User talk:Trauring
Your submission at Articles for creation: Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch (October 9)
[edit]
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Rabbi Alfred J. Kolatch.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the . Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get live chat help from experienced editors.
- Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Hasteur (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
|
Hello! Trauring,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there!
|
May 2020
[edit]
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. creffett (talk) 15:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Trauring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I don't believe the links I am adding are spam. They have a considerable amount of information and resources about the towns I am linking them to. Many of the towns pages have links to other similar sites (such as JewishGen and Virtual Shtetl), so I'm not sure what about these links are considered spam. My site has information on over 1400 towns in Poland, and collects information on them that is difficult to find elsewhere in one place. There is nothing commercial on the site, it is solely intended to help people researching their families from these towns. If I'm not adding links correctly, please help me understand what I am doing wrong.
Decline reason:
It is spam because you are linking to your own website so people are aware of it. You may have good motives in doing so, but it is still spamming. You don't have to have a commercial purpose. It is also a severe conflict of interest to do so, and as such you shouldn't do it without discussion with the wider community- which will be difficult as it seems to be original research. I am declining your request as you don't indicate what edits you wish to make that are unrelated to your website. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Comment as blocking admin - I blocked a) because they had linked to their blog in a lot of pages (by my count, somewhere around 150) and b) because I was concerned there might be unapproved scripting/automation at work (some edits were less than a minute apart and the editing was clearly working down an alphabetical list). To reviewing admins: if the user agrees not to link to their blog anymore and confirms that they are not using automated tools to make the edits, I'm okay with you unblocking at your discretion. creffett (talk) 15:54, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Trauring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I can assure you that I did not use any script or automated tool to make my edits. I am simply opening the Wikipedia pages (which I link to from my site) and then adding a link back to my pages. I'm still not clear how my links are any different than links to other sites such as JewishGen or Virtual Shtetl which have similar content, and why links to those sites are okay, but mine are spam. If I knew how to discuss this with the wider community I would do so. How does one go about that? My site has over 25,000 resources on it, covering those 1400 towns, as well as over 200 countries and territories. It's not 'original research' as I understand that to be defined, as for the most part I am aggregating links to other sites in a single place so people know all the sites they need to check when doing research on the towns they are interested in. I may not be a prolific Wikipedia editor, but I've made edits before, including fixing problems on many of these same town pages in the past. I only added the links to help people with their research. I don't need the links to my site, as I don't get any benefit from it other than the warm and fuzzy feeling I get when people tell me how much it has helped them. This really isn't any kind of self-promotion. If I can't link to my site, then so be it. I'd still like to be able to contribute to Wikipedia even if that is the case.
Decline reason:
See WP:COI. You need to convince us you understand why linking to your own site is inappropriate, otherwise there are no grounds to consider lifting the block. Yamla (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Trauring (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I understand that adding lots of links to my site constitutes a conflict of interest as defined in WP:COI and I will not be doing that again.
Accept reason:
I'm satisfied with that. – bradv🍁 23:02, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, there were two issues that led to your block – adding links to your own website, and bot-like editing. Neither of these issues should be repeated. – bradv🍁 23:10, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
[edit] | Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |