Khowell66
|
October 2009
editWelcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Scott Adsit has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Where-In-The-World-is-The-Bald-Guy-from-30-Rock/178475428581?ref=mf (matching the regex rule \bfacebook\.com).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
October 2011
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page AICN Comics 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 constructively to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here to AICN Comics was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.facebook.com/groups/197926913607012/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I am still new to the Wiki program and figuring it out. I did not realize the limitations on links and have not attempted to reinsert any that might be self-promotional or social. I have, however, in an attempt to basically verify the statements being made on the page by me, inserted links to pages that are either purely informational or demonstrate what I am referencing in the text.
Thank you.
Your Edits
editThe basic problems are this:
1) You have a conflict of interest - so shouldn't be writing the article to start with
2) The AICN article isn't long enough to need a separate comics section to be broken out, so our Manual of Style says it should be redirected.
3) The content and style of content you are adding is completely wrong for a wikipedia article - even if it remained as a separate article, there is maybe a paragraph of content we'd include in a wikipedia article.
You can edit war over this but that's likely to lead to you being blocked. Your best bet is to add a comics section to the AICN article and stick only to statements that you can source to independent reliable sources. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:05, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1) This comes off as utter absurdity to me. It is not conflict of interest for me to access and correct Wikipedia and find a page littered with errors, out-of-date information, and dead links when I know the information. I removed self-aggrandizing things that could not be shown either by a link or an outside reference. By putting this page to the standard you are putting it, then I question how any currently functioning person, group, or thing gets an accurate Wiki page when the person, group, or thing does not have a say in the accuracy of the information. So, it would be better to have lied or hired a social marketing group to edit this page with no sense of objectivity at all rather than do it myself when I have over 20 years of experience in publishing and a law degree under my belt and understand quite well how to write objectively.
2) That's a justifiable rationale, except that the section I'm featuring functions separately from the main AICN and would wind up turning the AICN page into a feature on the Comics section. Which would be more inappropriate. Or maybe Wiki should look into establishing "pages" that are tabbed for subjects like this where there are separate aspects of a topic that should have a more extensive write-up but would be a side-story to the main.
3) Rather than just removing everything I have done, perhaps you could be more constructive in your efforts by explaining the rationale for why the previous version of the page, which were completely out of date, un-sourced at all, and contained almost all dead links was allowed to stand for years but my edits which are accurate, sourced, and contain active links is getting this level of scrutiny. Also, perhaps you could explain why the multiple sources I already used on the page do not qualify as "independent reliable sources" under your definition. Again, there are plenty of pages out there that, if this yardstick were being applied equally, would disappear from Wiki.
Khowell66 (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
1) This comes off as utter absurdity to me.
That's just how it is - note you aren't actually prohibited from editing about yourself or things you are connected to - but it draws suspsion from other editors and often lead to blocks if your edits are seen as advertising.
2) That's a justifiable rationale, except that the section I'm featuring functions separately from the main AICN and would wind up turning the AICN page into a feature on the Comics section.
On the evidence of what was there previously, there isn't enough content of the sort that we look for in an encyclopaedic article to be a problem in the short term. If and when enough content appeared that this was a problem, then consensus might be reached to branch that off.
3) Rather than just removing everything I have done, perhaps you could be more constructive in your efforts by explaining the rationale for why the previous version of the page, which were completely out of date, un-sourced at all, and contained almost all dead links was allowed to stand for years but my edits which are accurate, sourced, and contain active links is getting this level of scrutiny.
It's actually more straight forward than you'd think - there are over 3,000,000 articles here - nobody noticed - it should have never existed in the first place and should have been redirectly almost immediately after being noticed. I only noticed because I was looking at the recent changes log and saw your edits - once I'd seen the article, I redirected it.
Again, there are plenty of pages out there that, if this yardstick were being applied equally, would disappear from Wiki.
they should, you are completely correct, we call this WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which basically acknowledges that there is lots of content here that shouldn't be, or needs redirecting or simply deleting and nobody has gone around to it. It's just with over 3,000,000 articles this stuff takes time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh and BTW after looking at your recent edits, just a tip - I patrol a lot of comic articles and have done so for years, a lot of people try that "I'll write about myself at comicsdb.com and then use it to reference myself" - Comicsdb.com is user generated so we don't consider it a reliable source (which is also why linkin and the like are also not considered to be RS). --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, by that standard, it is not considered a reliable source for an author to cite his publisher's page. In this case, the original article cited 10 individuals without attribution. Only one of those still writes for the site. Listing of contributors seems like a purely informational bit of information. However, by your standard, I somehow can't cite the AICN site itself (which makes no sense in terms of pure information without opinion) so I googled for any third-party options. The standard here is suspect.
I'll reiterate this though. The manner in which you are responding to me and my edits is why Wiki is not a trusted citing source. You are forcing people to lie just to post. The fact that I know this information firsthand means that I am targeted for deletion by the editors. Yet, if I wrote a feature on my experiences writing for this team and discussed these same details and it appeared in the Atlantic Monthly then somehow that would become a reliable 3rd party source.
Khowell66 (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
- You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding - Wikipedia is not and not intended to be a 'trusted citing source' - it is a starting point for people who wish to know more about a subject. Our rules and policies are to reduce the bias in our articles as much as possible and make articles verifiable, there is no aim to make wikipedia 'trusted' (because we can't). As for the rest, I don't actually agree with some of our policies (particularly on conflict of interest) but I'm simply trying to explain to you how policy current is, not how I would like it to be. --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)