User talk:Ldprints

January 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Printmaking do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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 before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Theroadislong (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I removed your links because I didn't think they were particularly good quality links, but it is also NOT a good idea to add links to your own sites as it is considered spamming to do so, You could suggest on the talk page why you think they should be included and maybe someone else will agree? Kind regards.Theroadislong (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I have three questions for you: 1) how can you define good quality link, on which basis? The info I provide is accurate, it has been used to make printing relief techniques known in France quite a few years ago by an association I was part of -I mainly translated the info from French- 2) how should you define spamming? on the basis of a general definition, or on a case by case study? the fact that I link to my site cannot be considered spamming per se, spamming involve much more than a link, especially when the link is a good one3) why are you qualified to make decisions alone? I thought Wikipedia was built by the community. Best, Ldprints (Ldprints (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2012 (UTC))

December 2016

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dorchester, Boston. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Once at your website, viewers are asked to buy stuff of make a donation. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Hello Magnolia! It's unfortunate you deleted these links before talking with me. It means I spent a lot of time for nothing when the information you find on my site is useful, and free. It's rude from your part. Who are you? How can you decide alone to delete something? It seems you do not like me asking people to donate, but have you check Wikipedia lately? That's exactly what the site did, and I made a donation to it, like I did last year, because I know it's expensive to maintain a site, and help is always welcome. Did you donate to Wikipedia yourself? If not, you should, that's how the free information can keep flowing, because, in case you do not know, nothing is free on the internet. You buy for space, for site names, for programs, even if you want to offer free content. Another reason you cite is that my site is a personal one, but all sites are personal. Wikipedia itself started as a personal endeavor. That's how the web is organized. Now, please, go and have a look at what I offer: guided tours for people that like to walk, discover architecture and art, visit museums. I spent hours and hours, I should say months, to create these treks and this site because I enjoy doing it. I'd now liked people to benefit from it, but you've decided they should not. Last but not least, there is a section in Wikipedia articles called external links, and that's where I put my links, so where is the problem? I would appreciate that you reinstall these links, or integrate them somewhere else if you prefer. Thank you

Seeing this now, you should know that donations to "Wikipedia" are to a foundation that yes does run the servers, however the servers have a very low cost; the majority of the foundation's budget and expenses goes towards developers and other employees, completely separate from what we volunteers do on Wikipedia. The encyclopedia separates external links into one specific section for many valuable reasons, and as well desires that only links critical to understanding the topic or directly responsible for it be added. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities/US Guideline#External links. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, the link Ldprints added to several articles states on the first page "if you enjoy these treks and want to let me know, you can"..."buy things you need or like by going to the 'Be ready' page and following the links there, or by ordering cards and/or photos on the 'Souvenirs' page", or "make a monthly donation (with benefits) by going to Patreon.com/imagesvoyagesimpressions (English, $US) or Tipeee.com/les-espaces-discrets (French, Euros)". The link added to each Wikipedia article has some useful information, but appears to be a commercial enterprise. Ldprints, will you be reverting your edits? If not, I will report this and have a neutral editor decide. Thank you.Magnolia677 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree, the addition of these links falls under what Wikipedia is NOT. The fact that these have been added to numerous pages makes this look strongly like a case of canvassing and using Wikipedia for promotion. It does not matter if something is free or nonprofit - if the main purpose is promotion, and it does not offer concrete encyclopedic value, it should not remain. That appears to be consensus at this point. Thanks, Garchy (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really realize the extent of this, wow. Looks like a Wikipedia:single-purpose account, and is probably liable to be banned. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 21:02, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or promotion. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  RickinBaltimore (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2016 (UTC)