User talk:Dcmo

Link canvassing
Hello, I'm Ohnoitsjamie. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:12, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Fantasia (film). Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MarnetteD | Talk 21:33, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I've read the requirements for linking to external sites, and I do feel that the link our student worker added to the Wikipedia entry on Fantasia is entirely appropriate. It links to an article in an open access, academic journal that provides further insight into the music used in the movie. Admittedly, we're new at using Wikipedia, so I'm more than open to hearing an explanation of how my interpretation of the linking requirements may be incorrect. I would like to re-add this link, but will wait for a response to this comment. Thank you for your help. GregDcmo (talk) 13:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Final warning for canvassing links
This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Today is the first I had heard of any problems. A student employee is working on this, so I'll need to review with her exactly what she's been doing. In view of the fact that today is the first time I've received any messages about this, the last warning seems a little premature. Please give me some time to speak with our student worker and find out what's going on. (I'm not even sure if I'm responding to this correctly.) Thank you. GregDcmo (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


 * On the minus side, this account inserted about 47 links to external websites in less than 4 hours, each time referring to a book with is "available at" with an external link to a web site.  On the plus side, after a quick glance at the entries  it it appears that the tend to be somewhat academically legitimate and not purely commercial.   I would suggest that they / you  SLOW DOWN and start putting in edit summaries justifying their insertions.    Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

All of the links that the student inserted were to an open access academic journal, so there's no commercial motive here at all. We will look at this further. I appreciate your suggestion about edit summaries, so I'll be looking at that, too. Thank you. GregDcmo (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't permit mass link canvassing, regardless of the quality of the links. If you want to add additional material to an article and use the links as resources, that's another story. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:41, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for this information. I don't mean to be difficult, but as I said, I'm new at this, so I have a further question, please. Under "External Links", I've seen such things in Wikipedia as "Learning Resources", "Other", "Further Reading", etc. What's the appropriate approach, then, for adding these types of links? It seems like that's exactly what we're doing - adding external links for further reading. It wouldn't be our intent (or place) to edit the articles. That would be up to the authors themselves. Thanks again. GregDcmo (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, we don't permit mass canvassing of links, period. From WP:SPAM "How not to be a spammer:" Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Do not simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You are here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see No. 1 above.) Also see WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)