My account http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wikademia

was blocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wikademia

by

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Calliopejen1

for {{spamusernameblock}}

funny day

error: point not found

I think the point is that Wikipedia doesn't allow people to serially place notes on various users' talk pages, directing them to other wiki sites that might be more receptive to their contributions. (Particularly if the username matches the site's domain name.)

Who knew?

I just checked though, and "hideousabomination.org" is still available, both as a WP username and as a domain name. I'd grab 'em myself, but... well, you know, there's still another 3 hours of NFL "Pre-Draft" coverage to check out on ESPN.

I'll bet somebody is kicking themselves about now for having failed to register the name "Wikademia." Which isn't Wikipedia, but is close enough to cause grief. Wikimedia and Wikipedia think they have a copywrite to the word "wiki", forgetting that they didn't invent it or first use it, either. But they'd very much appreciate it if the world thinks they did.

Wonder who came up with "Wikademia"? Freaking brilliant, man!

[citation-needed]

I don't know of any instance of Wikimedia objecting to any use of the term "wiki" outside the context of specific names of their projects such as Wikipedia.

I think you just saw a case. There are plenty of links to Wikia in Wikipedia, even though as a non-profit, it shouldn't be linking to anything else. It's not as though they're terribly sensitive about links to other sites if they put money in Jimbo's pocket. But if Wikademia sounds like Wikiversity, banned it is.

Emily Dickinson doesn't even have to be changed, as a comment on this topic.

I'm nobody!
Who are you?
Are you nobody, too?
Then there's a pair of us --
Don't tell!
They'd banish us, you know--

How dreary to be somebody!
How public, like a frog--
To tell your name the livelong day--
To an admiring bog!

Right, Somey. The Wikimedia projects prefer that you just go right to the page where you have a conflict of interest, then spam your link directly from there.

How should I respond?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikademia

"You have not commented on the other part of the block reason; with your new username, will you also stop promoting your own web site? "

I've been rather selectively leaving people messages who have contributed to pages that are going to be deleted that they can contribute to Wikademia. My actions seem perfectly legitimate. How should I respond?

Out of luck?

Sorry, I forgot about them!

OK, let's change it to "Wikipedia doesn't allow non-Wikia employees to serially place notes on various users' talk pages, directing them to other wiki sites that aren't hosted by Wikia, and which might be more receptive to their contributions."


Using that methodology, yes. it's probably too late for the existing account, but your user page and user_talk page could theoretically contain the desired non-Wikia links without your being sanctioned. Then you just have to leave more obscure messages, and hope people click on your sig link.

Are you doing the same thing as Deletionpedia, then? Not something I'd ever want to get into, but I suppose it might be good for a few weeks' harmless fun. You'll need a more attractive main page, though, at the very least!

My epic saga continues.

Wikipedia: 1

Me: not 1

And now, the presentation of a short, multi-line quasi-artistic cartoon.

Um, what? The issue is that they preferentially link to Wikia over other sites, and that they do not put nofollow on those links when they do to others - I've never heard of the idea that a non-profit should not link to other sites, or of any whose website does not have any outside links.

It's not the idea that a non-profit can't link to any profit sites. It's the idea that a non-profit should preferrentially act as no-load front-end advertising and content source for the for-profit ventures of the people who control the non-profit. Which happens with Wikipedia--> Wikia. This is the WP that resists anything that looks like link spam from for-profit corporations they have nothing to do with!

The IRS should be scrutinizing WMF's 501 {c} 3 status carefully, and would be, if they didn't have other things to do in this economic meltdown.

But this will nail Wikia eventually. WMF already pays Wikia for their server hosting, and that's a cozy arrangement. A large fraction of Wikia's for-profit content sat on a WMF site first. And they have interlocking boards. Any non-profit with decent fiduciary responsiblity would have kicked anybody having to do with Wikia off its site, long ago. They would have said to Jimbo: "Choose one or the other, but you don't get both." Of course that's not going to happen.

I wonder if the WMF board members, who get paid shit, actually realize how much money Jimbo siphons off Wikia, even though it's never made a profit, either. Is that cash infusion from Amazon to Wikia about gone by now? What are the chances of it being repeated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikademia -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286229753

FAIL BALLS.



Considering all the factors involved, many of which you seem to point out quite succinctly, this may be unfortunate.

Right - that's what I said. what you said was "as a non-profit, it shouldn't be linking to anything else."

Emesee, I mean you no offense, but I'm curious...

(1) Did you really think your blunt tactics at link-spamming were going to work out okay for you?

(2) How old are you?

As I said, just curious.

I think I could teach you a lot about online marketing and sneaky behavior within "enemy" camps, but I'm not going to waste my wisdom on a too juvenile brain.

Greg

So was I "spamming" as accused?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=286869070

"Spam is the abuse of electronic messaging systems (including most broadcast mediums, digital delivery systems) to send unsolicited bulk messages indiscriminately."

Must all those criteria be met?

Were my messages bulk? Not sure. Perhaps it depends on how you define "bulk".

Were my messages indiscriminate? No. I was selectively messaging individuals who were likely going to have their valuable and worthwhile contributions deleted.

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Just because Wikia's broken the rules doesn't give everyone else the right to as well. Listen to what Greg is telling you; this isn't Those Evil Wikipedia Admins ganging up on you. Citizendium, encyc.org, the non-directory section of Wikipedia Review et al would all remove your links just as quickly.

Oh, so you're saying that the big wiki has its own special version of what it considers to be "spam". I guess that is fair enough. Really. .

Spam: 3. To abuse any network service or tool by for promotional purposes. And the correct Wikipedia page to be linking to in your case is Forum spam; you've linked to the article on e-mail spam. As I suspect you already know.

Huh? Is the big wiki considered a forum or a wiki?

Well, you can take Wiki spam#Using world-writable pages if you prefer. Seriously Emesee, have you not yet noticed that nobody here has any sympathy for you?
Greg was treated appallingly by Jimmy Wales and responded by setting up an independent service and letting the quality speak for itself; you hung round AFD saying "keep, might be useful" on every discussion and posted a bunch of crank theories and tried to persuade Jimmy Wales to turn Wikipedia into a Craigslist rip-off (complete with one of my favorite lines, "If revenue sharing is an option, since I would be a founder and perhaps a custodian/sysop/admin of this Wiki, that would be nice, but currently not a priority. As I understand it, Wikia donates to the Wikimedia foundation, and that is enough for me to feel good about devoting my time to Wikia.") and went off in a sulk when other users wouldn't listen to you. You're not comparable.

Which one of my theories are crank theories?

Thank you.

You're right, I had you mixed up with someone else – you were the one who did nothing except rack up minor edits and make weird comments at AFD. The point still stands.