User talk:Craigrosa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Video game. 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. 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. JuJube 20:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Craigrosa, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  Femto 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links http://spam.kqed.org

Please do not add links to sites with which you are affiliated, it is considered a conflict of interest. Feel free to make suggestions on the appropriate article talk pages. Note that excessive canvassing for links without making other substantial contributions to the encyclopedia may also be seen as spamming by some. Thank you. Femto 12:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


Hi Femto:

Thanks for the links and info on contributing to Wikipedia. I'm doing my best to judiciously add appropriate links that are a definite fit with the content, but this is the second time an admin has come in behind me and reverted.

The science stories I have linked to are created by PBS for the public benefit; I would argue that finding the most appropriate page and adding a single (when there is such a page) link does not constitute canvassing for links. KQED and PBS are both non-profit entities that are not deriving revenue from the content being produced. In fact, they are required to disseminate it and give it away.

That said, if the community doesn't wish me to contribute as I have, that is no problem - it's all a learning experience and I want to do what's best. I need clarification on what "consensus" means.

Shall I from now on just post all external link proposals to the talk page for consideration? Is one reply with "Yes" enough for me to then post?

Again, I'm not complaining I just need guidance.

Craigrosa 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of free content. Free, as in "freedom", not just free as in "making it available". External links are detrimental to this goal, they lead the reader away, to content that is controlled by others. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. Yes, the internet is full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content.
Another one of Wikipedia's pillars is neutrality. Conflict of interest isn't just a matter of profit vs. non-profit, but about self-promotion in general. I hope you can see the problem here, why the decision about when it would be beneficial for articles to include particular links should not be left to the affiliates of those websites, but to neutral editors. Suggesting such links on a talkpage is perfectly fine, though I for one would prefer when people don't actively pursue it further after that. If it's an appropriate link, someone else will pick it up from there soon enough.
The consensus process, basically, means that the majority of editors can more or less agree on some changes. I wouldn't call one or two "yes" versus one or two "no" quite a consensus for inclusion of a link yet, especially considered that per WP:EL the default is to keep external links to a minimum.
Hope that helps. Femto 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Spam sock accounts

Sparkweb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Craigrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
65.91.82.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
65.168.148.62 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
--Hu12 00:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia consist entirely of adding external links to kqed.org and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be kqed.org related only. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page and Wikipedia:Civility. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote kqed.org right? --Hu12 06:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment - the addition of external links in a conflict-of-interest situation was indeed against our guidelines but seems innocent and harmless enough. It was four months ago and blocks are intended to stop current problems rather than to punish past actions. The editor has said he was counseled and accepts the rules so as far as I'm concerned he should have a clean slate and be under no suspicion if he wants to contribute productively to Wikipedia on this account. Cheers, Wikidemo 21:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)