User talk:Manofwar4662

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Manofwar4662, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

[edit] Steroids links discussions

[edit] your edits to steroids

The link you are adding is to a forum, an as such not a reliable source, and can be addressed as wp:spam, please read wp:el. Thank you --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

The following edits have been reverted: Oxymetholone, Nandrolone, Trenbolone, Anastrozole, Anabolic steroid. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You did not read, this is NOT a forum!

http://www.isteroids.com

go read the page again, it's a steroid information page, please review pages before deleting this takes time to contribute to! all the information is factual, why was this edited?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

The reasons are explained in the links that are available in my first post in this section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm NOT affiliated with any of these sites, I googled keywords after reading these articles and found this site and elitefitness along with mesomorphosis to be relevant. So I wanted to add them as per Wikipedia rules, but you edited all my hard work before I could even contribute!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

[edit] you did NOT read

You did not read, this is NOT a forum!

http://www.isteroids.com

go read the page again, it's a steroid information page, please review pages before deleting this takes time to contribute to!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

What I see on the main page, is mainly forum information and advertisement, the site is not peer reviewed, and hence, not a reliable source (that the articles are citing literature does not say a lot, the articles cited are rather old). The way you are adding it, is spamming, and the page does not comply with the wikipedia policy on external links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, please, I am an avid steroid user, I read all these articles they are VERY much new, I wouldn't have posted them otherwise. Do you even know about things like mechano growth factor, just look yourself http://www.isteroids.com/mechano_growth_factor/ most users haven't even heard of MGF much less used it. SO it's VERY up to date. The main site is NOT an advertisment for a forum, look on the left and the right, ton of information. Would you please look before reverting my hard work. I have a lot of steroid experience and I'm very dissapointed that my interest in wikipedia is handled like this.

and you have this site http://steroid.com/ look at the top of that site, it has a forum link and ad, but it's in your trenbolone profile!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

Dear Manofwar4662, I do appreciate, I could have given you a direct spam warning, and not even have given you a welcome (please note that there are two experienced wikipedia editors who have reverted your additions). But please understand, that these links are not a reliable source, this is not peer reviewed information. I gave you a remark that the links, and the way you are adding them, does not comply with the policies of the Wikipedia. If there is information, please contribute by adding information to wikipedia, and include references (preferably/mainly to peer reviewed articles/reliable sources) for your work. The wikipedia is not a directory of external links. If you want to contribute, I again welcome you, and ask you to contribute information, not merely links. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:48, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I read the rules. I was trying to add a new MGF article when you started slamming me with this. I know it's not a directory and I was NOT using it as such. I adding content and informational resources for the USERS of wikipedia. I read the rules and the rules say I can HELP by adding or editing ANY content. I was doing so PER the rules. Believe me, I'm an old timer I read before I do anything. I am just very upset my hard work was deleted.

I have 3 resource links I was going to add, iSteroids, Elitefitness and bodybuilding (.com) and add an MGF article, but I don't know how I can even do that now without my work dissapearing. I am VERY upset over this. I feel like I have been censored for NO reason.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

These sites are, I repeat, not a reliable source, it is doubtfull if they would survive all points on the policy on external links (I doubt at least points 2 and 5 on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided), and certainly, the way you are adding them is spam. The wikipedia is not a web-directory, and in any way, the number of links should be kept to a minimum (again from wp:el).

You are right, anyone can add all information that he or she likes, but that does not mean that all information should be added, there are many policies to which the information should comply, much info is discerned because it is not reliable, or (in other cases) unencyclopedic.

I don't really understand why you do insist so much that these sites are included in the pages, while you are not adding content to the page. You say there is info which is not on wikipedia, so please add content, and add references rom relieable sources, the sites you have do help you find references to reliable sources. I will leave it at this, I am only repeating myself. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) NOBODY is stopping you from writing a new article or adding content; I do not consider relatively context free external links to be 'additional content'. What we are concerned about is just padding articles with external links. When I first got started, I did some of that too because I thought that more links were better .. they would provide jump points for people to find more information. The problem is that the external links are there to support the material of the article in general, not to provide a jump point for further exploration. Wikipedia is not meant as an organizing framework for the web. So please write content and add links to support that content, or look for content that is not currently supported by external references and provide those references (there is a whole WikiProject aimed at that (Wikipedia:WikiProject Fact and Reference Check), but please refrain from simply adding external links to articles for the reasons I've (we've) noted here. Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] and look at this

http://www.mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/anadrol.htm%20Oxymetholone%20Profile you have that link on the Oxymetholone page, the page is DEAD! I didnt even get to edit it out, I was about to - before you cut me off for no reason! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oxymetholone

I gave you a VALID Anadrol 50 profile I found http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Anadrol-Oxymetholone.html

and you edited it, I found 3 other information sources but you stopped my right of free speech and my interest in helping wikipedia users—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

You are not blocked from editing that I can see on your logs page. There are those of us who have taken issue with the edits you have made in adding the links to external links as you have done. Your editing and our individual response has not resulted in any blockade of your ability to edit Wikipedia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--I can see you took it the wrong way. I posted legitimate information but it's being acted on very bias and unfair. I read the rules and followed them and posted LEGITIMATE content, no different then what you already had. But ignorance and lack of review reverted my hard work. You know it took me time to read the articles and google information I found a lot and the site I added was very helpful. I tried to help Wikipedia users but I'm being punished for no reason.

You said I'm not "banned", can I post my informational resources again? or will this be a "watch you" and "edit your links" because you disagree with us issue all the time now?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please don't simply re-post those same links without considering our comments about adding content vs. adding external links. The 'injection angle into the deltoid' comment you made as an example of information on the isteroids.com site suggests that the articles have content that is currently missing from the Wikipedia article. Please consider move forward by adding missing content and supporting that added content with these links. If there is further dispute after that I can anticipate it might come from arguing that 'Wikipedia is not a how-to manual' if the added content is simply around how best to administer steroids (for instance) or 'the information added is ok, but the links are not good' in which case, you might need to go back to the cited references in the isteroids.com site and reference the peer-reviewed publications directly. I'll re-iterate - we're making comments here to try and guide you in adding content. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll be adding content and citing the link. I know what I did is right because I did read the rules, but I know I can't win against the establishment. I'll be adding some content and the same links. And the site I added is CONTENT rich, just so it's clear.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

I'll work on it the coming week. I hope next time I'm at least asked for an explanation before all my information is deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Links removal

Several points. First, the links that you added were to aggregate information articles without author attribution, unlike some other articles on the site that have author attribution; just because an author is missing isn't a reason to remove a link, but it is a contributing factor (i.e. many organizational missives are author-free and must be attributed to the organization or a committee therein - in this case to steroid.com). Without some indication of authorship, this becomes just another of hundreds of similar information aggregations around the web. Second, the site is heavily festooned with advertisers selling steroids. Third, the link addenda were just tossed on as extra information without any attempt to incorporate information from the links into the articles ... making them indiscriminate additional links there only as a matter of topical congruity. These three things add up to the interpretation that their addition is a form of topical spamvertising. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:41, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--You mean steroid.com contributed?? what did they contribute to anabolic steroids you talk about "SELLING STEROIDS" , did you bother reading this site? http://steroid.com/ look at the front page BANNER, the size of 1/2 the darn page "LOOKING FOR STEROIDS?" The site I posted DOES NOT sell steroids, just because you make this assumption, it doesn't mean it's true. The site I added was VERY relevant with relevant links. I followed the rules. The extra informatin is in the external link where people can find out more about the specific steroid. This is EXACTLY what the others have there. I had 2-3 more resources I wanted to add, but you edited my information without any reason. Your reasons are bias at best because the sites there NOW actually did not follow ANY Of the rules you are throwing at me now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

You are receiving a response to recent editing activity; that does not validate the reasonability of existing content in the target articles and using the argument ' they did it so why can't I ' is a non-starter. This is a fully asynchronous editing environment, which has both benefits and drawbacks. If you feel there are similarly 'invalid' links on the target articles, please remove them, including appropriate edit summaries. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I will additionally point out that the ext. ref http://www.mesomorphosis.com/steroid-profiles/anadrol.htm on the Oxymetholone article at least has a by-line and some pharmacological data (such as a chemical structure). Further, the mesomorphosis.com item is written in a professional 3rd person while the isteroids.com (or steroids.com) item (http://www.isteroids.com/steroids/Anadrol-Oxymetholone.html) is written in a familiar 1st person tone. These are very different animals, these two pages. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object against user:Manofwar4662's argument that other links are to similar sites, that is not a reason for others to do the same, you can question the site on the talkpage. If consensus is that the site should not be there (your description gives that feeling already), it might be removed as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

--I don't know why you have to make your comments so illfitting. I didn't do "he did it so I can too," I added legitimate content. You DID NOT review the site, you just assumed. Thus, you wasted my time by editing legitimate content I added to wikipedia. Essentially I see a lot of bias here, a LOT. Seems like I'm being picked on for no reason. My links were a LOT more relevant then anything you had there already. Now, please let me keep helping wikipedia users and stop editing all my content additions!

Dirk, You obviously lack steroid knowledge, since you are claiming outdated information is being shown! I spent good time researching sites, I know what I added was legitimate. Can you tell me what angle is best for injecting steroids into the delt? Thank you...I think this case has gone far enough. Your ignorance doesn't automatically equal me being wrong.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

I think based on comments above that we are looking at the site and examining the content as part of this set of activities. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

ok first you said it sells steroids, then you back off that statement and say it's low on content, another lie, then one of you claims it's outdated information. Come on guys, if you are going to BS me, at least do it right. Don't delete my hard work for no reason!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manofwar4662 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Comment about external links and learning from this incident

One thing that came out of this discussion was my considering more carefully the 'survival potential' of external links in general. One thing that you need to keep in mind is that different editors have different threshold levels for action and many different styles of action are tolerated under Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines. Both a strength and a weakness of Wikipedia is this variety in freedom of action - however, it goes hand in hand with many micro-conflicts where editors of different stripes 'collide'.

That being said, I think I need to be generally more stringent in the evaluation of external links on pages that I spend some significant effort on editing. By way of example, I'll point out one I did a couple of hours ago, Colma, California, where I eliminated two of the external links — one was redundant with a link in the page's Infobox; the other could be interpreted as an advertisement.

The second part of the learning is to be less hasty in out-right eliminating links. I won't apologize for interpreting the links you added as spamvertising - you've presented enough discussion here to convince most folks that it wasn't your intention to add spam, but to add informational links; nonetheless, the choice of links was - despite your effort in identifying them - less than optimal and from the experience of many editors those pages look and smell like advertising wrapped in savory seasoning. However, I think my removing them outright was not the best course of action. As in the case of Colma, California and the potential advert link, I should have moved them to the talk-page for discussion about how best to use them or whether to use them at all. Note that removal is not permanent - the code is available in page histories and is easily recoverable; removal of content from a page in Wikipedia is not nearly as difficult to recover from as deletion of content from most other systems. I'm not going to go and add items to the talk pages now, as you've indicated you'll go and consider content additions, which is what would be the request on the talk pages anyway.

Regards, --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Coyockey: I was sick for a few days. I appriciate at least the answers I got here. I tried had to be a supportive and helpful member of wikipedia and I hope my work is appriciated in the future. I have an injection guide I am adding to the anabolic steroids section. I think this will help a LOT of steroid newbies and maybe divert the newbies from use when they don't need to be using.

[edit] What happened

Coyockey, somehow our conversation dissapeared and my comment about the safety guide is gone too.Manofwar4662 18:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

anyone have any suggestions on the safety guide that I think should be put back? at least that part of the writing.Manofwar4662 01:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Turinabol.jpg listed for deletion

And if you re-upload it, for goodness sake, crop off all that white space! -- RHaworth 16:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

>I'll reupload the file, I picked the wrong option. The owner let's anyone use the pictures, I talked to him and verified.

=>I cropped the space too as you asked