User talk:Lv131
Welcome
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:
- Policy on neutral point of view
- Guideline on spam
- Guideline on external links
- Guideline on conflict of interest
If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page and how to develop articles
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- Article wizard for creating new articles
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome!
Prari (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
May 2014
[edit]
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. DMacks (talk) 17:31, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Help me!
[edit] | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please help me with...finding out how to respond to some editing that DMacks made to some external links I posted. They were not promotional links, they pointed to scientific handbooks. weren't meant to be 'advertising'. Lv131 (talk) 18:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think you should start by explaining why the only contributions you have made to Wikipedia are links to this web site. It would appear that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote this web site. One might even be led to think that you worked for the marketing department of this organization. If you want to just reply here, I will watch this page and come back to continue assisting with this. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 18:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I do work for the company bud didn't mean to make it promotional. We have a number of books on life science studies, books which are often noted on college and university sites, but they're not always easy to find on the web. And we don't require registration so I figured they were ideal for posting on Wikipedia. I have seen other links that ARE promotional and agree, they doesn't belong. I am also encouraging our scientists to add and edit the topic pages but that's more of a challenge (though a few have done that). Geez, went back to see if there was a response and am horrified by my typos. Guess I couldn't have your job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv131 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- In that case adding those links to any Wikipedia article is a conflict of interest under the policy. It is also admittedly promotional, which violates this policy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The best course of action is to own up to the COI, and if you think the link should be added to an article request on the talk page that another editor add the link, and if there is consensus among the editors of the article that it would be a useful addition, someone will add it. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay...though I am not at all savvy at this stuff (which is probably obvious). I really didn't and still don't see it as promotional. But will try that route...thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv131 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really think replacing links to your competitors by links to your employer would not be seen as problematic? Just imagine if your competitors behaved in the same way. Huon (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think you're mistaken. If a link was broken I removed it, to make the site better. And I don't remember doing that to any 'competitor'. You can choose not to believe me but I wasn't trying to do anything but offer good info.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv131 (talk • contribs) 22:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Did you really think replacing links to your competitors by links to your employer would not be seen as problematic? Just imagine if your competitors behaved in the same way. Huon (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Okay...though I am not at all savvy at this stuff (which is probably obvious). I really didn't and still don't see it as promotional. But will try that route...thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv131 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- In that case adding those links to any Wikipedia article is a conflict of interest under the policy. It is also admittedly promotional, which violates this policy: Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. The best course of action is to own up to the COI, and if you think the link should be added to an article request on the talk page that another editor add the link, and if there is consensus among the editors of the article that it would be a useful addition, someone will add it. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 20:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I do work for the company bud didn't mean to make it promotional. We have a number of books on life science studies, books which are often noted on college and university sites, but they're not always easy to find on the web. And we don't require registration so I figured they were ideal for posting on Wikipedia. I have seen other links that ARE promotional and agree, they doesn't belong. I am also encouraging our scientists to add and edit the topic pages but that's more of a challenge (though a few have done that). Geez, went back to see if there was a response and am horrified by my typos. Guess I couldn't have your job! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lv131 (talk • contribs) 19:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
June 2020
[edit]
Hello, I'm Jerodlycett. I noticed that you recently removed content from Äkta Explorer without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jerod Lycett (talk) 02:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)