User talk:Dkurz

Wiredforbooks links
Hi. Thanks for your message on the wikiproject for spam. The problem is not the nature of the site, or the contents of the pages linked to, but it is the way they are added to this wikipedia (see e.g. WP:SPAM and our conflict of interest guideline). Although most of the links that have been added are appropriate (in content), some of them are not, and the only target the accounts seem to have is to edit/add these links to external links sections. First of all, wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and external links do not necessary add much to that (though in some cases it is the proper place); Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and there are of course many interviews that can be linked to, and there are on the pages (even where the link is appropriate) sometimes already more than 15 links. Also, I think that more than 90% of the links has been added by people involved in the site, and I have since we started monitoring not seen 'neutral' additions of the site, which may raise the question if these link additions are suitable, as no-one else seems to use them.

The way I see interviews is that people talk about themselves, and about things they do. As such, they may be good references (as the information can be incorporated in the body of the text, and then a reference to the interview is a good thing! So then the link is misplaced in the external links section.

User Michael Blohm has offered to help, I hope that will go forward. In the meantime, I think it is inappropriate for people involved in the site to perform link additions only, adding content to the pages and adding a link to the interview as a reference is fine (if they also realise that there may also be other interviews that can be linked to, and which may sometimes also/be more appropriate, following the neutral point of view policy). In other cases, it may be better to use the talk pages of the pages, or to contact a wikiproject to endorse such link additions. If any 'problems' arise of which editors get notified via their talkpages, they should start discussing with the editor who is having the concern (they may be long-standing editors here), in stead of continuing (continuing may get them blocked, as happened to User:Bono06).

I hope this explains, again thanks for joining the discussions. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask either me, or other editors involved in the pages where you want to add the links to (also, you may be able to find a wikiproject here: WikiProject. Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

November 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Smilesfozwood 19:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Page deletion
If what you intended at Wired for Books was to delete the page, you could add db-author to the top of the page, though I have no idea why you would want to do that (using an edit summary always helps). It's a fine article, and it survived the deletion discussion, and I just removed the COI tag. If you're having problems with Wikipedia policies in general, I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest to voice your concerns. Thanks. Katr67 20:07, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

February 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. --Geniac (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

 * wiredforbooks.org


 * Last edit: link addition to external links of Don Swaim
 * Blanking: template:WiredForBooks and Wired for Books
 * Spamming: Special:Contributions/Dkurz, Special:Contributions/Scribe711

We are NOT a linkfarm, please do NOT perform any link additions yourself, or remove information from pages about wiredforbooks without discussing, for that, this account is:

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place unblock on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have lifted the block on this account per an email discussion, assuming you are going to discuss if others have concerns about your edits, and that you will be careful with adding external links to your own site. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:49, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Lia Purpura for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lia Purpura is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Lia Purpura until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)