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:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]