User talk:Careercornerstone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! -- Avi 17:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia and added links to a non-profit, no advertising, informational website (no registration, etc.etc.) -- nothing inappropriate and related to the topic. I've had two notes on my page from people (I don't know if they work for wikipedia or not) saying I should stop putting up spam, which I'm not doing. I'm not clear what to do --- I've responded to both people, and I just don't see what the issue is. Several other people have also added links to this same site and they are left on, why are mine removed?

[edit] Adding links to Actuary

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did with links to careercornerstone.org (*|search current). 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. Since Wikipedia uses Nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will 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 rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Femto 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you waited a while to see if anyone was still paying attention. We are. Stop spamming your website or you will be blocked.
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. --barneca (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying....I hadn't signed back on since March and did try to reply to the person who sent that one when I saw it today. And clearly I don't understand the system either)...I'm not clear why adding these links is not ok. For example, I did not add (someone else did) a link to Cornerstone from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_as_a_career --- why is it ok that they did that and not me, when the topics are all related. If you look at the site is is more informative about many of these fields than the professional societies are...and that's why they all contributed to the content of it so it would be a single source for career planning info in the fields of STEM and medicine. We are not selling anything, don't take ads, keep it current, and as a user of wikipedia for information, I think it's a good additional link. Take a peek at the site and see what you think, honestly I am not trying to spam but am trying to just add more information that is accurate and relative. And, I certainly am not trying to ruffle feathers...at all.

I'm new to this...didn't wait a while to see anything...(I actually find that kind of insulting) -- Career Cornerstone doesn't have any ads, is non-profit, has been added to many pages in wikipedia as an external link and is not spam at all. I'm not at all clear what the problem is.

My "waited a while" comment refers to the fact that you added these links on 30 March, were advised they were considered inappropriate, and stopped. Then today, you added your website to 10 or so more articles, without discussing on any talk page. As the first notice on your talk page says, Wikipedia is not a directory of links. I still believe the addition of these links does not meet the requirements of WP:LINKS, but if, after reading that you still feel they belong, we can request another editor review the situation and get another opinion. Please reply here if you'd like to do that; I haven't done it before, but can figure out how. --barneca (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
On reflection, my snide comment above, which I have now struck out, was unkind, did not assume good faith, and was unhelpful. I apologize for that. As I say above, We can take this to WP:RFC\the request for comment page if you want. --barneca (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

- Hi, I didn't sign on at all again until today and I did reply to that note, when I saw it this morning....I tried to explain as I am to you that the site I added as a link is non profit, has no ads, was developed by professional societies who don't have many of these resources on their own pages (but there are links to them from wikipedia), and I really am not trying to spam but provide additional source of information. That's why I put it under external links. I looked up what ones are considered ok to add, and it says no registrations, no ads, current info...all of which Cornerstone is. I don't understand why I can't add this link when others have added links to Cornerstone, and I'm also being courteous about putting it at the bottom of the list and keeping the societies on the list first. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronics_as_a_career -- I didn't put that up, but it is appropriate. Nor would I write all that stuff about it...just a simple link. This is the second time I have signed on, and I honestly thought I was able to edit content on these pages (isn't that the point of the wiki?)....and I'm not trying to ruffle feathers but simple share information. I'm assuming you work for wikipedia - again, I don't really understand how it all works - so please take a peek at the www.careercornerstone.org site and you'll see theres nothing inappropriate on it, and it offers up front info about the fields in many cases in a way that's easier to find on most of the society sites....thanks for your help. - - I also adjusted the links topic by topic so people who clicked on it didn't have to hunt for the sub topic (like nuclear engineering) -- and I do think it falls clearly under the definition: - - There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. - - Is it accessible to the reader? - Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? - Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? - - And, PS...when this is all resolved, do I just go back on to this page and delete all the conversations? - - Thanks...

After reading your comment above, I'll answer some questions and then suggest a next step. First, Wikipedia articles are FULL of external links that don't belong; those of us who try to remove inappropriate material frankly can't keep up. So, the existence of similar links on other pages is not proof that the link belongs; it may simply have not gotten reviewed yet. Second, I do not work for Wikipedia, I'm just an editor like you. Vandalism and removal of external links is done by volunteers, and my opinion is by no means a final word by any means. Third, I will grant you that the web site you're linking to is closer to the boundary between appropriate and inappropriate links than most of what I see.
I was about to suggest that we get someone else's opinion on (I'll try to link it right this time) the Request for Comment page. However, something you said above interests me. You said "...developed by professional societies who don't have many of these resources on their own pages (but there are links to them from wikipedia)..." Could you show me (preferably on the site you're trying to link to) who some of these societies are? If you can convince me, we won't need to go get someone else's opinion.
Again, I'm sorry for the attitude earlier; I've been deleting vandalism from numerous articles today, got into a certain mindset, and leapt to a conclusion.
And finally, if you can convince me the links belong, I will go back and add them back myself. It's relatively easy, and will probably prevent them from being removed by another editor. --barneca (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I am convinced, these links are legitmate, and useful

OK, I found the About subpage on your website, and I am now satisfied this is a legitimate link. Since I removed your link from most of the articles, I at least owe you the courtesy of going back myself and re-adding the external link. This will also lessen the chance that it will be removed again. When you add this link to other articles, I strongly suggest that you use an Edit summary, with something along the lines of:
adding EL to non-profit site. Please see discussion on User Talk:Careercornerstone before removing
Sorry for the hassle. --barneca (talk) 20:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I pretty convinced that this is a WP:COI spamming. I think we might need to open up a report at Project Spam on this one. (Requestion 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
They are still problematic as per Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest. -- Avi 20:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That a site is "useful" certainly qualifies it for inclusion in a web directory, but the bar for linking a site from a large number of encyclopedia articles is higher than that. There are literally thousands of "relevant" and "useful" sites which, by this logic, should all be added to a lot of articles. This is not about commercial vs. nonprofit, or good-faith vs. bad-faith, but about self-promotion in general, and about indiscriminate linking that adds nothing to the encyclopedic content. (Remember we're here to build content, not a directory.) So until there is clear consensus for their inclusion, let's not re-add these links. Femto 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I was only adding under specific areas (like mechanical engineering) so it would be more specifically relevant --- what if it were just under "engineering" in general. The sad thing is that the site is and always will be non-profit, no ads, no nothing...and the content is developed by many of the professional assns you allow links to (who don't have this kind of objective career data and salary information available in the public parts of their own sites). The bottom line is that probably any editor of these tech/engineering/math pages would agree with the same general purpose of the cornerstone site and that is to help students and counselors have a better idea of what these fields are all about. We aren't trying to push people into these fields, just provide accurate content which strikes me as the same goal of wikipedia. And...while I am adding a link to a site I manage, there is nothing for me or anyone else to gain from extra visitors except helping people find more free and useful resources. What next? It seems to me that keeping a good link like this off is counter to the premise of open editing -- and is really a deterrant for sharing good free non promotional content. What if there were a new heading on the page that said something like "Student/Counselor Resources" for these fields....we have found that this content is really needed. Careercornerstone 16:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC) PS -- at least I learned how to use the talk pages...thanks for that anyhow.

[edit] Next step, if you want to take it

Well, convincing me was not enough, evidently. Two other editors have already gone and removed the links that I put back. They refer to the Conflict of Interest policy, which basically says you shouldn't add external links to your own site. That's pretty directly stated, so I don't think you're going to get around it. I've left messages on their talk pages asking why -I- can't add it, but I haven't heard back. I'm not going to get into an edit war with anyone over this, and suggest you not try either; you won't win, and it will waste your time.

You have one possibility left, as mentioned on WP:COI. It's a lot of work, but it's available to you. You can mention the website on each article's talk page, and ask the editors that frequent that page to review the site and add a link if they feel it is appropriate. This is a judgement call, so you might win some and you might lose some.

Kind of a rocky start to your Wikipedia career. We get so much true spam here that they've written the external link rules pretty ironclad. If I attracted attention to these additions with my mass removal a few hours ago, well I've already apologized a couple of times so i won't do it again. --barneca (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)