1. This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Hockanum River, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. Thank you. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the email I recieved from you:

From: Real Name removed for privacy <email removed for privacy>
Date: Jul 8, 2007 7:33 AM
Subject: Hockanum River
To: elipongo@gmail.com'
'

Elipongo,

The link to the Hockanum River was no more of a spam than the other links. There is original map data for the Hockanum River on http://www.ctxguide.com/ctxguide_131.htm .
Please explain your decision to remove this content.

Czimborbryan

Thank you for writing to me via email. However, unless there is a pressing reason to keep a conversation private (e.g. revealing personal details, etc.) I prefer to keep conversations on the wiki so that nothing is hidden from anybody.

I think the break in our communication here is that I, and most people on Wikipedia, have a wider definition of spam than you do, follow that link to read what I mean, read especially the "How not to be a spammer" section. Basically, posting that URL on many pages in a short period, without adding any content to the articles does indeed constitute spamming.

Now that you've started posting from your registered account instead of from the IP addresses, I see that you followed the correct procedure outlined at the External links guideline for Farmington River article by posting a request at that article's talk page[1]. Since nobody objected at that page, and you followed the correct procedure, I'm leaving the link on that one article. This is the benefit of editing from your registered account, I can see that you did ask first on that article anyway.

The point of this is that Wikipedia is an encylopedia, we want well written articles, not lists of links. If you'd care to write some prose to add to the articles and cite an external site as a source, that can be acceptable. However, since I assume you are the owner of that site, you need to also read and understand our Conflict of interest guideline because you may very well be accused of violating the No original research policy since you own the site. You may be better off in that case if you cite whatever Reliable sources you consulted when you built your site to verify whatever information you add.

I hope this addresses your concerns and that you now understand our viewpoint on the matter (I am only one of about a half dozen editors who have been deleting the links you have been posting). Thanks again for your note and feel free to write again if you have any more questions. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: Real name removed for privacy <email deleted to prevent spam>
Date: Jul 8, 2007 9:01 PM
Subject: WikiProject Connecticut
To: elipongo@gmail.com

Thank you for your reply. To be honest, I didn't even realize that it was wikipolicy to request external links before posting. In fact, I barely even know how to edit wikipedia, because I just started.

From what I read, it appears as though most of the content in wikipedia comes from consensus. If I were to request to have an external link included on any topic, is there a way to take a vote? If so, how? If not, what would you suggest (step-by-step, please)?

I would also like to add content, specifically related to Connecticut outdoor adventure locations/geography. How would I go about creating new pages? Would articles have to be posted on the WkiProject Connecticut page? If so, how?

Thanks,
Real name removed for privacy

Hi again, and sorry for my delayed reply. It was my father's yahrtzeit yesterday and I was bit distracted.

Anyways, in general external links should be directly related to the topic, for example it would be perfectly appropriate to list a company's website in the article about that company, or an article about a book or song could link to a site that hosted a copy (as long as that website isn't itself a copyright violator). Stuff that falls outside the guidline should be discussed on that particular article's talk page to see if the regular editors of the page have any objections or thoughts on the matter. It's not supposed to be a vote, per se, but rather a discussion with everyone attempting to come to a consensus through rational discussion. (It doesn't always work out that way and Wikipedia has mechanisms such as dispute resolution to prevent or stop edit warring).

I see that you've taken my advice to add content to the articles and cite the site as a source. Excellent and extra material is exactly what those articles do need. My one caveat would be that since you are yourself the owner of the website you're referencing, you could run afoul of the No original research policy. You should read the section about citing yourself and the guidelines that are linked to that section.

Use the links in the welcome template I posted at the top of this page, there's tons of useful stuff linked there that you should read.

Thanks for your understanding of what we're doing here. Good luck and happy editing! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: name removed for privacy <email removed to prevent spam>
Date: Jul 10, 2007 11:07 PM
Subject: No Original Research Policy
To: elipongo@gmail.com

I believe that I am in the clear as far as the No Original Research Policy goes. Even though I had mapped these routes out myself and took the measurements with a GPS (which would constitute Original Research), because I had published the results the matter should fall into Citing Self.

"If an editor has published the results of their research in a reliable publication, they may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy."

I would argue that Connecticut Explorer's Guide (www.ctxguide.com) is a reliable publication with accurate recreational maps. The UCONN magic library has indexed Connecticut Explorer's Guide under Digital Geodata at http://arcserver.lib.uconn.edu/reference/weblinks.html CTXGuide is also indexed with Mapathon, Slackpacker, and PeaktoPeak.

Czimborbryan

Thanks for this latest email. By the way, if you want a faster response, please post your messages here on the wiki.

The sticky issue here is that the website is published by yourself and counts as a self published source under the verifiability policy. I would again suggest that you instead provide citations from whatever sources you originally found information in rather then from your own website. Please also understand that I am not the only one here who is concerned about this and other may become involved if these issues aren't corrected soon. Thanks again for your time and patience. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: name removed for privacy <email removed to prevent spam>
Date: Jul 12, 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Wiki Response
To: elipongo@gmail.com

Elipongo, This is a letter that I have included with a few wikipedia posts on the Talk page. This should answer any of your questions about validity.

There has been some concern about using my personal website, Connecticut Explorer’s Guide, as a reference source for the geographic related articles I have been writing about here in Wikipedia.

Issue 1. No Original Research Policy I believe that I am in the clear as far as the No Original Research Policy goes. Even though I had mapped these routes out myself and took the measurements with a GPS (which would constitute Original Research), because I had published the results the matter should fall into Citing Self. "If an editor has published the results of their research in a reliable publication, they may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy." I would argue that Connecticut Explorer's Guide (www.ctxguide.com) is a reliable publication with accurate recreational maps. It operates with an extended user’s agreement from the National Geographic Society. The UCONN magic library has indexed Connecticut Explorer's Guide under Digital Geodata at http://arcserver.lib.uconn.edu/reference/weblinks.html further endorsing it’s accuarte maps. CTXGuide is also indexed with Mapathon, Slackpacker, and PeaktoPeak.

Issue 2. Self-Published Sources This issue has also been covered. The official policy is stated below. “Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves, so long as: it is relevant to their notability; it is not contentious; it is not unduly self-serving; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject; there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it. “

The articles written here in Wikipedia are relevant, non-contentious, not self-serving, not critical of third parties, and originally written by me. This would clear these wiki-articles of the Self-Published rule. Furthermore, the links to Connecticut Explorer’s Guide under References is for further research or to check accuracy and not a mandate to click the link.

Issue 3. Citing Source It has been suggested the content of the maps in Connecticut Explorer’s Guide had been derived from an originating source. Even though research had been done utilizing text sources (books) in order to find these locations, there are no forms of like media (maps) used as original sources. These maps are original sources created by GPS and exploring these areas in person and are within the bounds of copyright laws.

Czimborbryan

Hello again. Please write to me here rather than via email, it keeps things in the open. Thank you.

You have misinterpreted the policy regarding self-published sources. The part you quote is explicitly limited to sources that are related to articles about themselves— for example material from a person's self-published autobiography could be used in an article about that person. This does not apply to your use of Connecticut Explorer's Guide as a source in the articles you are using it in.

The section that is applicable to your use of that source is the one directly above it, Self-published sources (online and paper). Being listed as a resource at various websites does not count as being published by them.

Your argument regarding the No original research policy is also flawed because what they mean when they say "a reliable publication" is the Reliable sources guideline, which leads you directly back to the section about self published sources I linked to above.

You should also take a glance at the discussion you started at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Define External Links Spam to see some of the comments other editors are making.

While I do appreciate the increase in coverage of our state parks, I need to be frank with you; there are a number of other editors who are watching our conversation and are only keeping from intervening in hopes that you will stop trying to wriggle around your obvious Conflict of interest in this matter. If you don't stop now, others will step in and this will escalate.

Again, thank you for your time and work in understanding our policies here. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 14:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to write something, write it here on your talk page. Those article talk pages are not the appropriate forums for this discussion. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elipongo, posting this discussion on the talk pages was what I was instructed to do.

"You should discuss this on the article-discussion pages where you wanted to add the link. Here is the wrong place to discuss this, becuase the authors don't see your arguments.

Let the authors know IN Wikipedia why your links matter. Every article has a "discussion" button.

Hope that helps, Martin Fink"

I think you should have a meeting with the other administrators about this. If you would like the content of Wikipedia to grow, you should refrain from claiming that everything posted is SPAM and then threatening to delete it.

I'm not an administrator and what I think Martin meant was that you should ask to include your link on those talk pages. Not have long cut and paste monologues pasted on dozens of talk pages- who could keep the discussion straight when it's fragmented so?

Since you wish it, I will make a post on the administrators' noticeboard to let them know about your case so that you can discuss it with people with more experience and authority then myself. Thanks again for your time. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, here's the reply to the above comments.

I am writing to appeal the accusations of breaking the Self-Published Sources policy, specifically the middle paragraph, regarding the articles with Connecticut Explorer’s Guide listed as a reference.

Even though Connecticut Explorer’s Guide is a commercial website, it is free and a comprehensive outdoor recreation resource. About half of it’s content are links to difficult-to-find recreation maps. The other half of the content are original map data created using GPS and interfaced with National Geographic TOPO! map software (an extended user’s agreement with the National Geographic Society). These TOPO! maps were scanned versions of the USGS topographic maps and should be considered valid as a cited source. Even though the overlayed map data created using a GPS is a Self-Published Source, the remainder of the maps are unarguabley accurate. Even though the GPS data may have small errors resulting from technical limitations, the data should be considered as reliable and as accurate as reasonabley possible. These map pages have been linked from Wikipedia content as references by the author of both Connecticut Explorer’s Guide and the Wikipedia content. The geographic descriptions of the subject area is mostly derived from the USGS-sourced TOPO! maps used on the pages of Connecticut Explorer’s Guide. The Wikipedia content descriptions of the overlayed map data are mere mentions of existing recreational opportunities of that geographic area and not reliant on a 100% accurate map. Connecticut Explorer’s Guide has been used as a reference in good faith in order to increase Wikipedia’s content about these Connecticut locations.

Additionally, Connecticut Explorer’s Guide has been indexed as a Digital Geodata resource on UCONN’s Magic Library website. This should help to validate Connecticut Explorer’s Guide as a valid resource.

"Self-published sources (online and paper)

Policy shortcut:WP:V#SELFWP:SPS

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.[4] Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP."

Czimborbryan

I just wanted to give you an outside view on this issue. I can tell you really like this site, and think it's a good resource -- which it almost certainly is. However, that's not really what's at issue here; rather, it's our reliable sources guidelines. The name is perhaps a misnomer -- it's not really about sources being "reliable" (though it is), but rather about them having oversight; specifically, some kind of editorial, or oversight board which ensures the material is accurate, correct, and not misleading. They also need to have an established record for this sort of activity. Unfortunately, nearly all personal and commercial websites do not meet this standard, and it doesn't look like this one is any exception. I suggest you think about another way to write the information you want to include so that it doesn't rely on this reference. --Haemo 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haemo,

You missed my point about the maps on CTXGuide being sourced from National Geographic TOPO!. The maps on the referenced CTXGuide pages are from a reliable third party source, National Geographic TOPO!, and are every bit as accurate as USGS topo maps because the NG TOPO! map software used USGS topo maps to create their software.

The reason why CTXGuide pages have been used as references and not sites like TopoZone is because CTXGuide offers accurate mapping of recreational areas that can not be found anywhere else for free on the web. This map data is overlayed across the topographic image of the maps and does not degrade the validity or reliability of the original topographic map. Even though the overlayed map data may be in question, 99.9% of the geographic descriptions of the subject written in Wikipedia has used the original topo map and not the overlayed immage as the source. References are made about the overlayed map data, but the articles are not soley reliant upon that information.

It is largely irrelevant that CTXGuide is a self-published website if it uses media created by a reliable and valid source.

Additionally, there are many other Wikipedia articles that do not have referenced sources at all. It seems as though the administrators of Wikipedia have largely disregarded this matter and have spent more energy and time putting into question the linked references instead. This bias has led to rampant disregard for references altogether because the administrators are too busy chasing away those people that have used references appropriately. For example, there are 11 Wikipedia articles under List of Connecticut Rivers that are completely unreferenced sources. One of those articles is 100% plagiarized from the book, "AMC River Guide, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island."

Another side-issue is that somebody had changed the heading from References to External Links on all of my Wikipedia articles. This is not an accuarte representation of the links. These links were to pages that were used in the creation of the article and need to stay as references.

Does National Geographic not retain any sort of copyright on the topo maps if they did indeed create the maps originally? Perhaps there is a reason that they are not available for free anywhere else on the internet, namely, copyright and ownership issues. Also, remember to sign your posts using the 4 tildes. Thanks Malson 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted National Geographic on this issue: Czimborbryan has an appropriate license for this content, and they tried to sell me one too. :-) --SarekOfVulcan 16:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, in this context, if you are just specifically using the maps which are licensed from the National Geographic service, I'm inclined to say that is an acceptable use for sourcing; it's just additional content, that does not come from a reliable source, that needs to be avoided. --Haemo 01:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unleash the hounds; somebody posted a link under the references page!

I never imagined that there would be such a wolf-pack of malcontent stalking the forests of Wikipedia. From the moment I posted an article, I had one accusation after the other flying my way. So far,this is the most unwelcoming and bitter group of people on the internet and I have yet to read a kind remark by anybody. Sure, I made a few errors, but I just started this thing. As far as my website goes, the information is as accurate as one can get on the web and free to boot. If anybody had bothered to look around, there is a page on CTXGuide titled National Geographic and CTXGuide that explanes the extended users agreement. I explored a good part of Connecticut and have some detailed information to share. It would be nice to be able to do this without being lynched.

I would hope that whoever changed my References headings to External Links headings would revert them back. I do not have the time to be chasing down vandals.

If you're going to continue to post content for the purpose of getting your cite linked, would you please have the kindness to LEARN HOW WE FORMAT THINGS HERE, so I don't have to keep cleaning up after you?????--SarekOfVulcan 04:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is what I'm talking about. Instead of bashing me with the above statement, maybe you could explain specifically what I had done wrong and give me an idea about how to correct it. The truth is that everybody that begins Wikipedia is going to have a learning process regarding formatting. If all that you are willing to do is attack the new editors for making a few formatting mistakes without educating them, the new editors will most likely leave.

Additionally, I have not been posting content with the sole purpose of getting my site linked. I have been sharing information with the Wikipedia users in which I have copyright protection. If I am going to write about it then I am going to cite the source. I am writing about this subject area because it is my expertise. There are many other editors that do the same. Czimborbryan 14:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you could check the changes I've been making to your articles, if you want to know how to correct it. You could also check out the Welcome message Elipongo left you up above, which sets everything out quite clearly. I know everyone makes formatting mistakes at first: my first article was put up on WP:AfD before I figured out how to create an article that other people would find useful. The reason I yelled at you above was that after I went through and corrected your formatting errors on the first batch of articles, you posted a second batch with the same kinds of errors in them.--SarekOfVulcan 18:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SarekOfVulcan,

Please revert all of the External Links edits that you had made to my articles using Connecticut Explorer's Guide as References. These links are references citing copyrighted material and you do not have my permission to remove these sources as references. This is in violation of copyright law and against the policies of wikipedia. Czimborbryan 14:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I do have your permission to make whatever changes in the Wikipedia articles you edited I see fit. If you scroll down while you have an edit window open, you see the following text:

• By submitting content, you agree to release your contributions under the GNU Free Documentation License.
• If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.

Also, please, review WP:NLT at your earliest convenience. Thanks.--SarekOfVulcan 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT Legal complaints A polite, coherent complaint in cases of copyright infringement or attacks is not a "legal threat". I have requested repeatedly that you revert the external links edit back to the appropriate References label. Yes, this is protected under copyright. Czimborbryan 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are the owner of copyrighted material which has been inappropriately added to Wikipedia, a clear statement about whether it is licensed for such use is welcome and appropriate. You may contact the information team, contact the Wikimedia Foundation's designated agent, or use the procedures at Wikipedia:Copyright problems.

It is Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified. If you believe that you are the subject of a libelous statement on Wikipedia, please contact the information team.

Let's take Yantic River for an example. You state that it is formed by the confluence of three rivers -- none of which are listed on the map. You state that it's 4 miles each of Colchester -- the map doesn't show Colchester. You state that it flows into the Shetucket: the map doesn't show the Shetucket. You say that it's a popular whitewater destination: the map doesn't give any evidence of that one way or another.

So, since there's nothing in the article that that map gives evidence for, it's an external link, not a reference. Clear enough?--SarekOfVulcan 05:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your abuse of the GNU is a violation of the copyright laws. Even though Wikipedia uses encyclopedic content, it must cite the source. This is protected under copyright law. See the disclamer at the bottom of every edit page. You may edit the content however you see fit, but you do not have the right to remove cited sources. This gives the impression that the article was an original creation by the author. Czimborbryan 13:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, however images are fine to be left without cites as long as the source is on the image page. Content added to pages is no longer copyright the author, and can be kept in the encyclopedia. It's still tracked to the author (the person who added it) via the history. If they did not create it, they should not add it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 09:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an issue about authorship. It is an issue about where the author got his/her source for writing the article. For example, if somebody used a quote from "Rock Climbing Connecticut" and had cited the source under the reference page this leaves no doubt about the source. However, if another editor were to delete the cited source and leave the quote, this suddenly violates the copyright protection for the author of "Rock Climbing Connecticut." The Wikipedia editor may have been comfortable with taking the risk to expose his or her content to vicious editing, but the author of "Rock Climbing Connecticut" would be very upset. This scenario is just an example of what can and is happening here on Wikipedia. This is a problem with the Wikipedia system and needs to change. We all need to protect the rights of the authors of the references and cited sources and the honor system isn't working (evidenced by SarekOfVulcan's deletion of the Reference heading on my Wikipedia articles). There needs to be some way to protect the References from inappropriate editing and at the same time, allow for honest editing. This is the quote under each editing window, "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. You agree to license your contributions under the GFDL*." Czimborbryan 12:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. MrOllie (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These external links are not inappropriate and are directly related to the content of the page. Furthermore, the textual links describe the content of the external link without tricks or gimmicks. Thousands of Wikipedia users have found these external links helpful with their research. This is not a spam campaign, but the free sharing of information directly related to content.

The only thing inappropriate is the anal retentive crusade of a few members of Wikipedia to rid this site of truly useful information.

OK, the first warning is in 2007, here is the last:

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia.

Another explanation for your "Thousands of Wikipedia users have found these external links helpful with their research." is "you have been very successful in your spamming". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:47, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to expand slightly: please read and follow the conflict of interest guideline, the citation guideline and the footnotes guideline .. thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK as I was saying, my posting of external links may be officially against the rules of wikipedia, but there is no fundamental harm in what I am doing. I would argue that placing relevant external links that provide a free service to inquiring users is what the internet was designed to do. If wikipedia disallows my post just because I operate the linked site, the fundamental reasons to have external links at all has been compromised. Think about it... why does wikipedia allow for external links? I would say to pursue more information related to the topic at hand. It all has to do with the dissemination of information. Wikipedia's strict definition of spam is contrary to the dissemination of information. There are many publishers of niche sites that have original and informative data that may otherwise go unnoticed if it wasn't for their efforts to create external links. The internet is unique in this way - those people that hold unique and small quantities of copy righted data can share this data with the world absolutely free. The data finds its way into relevant communities and adds valuable insight and perspective on what would otherwise be considered authoritative compositions. This is how progress and development on an individual and global level are achieved. I whole-heartedly disagree with wikipedia's rule about this action being considered spam. This is not spam. The links are relevant and useful to the wikipedia community. 6-20-09 czimborbryan

It is fine that you disagree with our policies and guidelines, but editing in violation of them, even if you disagree, is very likely to get you blocked. If you see on this page, quite some editors have (serious) concerns on the way you add those links, and have given you alternatives. If you think that there are serious flaws in our policies and guidelines, then discuss on their talkpages, this is not the way forward.

I can see that you think that the links are useful, and they may very well be, but they are not useful because only you say so. Discuss with others, contact (an) appropriate wikiproject(s) (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, there is a directory there to help you find appropriate ones), post on talkpages (you did once, and you saw that that was successful).

Moreover, I am sure that you have a lot of content to add, and when I looked further, I see you do. This site may be a good reference (I actually think it is), and if you use it in such a way, then there is for us no, or at least much less, reason to complain. That is why I pointed you to the citation guideline and the footnotes guideline, they tell you how to tie your link to the content that can be attributed to that. Just adding your link to external links sections or references sections is less helpful.

You are affiliated with the site (see the conflict of interest guideline), and in such cases it is better to discuss, especially when there are concerns from other editors. Whatever the reason (wanting others to tell about the site, driving traffic to your site, commercial reasons, promotional reasons, whatever) and whatever the contents linked to (government sites, non-profit museum, archive, porn, selling of drugs), it is simply better to avoid any form of those. You may say, what harm can there be in a non-profit museum adding their own links, it is not like that they earn money by that .. well .. they absolutely do! And I can think up scenarios for any site being added by a site-maintainer (and I know that several of those scenarios could earn me an assume good faith warning), but as I say, just avoid it and all there is no trouble at all.

Wikipedia is about collaborating with others, discussing with others. And that is what I am very, very strongly urging you to do now. Collaborate with others, and find consensus before adding your link. I hope this explains.

Regarding your "... anal retentive crusade ...", that is not a nice remark, and that is not what they are saying, everything that is said here is that they want you to discuss &c. I agree with "The data finds its way into relevant communities and adds valuable insight and perspective on what would otherwise be considered authoritative compositions. This is how progress and development on an individual and global level are achieved.", and Wikipedia's way is via collaboration and discussion, not by pushing your information. If it gets opposed: discuss, explain, cooperate and get to consensus together. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]