User talk:Executiveoasis

Sorry to see you have been having so much trouble with the External links policy. Generally, encyclopedic information worth including in Wikipedia should be placed in the article, not linked.

Recommended external links:
 * verification of information stated in the article
 * resources for unique information that cannot be included because of copyright concerns
 * subject home sites, such as microsoft.com for the Microsoft article

Promotional links are highly discouraged, regardless of motive. Such linkage, while not technically "spam" (which is by definition, commercial) will tend to be called linkspam if they are non-definitive and unencyclopedic.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles.

Understood, however, not sure why a long article with original content would be considered advertising. Almost any article will have some information about the person or organization that wrote it. That doesn't mean it was created for promotional purposes. It was a LONG article with a few lines about the organization that hardly seems to be advertising to me. Executiveoasis 02:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

For more information on this, see If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write   below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! / edg ☺ ★ 04:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Thank you. When I have time and before I contribute anything else I am goin to review the new contributer's page and the other links you provided. Clearly I am missing something about the intent of the encyclopedia and what is considered to be an appropriate contribution. The fact that links to pages that had no original content were there for such a long time, was really confusing for me. I had the impression that these were considered "okay" and couldn't understand why the links I submitted were being deleted.

Executiveoasis 02:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Concerns re: Team Building Editing
Moved from post on my User page

I really don't understand how you can say that a full page article that gives details about how to pull team building together and ensure it's effectiveness is not "of value" to a repository of information on team building. Some of the items discussed are not widely available anywhere on or off the ntet. I am sorry I just don't get it. To say that this is promotional is really beyond my comprehension.

Even the repository of articles you have links to contains the log and a link to the Autenticiy consulting site that promotes it:

http://www.managementhelp.org/grp_skll/teams/teams.htm

http://www.authenticityconsulting.com

Are you going to tell me THAT isn't promotional? site is also selling books through Amazon directly on the page to which you link from Wikipedia. When people have Amazon boxes on their sites and purchases are made through as a result of a search, they receive a commission on all sales. Are you going to tell me that THAT isn't promotional? Yes the content is free (like the team building primer) but people have the opportunity to make a purchase that directly benefits the site owner and link to his consulting service. Natually any organization that goes through the trouble of putting together information is going to want to put their logo with a link on or include a brief blurb about the organization. There is nothing "spammy" about that if the information they present is of value and the information in the team building primer IS of value and not readily available from other sources.

Executiveoasis 15:44, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing this out. Yes the Team building page was very spam prone. I think this has been addressed with these changes.


 * As for the repository of information on team building, Wikipedia is not a repository of links. Encyclopedic information worth including in Wikipedia is best placed in the article, not linked.


 * Incidentally, you left you message on my User page (User:Edgarde), which I don't really check for messages. If you leave messages on my Talk page &mdash; User talk:Edgarde &mdash; I'll find them more quickly. The ☺ in my signature also connects to my Talk page. / edg ☺ ★ 11:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't understand why a link to a page that was just a page of links with had no original content and on which books were being sold was considered to be okay and a link to a long article filled with original content about team building was deleted. Well I guess the problem is solved now.

Executiveoasis 02:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It think your concern was reasonable. For all the evidence the article was presenting to you, it might have been commandeered by promoters of one concern, who were then fighting off links to any other. It has happened on other articles.


 * I hope this fuss hasn't put you off editing Wikipedia. It sounds like you have a lot go contribute. Keep an eye on WP:N and {{WP:ATT]], and I'm sure you'll do fine. Expect to be edited mercilessly, and don't get worked up over disagreements to a level where you cannot work toward WP:CONSENSUS.


 * That's all the links I feel like dumping on you today. Thanks for your contributions. / edg ☺ ★ 04:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)