User talk:Owlcroft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Pollinator 03:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I noticed your note at Pollinator's talk page. I might not have butted in except that this very same issue came up on someone else's talk page an hour ago, in a somewhat less-nice context. Thing is, space on Wikipedia is expressly for discussing issues at Wikipedia. If you look at the talk pages (and their archives) for some articles, much more text has been spilled on those than has been kept in the articles. Improving the articles is the goal here. Another point is that any evidence or argument 'for' something should be put onto Wikipedia, so that future editors can see and know the basis for including (and keeping) something. I don't know of any central place for arguing the inclusion of links. I don't know where best to go. But I do feel it is important that information exchanges take place on-wiki, for the benefit of all. Shenme 04:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Copied from User talk:Pollinator

"Inappropriate Links"[edit]

Just prior to posting this, I found a message from you, "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia.". I tried to email a response, but--though I have an email address in my profile--WP seems not to want to send it. I don't want eat space here discussing it, but would appreciate an email from you with a response address so that I can make my case off WP space. I am at email@owlcroft.com (and, of course, believe the links to be appropriate). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Owlcroft 04:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Shenme 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm going to make the same response on their user talk page as I did an hour ago at someone else's. Off-Wikipedia is not appropriate because any 'evidence' needs to be visible to any editor, now and in the future. Space on Wikipedia is expressly for discussing issues at Wikipedia. Shenme 04:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Very well, then.

The links I added were one link each to WP pages on certain vegetables, and the links were to pages I maintain on a non-commercial site dedicated to home-garden growing of vegetables, herbs, and fruits; each linked page is wholly about the corresponding vegetable, and includes not only pretty comprehensive information about growing that vegetable, and some background biology and history of the vegetable, but--and this is the unique focus of the site--more or less (depending on the particular vegetable) extensive discussion of the best-tasting cultivars for the home gardener, whose concerns are very different from those of commercial growers. If one examines the WP:EL (Wikipedia criteria for External Links), one finds the following here-relevant material: What should be linked: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail . . . or other reasons." [emphasis added] An extensive treatise on selecting varieties of and planting and growing a particular vegetable qualifies, I daresay, as material that cannot be integrated into the article owing to amount of detail. What should not be linked: There are 13 criteria, and I will not rehearse them all here. The only ones that I can conceive anyone even remotely thinking salient are #3, "Links mainly intended to promote a website", and #4, "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services". Taking last first, anyone who visits the site (growingtaste.com) can, I think, see that it is not primarily (or secondarily) to sell anything; there is an associated Amazon bookshop on the site, and some small AdSense ads, but I really think no one visiting any of the linked pages could rationally say they are there to sell anything. As to #3, again I put it to anyone who wants to visit first the WP page on some vegetable--say Beets, WP--and then visit the page I had linked (the links have been removed, I presume by Pollinator), in that case [Beets, external site], and see for yourself whether or not the link is relevant to the WP page or is "mainly to promote" the website. And, as everyone knows, External Links are all nofollow'ed anyway. (Or select any common vegetable you want and make the same comparison.) It was my intent, now that the 2007 updates are all done, to add a link for each detail page I have to the WP page for the corresponding vegetable, herb, or fruit (assuming I don't find a reasonably equivalent link, which I never have). I may add that so far as I got before Pollinator exercised his veto, I saw no other links to articles on selecting and growing cultivars of the vegetable in question.

If I am astray here, I would be interested in knowing exactly how, with reference to particular points in the WP:EL. I need to know whether I will be able to re-insert the links without raising anyone's hackles. I have worked long and hard on that site--just about every page is the product of literally tens of hours spent reviewing material on the subject vegetable, and in composing the text--and have to do a lot of it all anew every season as new cultivars become available (or disappear); it would be nice to think that the end results are things people with an interest home-growing in this or that vegetable can readily find. ("Gardening is the # 1 hobby in the United States.") Eric Walker 22:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding links to multiple pages is one of the identifying characteristics of spammers (not to speak of the ads on your page). It would be a rare case where multiple links would be allowed by the spam patrol. Pick ONE page you wish to link to and make your case on that page's talk. It might be a good idea to note this and link to your request at Wikipedia talk:Spam. If you can convince and get an administrator to add your link, I won't remove it. But if you try adding multiple links again, you'll likely get blocked by one of the spam patrol. User:Pollinator 16:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop spamming[edit]

Regarding your edits to Asparagus, Beet, Brussels sprout, Carrot - No, that's not how it works. First you establish consensus on the talk pages, and if independent editors decide it's encyclopedically appropriate, then you may add a link to your site.

...A, B, C? Might there be a pattern? How many of your links would have followed? By the way, I see your sites have Google ads, and you also own a domain about Search Engine Optimization.

Please stop pushing your websites. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Femto 14:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking data:

--A. B. (talk) 21:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. (Requestion 23:06, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Sad[edit]

Well, Eric, I've purposely kept my hands off your edits, despite your defiant response ([[1]]). You would not follow my suggestion to get the consensus FIRST on the talk page -- and you ran into trouble right away. You are on the verge of a permanant ban (nothing I had anything to do with); the question is: will you learn that friendly advice from an experienced Wikipedian might be helpful, or will you continue to your own destruction here? Sad. Pollinator 02:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Fost[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Norman Fost, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://bioethics.seattlechildrens.org/events/pediatric_bioethics_conference/norman_fost_md_mph.asp. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Norman Fost[edit]

A tag has been placed on Norman Fost requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. andy (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023[edit]

Information icon Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Brian Keith, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:25, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Owlcroft&oldid=1172452962"