User talk:Encyclopediaofalabama

Unblock?

To request unblocking: IP address: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:131.204.162.162 Blocking admin: Mike Rosoft Block reason: Inappropriate username - name of an organization, link spamming Block originally applied to: Encyclopediaofalabama Block ID number: 1139233 Your account name (if you have one): An explanation of why your block is unfair: --- I realize now that having my username is not acceptable, and I can change it if needed. I was adding content and also external links last fall and kept coming under fire for 'spamming', which I don't think was fair. With the support of several Alabama Wiki groups, I thought this was cleared and I could resume adding additional content to existing articles and also external links to the project I worked for. Please let me know what I need to do in order to start contributing to wikipedia again. -- Thanks.

I'm not an Admin and I have no power to recommend unblocking.

However I would like to welcome you back to Wikipedia and I'm glad to see that your experience so far hasn't soured you on it (which would be quite understandable). I was one of those who supported your ELs previously, as I saw them as adding links to content we didn't have, which is squarely our definition of what a "good EL" ought to be.

The username issue is unfortunate (I do think we need to make this more visible to new editors when signing up), but I hope we can all see that it's an unintentional and entirely good-faith collision between a policy and a new user unaware of it. I can see no reason at all why this should be held against you. That said, a new username of "Fred from Alabama" might be the simplest way to start afresh, and by all means mention your connection to some external organisation on your user page.

Welcome back, and I hope to see you editing soon. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If and when you come back, please cease and desist the spamming. Writing informative articles is a plus, spamming links to every page that has a page at your encyclopedia is WP:SPAM. Them From Space 17:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the kind words. I am definitely not soured to wikipedia, it's a great format to share and promote information. I created a new user, duboiju, and clearly state in my user page that I worked for the www.EncyclopediaofAlabama.org and am trying to reference it as much as possible. So far I haven't added any ELs, I have only suggested their inclusion on the discussion page, but I don't think this is a very effective approach. I am going to add a few this morning and see what happens. In case I do get blocked, or upset the monitors, how would you suggest I approach getting permission to continue adding EL's? --Encyclopediaofalabama (talk) 14:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is difficult. We have a policy at WP:EL, but many of the editors reverting EL additions don't follow it. We have a definition of what a "good" EL adds to an article, and an EL that meets this is justified in existing, no matter who added it and how many they have added to other articles.

So first of all, be familiar with this policy and follow it scrupulously. Don't add ELs that you aren't prepared to defend according to policy.

WP:SPAM is a term we should carefully avoid using, because the established definitions of spam (from email and usenet) were always deliberately content-agnostic and based purely on volume. That's a good choice for those fields, for its objectivity. Wikipedia is different. We have a definition of permissable content and so "bad ELs" can be removed on that basis, even if there's only one of them. Conversely, a good EL remains a good EL, no matter how many that editor adds. Even repetition of individual links isn't of itself a problem. Their quality isn't "diluted", by multiple use, although it'll be a rare situation when an EL is genuinely relevant so widely.

The problem thus isn't that you're "adding a spam EL" (not that I've suggested this) but that your account might be seen to be adding spam ELs, simply for name, volume, or proportion of your efforts. Try mixing them with some other editing work too - I assume you're familiar with Alabama and its subjects, so how about helping put with some of the general content editing work that's needed? Maybe even create a couple of articles from scratch on some topic of interest to you. We're all supposed to assume good faith of all editors, but this is always a lot easier to do in relation to an editor with a clearly visible track record of useful contributions, rather than someone who mostly adds ELs to a single site. I believe your efforts there were genuine and useful, but at first glance it's hard to tell that sort of behaviour from our usual spammers and tendencies to "shoot first and ask later" have their obvious outcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always use WP:EL to justify my reversions of links. If you were implying that I don't than you are mistaken. Read over WP:ELNO and you'll see that this guys links violate WP:ELNO #1 and #4. I often tell people with links like these that the material should be properly incorporated into the Wikipedia article and cited as references, not just slapped in the "External links" section. This helps build up our encyclopedia while giving proper credit to the other encyclopedia. We should be trying to keep readers on Wikipedia as much as possible. Them From Space 17:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]