Jump to content

User talk:Cphillips

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notability of Clark Kokich

[edit]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Clark Kokich, by CultureDrone (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Clark Kokich seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Clark Kokich, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

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 and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editors adding links to these sites:

-- SiobhanHansa

[edit]

Hi. Thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. If your reason for editing Wikipedia is to add links to other sites, then you're really just in the wrong place, you might try a directory service like http://www.dmoz.org instead. We ask editors to try and build GFDL encyclopedia articles. That normally means writing neutral point of view material in the articles, backed up by reliables sources. Coming here with a site you want to find a way to use as a reference/citation (that is, in the body of an article backing up an assertion) is not normally a way to write neutral articles and is considered inappropriate, especially when the sites you are using are not good encyclopedic sources. General external links (in the external links sections) can be useful but are subject to our guidelines on external links and (as with all content) are subject to consensus agreement by other editors. Those external links guidelines specifically ask editors not to add links to websites they are connected with to an article directly. If you are connected to a site you really think (after reading our guidelines) would be an asset to the article, you should suggest that link on the article talk page and let other editors decide whether or not it is appropriate to add - even this should not be abused as a way to promote the website.

I hope this answers your question, I've made a few assumptions, so if I've misinterpreted please let me know. If you'd like to know more about contributing to Wikipedia in general check out our welcome page and our core principals. -- SiobhanHansa 15:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We have a reliable source guideline - it's a long and bit convoluted, but it basically means that we look at the likelyhood we can rely on the information the source is providing. This means we need to consider a bunch of things in context. For isntance:
  • Connection to the subject and claim (a company's website claiming they are the most sought after construction specialists in the world is not a reliable source for who the most sought after construction specialist in the wold is, though it might be a reliable source for when that particular company was founded).
  • Editorial process and fact checking (Well thought of peer reviewed journals are at the top end of the scale, self published books, websites, etc. at the bottom. Forums, blogs and wikis are almost always considered unreliable).
  • Authorship - is the author a renowned expert in the subject
  • Reputation - what sort of reputation does the source have among experts in the subject area. A website that is new or unknown does not yet have much of a reputation. The Financial Times is generally well considered for its journalistic integrity on financial news and (surprisingly) some arts reviews, but it will rarely be a good source on the history of Outer Mongolia. A source like the National Enquirer would generally be considered unreliable.
With external links, where the source isn't backing up a particular claim, the reliability needs to be considered in terms of the type of information it is presenting in relation to the article it is added to. -- SiobhanHansa 14:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your links were noticed because you were spamming them - so we followed up; your behavior meant we noticed your links and now watch for them. We don't get every link all the time. We don't spot all spamming and not all inappropriate links are spammed, some spam (and inappropriate links) have been known to to last for months or years. We expect that eventually such links will be removed by editors trying to write encyclopedic articles.
Please stop focusing on the fact that your links have been removed. If you are not here to write a neutral encyclopedia regardless of its impact on your own website, stop editing and go and do something else. -- SiobhanHansa 15:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating new articles

[edit]

It isn't encouraged to write or edit articles about subjects you are closely connected to but it's not prohibited either. However, people who do this often find the experience frustrating - it's exceedingly difficult to write in a neutral manner and to collaborate with other editors when you have such an intimate stake in an article. Having put that warning at the front, here are the steps:

First read up on notability for articles about Internet based subjects (often referred to as WP:WEB). This is particularly germane to the issue of whether or not an article about your site should exist on Wikipedia - there are lots of articles that don't meet this standard, but many of them are there for the same reason we still have spam links even though we try not to. If you've found trying to add links only to have them removed frustrating you'll find writing an article only to have speedily deleted or trounced in a deletion debate to be an even more disheartening process. The community does not generally find pointing to articles about similar subjects persuasive - on the basis that if we make a mistake once it doesn't mean we should repeat it, and if we make a exception once it doesn't mean we've opened the flood gates. So I recommend you make sure you can make a good case for your site's notability before trying to get an article about it. If you want help on what this means in practice, let me know.

And also take a look at conflict of interest (COI) which gives an overview of how to edit Wikipedia in an area where you have a conflict of interest.

There are two routes to getting the article started:

  1. Find a volunteer - look for an appropriate WikiProject, or failing that a similar article that gets a fair number of editors, and ask on the talk page if anyone would be willing to consider writing the article. Provide a succinct but well referenced case for why there should be an article and let people know you are asking because the COI guidelines recommend doing so in cases where you are connected to the article subject. Offer to provide what information you can, especially reliable sources.
  2. Do it yourself. Start the article. Try and stick to the policies and guidelines above as closely as you can. Be aware that while all articles are supposed to be judged on their content, in practice people will probably judge your contributions more harshly because of your connection, they will certainly scrutinize more closely. The more you can stick to a bare, encyclopedic style, with balanced and well sourced assertions, the less ammunition you provide to those critics. Once/if others start editing the article, consider stepping out of direct editing unless updating or adding non-controversial information. Instead make suggestions on the talk page for other, non-connected editors to decide whether or not to include.

Hope that's helpful. Let me know if anything is unclear. -- SiobhanHansa 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam warning

[edit]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to party. 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. The http://sss.collegetips.com website is not a reliable source and it was made very clear above that your presence here to promote the website is not in keeping with our policies or mission. Please stop. -- SiobhanHansa 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In general a reliable source would be a publication that has a broad reputation for rigor and accuracy in regards to the assertion being supported. The reliability of a source needs to be considered in relation to the assertion being supported of course, so Anne Coulter's blog could be a good source for verifying "things Anne Coulter says", but would be a poor source for verifying facts about politics, or other political pundits. In this case your collegetips website has no real reputation for accuracy or rigor, so it is a poor source for factual assertions about college life.
Good sourcing helps us avoid, for instance, situations where all sorts of things that people think are obvious because they come across them in a limited setting, or because commercial interests bias the attention some phenomena receive, are consequently portrayed as being universal. This sort of distortion is common in magazine type articles and lifestyle "journalism" and can make for interesting and fun reading, but it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We don't always manage to live up to our lofty ideals, but it's a start.-- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
W
W

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. Its apparent this account is only being used to spam wikipedia. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cphillips&oldid=191214554"