User talk:Netage

Open letter to the editors of Wikipedia

I have dedicated my life to the study of religion, mythology and spirituality. It is my passion, it is my blight. I have so far not benefited from my work because I believe one must give and not only take from this grand mystery that is LIFE.

I want to bring the following to your attention: I had linked my essays on several of Wikipedia’s subjects. The list can be found at this link:

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

All these links have been arbitrarily removed recently for reasons that I have yet to comprehend.

My essays are a critical analysis of a top-down ruling ideology. I was under the belief that Wikipedia was an open-source and bottom-up tool for the enhancement of learning and the development of a critical mind. I am realizing to my regret that Wikipedia is being subverted by editors who believe in a corporatist agenda, one that is contrary to the ideals of an open-source of learning.

Wikipedia should not be an additional tool of self-promotion for an industry that has an obscene amount of money for advertising at their disposal. Furthermore Wiki editors should not work on behalf of the movie industry to censure any form of valid criticism that might be contrary to their self promoting interests, or picture perfect entries.

Myth criticism is a valid field of Literary Criticism. And critical essays are an essential part of a healthy intellectual debate and the expansion of consciousness. Entries like “Iron Man the movie” in their present form without any open-source critical contributions do not belong in Wikipedia. They are part of a top-down form of mind control.

The reason behind the removal of these links is exactly why I wrote my essay on criticism. I cannot understand the mental block of these editors who do not belong or believe in the open-source vocation of Wikipedia.

Respectfully,

Michael A. Rizzotti

BA in Theology, Loyola
MA in Religious Studies, UQAM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netage
http://netage.org/

Welcome!

Hello, Netage, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Mihai -^talk 23:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netage.com links[edit]

I rolled back your link on the Spider-Man page becuase it appears to be either self-promotional and/or just another essay on Spider-Man, rather than a site about Spider-Man (and I suspect that's why the Batman link was rolled back). Check out Wikipedia:External links for more information on what to link here. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 16:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I rolled back your link again. Please talk to me on my talk page if you want to discuss this, but one non-notable essay on a topic doesn't really lend for it to be linked. -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 18:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your email[edit]

I believe in the Wikipedia community, so I'm replying here. This way, other editors who come looking this up will know what the heck went on.

Emailing me off the site, without mentioning your websites, made me take about 30 minutes to figure out you had written an email to me about edits from a month ago. Let me address the most serious concern I had with your edits: Self-Promotion. The rules are simple, you shouldn't ever add your own site to a page. You're reading too much into that if you're taking it as a censure. Check out WP: Conflict of Interest for details.

Regarding why I removed your sites, which you call idealism in your email to me, links to pages that are essays on certain superheroes do not add anything helpful to article. An external link should (per Wikipedia:External links which I linked to before) be a link that adds merit to the page. This does not mean I think your essay was bad, I rather liked it, and I took a moment now to re-read it. The issue is that your site falls clearly under Links normally to be avoided. That is 'Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.' and 'Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked.'

Frankly, your site does indeed make valid criticism. On a religious site. That has little to do with superheros, and it's notable. The goal of your website (from here) espouses that "The web site proposes articles about how traditional forms of religious expressions have shifted into alternative forms of spirituality." Which is great. But having two articles on superheros does not a notable site make. Having two, little read articles (if a google link-back search is any indication) makes it less notable.

If you had a Batman site, that contained the history of Batman, the movies, the TV shows, etc, and these essays, then your site would be perfect to add to the Batman page. That's what we're looking for. Everything else? Not really needed. I honestly don't know where on Wikipedia your site would fit best, probably somewhere in the religion sections there's a spot for this sort of site, but it's not superheroes. Otherwise, we'd be adding every Tom, Dick and Harry site in the known world with one article on Batman, and before you know it, we'd be a link farm. And no one wants that.

If this is still vexing you, or you still don't understand why, I suggest bringing this up in the proper forum- The talk page of Talk:Batman or Talk:Spider-Man would be a good start. There's also the Comics Project, where people are wise about the ways of comics. I hope I've helped you understand why I deleted your link. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 23:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply to Ipstenu[edit]

I apologize for sending you an email and for not going through the proper channels. I am new at this and I am not very familiar with Wikipedia's protocol. I am also sorry for not including my web page link in my email, I am so into self-promoting myself that if forgot to include it.

By reading your reply I can see that you have completely missed the point of my email. That’s why I have decide to post it here. I have also posted your reply that I consider rather impulsive and kind of harsh.

“To the editors;

I had linked several of my articles on subjects like Superman, Spider-Man and Batman. I am writing to challenge the censure of my links by Ipstenu and other editors. My links were removed on the grounds that they are not “about” but “on” the subject of these super-heroes, whatever that means. I am also accused of self-promotion. This is non-sense because these super-heroes are the epitome of self-promotion “by” the media.

My articles make a legitimate and valid criticism of these mythical heroes. I am sorry that Ipstenu’s idealism is being shattered by my discourse. And I plead on behalf of the reader, young and old, who will benefit from a valid criticism of our post-modern mythology.

I would like to stress that I have dedicated all my life to study of religion and spirituality. I thrive to apply a critical analysis on the subject of mythology and ideology. My goal is to promote intellectual criticism for the benefit of the reader. From an open-source perspective, of which Wikipedia should be the embodiment.

I would like to remind you that the etymological meaning of encyclopedia is; a general education that include all branches of knowledge. The French Encyclopédistes were part of an intellectual group that promoted the advancement of science and secular thought. They advocated tolerance, supported rationality and open-mindedness. They were responsible for the Enlightenment.

Their primary goal was to make knowledge accessible to everybody. By emphasizing the importance of linking the different branches of knowledge. To show that knowledge comes from the scientific study made by “individuals”. Not from the doctrines or dogmas of provided by the Church in Rome. They applied themselves to bypass ─déjouer─ any “censure” from the Church or the State.

Wikipedia must object to any form of censure and defend its role as a bottom-up provider of education. It should promote any valid contributions to the understanding of a shifting world view ushered by the Internet. As you know, linking is the essence of the Internet. It is because of this linking that the unprecedented development of the Internet was made possible.

To conclude, I would like to add that I have introduced in my writings the idea that these super-heroes are mythical American icons. An idea that is commonly accepted today. I would like to emphasize the importance of any linking contributions like mine to the advancement of knowledge and to critical thinking for the benefit of a healthy public debate.

Respectfully, Michael A. Rizzotti BA in Theology, Loyola MA in Religious Studies, UQAM Author of: God, Myth, and Metaphor (I can provide you a copy of my diplomas upon request)

Ipstenu’s email reply:

You'd be best served bringing this up on the talk pages. Seriously, emailing me to bitch that I deleted a site that was in clear violation of the wiki rules (self-promotion) is rather against the idea of a community.

In that regard, I have replied here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ User_talk:Netage

I will not be replying to further emails on the matter.

As you can see from my reply months ago, I did direct you to talk pages (including my own). If you still need help figuring out how talk pages work, put {{helpme}} on this page and someone who is good at that can help you out :) You have yet to address my assertions that this is a personal website, or a case of self-promotion as defined by Wikipedia's standards. I strongly urge you to take up your case on the individual talk pages for the articles in question, as I linked to above. -- Ipstenu (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[edit]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} below this message box.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]