User talk:Alan Kurtz

Review Links

Since Enigmaman had to leave before he could address your issue, I'll see if I can't straighten this out for you.

Edits like these ([1], [2], [3], [4]) are problematic for two reasons.

WP:EL#ADV- this policy section addresses the problem with adding external links that one is connected to (as I gather you are, your username being the author of these reviews).
WP:SPS- this policy addresses self-published sources. While this doesn't specifically apply in this case (BC has a review board, so your reviews aren't technically self-published once they hit the live site), it's still a good read :D

The first policy, coupled with HOW you added them (multiple pages rather quickly, which was a red flag), almost certainly led to them being removed. We have spam-bots adding links to sites all the time- you got caught in the net. You might try asking on the article talk pages if the other editors there think the review is acceptable. I know there's a TON a red tape to get through, especially if you're editing around your own field of work. Professors sometimes have problems using papers they've published as sources. There are a lot of policies to remember, and it can get daunting. Here's the main layout-

--King Öomie 14:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Melvin Williams (actor) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://blogcritics.org/video/article/tv-review-american-gangster-melvin-williams/ (matching the regex rule \bblogcritics\.org\b). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Larry Davis (criminal). It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because 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. CliffC (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics conflict

Hello, Alan Kurtz. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Blogcritics, you may have a conflict of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:

Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. It is clear to me that you have a negative relationship with Blogcritics, having written for them in the past, and then engaged in online attacks against them. Binksternet (talk) 18:51, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]