User talk:Sulair.speccoll

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sulair.speccoll, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Becky Sayles (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special collections holdings

I am reverting your edits because they do not conform to our standards and practices. These do not belong under "External links" but rather are "Resources" for the interested reader. I assume you work for Stanford, so I believe you should also be aware of our rules as far as conflict of interest, so I'll give you the standard warning: If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should 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;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam); and,
avoid breaching relevant 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 conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If the content was online would be a wonderful source; but as an inventory of the collections, it does not add any information. Editing as an IP from the university does not make you anonymous. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 21:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re-adding the links under a "Resources" section is not the answer. I'm sure the university has a wonderful series of collections, but it is not accessible online. We cannot directly use the material as references, so there is no merit to including the links. Please see Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for the applicable guidelines. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well potentially being penalized by search engines. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i do not really understand why my edits are considered spam? if i am linking to our collections as resources they can be really helpful to researchers who are interested. can you please list the edits that were destructive? or give me an example?

The problem is, your adding mass links to your collections. There are many collections which will contain these works, so nothing makes your collection especially notable to merit a mention in the article. Given that your obviously from the library, there's a severe COI and hence why they're considered spam. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so is there anyway around this? should i stop linking to stanford's webpages? can you give me any suggestions? because we would like wikipedia users to be able to see that we have resources for them

Your collections are only physically accessible. From here in Virginia, I can't see the material, so it is of no use as a resource, and anyone close to Stanford can probably figure out that the university has such resources. If you were to volunteer to look up material in the collections, then you could add it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange. This is exactly what I do with my Scouting bibliography. You do not need to list all of those links on a subpage since you already have it listed on the university website. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 22:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan et al.,

I am the Principal Manuscripts Processing Librarian at Stanford University. The student who was inputting the links to the finding guides for manuscripts collections for the individuals and organizations was hired by the library for this project - she's the one who you've been corresponding with up to now.

These link finding guides that describe UNIQUE primary sources held by Stanford - the creative output of individuals or organizations and businesses. These finding guides describe materials that are not held by anyone else. Any researcher or scholar that wishes to do research with the papers of, for example: Buckminster Fuller (we house over 1,000 linear feet of his correspondence, plans, models, writings, journals, etc.), could contact us by email for assistance if they could not come in person. Our public services staff do in fact help people and make digital and hard copies of original documents in these collections without people having to physically visit Stanford.

We are simply trying to make a broader community aware of resources for teaching and research - and to provide them with direct links to the finding guides for this manuscript material.

Also, I modeled our entries to match resource links we saw from other manuscript repositories and research libraries around the country, including the Harry Ransom Center in Texas. Glynn Edwards Sulair.speccoll (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple problems here:

Wikipedia does not allow sharing of accounts. There are a number of reasons, among them validity of our content license (GFDL), and this is not a rule I would like to ignore.
Paid editing is often frowned upon by the community.
I have no idea if you are really the person you say.

This account is going to be disabled in a moment due to the above issues. However, feel free to contact Wikipedia via the open ticket response system and somebody will try to find a way to help you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, both users are free, at this very moment, to each create their own, individual Wikipedia account and continue editing. If you have questions about adding external links, the first step would be to discuss things with other editors and come to an agreement about how the process would work. I recommend you approach some of the following editors: User talk: El C, User talk: Shell Kinney or User talk: Durova as folks who have an interest in history and who would most likely try to help you. Jehochman ^Talk 02:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy change?

I think adding links to library special collections or archives or anyone who has original sources and is willing to provide access is an incredibly useful addition to the Wikipedia. Among other things it provides pointers to original materials for journalists who want to write about some topic. Eventually more accurate information will filter back into the Wikipedia.

There could be a policy change sanctioning special collections or people could just post on their home pages where they worked and that they were adding resource material from that library. They could post either under their real name or any nick they want to use of course, even "library summer student".

Home page links to official places would amount to a notice to the people who revert vandalism that what had been added in "resource" (or what ever becomes the standard name for it) should be looked at rather than just reverted.

Now if Stanford was mucking with their own web pages, I can see that as a violation. But letting people know a special collection has information about Buckminster Fuller? Give me a break! Keith Henson (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Applicable comment found on the talk page of Grue(Monster) and copied here:

Anyway, as I said (in not so many words) in my successful request for adminship, guidelines are just that - means to an end, and means that say in big letters right on top that they can give incorrect results and should be ignored when there's good reason to do so. Trying to make all-inclusive, no-thought-required legislation beyond the core principles in a place this chaotic would be madness. --Kizor 19:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith Henson (talk) 04:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]