User talk:Cbdesign

Blatant spam for themselves and their client
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks.

Additional: The above is a standard warning. It should be noted that the name of this user (Cbdesign) implies they work for "Client by Design"- or are at least pretending to. Either way, they have two edits on record:-
 * One is for the clientbydesign website itself.
 * The other is for a customer of "Client by Design", as can be shown by a simple Google search on "vacationsattahoe clientbydesign", which brings up their list of customers.

Fourohfour 09:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello FourOhFour: I am not sure how this works (for two way conversations) however, no... my posts were not blatant spam. If we are not allowed to post links to our own sites under external links then I didn't know this even after carefully reading the policies and guidelines.

That's why I signed up for a user account to do this the right way. I find it interesting that you allow two other vacation rental companies to post "Vamoose" and "A1Vacations" and yet I am not allowed to post my client's site, a site with information and resources as well as rentals.

Does it matter that they are my client if they are a resource for Lake Tahoe? Should I have logged in with my personal username or anonymously and tried to sneak them in, would that had made a difference? I see many external links on Wikipedia to sites with commercial products so I honestly don't see the difference or see how you differentiate. So please, instead of accusing me of blatant spam. Try to politely explain the process first and also explain why the other two sites are allowed to post. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cbdesign (talk • contribs).


 * There is nothing inherently wrong with posting links to commercial sites if they add utility to a particular article. However, generally speaking, simple advertising is not welcome. More useful might be a link to a single site or directory that covers all accommodation in (e.g.) Lake Tahoe without any particular bias; this may include links to commercial sites, but it would provide a central "jumping off point".
 * Whilst a large proportion of commercial sites may have *some* utility to the user, this could be used as justification for the inclusion of countless advertising links, so we have to judge carefully if a site genuinely adds something to an article, or is really an excuse for spam.
 * I can't speak for the rest of the community, but Wikipedia is a major target for spammers; I (and most others) don't have the time or inclination to judge in-depth whether every link to yet-another-commercial-listings site is useful and justified; because the chances are it isn't, and it isn't.


 * However, if you take the time to post a message on the talk page of that particular article *before* you add the link, putting forward the case for your link and why it isn't yet-another-spam, you might get a more positive response. You may also be correct that the inclusion of the other commercial sites was not justified (I neither put them there, nor spotted their inclusion), but if you wish to bring up this perceived imbalance on the relevant talk page(s), it's more likely to be considered.


 * That having been said, Wikipedia is not a place for advertising, and I doubt you'll find many people who support the inclusion of commercial links if their balance does not clearly outweigh their benefit.


 * Before posting to the talk pages, I also suggest you read Spam.


 * Fourohfour 19:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello FourOhFour:

I understand the spam issue. I noticed yesterday that this section regarding spam existed under the "user page" tab once I logged in. However, I did not find this anywhere in the policies before I posted what I believed to be relevant external links to other sites. Mine as a Certified Guerrilla Marketing coach and that of my client.

I don't think I am willing to place the lake tahoe site on the talk pages, if this is the type of response that I might get from others who view it. Without knowing me or knowing my motives, you automatically tagged my posts as "Blatant spam for themselves and their client" and it even reads as if I did this covertly and you had to research first to prove it. Reality is I believe in the Lake Tahoe site and posted it (yes, I also built it and made sure to put a lot of resources and info on it to make it more than just a comemrcial site). I thought I was being careful and doing things properly by getting an account and doing so only after login. I was not trying to hide anything or put one over on Wikipedia. So I really didn't deserve this insult.

You say that "You may also be correct that the inclusion of the other commercial sites was not justified (I neither put them there, nor spotted their inclusion), but if you wish to bring up this perceived imbalance on the relevant talk page(s), it's more likely to be considered."

This is not a percieved imbalance... these are commercial sites and this is blatantly unfair, baised and unjust. You didn't post MY links either, but YOU quickly took them down. Then knowing (after my pointing it out to you) that these other sites are commercial, with a focus on selling vacation rentals you chose to leave them there and tell me to take it up on a talk page.

I really don't want the other sites to be removed nor do I want to bring this up for public discussion. It's not my goal in life to knock or try to stop others from ethically using tools that are available to them to attract visitors to their sites. That's what the web is about. What good is your site if you can't get others to see it? Instead I am asking you to be fair and honest about this. If you can't, then I will never visit another Wikipedia page again with a feeling that this site is unbiased or that it can be trusted. My belief and respect level has already dropped 50%.

I sense that you are an honest person and I am impressed by the fact that you monitor this Lake Tahoe page with such devotion to uphold a standard and to prevent spam. However, I just know that you did not truly give my posts a fair chance when I see the other links there. How would you feel?

Richard

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company, organization, or clients. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text below but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Kuru  (talk)  23:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)