User talk:Melaniesharrison

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Melaniesharrison, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Neo-Jay 17:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] December 2007 (http://spam.intellectbooks.co.uk)

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. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MER-C 10:09, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

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 as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. MER-C 10:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistenly adding links to your own website. You were given plenty of warning. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

The Rambling Man 13:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Intellect books and journals

A tag has been placed on Intellect_books_and_journals, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the general criteria for speedy deletion, particularly item 11, as well as the guidelines on spam.

If you can indicate why the subject of this article is not blatant advertising, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would help make it encyclopedic, as well as adding any citations from reliable sources to ensure that the article will be verifiable. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice on editing Wikipedia

Melanie, in response to your message on the Deletion review page. There are clear rules, laid out in the first message on this talk page, about posting and creating articles. The five pillars of Wikipedia include the idea that WP is not a Soapbox. Advertising, as you have found out, is very much frowned upon. Your (many) previous attempts to put in references to publications of Intellect Books have been reverted, and you have received warnings and a ban here: this should have alerted you to the rules.

You point out that other publishers have wiki entries. Their entries are more encylopedic in tone, though I have tagged Future Publishing as needing more work. A neutral entry for Intellect may be helpful, but it will be scrutinised for impartiality, especially so if written by an employee. You may find it interesting to read recent copies of Private Eye magazine on this subject. A company can be notable and its description encylopedic.

I'm sorry that you feel punished over your edits, but one of the strengths of WP is its neutrality, and that's held dear by people who have been around even a little while, like myself. I hope that with practice and understanding you'll become a valued contributor. TrulyBlue (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello Melanie. I'm the offending administrator who deleted your article. I thought I'd take this chance to reiterate what TrulyBlue has said in the final paragraph above, that is to apologise if you feel that you're being punished. It's worth considering what TrulyBlue has said about tone and notability, we have a specific policy on notability of companies, namely WP:CORP which may be of interest here. Also, while it seems okay to point at Future Publishing, there's guideline we also have called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If it is of use to you, I'll be happy to restore the article into your userspace so you can work on it, and we can then point you in the right direction should you wish to repost it back into the mainspace. A belated welcome to you, and don't hesitate to contact me should you need further advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello again Melanie. I've placed the article in a sandbox I created for you in your "userspace", it can be found at User:Melaniesharrison/sandbox. You definitely need to work on avoiding pure advertising and must assert some notability for the company and provide verifiable sources to back it up. By all means give me a shout if you need more help. By the way, I've added some "nowiki" markers around the URL for the time being and I've requested that the folks talking about blacklisting your website stop for a while until we can resolve this. I'm going out on a limb a bit because I like to assume good faith and hope that you and I can work together to get a suitable resolution to this situation. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello. If you are interested in helping the Wikipedia project as a whole, may I please recommend that you spend some time editing it in ways unrelated to your business? It would help familiarize you with how we do things here and would help you avoid inadvertently violating the rules. Remember, we're writing an encyclopedia! - Chardish (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam warning

You have been advised against spamming — you have specifically added links related to Intellect books. Today you have added as-yet-unpublished Intellect books to Documentary film and Independent film. This is also a form of spamming. In that spirit, "Forward-looking articles about unreleased products (e.g., movies, games, etc.) require special care to make sure that they are not advertising." These additions have been removed as advertising. Please do not continue to add such reference — you risk being blocked for spamming/advertising. — ERcheck (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Further, your edit to Mel Alexenberg (see here for detail) appears to be an attempt to link a book's ISBN number to the publisher's web entry for the book rather than a normal WP ISBN reference. The link was incorrect - you should preview your changes (click on the "show changes" button) to check that all's well before saving the page. TrulyBlue (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of Interest may be interfering with editing

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:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Thank you. --12 Noon 2¢ 22:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello (from Laos)

Melanie, I see you're still at work here, that's good, but you must pay attention to the other editors who are strongly advising you to stop trying to leverage links to your company into other articles. Wikipedia is not a vessel for free advertising and your edits will be purged. I've gone out on a limb to try to help you and advise the other editors that me and User:Dweller are happy to read your sandbox work to see if it is justifiably notable, but please stop adding links to your company in the meantime - eventually this account and the anonymous IP you have edited from will be blocked from editing and I'm sure you don't want that to happen. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Further to that, I'm happy to help if you're stuck on anything. Drop me a line here. Me and The Rambling Man have a sort of loose partnership on Wikipedia, where we work collaboratively in many different areas and I'm more than happy to help with this. (NB I rarely edit at weekends, from about lunchtime GMT on Friday till Monday morning.) --Dweller (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Hey Melanie, despite my geographical difficulties, I'm still here to ask you to correspond in one way or another to let me know if you still intend to try to create a good article from your sandbox. If not, in two weeks from now you'll find the current sandbox article deleted. I hope you understand, a number of us have tried our best to help you here and I would like to keep doing so but it does depend on your continued communication. The Rambling Man on tour (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sandbox

Hello Melanie. Thanks for your message, happy New Year to you too. With regard to your sandbox article, it still reads like an advert. First off you need to remove all the "recently published works". Secondly you need to find some good reliable sources which are independent to your company which assert some kind of notability for the company. Let me know when you've done that and I'll have another look. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Melanie, with all due respect, you haven't done anything to the sandbox for quite some time now. If I don't hear from you within the next week I'll delete your sandbox. Should you wish, at a later date, to attempt to write the article again, I'd advise you create a sandbox again and allow me (or another editor) to review your work before attempting to add it to the mainspace. Don't hestiate to get in touch with me on this or any related matter. All the best, The Rambling Man (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, it's been deleted now. If you'd like to contribute a similar article again, may I suggest you email me beforehand if you'd prefer to have it copyedited beforehand. All the best. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)