User talk:Terraform888

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, as you did at User:Terraform888, you may be blocked from editing. --Orange Mike | Talk 03:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a free webhost for publicity for patented processes. That's what you've been warned about. Please stop posting complaints to other editors - as long as you don't use userspace that way again, you'll be fine. Acroterion (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patents

Thank you all for your comments. For reference, patents are factual. They are not advertising material and should never be. So many advances have been the suject of patents. Please consider this. In fact a patent grant in most patent treaty countries now requires that the patented element or device must actually work. Please consider what this means for the building of the total fund of knowledge. Terraform888 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userpages are for telling us a little bit about yourself as it pertains to your work on the encyclopedia. Userspace is not a free webhost for promotion of patented processes, services or products. Acroterion (talk) 04:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Terraform888. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Acroterion (talk) 04:29, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comment! I really appreciate your approach. Question: Does this comment mean you think the comments posted about the process of hydrosynthesis are conflicted? And thus untrue? Or just that because a reference is made to a patent there is an assumption of personal benefit? Where do we go with Tesla and Edison in that regard? Is it that nobody may publish a finding of truth unless others have first encountered it and it is not related to a patented implementation of that truth? Perhaps we have underestimated Wikipedia? Terraform888 (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said, none of those things are appropriate for userspace. And as far as article space is concerned, Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate repository for information - for inclusion in the encyclopedia, subject matter must meet thresholds of notability, verifiablity and reliable third-party sourcing. Userpace isn't an alternate host for content that doesn't meet mainspace standards. Simple existence or being of potential interest isn't a criterion for inclusion. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mainspace standards and assumptions of interest

I am intrigued to find that the criterion for entry to the wikipedia fund of knowledge is "mainspace" standards. Does thsi mean that only elements with which other users are familiar may enter the wikispace? Terraform888 (talk) 05:38, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is knowledge born?

Wikipedia represents itself as an encyclopedia. A place of record for events, facts, findings.

At what point are those events, facts and findings limited to the subset of knowledge with which the administrators of wikipedia and contributors to wikipedia are familiar?

How courageous are we after all? Knowledge may expand. Should there not be a place for the expansion of the base if and when the pool of knowledge goes beyond the average existent knowledge? Terraform888 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

March 2020

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 ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You lose

The original post included peer reviewed information not currently available in your tertiary level collection of information.

Secondly your assertion of personal interest indicates your own personal fear and has no validity whatsoever in relationship to the post itself. Terraform888 (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]