Jump to content

User talk:SilverSurfer314

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

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page Phaser were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! — Isilanes 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • To Isilanes: I see there is an externel link to Xerox printer product pages under Phaser. Since 1984, Phaser can also refer to software now copyrighted by Phaser Scientific Software - A Universal Simulator For Dynamical Systems. So why the biased strike against Phaser software and not Xerox printer? Retort by: SilverSurfer314 Sun Apr 22 17:53:44 EDT 2007
  • Regarding relevance of Phaser (Scientific Software) to the wikipedia Phaser article, it's interesting to note that google.com (searching on the term Phaser) finds Phaser Scientific Software more relevant (listed/ranked #1 article) than the Phaser article (listed/ranked #7) and the thereinmentioned external links to Star Trek's Phaser and Xerox Phaser Printer, out of 6,180,000 results returned (as of 05/02/2007) -- I find that noteworthy and perhaps even notable. SilverSurfer314 Wed May 2 11:26:21 EDT 2007

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page Archimedes were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! — Isilanes 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • To Isilanes: A link to a historical and mathematical study on Archimedes' Pi MAP, How Archimedes Launched The Race To Pi is perfectly suitable for inclusion in the Archimedes article. Further note, the external article is documented with authorative legitimate references. Why censor a free educational and pertinent resource? Just because the external site additionally offers educational and scientific software, does not mean it does not also offer educational tutorials and lectures of historic, academic, and scientific value free to the public and related to the wiki subject matter. Retort by: SilverSurfer314 Sun Apr 22 17:53:44 EDT 2007


Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page Gottfried Leibniz were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! — Isilanes 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • To Isilanes: A link to a historical and mathematical anecdote and study on Leibniz's Pocket Watch ODE (How Leibniz determined, using a first-order ODE, the trajectory of his pocket watch as he pulled it on a table) is perfectly suitable for inclusion in the Gottfried Leibniz article. Further note, the external article is documented with authorative legitimate references. Why censor a free educational and pertinent resource? Just because the external site additionally offers educational and scientific software, does not mean it does not also offer educational tutorials and lectures of historic, academic and scientific value free to the public and related to the wiki subject matter. Retort by: SilverSurfer314 Sun Apr 22 17:53:44 EDT 2007

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page Ordinary differential equation were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! — Isilanes 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page Recurrence relation were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! — Isilanes 18:33, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • To Isilanes: Many wiki pages in wikipedia contain sections with external links. Phaser Scientific Software - A Universal Simulator For Dynamical Systems - is an educational and research tool for numerically and graphically analyzing ordinary differential and difference type equations, and is inherently related to the articles/sections from where you pulled it. Also available is a non-commercial free version of Phaser called the Phaser Reader intended for the academia and scientific communities, for the free-exchange and sharing of knowledge and simulations related to the field of dynamical systems. In fact, all fully-functional evaluation-expired and non-licensed versions of Phaser are functional Phaser Readers. Just because the external site additionally offers educational and scientific software, does not mean it does not also offer educational tutorials and lectures of historic, academic and scientific value free to the public and related to the wiki subject matter. Retort by: SilverSurfer314 Sun Apr 22 17:53:44 EDT 2007

I can't believe you are serious

[edit]
  • You created an account with the sole purpose of inserting links to phaser.com (a commercial site) in any article it could be remotely connected to (5 articles edited in 7 days of user history, all to add links to phaser.com), and still claim not to be spamming? I find it hard to believe. However, if you feel your edits have been reverted unjustly, we can comment on them on the corresponding talk pages. — Isilanes 11:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am serious, and I can't believe you (Isilanes) are seriously objective

[edit]

To Isilanes: Let's set the record straight: I neither made a claim to be spamming nor not to be spamming. You are the one that made the accusation that I was spamming, seemingly based soley on your subjective interpretation of the pattern and frequency of contributions, and not on the content of the contributions. You are reviewing me, and not the content/value added by the contributions. Firstly, I have contributed to 5 out of 1,751,297 articles in English, that's only 0.000286% out of all articles -- hardly an alarming sign of spamming. However, yes, I am new to the wiki, and look forward to making more contributions. Your accusation about the intent of my account creation is again your claim. Secondly, my contributions were made to articles where they were/are directly, closely related to the subject matter of the wiki articles. You claim they are remotely connected or related. Your claim is baseless. Perhaps, you are not the appropriate judge and jury for the particular subject matter in question, and hence your suggestion to comment on them on the corresponding talk pages (thank you for that, by the way). Let's take for example the wiki article on Archimedes: one-sixth of the article, section 3 Mathematics discourses on his extraordinary contributions to Pi and the method of exhaustion he employed to arrive at its value. My addding a link to a well-documented and authoritatively referenced historical and mathematical study on Archimedes' Pi MAP, How Archimedes Launched The Race To Pi (whose content includes additional and more elaborative mathematical insight into his algorithm, his contribution) is closely related to and pertinently suitable for inclusion in the Archimedes article. The contributed external article is a valuable resource and addition to the article. Judge the contribution on the merit and relevance of its content. My remaining contributed external articles are similarly directly and closely related to the wiki articles and subject matter discussed therein: you have not made any cogent argument to the contrary. Again, judge the contribution, and not the contributor. Retort by: SilverSurfer314 Mon Apr 23 11:01:35 EDT 2007

  • It is good that you mention Archimedes, because you have reverted my deletion of your supposed link-spam, and I have used the talk page to comment on it. As you can see, another editor has already agreed with me, and deleted your link again. I had reverted 5 of your 6 edits, not all. As you can see, I have applied some criterion when deleting, because I "forgave" one of the links (thinking that maybe it was appropriate in the article it appeared in). I gave little reason when making these deletions because I thought they where self-evident. If it is not the case, you are free to add the links back, as I am free to comment on the subject in the talk page (as I did in Talk:Archimedes), and reach consensus on whether to delete them or not. The rationale behind commenting on the talk page is that we can not start an edit war, with each one reverting the other's edits. It is expected that we all agree on what is relevant and correct and what is not. If you are not personally biased towards phaser.com, you will have arguments for the inclusion of these links, and convince other editors, or be convinced by them. And if you are bias towards phaser.com, one can but wonder why wikipedians should allow you to include promotional material in Wikipedia. — Isilanes 16:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • To Isilanes: I am bias towards your striking bias and lack of objective editorial reasoning and behavior; that is, striking first before learning first. Nevertheless, your suggestion finally to continue editorial discussion in the appropriate and corresponding wiki article talk pages is a good one. Let's achieve consensus! Response by: SilverSurfer314 Mon Apr 23 13:59:40 EDT 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SilverSurfer314&oldid=127711851"