User talk:Aalbc

February 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 18:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2012

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to W. E. B. Du Bois. 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. 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, help me understand why AALBC.com, a 15 year old publisher of articles, book reviews, videos, and more can not post links on pages to it’s site, for authors like Toni Morrison; when other entities like the Internet Movie Database, The Guardian, and The New York Times are allowed to do so. I know AALBC.com is not as large as they are, does generate as much revenue, and certainly does not serve as many ads as those sites, but AALBC.com is one of the oldest, and largest websites of it's kind. I know books are a category of little interest to most. As a result only small, mission driven sites, cover the category in any depth. To compound matters larger websites collude to crowd out these independent voices and the result is LESS coverage of Books on the web – especially book by Black authors. What little coverage remains is typically scandalous or celebrity driven. When I talk about collusion, I mean Google ranking Wikipedia #1 for essentially every query pushing independent websites further down in rankings; rendering them undiscoverable and making Wikipedia another gatekeeper determining which sites have a voice (Internet Movie Database OK, AALBC not OK). Again, I just need to understand the distinction between the sites I listed and AALBC.com. Thanks in advance.

You raise good points. I'm sorry that I over-reacted to your edits. Please be careful to include links like the one at Richard Wright (author) (where you link to an author-specific page on your site) and not general links such as the one at Toni Morrison. I've restored the links at Richard Wright and Walter Mosley. Let me know if you have any further questions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:41, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. All of my links will be of the form *Richard Wright on AALBC.com where I'm link to a specific page of directly related content. Thanks again.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the username you have chosen (Aalbc) seems to imply that you are editing on behalf of a group, company or website.

There are two issues with this:

It is possible that you have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, you must exercise great caution when editing on topics related to your organization or adding links to its website.
Your account cannot represent a group of people. You may wish to create a new account with a username that represents only you. Alternatively, you may consider changing your username to avoid giving the impression that your personal account is being used for promotional purposes.

Regardless of whether you change your name or create a new account, you are not exempted from the guidelines concerning editing where you have a conflict of interest. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. Dori ☾Talk ⁘ Contribs☽ 04:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Martin Luther King, Jr. 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. Bjmullan (talk) 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. QU ^TalkQu 22:36, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of AALBC.com for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article AALBC.com is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AALBC.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JayJay^{Talk to me} 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Aalbc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Requested username:

Aalbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Request reason:

AALBC.com is far and away the largest repository of information on writers of African Descent, not different than the IMDB or Rottentomotes are for films

Decline reason:

That's the same username - you need to choose a different one. As for the article, the discussion mentioned above was held back in 2012 and the result was Keep. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Troy johnson.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Troy johnson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 04:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]