...anyone can contribute to improving the site...CoinProject was designed so that a virtually unlimited number of volunteers can share the work and contribute by submitting, approving or verifying coins..." ---coinproject.com/about-us.php As a result it fails several of Wikipedia's core content policies, specifically; ” Questionable_sources” and ”Self-published sources. As such, it fails as an external link because claims it is "accurate material" or from "knowledgeable sources" is undermined. More over, as an external link, its "indirectly related" (#13), clearly "unverifiable research" (#2) nor does it truly provide a unique resource (#1) as there are plenty of other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site, as is the case with CoinProject.com. It just doesn't meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria.--Hu12 (talk) 03:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC) The rudeness of the original poster's tone and Hu12's valid points about WP policy not-with-standing, these are sites that classicists use to view ancient coin types that aren't always easily accessible via traditional print media. I don't know the intersection between this fact and WP policy. davidiad.:τ 03:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Coinproject.com is THE most accurate numismatic research website on the internet. Just because the site invites anyone to volunteer does not mean that just anyone can take part in the approval and verification process of the submissions. It is a "collaborative approach" but of the roughly 120 volunteers and the 200+ experts which have consulted (I am one of them) there are some of the world leading authorities for the categories they "moderate". (Note this on homepage: Note: Coin records with a red border have not been verified by a moderator and you should verify that the information is accurate.) All verified records have been properly vetted (those without a red border) and scholarly reference citations are given. Each record without a red border has been personally verified by an expert to have been submitted with accurate information and the reference citations have been personally confirmed. I only provided links to two issuers which had their categories completed and which had no unverified coins (Note the records for Helena: http://coinproject.com/search_emperor.php?emp=Helena&city=&type=3, if you look closely you will see that none of the entries have red borders and each entry has reference citations, the primary citation being to the scholarly reference work "The Roman Imperial Coinage. 10 Vols. London. 1923-1994" which is the standard scholarly reference on Roman Imperial Coinage (universally identified by "RIC"). It also provides citations to LRBC (Late Roman Bronze Coinage) and other scholarly works. In order for a submission to be verified the moderator must physically open RIC to the citation given and verify the the reference cited is in fact the coin photographed. Because of the very careful process Coinproject uses for verification it only has roughly 15% of active categories completed. I have only provided links to two issuers which were completed. It is time consuming, unlike other sites that accept raw auction data, every record must be painstakingly parsed and the data verified first by comparing to the photograph then by physically checking as many as five citations, often to very rare scholarly reference works. My personal numismatic library has cost me well over $50,000 to assemble and over a decade of research and working as a professional numismatist have gone into my understanding of numismatics, this is not something which serious numismatists take lightly.

I apologize if I came off as rude, but I was shocked at how easily I was essentially banned and how moderators with no direct knowledge of the subject matter can arbitrarily make such decisions.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Numismatica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please read the above information. User Hu12 has arbitrarily blocked my account for "spamming" and using this ID as a "vehicle for of advertising". This is not the case. I provided links to two sites with relevant content (one of which I am a volunteer of and the other I have no involvement with whatsoever), a different user wrote "I've re-added those, as they seem ok to me. Not directly commercial.", this user is identified as one of the 400 most active Wikipedians on their talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Johnbod) and he actually took the time to look at the linked sites, whereas Hu12 apparently only looked at them after I was blocked to find additional reasons to support his position

Decline reason:

You've been warned to stop adding links yet you continue. You had a Wikipedia account before, yet you created this one after you've been blocked. Either of these are perfectly fine reasons for indefinite block. Max Semenik (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since I am unable to edit the talk page where this is being discussed I am adding the "links" to those contributing to the discussion: .:τ talk

Please review the history above and on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helena_(empress). I feel as if I have been unfairly classified as a spammer and other well respected wikipedians agree. I am in no way trying to spam wikipedia, I was trying to provide a link to relevant content which provides a source of information on the topic at hand which is verified and which is supported by scholarly reference citations. I get absolutely nothing by linking to coinproject, it is non-commercial and I don't even get any kind of "recognition".

I created the numismatica ID after the first ID I had created was blocked because it was the same name as the coinproject.com website. I made a new ID to represent ME, not an organization. I have many interests- I am a numismatist (thus the ID I chose- numismatica), I work in telecommunications and I have knowledge of Latin Music. I am an active participant of the numismatic community (I am also a life member of the American Numismatic Association). Do these affiliations and my involvement in non-commercial activities related to them mean that I can never contribute to these areas? Others have chimed in here and I feel that Hu12 has "dug in his heels".

Thank you.

I suggest you replace the {{unblock}} tag if you wish to make another request as it will require input from the blocking admin who might not monitor help requests. Otherwise if you are commenting on another discussion taking place elsewhere then this page will most likely be monitored by those involved. Regards --wintonian talk 21:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12, .:τ talk, Max Semenik: I am unable to discuss this on the appropriate page, where coinproject is being described as: "Either way, coinproject.com fails Wikipedia's External links policy #1,#2,#4 and #13 respectivly. On another note; the image that already exists in the article (File:Follis-Helena-trier_RIC_465.jpg) is more detailed than the comparable one on coinproject.com here. I mention this because it would appear that CoinProject's image was simply harvested from another site, forumancientcoins.com here, a site which is widely used on wikipedia already and considered a web resource per Portal:Numismatics. This gives me serious pause for potential copyvio (Linking to copyrighted works) and extremely problematic when it comes to a site(coinproject.com) where "anyone can contribute ".--Hu12 (talk) 04:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)"[reply]

Coinproject is much more than a repository of photographs. Over 100 dealers, collectors and institutions have given permission to use their photographs and data and ONLY photographs from sources which have given permission are used (this is stated very clearly on the homepage). I am a friend of Joseph Sermarini, the owner of Forum Ancient Coins. He has been a supporter of Coinproject since it's creation and was one of the first dealers to extend permission. CP moderators have been painstakingly editing his records, ensuring that all data is properly parsed.

But the photographs are not the important part, it is the accuracy of the data that is. As an example, I submitted a comment to the British Museum database concerning an error in their attribution (As stated previously, I am an active member of the ancient numismatic community). This comment was submitted over five months ago and finally was reviewed, found to be correct and changes made to the record just this evening. (View the comments on this page: http://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/281081) Coinproject has a very rigorous moderation process and also has a means by which users can report suspected errors. These error reports go to the moderators of the respective category as well as to the admins of the site and are generally addressed within 24 hours. Also, no single site exists with as many unique types in one "place" as coinproject. In the case of Helena, there are 74 unique types recorded for Helena in RIC (the primary reference work for Roman Imperial coins of Helena), we have 64 of these, for a total of 86.5% of all known types and we have an additional 3 coins which are unpublished in RIC and 2 which are minor variants of published types.

What is especially frustrating is that Wikipedia is supposed to encourage community participation and here is a moderator that is discouraging said participation, even to the extent that he goes against other, active Wikipedians with more expertise in the field. At this point, Hu12 has gone back to the site and is looking for "more" evidence, without really looking at what CP is all about. (i.e.: His last comments about his concern of a potential copyvio. What is ironic, is that the homepage explains this clearly AND, a link to a resource on wikipedia does not grant users a license to use whatever they find at will. CP does NOT own the copyright to the photographs used, but it has permission to use them. If a user of Wikipedia follows a link and wants to use a photograph, they would have to do what anyone else does under a similar circumstance- ask for permission.

Hu12 Hu12: In answer to your note in the history, tag was removed because in answer to help request user talk suggested "I suggest you replace the {{unblock}} tag if you wish to make another request as it will require input from the blocking admin who might not monitor help requests." Perhaps I misunderstood this?

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Numismatica (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I am requesting an appeal to the decision for the following reasons: 1. According to the block, the reasons were: It has become apparent that your account is only being used for spamming inappropriate external links or self-promotion, so it has been blocked indefinitely. User Numismatica is the blocked account User talk:Coinproject, operating with a Confilct of interest and an open intent to use Wikipedia for the sole and primary purpose of continued promoting Coinproject.com...as stated by Numismatica; "My ID is going to be used to provide links to numismatic data where available" I have had time to review the original block of ID CoinProject and I can certainly see how it violates the "letter of the law" by having the ID name the same as the website. But I disagree with the decision to deny the change of the ID name. This ID was created before I knew that it was inappropriate to create a new ID. It was done so that I could have a personal ID which would not be viewed as breaking the "letter of the law". 2. The reasons for the links being removed are clearly in error. This can be proven by the statements made by other wikipedians that have much more experience with wikipedia by their contributions and with expertise in the subject of the article. So far three other wikipedians have given their opinion that the link does in fact meet the criteria of a reliable source. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(Empress)) 3. The moderators/admins themselves share a COI in that the original denial to change the ID was done by the same admin that denied the current block request. If Wikipedia does not want me to add these links in the future I will not. BUT- I ask that I be unblocked so that I can properly debate the merit of these links in the appropriate talk page. The original "undo" of Hu12's deletion of the links was not done by me, it was done by a Wikipedian that has a label on his user page of "This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians." I would hope that this counts for something. As it stands, right now I am unable to contribute to the discussion on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Helena_(Empress) page. I promise that I will not undo the deletion of the links until it has been discussed and agreed to via the talk page and that I will not add other links until it has been properly discussed (see below). Please give me an opportunity to show my worth as a contributor to Wikipedia. I have a lot more to offer than just providing relevant links. Also, please do not "silence" me with this block, it is a disservice to the spirit of Wikipedia and prevents me from contributing to the discussion on the talk page. As I stated, I will not undo any changes without a consensus being reached, and I will not add any other links without first discussing it via one of the Wikipedia pages where such matters can be properly addressed (i.e.: The COI and relevancy issues)

Decline reason:

Procedural decline. If, as you say, this account is an attempt by you, the user, to evade the block on your previous account, then it will not be unblocked, period. The correct course of action for you is to post an unblock-and-rename request at User talk:Coinproject, per the instructions there. You would need, in your unblock request, to agree to refrain from adding links to coinproject.com (whether it's a valid link or not, you have a conflict of interest and should not be linking to a site with which you are connected), to give a brief idea of the areas you would like to edit, and to propose a new username you would be willing to use (you could probably request Numismatica and usurp this account; I doubt anyone would have a problem with that). I'd also advise against pursuing action against Hu12; it's up to you, of course, but speaking as an uninvolved party I very much doubt you'd get anywhere; he hasn't done anything that any other admin would not have done in his position. Yunshui 雲‍水 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

  • Blocking Administrators comment. Relevant policies so as to avoid confusion by the blocked account;
  • Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only (accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.)
Numismatica is a WP:SPA advertising-only account of User talk:Coinproject, which despite being blocked (and declined 2 times) and being asked to stop, created this account (despite account creation declined) and continued adding links and promoting coinproject.com. Numismatica has openly and explicitly stated his intent to continue promoting coinproject.com;
"My ID is going to be used to provide links..." ---Numismatica
It is evident that even while blocked this user is exploiting both this TalkPage and the UnblockRequests as platforms to promote an agenda. Despite Numismatica's activity on this talk page above and being asked multiple times to stop... this account will not and can not stop. In this most recent block request alone[1];
"I ask that I be unblocked so that I can properly debate the merit of these links..." ---Numismatica
"I will not undo the deletion of the links until...". ---Numismatica
"I will not add other links until...". ---Numismatica
Numismatica is NOT here to build an encyclopedia and (despite having 3 unblock requests declined) this account will continue be used exclusively for disruptive purposes and is only interested in being unblocked in order to continue discuss, source solicit, promote and to exploit Wikipedia for the purpose of coinproject.com's inclusion. --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: In response to Hu12's comments below (forgive me if this is not where this should go- I am not familiar with Wiki mark-up and procedure)

Since Hu12 insists on latching on to words and snippets from the lengthy exchange as well as to misquote me, I want to make myself and my intentions very clear:

1. I wrote "My ID is going to be used to provide links to numismatic data where available for cities (for Greek and Roman cities which struck coins) and the emperors and their families as well as other figures from ancient history. I will also use this ID to correct numismatic errors in articles whenever they are found." I DID NOT say that those links were going to be links to CoinProject.

A little background information should help clarify:

I am an active numismatist. As such, I am involved in many projects that help to educate the public concerning ancient coins and history. Some of these projects:

a) I am the publisher and editor of a free online journal (The Journal of Ancient Numismatics). As such, I have researched hundreds of topics and I have a very large database of numismatic links and reference works on google books. b) I am also a life member of the American Numismatic Association and I regularly read the Numismatist journal and about a half dozen other numismatic journals and as such I often find myself looking for more information on topics of interest and book mark many of the articles I find. c) I am an active member and volunteer of the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild (ACCG). The ACCG has been very active in the "fighting" the anti-collecting trend and has represented numismatist interests via the legislature and court proceedings. One of the ways I volunteer is to put together "briefs" of articles, journals and current events which deal with cultural property, ancient numismatics and archaeological issues.

I write all of this to make it very clear that my intention is not to spam wikipedia with links to coinproject. (Or to the Journal since I clearly have a COI- I would note the link in the talk pages and let others decide if they should be included)

2. I was not the one to undo Hu12's removal of the links I provided. This was done by a very active wikipedian. I am not "advertising" anything and I thought that I made it very clear that my intent as it pertains to the current "discussion" of the links I added to Helena from Coinproject was to continue the discussion, and yes, argue the point that these links are relevant and are also do not fail Wikipedia's External links policy #1,#2,#4 and #13. Why not? Three other people that have no COI have already done so and Hu12 refuses to acknowledge that they may have a point. Which is odd, considering that these other wikipedians are far more familiar with the subject at hand.

I would respect the opinions of other editors that are involved in editing the specific pages, but why won't Hu12? In the case of Helena, the jury is still out, but so far 3 jurors of Hu12's peers agree that they links are relevant and do not violate WP policy. In all fairness I should be permitted to take part in a discussion that has to do with me.

I have no problem with abiding by the decision of my peers. But if I am not mistaken, is it not Wikipedia policy that talk pages be used for this very thing? That link decisions be made in such a matter and that administrators should not arbitrarily go against such decisions? I don't have time to look for it, but I seem to recall reading something concerning external links and talk pages...

Perhaps I should have used the word unless instead of until, but my intent is clear- i plan on abiding by the decisions of those whose opinion counts. Perhaps it is Hu12 that is having difficulty with this, since he/she is the one that removed the links in the first place and is unwilling to even consider the possibility that they may be wrong and that four others are right.

I respectfully cite a quote on Hu12's talk page: "Another key to the problem here, {name of contentious editor}. You don't see yourself as having an opinion; you see yourself as bearing the Truth. You perceive your biases as neutral.." from the WP:Tigers page. Is it possible that Hu12 is seeing him/herself as bearing the Truth and not just an opinion?

1(a). Nobody cares about your credentials because On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. You've done nothing but promote Coinproject, solicit extensively the use of Coinproject, spammed links to Coinproject, created an account with the name of Coinproject and even evaded a block (for promoting Coinproject) to further promote Coinproject. Even while your blocked you are arguing, alone, about what else...Coinproject.
2. Continuing to Argue Coinproject's merits on your userpage, while blocked is Tendentious, Disruptive and just further proves your inability to stop pushing your agenda for Coinproject. With 3 unblock requests declined, you have a clear Failure or refusal to "get the point". You have become blinded by your conflict of interest continuing in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus. You even ignored community input when two other reviewing administrators told you that coinproject.com was not suitable;
Your editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests. You perceive your biases as neutral... and there is no evidence you will stop anytime soon. Wikipedia is not a "vehicle to promote Coinproject". Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your adgenda. If you intend to continue to use this talkPage to promote Coinproject, re-blocking without talk page access perhaps should be considered...Thank you for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 02:15, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, for me it is not an issue of "coinproject", at this point I don't care about that, it is the principle that is bothering me, the fact that I feel that you are abusing the authority you have been given as a administrator of Wikipedia and have essentially become a cyberbully. I care about the fact that I have been silenced and you have prevented me from contributing to the discussion of an issue which other editors that actually have a background in contributing to Wikipedia on the subject matter of the article happen to agree with. With all due respect, FisherQueen and Bwilkins do not show any contributions I can see to ancient history or numismatic topics. Three users that do have such wikipedia experience disagree (I am not counting myself). EVEN if I had a COI, which I question, a DIFFERENT user, with a much better understanding of the topic being edited UNDID your revision and said that he did not agree with your position(s) and went as far as to cite specific examples ("Note that I restored the links, and I have no COI. Johnbod (talk) 02:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)"). You then proceeded to undo his revisions and block ME. Although others with similar backgrounds chimed in and also said that the link in question were "good links", "these are sites that classicists use to view ancient coin types that aren't always easily accessible via traditional print media" and "Coinproject is evidently intended to represent a permanent and comprehensive resource. They all use the same standard catalogues for their information. Their "anyone can contribute" in fact requires registration, and additions are then shown as red until reviewed by a moderator; no doubt there is copyright declaration at input. A very different story to Wikipedia. To answer Esnible, we certainly do want to link to good database resources. Johnbod (talk) 03:32, 9 December 2012 (UTC)" among other comments.[reply]

As for the original creation of the user ID Coinproject, I chose that one for the same reason that the website was named. One of my interests is in numismatics. I have taken on the "project" of educating others about history using numismatics. At that point I did not know the "rules" and did not think that creating this account was in violation of anything. I took a long, hard look and figured I would revisit the issue once Coinproject was further along in the moderation process and every entry had been verified accurately AND had scholarly citations that were confirmed. Thus, I chose two people from ancient history that have been completed on Coinproject- Helena and her son Constantine I (the Great).

My addition of these links in no way are part of an "adgenda" (to use your insulting word) To be blunt, I considered dropping this because I was afraid that you would seek out retribution against those that "dared" disagree with you. But as someone that supports initiatives like Wiki, open source and I have been a volunteer in one way or another since the age of six, when I helped build one of the first community gardens in NYC. You provide a very valuable service, you clean things up. But in this case (and a few others I found on google) you have decided to override the process that is in place to use "talk" to discuss inclusion of links and other changes to content.

I will most likely not be replying to you via this talk page anymore. Depending on the outcome, I will pursue mediation via the arbitration committee and will also file a complaint against you for your conduct. While I certainly admire all of the work you do in weeding out real spammers and "defending wiki", I also feel that you have abused your authority and this can be just as harmful to Wikipedia as "spam". Volunteers are very hard to come by. When people see unilateral decisions being made for them, on subjects they are experts in by an administrator that is not an expert, it takes the joy out of it. If this happens enough, they find something else to use their valuable time and resources on. Numismatica (talk) 02:53, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Numismatica&oldid=1141073694"