User talk:Ralfjnr

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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. Thank you.Mean as custard (talk) 11:02, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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 may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:14, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ralfjnr. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts 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.
Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
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. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC) JamesBWatson (talk) James, help me out here, I am new, and I don't make any money out of writting about Project, Programme or Portfolio Offices (PMO), but there is some things on wikipedia which are incorrect or need extending/ elaborating. When speaking to others about PMO's, they get frustrated about Wikipedia not being detailed enough, and I am trying to make a start as a volunteer. My experience so far has been whomever polices wikipedia, takes the role very seriously, to the point of putting of volunteers and experts in certain fields. I have just written a page about a book on PMO's (the UK government P3O manual), and note it has never been mentioned since it's creation in 2008. Again showing that people are put off from contributing. I do not know where to start, seeing as I know the reference matierial, and the topic of PMO's very well! Ralfjnr (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ralfjnr, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Ralfjnr! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 01:15, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PMO Planet

Hello, Ralfjnr. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest including WP:NOPAY.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People with a close connection to a subject need to be aware of Wikipedia's 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. You may also wish to avoid giving the impression that your account is to be used for promotional purposes. Regardless, doing so does not exempt you from compliance with the content policies or mean that you should not exercise great care in editing about subjects related to you. --Hu12 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additions of http://.pmoplanet.com

Please stop. If you continue spamming Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing.--Hu12 (talk) 12:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I don't understand.... The link to the website mention, DOES NOT generate any revenue or profit, it does not charge got anything, it does not ask for anything (like email addresses or registration) and all the information is free.

The other links to project management offices are to PMI which charged for membership, and PM Hut which asks for registration. Could I suggest you read the reference material on the site before assuming it is 'spam' and charging or asking for anything? The information on PMO Planet is completly independent of any project management body. I am really getting frustrated with people checking Wikipedia and making incorrect assumptions, Yet other bodies are attaching links to sites which ask for something. No wonder the feedback from the project management community about Wikipedia is extremely poor, and the only alternative they have us to pay for knowledge; yet thus is one person TRYING to give it for free!!!92.40.254.228 (talk) 13:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its called WP:LINKSPAMMING. Unfortunately the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states you should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent.

"I work as a committee memeber for the charity the Assosiation of Project Management, and we noticed PMO's are under-represented on Wikipedia."

Clearly there is a conflict of interest in addition to adding links soly for promotion see WP:ELNO#4, WP:NOPR also applies. --Hu12 (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 By work, do you mean paid work (have you assumed again?) the APM is a charity and all work is completely voluntary just like placing information on wikipedia.... I am getting tired of people assuming one thing and not researching e.g. the APM to find it is a registered charity. Therefore, zero conflict of interest as I do not get paid, I give my time for free (its a registered charity (http://www.apm.org.uk/AboutUs), www.pmoplanet.com doesn't make any money, ask for anything, and gives information for free with no conditions.... I'm ranting now, as this is getting very 'petty'.... it sounds like if you know about a topic, you then have a vested interest!!! utter rubbish! 2.125.153.151 (talk) 19:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hu12 Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations - are these the rules you are quoting to me - i.e. links are NOT PROHIBITED??? please read through the guidelines and tell me again what I have done wrong! 2.125.153.151 (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC) you are stopping me volunteering my time for free to benefit others![reply]

It doesn't matter--being noncommercial, registered charity, free, or if your paid or not. It doesn't confer a license to spam Wikipedia even when it's true. Neutrality is an official Wikipedia policy. I'll remind you, that your username contains your personal name which connects you directly to pmoplanet.com (http://www.pmoplanet.com/about). It doesn't matter if your paid or not, you have a direct connection to this topic, Wich is a Conflict of interest. Also See "public relations, and marketing". Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, they all seem to be external links to sites your connected to. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your sites.--Hu12 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of P3O

The article P3O has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources. Tagged for notability and other issues for a decade.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jfire (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]