User talk:Adamgreen37

Link canvassing
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 constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 11:43, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi, which links have been removed? I can't see any that have been removed. Many thanks. Adamgreen37 (talk) 11:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't removed any yet; I'm just asking you to stop canvassing. See WP:SPA and WP:COI as well. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 12:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Well I don't feel that I am canvassing. Please let me explain before accusing me of such a thing!

I have spent a bit of time last night and this morning going through The Public Domain Review articles (which I am the editor of) and using them as a source for improving the relevant Wikipedia articles.

I added links to online copies of relevant works in the public domain (on sites such as Internet Archive), and also added links to PDR articles (all written by respected experts in their fields) where I feel they are relevant and would be of genuine interest to the reader, and would further knowledge about the topic - particularly as the articles themselves contain comprehensive links to online copies of the relevant works which are in the public domain. It is perhaps worth noting that the articles I link to are themselves published under a CC-BY-SA license, and the PDR is a not-for-profit organisation committed to promoting the value of the public domain (not in promoting itself!).

I understand why I came to your attention, posting lots of links in a short time, many pointing to one website, but my primary aim is not to promote the PDR website but rather was simply to use the PDR website to help improve Wikipedia. Wikipedia says regarding External Links that to "use material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies".

I feel very much that I have done this.

It could be that you feel that the External Links section is not the right place for the links which point to the PDR website. I felt that, because of the listing of links to online copies which accompany these PDR articles, that it was the right place. However, as I am sure you are aware, I am a newcomer, and am open to advice regarding the editing of Wikipedia articles.

Look forward to hearing your thoughts,

--Adamgreen37 (talk) 12:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Were it not for the consistent pattern of adding links to the same site without the addition of much if any content, no one would have objected to the link. Before continuing to canvas it, I'd suggest taking it the EL noticeboard and soliciting opinions there. Thanks, OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for including this external link, and welcome. I read some of Duyker's work when I wrote the article, it was very interesting, if you can think of some way to expand it then be BOLD. I started to transcribe the english version of the work, but the OCR was terrible. Regards, cygnis insignis 16:22, 11 October 2011 (UTC)