User talk:Fay.farstad

Angola
Hello there: I have just seen the reference to the CMI you added in several Angola-related articles and wonder whether you are yourself specializing in studies on that country? Aflis (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I hope this is how I reply to your message (I'm quite new at using/editing wikipedia)! I'm not specialising in Angola (though I am a student of politics). However, I'm currently working for the CMI in their communications unit, and have seen all the world class work they're doing on Angola, so I thought I'd put out some links. The Programme (which is a cooperation between CMI and Centro de Estudos e Investigação Científica da Universidade Católica de Angola (CEIC)), is truly unique. If you're the admin I hope you'll keep them on the page and not consider them as spam! :) Fay.farstad (talk) 07:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I know about the work of the CMI on Angola, and its collaboration with CEIC/UCAN. It was just the first time someone put this work to use in the English version of the Wikipedia - so that I wondered whether you were maybe part of the venture. In any case, it would be useful if you continued to introduce specific studies as references, in Angola related articles. I myself am not an admin, but just someone who has been contributing to those articles, and will keep on doing so. NB: There are two ways to reply to a message you find on your talk page. One is to answer in the same place, as you did, and the other one is to answer on the talk page of the user who left the message. Aflis (talk) 08:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! And I'm glad you appreciate the links. We will be encouraging the associated academics to put references and links to related publications on the Angola sites :) Fay.farstad (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)


 * That's a very good idea. Also, they could at the same time help by correcting / improving / completing / updating the texts which are often seriously flawed. Aflis (talk) 13:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

PS: You may have seen that in some articles the references you introduced have been eliminated by admins, invoking a rule against "single purpose users": see my talk page where I have tried to explain that your references are helpful and welcome contributions to the ongoing efforts to improve the Angola related articles. I hope this is understood. In case it is not, you can either ask your colleagues of the Angola group (like Aslak Orre) to introduce the references in the context of additions to the texts, or then copy them to my talk page, so that I can introduce them when I edit these texts. Aflis (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Human Rights do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. ''Human rights in Islamic countries ect ect

- these links are not helpful or acceptable on wikipedia. External links should primarily improve the articles they are attached to'' Ajbpearce (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You also need to read Wikipedia's definition of a minor edit. Your edits do not conform to that definition. - David Biddulph (talk) 16:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop, all you have done on wikipedia is add links to this institute to numerous articles and write about the institute, this looks like clear promotional intent. You need to read WP:ELNO and realise that these links are not appropriate, in particular read point 13 and note that the number of external links should be kept to a minimum. There are thousands of research institutes world wide that work in these areas, and there is no good reason to prefer the Chr. Michelsen Institute, to any of those - there is no particular uniquely valuable information provided. Revert your additionsAjbpearce (talk) 15:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

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 16:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments on your talk page as a response to this. I am not spamming. Fay.farstad (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Your edits
Hi fay, since you have asked for advice on your contributions to wikipedia. I would be happy to provide that, the first, and most important thing that you need to do, is stop adding links to the CMI to articles and acting in a way that makes it look like you are only here to promote the work of the institute. You have a Conflict of interest between your work for the institute, and the values of wikipedia. There is no easy way you can "contribute to ongoing pages with the information that CMI has to provide" because everything you have done so far suggests you are doing so primarily for the benefit of the institute and not wikipedia. If you do not understand why your link additions are not appropriate as they stand, after reading the COI policy and the external links policy, then the best thing for you to do would be to try improving wikipedia in another area far away from the CMI first (perhaps there was a recent book, or a historical event that has always interested you?) in an area where your link to the CMI will be of no relevance. Read the Simplified Ruleset and get stuck in improving wikipedia in an area you have no connection too, and in no time at all you will I hope begin to understand how this place works, what our goals are and why the kind of edits you have been making so far provoke strong negative responses. Then, once you understand us a bit better you will be able to edit in those areas that interest you and you have a connection with, without that looking like you are not concerned with wikipedia's best interests. Ajbpearce (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)