User talk:Calebjbaker

Welcome!

Hello, Calebjbaker, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can . You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and how to develop articles
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• Article wizard for creating new articles
• Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Doug Weller talk 18:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the useful information and your concerns about my links. These documents are relevant essays that are in no way advertising, as is evidenced by the CC0 public domain copyright. Calebjbaker (talk) 19:26, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please stop now and revert your edits

You are adding your own material so have a conflict of interest]. It is not [{WP:VERIFIABLE and fails as a source, see WP:RS. It's possibly self-published, also failing our criteria. And it's spam the way you've done it. Doug Weller talk 18:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming

My external links are completely on topic and are in no way spam. I am not promoting a website or a product. This document utilizes the CC0 public domain copyright. A spammer would not make their research freely reproducible.

This document is not self-published. It was published by a research firm that I work for.

'Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial or legal – can trigger a COI. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute within their areas of expertise, subject to the guidance on financial conflict of interest, while making sure that their external roles and relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#What_is_conflict_of_interest.3F

I am a subject-matter expert contributing within my area of expertise, which is theology. I am afraid you are not letting your common sense guide you in analyzing the closeness of my relationship with my publishing company.

'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

This link contains further research that is accurate and on-topic.

Calebjbaker (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

However, as the links lead to enWikisource, the content has to meet the criteria over there to be hosted. It doesn't, so it has been removed. This means that your links here lead to nothing and need to be removed. Additionally, claiming that the "documents" are not self-published is disingenuous, given that you are the research firm. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my claim that these 2 analytical works are not self-published. Perhaps you are unaware of the nature of a corporation. Briefly, a corporation is a legal entity within its state of founding that has all the rights of an individual. Stating 'you are the research firm' reveals a lack of understanding of business entities in general and of the Akasha Research Firm in particular. This firm is its own entity and has multiple individuals that work with it, creating and reviewing documents in a variety of fields. I am not the Akasha Research Firm. I am an employee of said organization, and not the only one. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

And I can find no evidence of this "research firm", no evidence that your work is "reliably published" by our criteria that I linked above. Doug Weller talk 20:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

If you search the corporate databases of every state in the USA, you will find this research firm. The 2 analytical works in question were reviewed by editorial staff prior to publication. The Akasha Research Firm (ARF) is a philanthropic organization that adheres to the principles of open access and public domain works. To this end, ARF makes their publications available in local public and academic libraries for free, and the librarians at these institutions appreciate the firm's knowledge dissemination techniques. All ARF expects in return for these efforts is reader feedback and development of a community of users. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

You say you are Founder of the Akasha Research Firm

and then you say you are an employee? Sorry, that doesn't make sense. Not that it really matters, it's your 'firm', your work, which I can't find, is self-published and not discussed by any reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

There's no need to start a new discussion thread since we are already in dialogue under the heading 'Please stop now and revert your edit'. Founders of corporate entities typically become employees of the organization once things gain momentum. Phil Knight founded Nike and is a Nike employee. Paul Allen and Bill Gates co-founded Microsoft and then became Microsoft employees. I, Caleb J Baker, founded the Akasha Research Firm and am an ARF employee. One person can have 2 functions in relation to an enterprise. I do not own ARF; it is not my firm. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:36, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether you 'own the firm'. There is conflict of interest if you are using Wikipedia to promote own work or work with which you are closely associated. You should cease these attempts at self-promotion, or you may be blocked.--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to self-promote, I was attempting to contribute meaningful Wikimedia resources to relevant Wikipedia articles. I guess you just can't do that if you're the creator of the resource. Why would someone interested in self-promotion make their works CC0 public domain? -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Frequently, to assert a particular point of view.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that these 2 works were not written from a neutral point of view? My historical research and hermeneutics are solid. I report on what I learn. -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I have replied at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I see now how my links were a COI. So there's no way for the creator of a file on Wikimedia to make their files useful by linking to relevant pages on Wikipedia? That's weird. But I can see how it would lessen users' confidence in the materials. -Calebjbaker (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Doug Weller talk 18:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks. Calebjbaker (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)