User talk:Book Reporter

Welcome!

Hello, Book Reporter, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking

if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content
Miscellaneous
User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business has been reverted.
Your edit here to The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://newbooksinbrief.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/a-summary-of-the-power-of-habit-why-we-do-what-we-do-in-life-and-business-by-charles-duhigg/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 10:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not reinstate the edit XLinkBot reverted again. The link is a blog that shouldn't be added to Wikipedia. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Floating Boat: The link is to a site used by bloggers, but is not itself a blog and the article contains no opinions whatsoever. It is instead a site that provides executive summaries (that are unfortunately too long to appear on wikipedia) of books. In other words, the site is strictly about the dissemination of information, and is entirely consistent with wikipedia's philosophy, purposes and guidelines.

Sincerely, Book Reporter

I guess it can be useful as a primary source then. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 06:31, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business, because to me it seemed inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thanks,
Your edit here to The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://newbooksinbrief.wordpress.com/2012/03/18/a-summary-of-the-power-of-habit-why-we-do-what-we-do-in-life-and-business-by-charles-duhigg/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 11:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear XLinkBot: Regarding the link of mine that you removed (details above) I have the following to say: The link may appear suspect as it is connected to a platform used by bloggers, but the site itself is not a blog, and the article in question contains no opinions whatsoever. It is instead a site that provides executive summaries (that are unfortunately too long to appear on wikipedia) of books. In other words, the site is strictly about the dissemination of information, and is entirely consistent with wikipedia's philosophy, purposes and guidelines. The site has been approved by the editor Floating Boat (see above), and I believe this was a just decision. I would appreciate if you did the same.

Sincerely Book Reporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.1.203 (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry: Regarding the external link of mine that you removed from the article on 'The Power of Habit: Why We Do What We Do in Life and Business' I have the following to say: The link may appear suspect as it is connected to a platform used by bloggers, but the site itself is not a blog, and the article in question contains no opinions whatsoever. It is instead a site that provides executive summaries (that are unfortunately too long to appear on wikipedia) of books. In other words, the site is strictly about the dissemination of information, and is entirely consistent with wikipedia's philosophy, purposes and guidelines. The site has been approved by the editor Floating Boat (see above), and I believe this was a just decision. I would appreciate if you did the same.

Sincerely, Book Reporter

September 2012

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see WP:RS and WP:SPS. Also see WP:SPAM, in particular WP:SPAMMER. ⁓ Hello 71 17:13, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is standard practise on Wikipedia to leave messages on other people's talk pages in order to reply to them, as people may not be watching your talk page. ⁓ Hello 71 17:14, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to New Books in Brief

Per WP:ELNO#11, we do not include external links to blogs or similar personal websites unless they are written by a recognised authority in the relevant field; in addition, such authorities are presumed to be notable by Wikipedia standards. High school teachers such as the author of New Books In Brief, unless notable for other reasons, do not qualify. Please do not re-add this link; if you do, you are likely to be blocked from editing. Yunshui 雲‍水 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am an administrator on this site. I checked out your site, http://newbooksinbrief.wordpress.com, and I liked it!

Nevertheless, please do not add links to it from our articles:

It's a conflict of interest.
Your site is self-published. We have very narrow criteria for what links we want and many, many useful sites don't fit them.

The notices above contain links to our policy pages and you can read the rules for yourself.

I see you're pretty persistent about this; you clearly believe in your work. You're going to lose this battle, though, especially the harder you push it; our editors tend to be very wary of site-owners pushing their links. Eventually, if you get the "HiveMind" stirred up enough, you'll just get your site added to our spam blacklist; that may have some off-Wikipedia implications.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Book Reporter. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 21:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Yunshui 雲‍水 21:07, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Wikipedia policies

Hello, Book Reporter.
I appreciate the depth and quality of the writing on your website. Upon reading your work, I personally believe your statements above, that you've made a genuine attempt to objectively disseminate information. However, I think citation of your own website as a reference, and (more importantly) inclusion of subject matter directly from your website, conflicts with Wikipedia policies:

Most generally, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (useful summary at WP:SOURCES) requires sourcing to be "reliable" as understood within Wikipedia parlance. More specifically relevant here: Wikipedia:Self-Published Sources describes how blogs are generally not acceptable sources for Wikipedia. One possible exception is if the blog is written by "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications," but this expertise (no offense) doesn't appear to have been established.
Wikipedia:No original research is one of the three core policies (along with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability). Though I don't personally believe that you're intending to "advance a position," your executive summaries necessarily involve personal judgment that Wikipedia wants left to established experts in the field.
Some editors might infer that citation of one's own material as violating the principle of no Wikipedia:Self-promotion as it might constitute a conflict of interest ("Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article, ... a website of your organization from other articles")

The only way I've ever seen Wikipedia articles constructed, is from assembling material derived from a variety of reliable sources, letting the reliable sources do the analysis and synthesis. We as Wikipedia editors (we are not writers) rely on those sources rather than contributing our own understanding, however objective and sound we may think our writing is.
With all respect, I do fear that continued submission of your own work might place your website on the spam blocklist. It would look best if you reversed your own edits, to avoid conflicts with other editors.
Incidentally, another opportunity to contribute is to provide literal quotations to Wikiquote.
Best wishes. RCraig09 (talk) 16:59, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this material is not appropriate, especially in terms of tone and encyclopediac nature, for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, and that your repeated insertion of it despite multiple editors' concerns to the contrary, crosses the like into the realm of spam. DMacks (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry guys, but I'm not as forgiving. I've warned Book Reporter about this before], quite emphatically, yet it's clear his only purpose here is to link to his website. I've therefore blocked this account and will add newbooksinbrief.com to the spam blacklist. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2012

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 appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Yunshui 雲‍水 18:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]