User talk:Parsnip25

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since 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 rather than re-adding it. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 14:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Francisco Vásquez de Coronado, Spanish missions in the Sonoran Desert and Sobaipuri. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 22:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. -- Donald Albury 22:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

(moved to bottom of page in conformance with talk page custom of adding new comments at the bottm) 2. You win. I have removed all material I used to start this page. I tried to respond in a reasonable way and you have taken it upon yourself to censor me. I have a right to link to my research page, afterall that is where the material for this page and other pages I have contributed to came from. Its your loss. I have my own web page. This is the most cutting edge research on the Sobaipuri and you have decided that others should not have a link to it. What a crock. I have corrected so many pages that had incorrect information about this and other groups and now you are implying that I am biased? What is your background and why are you qualified to judge someone like me who does research for free just so I can learn and contribute to knowledge. I have a Phd and I do pure research. What conflict of interest is there? Like I said you allowed an amateur's web page on Coronado but not a link to mine?

You will be in copyright violation if you chose to repost the material I have deleted.

1. Response to Donald Albury. I created this Sobaipuri page for Wikipedia and it contains material I created. It is appropriate to link to my research page where the material came from and that includes more in-depth material that is directly related. I also wrote the Chichilticale section for the Coronado page and added the Chichilticale link to someone else's web page. I am involved in the project and have made a link to my page also that reports the most current research on this topic. How is my link different than Chichilticale.com? His is research, mine is research and I am the professional archaeologist involved. My link is more appropriate than most of the other links as well.

If you do not want to accept the links I will remove all text I contributed including the entire wickipedia page on Sobaipuri and the Chichilticale section and the references. You chose. My web site is designed to report research and it is therefore the most appropriate kind of link. It is not selling anything but is designed to dissiminate information.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Parsnip25"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parsnip25 (talk • contribs)

I wish you had tried to communicate on a talk page before you repeatedly reintroduced links that I had warned you about. You do not have a 'right' to add links to your own web page to Wikipedia. There are guidelines at Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest that should make this clear. While it is possible that the links to your website could be added, you should not have added them yourself. One possibility would be to offer the sites on the talk pages of relevant articles, and let participating editors decide whether the pages should be linked.

As to your copyright in material that you contributed to Wikipedia, you do retain the copyright, but you agreed to license everything you contributed under the GFDL when you submitted your edits. (The sentence, "You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*" appears on the edit page, between the edit window and the edit summary box.) You cannot revoke the GFDL license once you have given it.

Wikipedia is an interesting beast. Because most users are anonymous, and even those of us who use our real names are almost always unverified, real world credentials are not given much credit. I have a Ph.D. myself (in Linguistics), but do not claim (or receive) any authority because of it. In fact, an incident earlier this year in which a well known Wikipedian was discovered to not have the academic credentials he claimed has made users more leery than ever of claimed authority. The policy in Wikipedia is that material added to the encyclopedia must be verifiable from Reliable sources|reliable sources. You are welcome to add information that is verifiable from reliable published sources, but linking to your own website raises issues that need to be resolved in discussion with other editors on the talk pages of articles. -- Donald Albury 00:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did answer you, but on the discussion page. I could not figure out how to use this section until by mistake it came up. In fact, it was quite frustrating. I added links to other pages and there was no question. Why all of a suddent the Nazism? Like I said, you did not question the Chchilticali link and I am working with him but he is an amateur. In fact, you edited that back in. So a non-archaeologist oil man can have a link to his personal page (that I put in for him) but a professional with 30 years experience, a phd and a speciality in this line of research cannot put a link to a web site that provides more detail? This is incredibly interesting stuff for people and now they are not going to have access to it. You cannot verify what I wrote in this article so I am going to remove it. Unless you want to do your own research it will have to be removed. You might even have to consult my webpage to determine if the material is accurate.

December 2007

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Francisco Vásquez de Coronado, without explaining the reason for the removal in the edit summary. Unexplained removal of content does not appear constructive, and your edit has been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. AlphaEta 03:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your editors has deleted the link to my website from the Coronado page, and other pages. My web site is where the material for your page was taken from. The only reason I contributed the text was so that Wikipedia could link to my web page (and Chichilticale.com). Seymourharlan.com or Sobaipuri.com is a research-oriented page that specifically addresses my research and that of other historians and archaeologists on Coronado, the Sobaipuri and the Apache. We have made some incredible finds related to Coronado and also to the Sobaipuri, and Apache. The incredible thing is that editor is allowing the link I put in for chiliticale.com (someone else's website) but is not allowing my page (Sobaipuri.com or seymourharlan.com). I find this unexplainable. I am a professional archaeologist with the most recent data regarding these topics. I contributed material to Wikipedia for the furtherment of knowledge but I am being barred from connecting to my own web site. This connection was the "payoff," so to speak. for the time I invested in putting the Wikipedia Sobaipuri website together and for adding text and references to Coronado. Without that payoff the risk to the information I put on there is not justified. The information I put on the Coronado page and the Sobiapuri page are from my own work, some of which is not even published yet. Many people these days think that data and ideas grow on trees. They do not. I have worked hard for these insights and advances and want to show the depth of the information and effort behind them. Therefore, since I cannot link to my page where this is brought out in more detail in a topic-specific way and credit is given for teh ideas I cannot risk having my unpublished cutting-edge material exposed. I think this is a reasonable position. It is not fair or reasonable that a link to my friend's chichilticale web page should be allowed (and continually placed back on the site) but mine (sobaipuri.com or seymourharlan.com) should not, or that links to very outdated pages with misinformation should be allowed and mine not. Mine is focusing on clearing up misinformation. I am not making money. I am a research archaeologist. I do my research for the love of knowledge. I also work with volunteers and part of the reason for the Wikipedia contributions and my web page is to bring this information to them that they have been helping me with and to present a more accurate story to the public than had been the case on related Wikipedia pages. Bottom line, I created to Wikipedia contributions to link to other pages that flushed things out in more detail, to provide evidence to back up the statements made on Wikipedia. I am now being barred from making this connection for no reasonable reason other than an editor thinks that somehow my webpage is inappropiate. I therefore removed the material, which on my web page is claimed as proprietary. I was giving it to Wickipedia thinking that since I was creating the Wikipedia Sobaipuri page I would have some leeway in content, as long as it was honest and accurate. I now see that this is not the case; I feel that my material is now being taken over and I have no means to remedy this. I naively thought Wikipedia was about information dissimination rather than censorship and misinformation.

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) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]