User talk:HistorkierMatte

http://.sites.google.com/site/fivegateways/
Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Spamming Your Related Sites

 * http://.sites.google.com/site/fivegateways
 * http://.sites.google.com/site/thescotspeerage

--Hu12 (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * accounts

Hu12
Hu12, I assure you that the intention is to connect the readers with content which may not be appropriate for the article itself, but which is nevertheless relevant, and appropriate under the criteria for consideration of inclusion as an external link, viz. "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources". I take interest in the genealogy of some individuals and am aware that many others would do the same. I would much appreciate your comments and explanations as to why you feel that the link I added was inappropriate and under what guidelines or criteria it may be considered so. (HistorkierMatte (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)).


 * Not sure where to start, however...In addition to the Long History of Mass COI Spamming;
 * It would also appear to Fail a couple of Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * It would also appear to Fail a couple of Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”


 * Therefore per;
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * External links policy
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * SOCK
 * Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
 * 'Role' accounts
 * BLOCK (Persistent spamming)
 * Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
 * These sites have been blocked--Hu12 (talk) 22:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Wow! I had no idea I was being that offensive! Not quite sure what COI spamming is - never heard of that one. I've added links over a long period of time, at least over the last three years or so and appeared in a discussion at one stage where the content was questioned, to which I responded with the appropriate, and asked for, actions.

Addressing the points you make, I would contend some of them, and certainly agree with others.

On the subject of verifiability, and the use of questionable, verifiable and reliable sources: The materials published on the relevant sites are from old books and may, as I previously argued, provide an insight into prior knowledge but may not be the most up-to-date. Based on this I have never included a link on a wikipedia page claiming it to be a source, but rather as an external link where individuals may learn more. Nevertheless, I agree that I could perhaps have referenced rather than linked as some of the facts in some Wiki articles are based on the same sources I cite and quote?

The materials I show are direct citations (occasionally summarized or compiled) from other sources (in some cases only one, in some several) - the introductory page of Five Gateways clearly states the purpose, intent and content of the website and explains that it is a collection of source material, and in effect, not a self-published source. I lay no claim to being the expert, merely the compiler. In other words, you could compare it to a sort of WikiSource but with some minor editing and consideration of the material.

With reference to External link spamming, I'm somewhat shocked! Although I've added a few links in small bursts over time, I did not consider this to be repeatedly nor to such a degree that it would be offensive spamming. In my mind, and this is of course a personal belief, spamming is frequent and repeated sending of undesirable or irrelevant material. My links are relevant to each subject they are posted under and I always link directly to the relevant page, not to a main page or some other page where individuals have to navigate through the site ad nauseam to find what they are looking for. To the point of adding links for the promotion of a web site, I have addressed that below.

Reviewing once more the External Links criteria, I am still under the impression that I am not in violation of any of the criteria stipulated by Wikipedia. In addition to my comment to you above, I can address it thus:


 * 1. The linked to material expands or provides further information to the subject of the Wiki article.


 * 2. The linked to material is source referenced and consequently verifiable.


 * 3. There is no malware.


 * 4. See above.


 * 5. The website does not sell anything at all.


 * 6. There is no payment or registration required.


 * 7. Works in all browsers.


 * 8. Requires no plug-ins.


 * 9. Does not contain search engine results.


 * 10. External links do not redirect to FB or any social networking sites.


 * 11. Although it is a 'personal' web site, it is purely factual in content (based on the sources used) and fully referenced. It does NOT contain personal opinion (other than in a research genealogical sense).


 * 12. It does not link to an open wiki


 * 13. Content is directly related to the article's subject. Why else link to it?


 * 14. I'm not a manufacturer, supplier or customer.


 * 15. The site does not link, as far as I'm aware, link to Wikipedia sourcing tools.


 * 16. The links are functional. There was a period of down time recently, but this has been amended.


 * 17. There is no affiliate or tracking in the links I post.


 * 18. I've not put any links on disambiguation pages, redirects or categories and if I have, then I apologies as I cannot recall any occasion where I have.


 * 19. I'm not an organization mentioned in an article, I think...?


 * 20. If there's a page where there is nothing but a link to my site, then I'm not aware of it.

With regard to Advertising and conflict of interest, I am NOT a for profit organization by any means or standards. I have posted advertising on the website I link to merely as an aside and can assure you that I have not yet made what one could call a profit from doing so. Since the first page was put up (September 2009), until this date (19th Feb 2012), over a period of 2.5 years, my reports tell me I have been rewarded with the princely sum of $12.56 (Australian, so I suppose another $1 or so US). I'd be delighted to pledge and donate this sum to Wikipedia once the ad provider pays out when I reach the stipulated $150. I would not hold my breath that it will happen any time soon.

Considering the "Account used for promotion" I agree with your stance as I have contributed nothing else other than links. As I did not want to presume to know more than anyone else and that the content of the site was written by others and compiled by me I thought it more appropriate to link to the material, rather than purport to be the expert I am not. I am simply not comfortable editing the factual content of a wikipedia article, but wished to contribute to the general pool of knowledge in this fashion, which I am now told is undesirable.

I think perhaps based on the above points, that you can also see how I have not intentionally treated Wikipedia as a repository for links, nor as a vehicle for advertising. I simply did not think it proper of me to create citations based on the material I have, but rather that if one wanted to read more, a friendly pointer to some additional material might be welcome.

With the SOCK note, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I have created and lost a few accounts and log-in details over the years, and I am aware that many edits have been made without being logged in to an account. Recently, I realised that having one and taking responsibility and accountability for my posts (which could otherwise appear to be lacking), would be better than posting links anonymously or only with an IP address. I can understand how this appears to be an inappropriate use of alternative accounts and the setting up of 'Role' accounts, but once more I have to assure you that this is neither intentional or malicious on my part, but merely a factor of forgetting a number of passwords over time, or indeed forgetting that I already had an account! I wholeheartedly apologise for this sloppyness on my part and will be more than happy to retain only the current account under which this discussion is taking place, as well as to make sure I log in before making any possible future changes.

Similarly, I can understand how it appears that the account has been created solely to promote a website, but frankly, whether I get visitors or not is of no great consequence. An academic at heart and by education, although not by profession, accessibility to source materials, whether old or new, is invaluable to researchers. The site I have put together is what I wished I had when I was starting out my own research and I hoped that it might have been of interest to others too. I am saddened that you do not find this appropriate.

I am sure you get many of your targets talking back at you and would of course greatly appreciate your time to respond. Being publically told that I am a nefarious spammer, in contravention of any number of policies (to be honest, I have read many of them, but to remember them all is virtually impossible, so many thanks for the reminders!), when I think my only crime in life so far has been pilfering sweets from my grandmother, is really quite upsetting.

I very much look forward to your review of the above, in the hope that you may consider your earlier statement for retraction in view of what is here explaind and clarified. I will of course be delighted to provide you with more information if you want.

Sincerely,

(HistorkierMatte (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2012 (UTC))
 * I understand what you're saying, however the fact remains that you have been coming to wikipedia for roughly three years, have not contributed any content to this project other than adding links to your site. I've attempted to link to many of the relevant policies that apply to this matter. Spamming is about promoting or advertising your own site, not always for commercial reasons. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion are not. Since you've reviewed the External Links criteria, you should review the others. I will note that in addition, the External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest clearly states "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked" which is in line with our conflict of interest (COI) guidelines. I will suggest, that if you have source material to contribute such as "old books" or "insight into prior knowledge" as you've stated... add those sources to Wikipedia. Don't simply direct readers to your site; add useful facts to the article, then cite the where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto your site, right?--Hu12 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks kindly for your response. I completely understand what you're saying and I reviewed the vast majority of the WP guidelines you pointed to earlier this morning in an attempt to understand where I had gone wrong.  Your most recent clarification is certainly a help in that regard.


 * The definition of spamming you provided was most enlightening. Once again, it was never an intentional activity of promoting a site, but merely providing a pointer towards further information.  As I am perfectly aware, the compliations I have put up on FG are reliant on out of print (or sometimes quite possibly outdated) sources and using them as sources in an article where, I, at least feel, the main concern should be academic rigour and exactitude (viz. a Wikipedia article) would potentially be counterproductive to the purpose of the article.  However, that does not mean that the information presented via the link (or the there cited source) is of no value or cannot provide further detail to those that desire to seek it out (if only I had a similar list 10 years ago!).


 * Consequently, I was under the impression that it would be for the betterment to provide a link to that material, or an easy-to-read compilation thereof, rather than include the information as a quoted source which in and of itself may not be exact. In other words, maintaining the integrity of the Wiki article took precedence over my desire to impose the opinion of the writers I compile and quote.  It was perhaps my mistake to assume that the separation of this information from the main body of the article would imply 'additional' or 'extra' information, or for that matter, constitute canned, processed meat. :)


 * Nevertheless, I understand that I must have gone about this the wrong way and acted inappropriately under the policy you cite above in your most recent response. There was, once more, no intent of self promotion of any type, just a general sense of sharing information.


 * Out of interest, I have noted several very similar sites to my own linked to in the External Links section. I do not know what makes there more or less appropriate than my own as they are largely similar compilations (e.g. http://.www.thepeerage.com which is frequently linked to throughout Wikipedia), other than that perhaps people other than the author of the site has posted the link?  Should I instead ask the general public on the talk page for each page I am interested in adding to, whether an external link to FG may be appropriate or not?


 * We come then, to the correct way to behave. I understand from you that instead of publishing a link to the material available on FG, I should have instead made a note in the article itself and cited the source reference.  Some of the sources I use are (now) available publically, whilst others are not (manuscripts and the like in public domain).  Assuming that the correct method is to cite, should one, or should one not, link to where that source may be available for further reading, either in whole or in part?  I am aware of the ISBN search policy, of course, but some of these sources may predate ISB Numbers and if it is available on line for free, either at FG or elsewhere (ultimately, I suppose, regardless of ISBN status), should it be linked to?


 * As an example, the source I used for the Quiney page is nowhere referenced on the Wikipedia article, and FG contains a summary of that source. Would the appropriate thing be to add a citation on the Wikipedia article referencing the source I used, and then state that there is a summary available and then link in case the reader wants to read more around the subject, or is the correct way to merely reference the source and not point towards further information at all?  The Citing_sources implies that it should if there is freely available material?  I do not wish to once more misconstrue a policy and so I would appreciate your clarification.


 * Although I will be happy to attempt to contribute to Wikipedia in a sensible and accurate fashion in the future, and more than happy to never post an external link again for as long as I shall remain breathing, I would still ask that you consider lifting the blocks you have imposed (but by all means do not reverse the removal of the links I have posted previously) so that I, or others that so wish, may, if it is appropriate, provide citations or references to FG. I would also ask that some acknowledgement is made that although I have obviously made some mistakes, I am freely apologising for them.


 * Ultimately, and on a much more personal level, I am interested in the free and easy provision of information and I was under the impression that Wikipedia was interested in the same (please correct me if I am wrong) which is why I posted my first link and continued to do so. As I am sure you are also here to improve Wikipedia, it would be great to know that once in a while the benefit of a doubt is extended.  I understand that this occasion is most probably one of many for you in a busy day, but to me it is a first as I am not accustomed to such harsh chastisement without any warning.


 * Once more, I appreciate the time you have taken to read these notes, and hope that under your guidance I may become considered a proper contributor, and ultimately that my other work may come to be considered useful.


 * Kind Regards,


 * (HistorkierMatte (talk) 05:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC))
 * Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. The community seeks to attract new and well-informed users, however, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for self-promotion. Unfortunatly, this is such a case. Attempting to characterize your behavior as having some productive benefit to Wikipedia, speaks volumes, as its contrary to the distinctive traits of productive editors. The prima facie evidence is your 3 year edit history. Sadly, advancing your outside interests was more important to you than advancing the aims of Wikipedia. This actualy harms Wikipedia by degrading its reliability as a neutral project. All the link additions to this project were done by you, very few (if any) were added by trusted, long term wikipedia editors. Perhaps if a trusted, etablished editor requests the use of your links it may be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis, where the " url itself " can be demonstrated as an appropriate source in support of our encyclopedia pages. If you have actual source material to contribute to Wikipedia, as you've stated...feel free to contribute those, not your links. Thanks for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)