User talk:Noahawaii

Welcome

Hello, Noahawaii, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask at the help desk, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to help you get started. Happy editing! KylieTastic (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started

Finding your way around

Editing articles

Getting help

Frequently asked questions
Cheatsheet
Our help forum for new editors, the Teahouse
The Help Desk, for more advanced questions
Help pages
Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles

How you can help

Community Portal
Join a WikiProject
Follow Wikipedia etiquette
Practice civility
Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

March 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Oahu. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Kauai, you may be blocked from editing. 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. MrOllie (talk) 02:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://noahlangphotography.com/blog

Hi, it's good that you are passionate about nature, photography and Hawaii but please stop using your own blog as a source. Wikipedia requires reliable sources (WP:RS) - also see Wikipedia:No original research. Regards KylieTastic (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why I need to justify myself as a reliable source, but I am just as much if not more than the other ones I linked. My degree is in Natural Resources & Environmental Management with a specialization in tropical forestry. I am now working on a graduate thesis for rare and endangered Hawaiian plants, and my observations come from my experience and time spent in Hawaii's natural landscapes. It's not just passionate about nature, photography, and Hawaii. That's quite insulting, and I would expect that Wikipedia should do better by experts that are contributing. Noahawaii (talk) 06:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, which KylieTastic linked for you above. It is not about your training or justifying yourself, it is about the self-published status of your blog. We sometimes accept blog posts from authors with a record of publications (for example in peer-reviewed journals), but that is handled case by case on the article talk pages. Also, per WP:COI, as the blog author you have a conflict of interest and should not be linking your own website. MrOllie (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I'd also like to point towards WP:RSSELF.

Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published sources are largely not acceptable.

Frankly, if it's verifiable, there's no need to use your own blog as a source. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noahawaii, you actually do need to justify you are a reliable source as do any other sources (see WP:RSP for some common mainstream media, such as The New York Times). You are welcome to start to a discussion on the Reliable sources noticeboard to gain consensus your blog is indeed reliable for the content you are trying to support with it. Even so, you should not add it yourself for the reasons above. S0091 (talk) 19:28, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think my website absolutely needs to be verified as a reliable source. Conflict of interest or not, these photos came from my website/work out in the field, so how is it okay to say that Wikipedia will take my photos as verifiable, but not the rest of the source? For all you know those photos aren't even the right species. That right there is reason enough to verify my website as a reliable source. Lastly and for the third or fourth time, I've pointed out how the Makaua gulch sentence makes no sense unless it is cited by more than one source, which is my source. It's the location and source that these photos came from. Whatever needs to happen get my website verified, because I can contribute largely to Wikipedia with my work, but I definitely won't knowing these seemingly unnecessary barriers to someone like myself. Someone that isn't trying to just post something spammy. Noahawaii (talk) 19:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noahawaii, you can start a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard. Take a look at the current discussions to get an idea of how you need to structure it, ignoring the first one which is for Fox News and a monster. Scroll down to the recent ones for more "simple" examples. Given your background, you may also find WP:EXPERT helpful. If you have questions or need help, you can ask at the Teahouse or maybe Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants might be helpful to you. S0091 (talk) 19:58, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Noahawaii, you are invited to join other new editors and friendly hosts in the Teahouse. The Teahouse is an awesome place to meet people, ask questions and learn more about Wikipedia. Please join us!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Boehmeria grandis has been accepted

Boehmeria grandis, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

KylieTastic (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

September 2022

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Boehmeria grandis. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

Please stop. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did at Koʻolau Range, you may be blocked from editing. 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. This is the same notice you were given in March 2022; I'm issuing it again here in case you forgot. Also, please take a look at WP:MINOR--in short, please don't mark edits as "minor" edits unless the edit you're making makes only a superficial change to an article. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article should not be marked as a minor edit. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not spam or inappropriate. Talking about the mountain ranges recreation as a topic is absolutely on-topic and appropriate for what it is today. If anything, the transportation section is the weirdest section and should be removed. Noahawaii (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Koʻolau Range. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Please stop. The content itself is not the spam--it's the insertion of the link to a personal blog that you have a direct connection to. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that doesn't make it spam. It's the most detailed account of recreation in the mountain range. If the content itself is not spam, then the website is not spam. Noahawaii (talk) 01:38, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Aoi (青い) (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to appeal this. Personal website can make somebody an expert in a topic. Noahawaii (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now it is only a report. You can speak in your defense on the page linked above. You can go directly to the section about you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Noahawaii and links to their own blog. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Websites

I would like to know how adding this section:

"Recreation

Today, the Koʻolau mountain range is best known for some of the most breathtaking hikes on Oʻahu, including the trek across the range's summit called the Koʻolau Summit Trail (KST).

This rugged cross-island hike traverses some of the most beautiful and challenging terrain featuring flora and fauna found nowhere else on earth."

to: Koʻolau Range

is somehow bad if I can be the most reliable source. I was told that the section alone isn't bad, but for some reason the link makes everything bad. An outside link doesn't necessarily make something unreliable. Noahawaii (talk) 01:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia policy, outside links generally should not be embedded in the text of articles. The tone of the edit was not appropriate for Wikipedia as there was quite a bit off puffery in it. Furthermore, linking to your own website, especially coupled with the language used, will likely be seen as promotion, which is not permitted. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what was meant by puffery, even after reading the topic. I thought the paragraph was very concise and well-written. Again, if the section was deemed to be okay, then what's up with the link. Can the website not be a valid source of information. I can speak to how often it is kept up to date, and there's no one better than myself to speak on recreation in the mountain range. See the long list of trails linked with the article to see how extensive and detailed the website is. It is as accurate as can be, and I thought it was very on-topic for the Koʻolau article. Noahawaii (talk) 02:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Seems like some redirects were changed a bit at some point. MOS:PUFFERY was what I meant. Basically, language like "breathtaking hikes" and "beautiful and challenging terrain featuring flora and fauna found nowhere else on earth," reads like an advertisement and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. See the guidelines for external links, especially WP:LINKSTOAVOID, which includes links to personal websites. I'll also add that when external links are used, they generally go in a separate External Links section, and are not added as linked text in the body of the page. As it were, any decisions will be made largely based on the discussion on the Administrators' Noticeboard. TornadoLGS (talk) 02:34, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would be useful to know where that section is, but I still have a hard time understanding why external links are so frowned upon. If the section was reworded by someone else, I still feel that the link it very relevant and not spammy.. Noahawaii (talk) 03:13, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I give a link to that section right above this discussion here, but here it is again. It is near the bottom of the page right now and has your username in the header. The big reason is that Wikipedia is meant to be a self-contained encyclopedia (with references, though) and not a collection of links. In any case, the guideline against external links is right in the second sentence of Wikipedia:External links. Even if you don't consider your edits to be spam, loosening the guideline on external links would invite a lot of spam. TornadoLGS (talk) 03:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

June 2023

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Star Mississippi 22:10, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting here that indefinite does not need to mean permanent. Over at the ANI thread, A. B. spoke up for you in terms of having a good knowledge of plants, and that you have edited constructively in the past. If you would like to continue editing, read WP:GAB and make an unblock request that demonstrates that you understand that you are not allowed to add links to your personal website, or write any content based on it. This is all covered at WP:RS.

You should also be aware that we don't make subjective comments in Wikipedia's voice. Above, you are asking what is wrong with the following text: "Today, the Koʻolau mountain range is best known for some of the most breathtaking hikes on Oʻahu, including the trek across the range's summit called the Koʻolau Summit Trail (KST). This rugged cross-island hike traverses some of the most beautiful and challenging terrain featuring flora and fauna found nowhere else on earth." That is some very flowery language for an encyclopedia. It would need to be pared down to something like this: "The Koʻolau mountain range is known hiking trails on Oʻahu, including the trek across the range's summit called the Koʻolau Summit Trail (KST)." That would need to be supported by a reliable source (not your website); any further commentary on the trail should be presented as an attributed quote to the source. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 14:16, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess its fine. Nothing was ever meant to be spam. I thought I was just helping.. but I won't try to make any more edits... Noahawaii (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]