User talk:Uvmcdi

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Baler. 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 will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Uvmcdi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions

Adding links to rare and historic photographs from the University of Vermont look to me like a great addition to this encyclopedia. Thank you! If you have any questions about editing, you can ask me on my talk page or read the message above. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Omarcheeseboro, are you still sure you are welcoming this contributor? Hint. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fama Clamosa, I don't understand why what we're doing is considered spamming. The Center For Digital Initiatives at the University of Vermont, other than not being a for-profit entity, was founded in the name of freeing historical information and media (i.e. digitizing unique collections) and making them available as a common resource to anyone with internet access. We didn't imagine linking from Wikipedia to be a parasitic relationship - to the contrary. We have the utmost respect for Wikipedia and its mission, which we thought was the basis of this collaboration. This has nothing to do with search engine optimization -- even though many universities act like corporations nowadays, lots of their constituent extensions and projects (like the CDI) actually do still care about education. Is there any way we can possibly modify anything we're doing so it seems less like spamming and more like stewarding the growth of networks of relevant information (what it's supposed to be)? Please let me know! Uvmcdi (talk) 14:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Uvmcdi. Wrong is not the right word. There are some concerns possible, and the editors above may want to point you to that. I'll drop here a boilerplate warning as to some 'why's:

If you are affiliated with 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, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating 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; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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.

Other information which may be of interest for you can be found here: WP:GLAM

Basically, external links are often welcome, if they are on topic, etc. and if they are actually adding to a page. It is however not in Wikipedia's goal to be a collection of external links. Sometimes the links that are there tell it all, more are superfluous. See the external links guideline and WP:NOT (especially WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY for more info). Adding links only, even good and on topic, is something that is considered 'spamming', and your links may be removed because of such concerns.

Some other 'concerns': Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is more based on content than on external links. And preferably that content has references to reliable sources. Unfortunately, much of the information here is, albeit probably true, not referenced. You, as working with an organisation which seems to be a perfect source of reliable information, might be able to help us there. May I ask you to have a look at the articles where you add links, and see if the page you link to can be used to verify unverified information on the page?

Furthermore, I see you are linking to images. You might want to consider, if the images in your collection are free for upload, to actually upload some images to illustrate the pages, in stead of linking to them.

May I ask you also to see if you can find a 'WikiProject' that would be interested in your collection. WikiProjects are groups of Wikipedia editors interested in the same subject. They might be interested in what you have in the collection (e.g. information you have in the collecion and which is not covered by Wikipedia), so they can create those articles. They might also be able to give you more specific advice. You can find a list here: Wikipedia:WikiProject.

All in all, please be considerate with your additions, please follow the guidelines. Happy editing, I hope you will have a look at the cited policies and guidelines above, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello UVM, in response to your query on my talk page, it looks like Beetstra addressed everything I would have. Let me know if you have any other concerns. Happy editing - --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both of you for pointing me to those clarifications, this stuff is really helpful! I will try to edit accordingly. Uvmcdi (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits.

The next time you insert a spam link, 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:05, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

W

You have been blocked for a period of 48 hours from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.

OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but it is considered inappropriate for such groups to use Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organization for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

What can I do now?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:

Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block.

Daniel Case (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Requested username:

LouisMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

You appear to still intend the account to be used on behalf of an organisation, and for promotion. ("Connecting Wikipedia users with credible, authentic online resources" means publicising those resources.) For the account to be "managed by one librarian on [your] staff" does not negate either of those concerns. — JamesBWatson (talk) 13:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand that Wikipedia is not a linkfarm and not an internet directory? Although certain external links can certainly be welcome (see also the external links guideline), it is more in Wikipedia's interest to incorporate content, than to link to it. How do you anticipate that your database is there useful? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to expand a bit on the problem that I describe here, and in my post higher up this page. Example, you performed this edit resulting in this page, where you added a link (http://cdi.uvm.edu/collections/getCollection.xql?pid=kakewalk&title=Kake%20Walk%20at%20UVM) to Dance card. May I ask you to read the external links guideline, What Wikipedia is not - not a repository, What Wikipedia is not - not an internet directory, What Wikipedia is not - Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of advertising, and our Spam guideline thoroughly, and explain us, for this specific link addition why you performed this addition after being pointed to (most of) these policies and guidelines earlier and how you think that that link improves that specific page. Do you expect to do it differently after this, and what would you e.g. do with this link or this page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your unblock requesst gives the impression, possibly inadvertently, that this account is being operated by an organisation or a group of contributors rather than a single editor. Accounts here must be held and operated by one person only. I would like to see a comment on this point before any unblock is considered. --Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We did not realize until recently that an account could not be operated by an organization (which is how we were using this account). That is why in my request to unblock, I mentioned that the account will from now on be managed only by me, a librarian. I would like to link to content that is produced by the library I work in, because I think that online primary sources can benefit wikipedia users interested in seeing external resources related to wikipedia entries.Uvmcdi (talk) 16:01, 09 November 2010