User talk:CPX

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, CPX, 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:

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! Becky Sayles (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

October 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages, as you did to Karin Sowada. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Kraftlos (talk) 05:19, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Forbes interview

Thank you so much for finding that link on Zeitgeist. It's been so frustrating not having Reliable Sources to deal with the first part, as it's the most ridiculous part of this (generally ridiculous) film.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 07:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Leigh Hatcher. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since 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. Prolog (talk) 08:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the delete. The link meets standards for external links - an interview with the subject of the article. It shouldn't be considered spam.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've put back the links you put in today. On the way to doing that, it's become clear that there has been someone posting links from the centre (to which you appear to be affiliated), which are not suitable. These are people from the centre giving their opinions on topics. The problem is, they don't qualify as reliable sources (whereas the interviewees in some of the links do). In addition, some of the links introduce a Christian bias, which aggravates their unsuitability as an external link. Just a heads up for future reference.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 11:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that feedback. I was certainly unaware of breaking any protocol here, and have just been trying to add links that might serve to highlight a person's work. For example, based on your advice I have added a link to an interview we did with Darrell Bock - an expert in New Testament studies. Am I ok to do that? Yes, I am affiliated with the Centre for Public Christianity. Does that disqualify me from adding such links where it is appropriate. If so, I will cease doing that. Thanks again. CPX (talk) 06:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't want to discourage you from adding good material - and thank you for your response. There are three things to think about.

Conflict of interest. As an associate of the CPC, you should be wary of making content changes to any articles directly about the CPC, or adding highly visible references to it. It's not forbidden, but be open about your connection (by using the talk page), and be very self-aware about your motivations for contributing, and accepting of other editor's views. The policy on conflicts of interest explains this in detail.
Don't add spam. External links need to have more than some connection to the topic. They should not be used to push a particular view, or advertise an organisation. Some of the earlier links added to wikipedia from CPC appear to push a view. The policy is here. Spamming (covered in detail here) really annoys people like you wouldn't believe. Wikipedia is so prominent now that there are lots of organisations that try to use it to raise their profile - ranging from campaigns by extremist Israelis to eradicate all material critical of Israel, wannabe writers creating several accounts to create the illusion of popularity, companies offering to pay for biased editing and so on, as well as the local restaurant owner who innocently adds his establishment's name to places of interest in the article on his village, and gets bawled out as a vandal or spammer. Spam really is a fly in the ointment of wikipedia (outright vandalism is a turd, if you'll pardon my French). Thousands of people volunteer their free time every day to improve wikipedia; spammers are parasites on this.
Crucially, don't look like you're adding spam. This is what you did with your links. Not looking like a spammer is discussed here, in particular points 2 and 6. Because of the volume of people trying to spam wikipedia, many editors have quite understandably developed hair trigger fingers when something looks like spam. Additionally, in the case of CPC, it appears to be a religious organisation, and religious organisations typically have spamming (aka proselytising) as one of their core functions. Several links put up in quick succession by a religious organisation sets off all kinds of alarm bells.

What I would have advised you to do is take time to add text to the articles, using the links you provided as sources. This way the material is more likely to be accepted, and in addition you'll have improved the article - which can only enhance your good standing as an editor. (All actions on wikipedia are recorded forever; one of the first quick things people do with suspicious edits is check the editor's history.)

Be aware of the policy on reliable sources, which should be the basis of all information on wikipedia (alas that's not entirely the case, but we're all working on it). In a nutshell, a reliable source is one that is externally validated as an authority with a reputation for checking facts. The links you put in recently are fine, as they are all either recognised academics (with reputations to look after), or the subjects of the articles, in which case they effectively count as primary sources (i.e. good for purely factual information, but not drawing judgements). The older links, with Greg Clarke giving his reviews, do not count. Although he is an academic, he's not notable enough for his opinion to matter to a global audience - unless he publishes it in a reliable source, such as a peer-reviewed academic journal. On the other hand, Darrell Bock appears to be notable and a reliable source. So long as the material is dealing with his academic area of expertise (rather than, for example, his opinion of Barack Obama), it'll be fine to add.

Wikipedia may seem full of arcane rules and guidelines. They've developed and evolved to allow a large group of people from all over the world who don't know each other to work together productively. Unfortunately, it takes a little time to be familiar with the important ones. With the volume of activity here, it can be difficult to tell immediately the difference between someone who is acting in good faith (one of the fundamental cores of this project) but ignorant of rules, and a deliberately disruptive editor. There is actually a guideline called Please do not bite the newcomers because of it.

I hope I haven't overwhelmed you with this long message. Editing wikipedia is fun - which is why so many people do it. Please don't feel put off by the experience of the past week.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a link to a website you are affiliated with is discouraged. Mass addition, which you have been doing, is considered an attempt to use Wikipedia as a platform for advertising. You are very welcome to put on a "Wikipedia hat" and make constructive edits. If you are truly here to improve the encyclopedia, it should be easy to avoid editing with a clear conflict of interest. If you instead continue to add links to your organization's website, you will be blocked from editing. Prolog (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steady on, Prolog. If it's done with open acknowledgement, with good reason, and if other editors are invited to check its validity, it's OK. check WP:COI#How_to_avoid_COI_edits. You're mistaking appearing to be spam (bad idea) with actually being spam (not allowed). Good sources are not irrevocably tainted by who puts them up. CPX has clearly stated that they want to abide by wiki rules; I think it's a good idea to accept good faith rather than bring up blocking threats. I cannot stress enough - the material CPX added a couple of days ago are good reliable sources. S/he just has to go through a little bit of process to get the sources added without grief, to avoid COI. VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is standard practice to warn a user before actually blocking, and the previous warnings seem to have been ineffective. When spam continues despite warnings it becomes a form of vandalism, so I want CPX to understand that a block is indeed very close. I realize that you disagree with me, but I believe my actions adhere to both the letter and the spirit of Wikipedia's policies on COI/spam. Prolog (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What previous warnings? One, seven months ago. I have to be honest, Prolog, your behaviour after your first reasonable reverts has been unbecoming of a decent editor, let alone an admin.

You revert, and quite reasonably as I have explained to CPX;
another user, involved in the topics in question (me) points out that despite appearing like spam, the additions are actually good sources. I ask you to look at the links and the pages. You don't.
You then insist that it's spam while saying you won't remove it - which makes no sense at all, and would be a breach of editorial duties.
The user in question (CPX) responds in good faith that they don't wish to break policy and agrees not to breach COI if someone explains it to them.
I point out to you on your talk page that your application of spam policy is a confusion between being and looking like spam, which policy clearly distinguishes between. Your response is a patronising reference to WP:DUCK, which simply begs the question, while you strangely claim that your decision is an admin one, not a general editor's one, as if admins always know better.
I write a long message to this user, who has asked about how to behave better, detailing what they've done to trigger your original - reasonable - response, and how to contribute better.
You then post another warning to them, misquoting COI policy and threatening them, even though all that user has done is ask about policy.
I ask you, civilly, to back off. You don't, again warning the user, talking about several imaginary warnings (i.e. the user is near being blocked).

What is your problem? Have you never read WP:BITE? Standard practice is for situations where no more information is available. I've given it to you in spades. If you want to take my comments to a higher place, please do so. Otherwise, in the politest of terms, back off and let people join wikipedia.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 16:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user has continued adding the links after two warnings. I don't warn unless I'm ready to block if the problematic editing continues, and I certainly don't need to open every link to deal with spam. The persistent self-promotion bit is generally quite enough (note that WP:NOT is a policy while WP:COI and WP:SPAM are guidelines). I will continue removing spam, but your re-additions do not qualify as such. My "confusion" and "misquoting" are your opinions and interpretations of guidelines. I doubt many will agree with those. Issuing appropriate warning messages does not equal biting a newbie. Given the user's comment, I would not have felt necessary to warn of a block again if you had not misguidedly encouraged him/her to continue adding COI links. Prolog (talk) 21:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the user has clearly not continued to spam, and has dealt with COI appropriately as per WP:COI, as you will find out if you take time read the conversation we've been having. After the second warning (which came 7 months after the first, something which really needs to be taken into account, along with the user's inexperience on wikipedia and willingness to abide by the rules), the user posted a link, admitting a COI conflict, and asked me to evaluate it. I said it was fine. This is a perfect example of how to avoid spamming and COI while contributing material, according to the rules. Quite why, after this happened, you felt the need to come in and issue warning threats again, I don't know. I don't understand why you consider it to be spam but have not removed it. I also do not like being accused of encouraging COI activity. If you read the messages I left, I explain to the user how to work in a COI/possible spam situation within the rules - by asking other people to evaluate one's own actions.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A way forward

CPX: For the meantime, until I get clarification, if you want to post a link, put it on my talk page for me to evaluate, and then I will add it as a non-COI user if it is appropriate material to do so.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]