User talk:Helper6860
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] March 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Clinical trial do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ST47Talk 22:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Multicenter trial. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding edits made to Clinical trial
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, GRS LLC Founder! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule getresearchsmart\.org, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 22:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Your message
I answered on my talkpage. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
- [20:28] <Beetstra> !link bl del getresearchsmart\.org
- [20:28] <AALinkWatcher> getresearchsmart\.org :Is not in the database
- [20:28] <shadowbot> Item "getresearchsmart\.org" has been removed from my quarantine list.
- Site is removed from the blacklist. I'll answer your post on my talkpage there shortly (atm something else at hand). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Additions of http://www.getresearchsmart.org
Adsense pub-2859029341392573
getresearchsmart.org
- Sock accounts
GRS LLC Founder (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log)
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--Hu12 23:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Username
http://www.getresearchsmart.org/ Adsense pub-2859029341392573. Advertising and conflicts of interest by GRS LLC Founder You should change your username at Wikipedia:Changing username. Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address or promote a companyare not allowed as usernames and eventually the account will be disabled. see Inappropriate usernames.--Hu12 23:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- Moved fractured discussion back
Hi. You recently responded to a proposal I extended to the substantive authors of Wikipedia's Informed Consent article - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GRS_LLC_Founder. You did so on both my Talk page and that of the Informed Consent article. I have responded to both here but with cross-reference from the article’s Talk page. Please let me know if you prefer handling it otherwise in the future.
My proposal for discussion followed in the footsteps of friendly and constructive exchanges with another editor - see Question about the best approach to contribute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Beetstra. A little clarification may be helpful.
First of all, my username is intended to be descriptively accurate. I read the material about user names before selecting mine, to wit: Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked… It says may not will. I’m the legal person reflected by the ID. It also must closely resemble the full name to be inappropriate, which this does not. Nobody can tell what the full name is of the entity unless they already know it; hence, how can it promote?
An ID of grsfounder wasn’t selected because there’s more than one grs entity. There’s only one grsllc entity; hence, the selection. After all, it’s an ID not a password. Would grsllc be sufficiently abstract to be acceptable? I'd like to know before any changes.
Secondly, and more bewilderingly, you made the following statement: If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. The statement is absolutely incorrect on two counts. Factually, I didn’t add an external link and, furthermore, I already did exactly what you suggested I should do, namely: post on the article’s Talk page a request for discussion. If an external link got added while I awaited discussion and was then deleted, who deleted it and why, if added by someone other than me?
Furthermore, how am I to ask the substantive authors of the Informed Consent article if, in their professional opinion, they think an external link is a good idea without citing the link? If you are a professional on the topic, then what do you think of the idea? If not, then how do you suggest I refer to the link? I used the same sort of citation format for external links found elsewhere on Wikipedia. Can you provide better examples?
Finally, in my opinion, your reference to the suggested link as advertising a service and not a resource about the subject lacks face validity. Are you concerned about how the site is referenced or the site itself? If it’s how it’s cited, please help with a proposed fix. If that’s not the problem, I don’t know what is. The suggested site is a self-help resource offered freely in service to the public. Take a look at it - don't take my word for it. If you happen not to have the expertise to evaluate its content, purpose or use, then let’s leave that to others.
Believe me, I've read plenty of Wikipedia procedural detail. I'm trying to do it right but, like any novice, am prone to error. I look forward to your help. Thanks! CCS 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links to getresearchsmart.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, all seem to be related to getresearchsmart.org. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. Usualy if the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, it is mentioned on the articles talk page which would allow neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether its appropriate for inclusion. However in this case, The link that your suggesting for Informed consent is not appropriate as it advertises a service rather than a resource about the subject. I'd suggest you contribute by adding content rather than links. Inappropriate usernames include Usernames that promote a company, and Usernames that contain a domain or imply a web address, such as yours GRS LLC Founder AKA getresearchsmart.org by GetResearchSmart LLC. any variation on related to this Single purpose account will most likely be deemed Inappropriate and promotional per the Username policy. I suggest this be done immediatly at Wikipedia:Changing username, your account will be disabled. Be aware of overtly soliciting the opinions of other Wikipedians on their talk page, WP:CANVASS, also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting". A reasonable amount of communication about getresearchsmart.org inclusion is fine, however aggressive inclusion campaigns are not. see Advertising and conflicts of interest guidelines and WP:COI. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto getresearchsmart.org, right?--Hu12 21:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. The following comments relate to both username and links.
At first I thought that the anyone-can-edit concept plus the unsuitability of related GRS materials for direct inclusion in text left open a suitable external links as an alternative. So, judiciously, a handful of Wikipedia (W) articles were initially selected and edited by addition of an external link. I didn’t realize then that someone else should do so or that more than once mattered. Your cheerful predecessor clarified these matters for me.
Surely, I thought, there must be a way to do so; I’m just having difficulty finding the right way. Bringing it up on the Talk page for discussion proved equally troublesome. I still don’t fully understand why you advised doing so, not to mention the fact that I’d already done it, and then identified it as improper. The problem was identified as internal spamming. Apparently, suggestions for discussion are considered a potential annoyance.
It never occurred to me that contributors would not welcome suggestions and discussion (this still seems counter-intuitive). Therefore, as I understand it, W etiquette seems to rely solely upon text by authors with attribution and/or their citation of suitable external links to related materials of merit not suited for direct inclusion. Right so far? Frankly, I’m not sure. Can a third party - not a contributing author - recommend an external link?
As far as the ID is concerned, it’s another study in befuddlement. Inexplicable to me is why W doesn’t require explicit identities. Professional articles insist on identification, in part to permit judgment by readers of the degree to which authors are credible (or not). Accountability is another obvious justification. In my case, an above average effort to provide more ID transparency than the norm wound up being considered self-serving.
I apologize for being a little slow to catch on to crucial concepts. I’ll let others volunteer the GRS site as an external link, if considered by them to be suitable. I’ll also change the ID to something, ironically, less transparent to others. In return, as did your predecessor, please confirm that I remain eligible to contribute and, secondly, that the GRS site is not blacklisted so it can be proposed by others, within W rules. I’ll hope for the best.
W may be interested in the following answer to your closing question about my making a contribution: (1) require identified contributors (affiliation should not disqualify – let the reader decide what affiliations and credentials mean to them), (2) encourage exchange between the community of would-be contributors per topic – no matter in what form they contribute, (3) reduce the cumbersomeness of rules and layers upon layers of definitions and conditions to a few user-friendly pages and post them conspicuously, then (4) step back and let the self-selected, explicitly identified and accountable contributors have at it.
In addition, contributors who, at any point, wish to delete their names from authorship citation should be able to do so, if text becomes unacceptable to them or differences of opinion can’t be resolved. Add provision for an addendum per article to post respectful, dissenting opinions, whether by those who withdraw from authorship citation or not. Provide a message board per article for contributors to communicate while others can look on.
W is a competitor in the information marketplace. Its credibility depends upon the quality and depth of its content. How consistent and complete is W in both dimensions? In the age of Google, authoritative sources can be found on a wide range of topics. Searchers decide what’s authoritative, in part, by evaluation of source and credibility.
Are not readers of W prone to equivalent evaluation? If so, W might ask itself the value of inventing summary content of unknown origin, issues of accuracy and/or effect of constraints to consideration of legitimate related material. What are the options?
In my opinion, W, and its readers, may best be served by embracing identified authorship and suitable content – text, references and/or related materials. Let the readers decide.
Sorry about going on a bit. I await your reply. Thanks! CCS 15:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
