User talk:Julie Burns

Julie Burns, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Julie Burns! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Soni (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

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 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. Thank you. Mean as custard (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your links to the wtd seem to be completely indiscriminate, in most cases pointing to an empty page, so I am reverting them. . . Mean as custard (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Frank Marcus. 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. - Arjayay (talk) 10:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Tarell Alvin McCraney. 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. - Arjayay (talk) 10:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, as you did at Frank McGuinness, 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. - Arjayay (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

blocked

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 ~~~~}}. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:46, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

I am not advertisisng as stated. I am linking more information about playwrights and where and when their productions have been staged, similarly to how IMDB shows the films that the playwrights participated in. It is exactly the same thing. So please kindly revoke the block, as my purpose is to create a flow of information. Many thanks

Decline reason:

Your purpose is to "create a flow of information" to one web site, i.e to attract readers to it. (That web site has been referred to as "the new kid in town".) I have no doubt that you have been doing that because you think the web site is great, and deserves to be better known, but no matter how noble and altruistic your motives may be, editing for the purpose of attracting readers to a web site is not compatible with Wikipedia policy, and since what you have written here makes it clear that you intend to go on doing the same thing, unblocking you would not benefit the project. If you would like to give up linking to that site, and start contributing to the encyclopaedia in other ways, then by all means make another unblock request. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Dear James B Watson, I did not realise that what I was doing was against rules. Please unblock my account. At the same time, just for further information, how could I add the information without linking to a site? How can I enrich wikipedia with that information without violating either site's terms? As I said to Ian Thomson, I am a pensioner and have enrolled in many sites to participate adding info. Many thanks.

Decline reason:

You recieved 4 warnings prior to being blocked - very clearly stating that continuing this specific behavior would lead to a block. I have a hard time believing that you were unaware that what you were doing was against the rules. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:04, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hi I was not aware of the warnings until after I was blocked. I think it is out of order to use the warnings to tell me off? If you look at the times I was warned 10 minutes before being blocked. Of course I was unaware. I did not even see this talk page! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.26.11 (talk) 10:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The first warning came eighteen, almost nineteen hours before you were blocked. If you agree to never link to WTD again, then I'd be open to unblocking you. If you want to be unblocked so you can try to link to WTD, then there's no reason to unblock you. Ian.thomson (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your only purpose seems to be to link to that website. IMDB wasn't added to different articles by a single user. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi yes, that is what I have been doing, correct, I thought it was allowed as it is extra information. For example, I requested an edit to shakespeare for this reason too. Going to https://wtdir.com/talent/william-shakespeare you can see the productions currently on and many past ones. And this is becoming an excellent tool for cross referencing, or so I thought. Is that not allowed? Many thanks

If a variety of users end up adding links to that site in different articles, it may show that the community's consensus is to allow the site. If one user adds a website to a variety of articles, it comes across as spam. That is the difference, as I tried to explain already. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see they have a subscription service! So there's a possible financial stake involved in this. Are you by any chance employed by them? That can affect things. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

? apologies, it is a free site, I have an account on it there too, and have added local productions on it for free as I have linked in wikipedia. There is a paid option but as you were able to see the site, it is not needed. I am not paid and do not pay anyone. I am a pensioner and amateur theatre practitioner. If this all is a problem, then I will then stop uploading on wiki. I thought I was doing good.

There are some other problems with that website. Their lists of credits are extremely spotty and usually less complete than the ones already in our articles. For Shakespeare the opposite is true: He is given credit for plays he has not actually written (likely "after William Shakespeare" or "inspired by him" - hard to tell since they don't distinguish between, say, Macbeth and Macbain). There's also no indication how they get their information; I do not think they would be considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. Thus there isn't much information to enrich Wikipedia with, and that website wouldn't be a good place to take information from. Huon (talk) 10:24, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]