User talk:Cphillips

Notability of Clark Kokich
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Clark Kokich, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Clark Kokich seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Clark Kokich, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 16:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Addition of http://college-freshman.com http://www.collegetips.com and related links
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Editors adding links to these sites:

-- SiobhanHansa

Creating new articles
It isn't encouraged to write or edit articles about subjects you are closely connected to but it's not prohibited either. However, people who do this often find the experience frustrating - it's exceedingly difficult to write in a neutral manner and to collaborate with other editors when you have such an intimate stake in an article. Having put that warning at the front, here are the steps:

First read up on notability for articles about Internet based subjects (often referred to as WP:WEB). This is particularly germane to the issue of whether or not an article about your site should exist on Wikipedia - there are lots of articles that don't meet this standard, but many of them are there for the same reason we still have spam links even though we try not to. If you've found trying to add links only to have them removed frustrating you'll find writing an article only to have speedily deleted or trounced in a deletion debate to be an even more disheartening process. The community does not generally find pointing to articles about similar subjects persuasive - on the basis that if we make a mistake once it doesn't mean we should repeat it, and if we make a exception once it doesn't mean we've opened the flood gates. So I recommend you make sure you can make a good case for your site's notability before trying to get an article about it. If you want help on what this means in practice, let me know.


 * Read (or at least scan) the links recommended to almost all new editors. You don't need to read them all in depth, but being aware of what's in them will help you understand what most editors find important here and will be useful references when you actually start writing (if you do):
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * And also take a look at conflict of interest (COI) which gives an overview of how to edit Wikipedia in an area where you have a conflict of interest.

There are two routes to getting the article started: Hope that's helpful. Let me know if anything is unclear. -- SiobhanHansa 18:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Find a volunteer - look for an appropriate WikiProject, or failing that a  similar article that gets a fair number of editors, and ask on the talk page if anyone would be willing to consider writing the article.  Provide a succinct but well referenced case for why there should be an article and let people know you are asking because the COI guidelines recommend doing so in cases where you are connected to the article subject.  Offer to provide what information you can, especially reliable sources.
 * 2) Do it yourself.  Start the article.  Try and stick to the policies and guidelines above as closely as you can.  Be aware that while all articles are supposed to be judged on their content, in practice people will probably judge your contributions more harshly because of your connection, they will certainly scrutinize more closely.  The more you can stick to a bare, encyclopedic style, with balanced and well sourced assertions, the less ammunition you provide to those critics.  Once/if others start editing the article, consider stepping out of direct editing unless updating or adding non-controversial information. Instead make suggestions on the talk page for other, non-connected editors to decide whether or not to include.

Spam warning
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. -- SiobhanHansa 17:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In general a reliable source would be a publication that has a broad reputation for rigor and accuracy in regards to the assertion being supported. The reliability of a source needs to be considered in relation to the assertion being supported of course, so Anne Coulter's blog could be a good source for verifying "things Anne Coulter says", but would be a poor source for verifying facts about politics, or other political pundits.  In this case your collegetips website has no real reputation for accuracy or rigor, so it is a poor source for factual assertions about college life.


 * Good sourcing helps us avoid, for instance, situations where all sorts of things that people think are obvious because they come across them in a limited setting, or because commercial interests bias the attention some phenomena receive, are consequently portrayed as being universal. This sort of distortion is common in magazine type articles and lifestyle "journalism" and can make for interesting and fun reading, but it is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. We don't always manage to live up to our lofty ideals, but it's a start.-- SiobhanHansa 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. Its apparent this account is only being used to spam wikipedia. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)