User talk:Pdiperna

Welcome

Hello, Pdiperna, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on your user talk page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page.

I've taken the liberty of editing your user page to use wikisyntax for lists. I hope you don't mind. Again, welcome! CWC(talk) 06:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Philanthropy do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then 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. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI concerns

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
and you must always:
avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. RJASE1 ^Talk 12:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is spam for "External Links?"

Hi,

I appreciate your note on Wikipedia protocols. I'm new to editing and very willing to learn the rules and etiquette..

Can you tell me exactly what criteria qualifies for a legitimate submission to "External Links", for a particular article. You have deleted links of mine, believing them to be spam, but they all deal directly with the subject matter in the article.

I guess I don't think the fact that it should matter if my website is a provider/distributor of a given video or interview. Is this really a sufficient criterion for disqualification?

I have no profit motives or capabilities...

If a link is clearly relevant to the subject (ie. interviews or videos with the individual), and it is content-based, then I don't think it should matter who is doing the posting or linking.

I think this exception of the WP: COI applies here:

"Citing oneself

You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be careful about excessive citation of your own work, to avoid the appearance of self-promotion. When in doubt, discuss on the talk page whether your citation is appropriate, and defer to the community's opinion."

If you like, we can go over the deleted links, and I can justify how each supports the given subject article.

Thanks,

Pdiperna 16:29, 16 April 2007

Your addition of an external link to the Jimmy Wales page

Hello Pdiperna. Please note that this addition to the Jimmy Wales is not necessary or useful. You might believe that his interview with Charlie Rose is notable; it's fine to be interested in that. But the actual link you provided doesn't add anything of value. It takes you to a little summary box, indicating the length of the segment and the name of the show (not exactly hard to find out elsewhere). and then allows you to click through to see the video. This is an intermediary that adds no value. I respectfully suggest that, if you have added any of this kind of link elsewhere, that you remove *all* of them.

You may be aware that Wikipedia has lots of anti-spam defences, and your pattern of adding external links pointing to your own web site to many different articles is bound to bring you unfavorable attention.

Please try to find other ways of using your talents to help Wikipedia. EdJohnston 18:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your message Re: Jimmy Wales's Charlie Rose Interview

Hi Ed,

Thanks for your note. I'm new to editing in Wikipedia, and I guess I still have to learn the proper protocols..

It's not too clear to me what does/doesn't add value as an external link. Though the intermediary or provider point you make is a valid one..

However I have also interviewed individuals for a blog-based project, and linked to their Wikipedia bio's/articles, but have had these links deleted today as well.

This doesn't make sense to me. Original content with a direct relationship to an article's subject should be a legitimate external link.

What are your thoughts on linking to these interviews?

Thanks again,

Pdiperna 19:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Intellipedia Article

Hi Paul. I saw your question on the Intellipedia discussion page regarding a reference. See my reply here (I replied that the articles seems legit to use). Also, it is good you are being bold in editing and trying to use Wikipedia. Often times, new members get discouraged, especially when old-timers do not gently inform new users of the guidelines. FYI, it is a normal practice for Wikipedians to complain about posts - it is part of the healthy debate that occurs here. Anyway, if you have any questions feel free to ask on my discussion page. And keep editing Wikipedia! MLWilson 05:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]