User talk:Stratshaw

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



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:

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:

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! Ckatzchatspy 03:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, 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. RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)


I have entered a few links to articles in The Canadian Encyclopedia. The encyclopedia website is free to all who wish to visit. No registration is required. The Canadian Encyclopedia is hosted by the Historica Dominion Institute, a non-profit organization. So this is not related to any commercial activity. Therefore, I would appreciate having the links I entered restored, or, at least, to be permitted to enter additional links to articles in the encyclopedia that may be of interest to people who visit Wikipedia.

Thank you.Stratshaw (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This comes up every so often, when someone or another decides to add links to the CE. What you should do is seek consensus at the Canadian Wikiproject; if there is agreement that the CE links are useful, it will be a lot easier to maintain them. Simply adding them en masse to articles is generally discouraged. --Ckatzchatspy 08:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Adding many links to articles from the Canadian Encyclopedia contributes nothing to these articles and as per WP:EL is not permitted. If you want to use these links are references for specific text, that is acceptable, but just dumping tons of links into articles renders them WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

External links[edit]

A dead or bad link can really only get removed from an article when an editor notices that it's dead or bad and takes the initiative to remove it. So if you notice such a thing, please do feel free to remove the links — our coverage of any topic is only ever as good as the work that anybody chooses to put into it, so feel free to WP:BEBOLD about something like that. Bearcat (talk) 21:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

More on External Links[edit]

Thanks for your note. Have a read of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which essentially says that because some articles are bad or have bad content or links, doesn't mean we should add more bad stuff. Everyday we are trying to make the encyclopedia better, so the crap that doesn't belong, like the links you mention, should indeed be removed. I have been on an external link clean up recently on several articles, (especially in the article Search and rescue), as people do add the most awful spam links all the time. Please do feel free to use The Canadian Encyclopedia as a ref in articles for specific text, that is the best use for these kinds of resources. - Ahunt (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it would be counterproductive to add "bad stuff" in place of other "bad stuff" in the External Links sections of Wikipedia articles. But, perhaps we should distinguish between bad stuff and good stuff. I have noticed many links to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography and other reputable sources. Well, The Canadian Encyclopedia is just as reputable as the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, The Atlas of Canada, etc. So, for the sake of consistency and for the sake of providing useful info to readers, I suggest links to The Canadian Encyclopedia be permitted in appropriate and relevant Wikipedia articles, just as we see links to the Dictionary of Canadian Biography, The Atlas of Canada, and other reputable sources. Of course, such links should only be placed in Wikipedia articles that are directly relevant to the topic.Stratshaw (talk) 22:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
You are starting to sound like a salesman for the TCE. The policy of adding external links WP:EL is pretty clear on which links should be added:
  1. Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, website, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. See Official links below.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
and that is pretty much it. Since all those you mention, including the Canadian Encyclopedia, can be used as refs, then none of them should be in the External Links - whenever I find that sort of thing (as I recently did in a massive clean up of Search and rescue) I make the ones that can be used as refs into refs and delete the rest. In that article I removed dozens of ELs that shouldn't have been there in the first place and the article is now better referenced and neater for the reader to deal with. The bottom line is really that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a collection of links. Please see WP:NOTLINK. - Ahunt (talk) 22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your additional feedback. I'm no salesman for anything, but I take your point about acceptable links. Thanks again.Stratshaw (talk) 23:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass Additions of[edit]

Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 20:59, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I have noted many objections to your arbitrary deletions of other links people have placed in Wikipedia. I also have noted that there are many links in Wikipedia like the following (which is why I described your actions as arbitrary):

The above link is full of advertising which has nothing to do with John Kenneth Galbraith. I have been monitoring this article for some time and continue to see this link online. Why does this link continue to appear in Wikipedia?

For your information, the links I have added are to Maclean's Magazine. They are links to articles that contain unique content and perspectives. There is no advertising on these pages. These links are not "advertising" and they certainly are not "inappropriate." You could perform a great service to Wikipedia by carefully reviewing links and removing those which do contain online advertisements. There is no advertising on any page on The Canadian Encyclopedia website.

And just for your information, an encyclopedia has been regarded throughout history as the first or introductory reference source on a topic. Typically, readers would progress from an encyclopedia entry to more detailed and comprehensive references on that topic that would be listed in an article’s bibliography, in a list of references, or, today, in a list of related external websites. So, the idea of limiting or restricting links to other useful (and noncommercial) references on a particular topic runs counter to the most basic tenants of established intellectual scholarship and research. Lists of useful external links are signs of active and inquisitive scholarship as well as, in general, an indication of the level of interest in a topic. So, I wish to request that you permit me to continue to enhance the scholarship quotient of Wikipedia by adding links to "appropriate," academically sound, informational websites.

Best regards Stratshaw (talk) 07:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Your contributions to wikipedia under Special:Contributions/Stratshaw, consist entirely of adding external links to and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be related only. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote right? --Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that diversity of information sources and opinions are vitally important in advancing knowledge, understanding, and informed discussion. Going forward, I will be somewhat more eclectic in my choice of sources. In other words, in addition to The Canadian Encyclopedia, I will also consider other high quality websites that offer unique content that should be of interest to Wikipedia readers. Thanks. Stratshaw (talk) 19:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks Article[edit]

You deleted a very informative interview with Oliver Sacks from Maclean's Magazine that I posted to his Wikipedia article.

Why did you delete it?

If you deleted one interview, why is the following link to another interview still available in the Oliver Sacks article?

  1. A 1989 Interview magazine profile of Sacks

Why are you so inconsistent?Stratshaw (talk) 06:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that some link exists in an article doesn't prove the link you spammed should. External link spamming ...repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.--Hu12 (talk) 06:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC) Thank you for the info. I actually just repositioned a comment (unrelated to my discussion) that someone placed after my entry by mistake. Regards. Stratshaw (talk) 21:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of criticism from the "Canadian Encyclopedia" talk page[edit]

Information.svg Please do not delete another editor's talk page comments, as you did at Talk:The Canadian Encyclopedia. Your content removal was not constructive, and has been reverted. Please also note that, given the controversy over your mass addition of links to the Canadian Encyclopedia site, it is very bad form (and poor judgement) to then go and delete a comment criticizing the site. This type of action will only reinforce previous concerns that you are here to promote the encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 03:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC) Hello. You are correct. I should not have deleted that critical passage even though I thought it was unfair and inaccurate. I should have just replied to that message with my own critique instead of deleting that passage. I apologize - and I can say with certainly that I will not repeat this mistake.Stratshaw (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

continued spamming despite warnings to not do so[edit]

Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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.--Hu12 (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, I can understand how you might be upset if I were "spamming," in your parlance. But may I ask if you actually read the content I added and referenced in the Wikipedia articles I worked on?

In each case, I added a small, but vital, amount of information to selected articles. In other words I was following the instructions of yourself and other editors which essentially stated that if I really wanted to contribute to Wikipedia, I could do so by providing useful information accompanied by appropriate citations. That is exactly what I did in numerous instances. A normal edit that provided real facts relevant to the topic of an article. It also seems to me that one of the original objectives of Wikipedia was, and remains, to share information with others in the greater web community. I think my contributions served that purpose and met those admirable objectives.

Can you explain why, instead of receiving a thank you for following your advice by contributing something real and useful to Wikipedia, I receive your rather scary warning message? I have read many Wikipedia discussions. It seemed to me I was working by the book. I would like to permitted to continue my work in adding useful Canadian content, especially in articles where I see that Canadian content is often overshadowed by information about other countries - such as articles that discuss Canada's many heroic accomplishments in World War II. Thank you.Stratshaw (talk) 14:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

At this point it it's best to stay away from using thecanadianencyclopedia as a source, or linking to it in any way. You've been told by other editors (Including on the Canadian Wikipedians' notice board) that your additions are spam. Going from WP:LINKSPAMing to WP:REFSPAMing is stil WP:SPAMing. Your even adding it under With your recent deletion of legitimate talkpage critisism of[1], and strange talkpage behavior such as deleting anothers comment then re-adding it as a new section is just strange. Few people will edit tendentiously or argue ad nauseum topics in which they have no connection. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
There are a multitude of reliable sources availiable on the net other than thecanadianencyclopedia. --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)