User talk:HistoryLink

Hello HistoryLink, you must be new here so let me fill you in on how to edit an article:

1. go ahead, jump in and edit. 2. if you want to discuss how the article is written or discuss why you made changes to the article do that on the "discussion" page (see link at top of every article) for some reason this is called the "talk" page even though it is labeled "discussion"

About my editing in particular - I like to get things started, that's what I enjoy. An article I write may not look "complete" but that's not what I do. I try to create a page with the most accurate title. The Davenport Hotel (Spokane) instead of the Davenport hotel (there is one in Ireland also) for example. I try to get the most important dates in when I create the page. To expand on the articles - that's for other people to do. People who enjoy that. I love to start an article and then look later and see that it has been edited.

About the investors in the May Arkwright article. If you follow Harry Orchard you will see that he was involved in the assassination of the former governor of Idaho. So May Arkwright was associated with this man. I find that fascinating! I am the one who put those together on wikipedia. that's what I love about wikipedia - learning about everything and finding how people and events are connected. If you don't see that or enjoy that I think that's sad. But don't accuse my writing as being not germane. The article on May is just beginning. I am just beginning to fill in the facts on the other investors. Give it a chance.

If something is not a fact then it should be removed. Hopefully with an explanation in the discussion.

And please, all discussion to the discussion page.

If you have any questions I would be glad to answer them on my user discussion (talk) page.

Good luck, I hope you enjoy it here on Wikipedia. --cda 01:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh - one other thing- when I use a HistoryLink article as a reference I only use the straight facts. That's why the articles are so short. I wouldn't take any actual sentences from a HistoryLink article because that isn't right. The idea is to have the facts, that are public knowledge and in the public domain on Wikipedia. And if people want to read more or want to read a HistoryLink's writers own writing there is a link to the HistoryLink article. Does that sound right? Let me know if you think I am using HistoryLink wrongly (you obviously work there). I would sincerely listen to any concern you have.--cda 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, taking a second look now I see that listing the HistoryLink article as a reference makes it look like it is the only reference for an article. I will stop doing that. --cda 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello!
Do you work for HistoryLink? --Lukobe 00:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this a role account?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Role_account

--Lukobe 22:43, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

cites
Why are you changing all the citations to 'HistoryLink.org the online encyclopedia of Washington State History'? --Lukobe 17:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to 1878 in rail transport. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Please stop changing source citations to remove the accessdate and change the title; Please see WP:CITE for information on standard practices in citing sources on Wikipedia. Slambo (Speak) 19:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)‎

Spam warning
Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks.

You should also not be altering existing links by removing specific descriptions and replacing them with flat promotional text. Repeated spamming after warning is subject to being blocked from the project.

- Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 19:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please don't remove the HistoryLink links other editors have put in articles, though--I think the only problem here is that they're altering existing links in a less-than-helpful way. I haven't seen them add links where they weren't before... --Lukobe 19:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oy, I take it back...they have been adding lots of their own links...though it does appear that most of them are relevant. Is the problem that they're the ones adding them? HistoryLink is a highly respected organization. My concern is more their changing of existing references. --Lukobe 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * However, by changing existing links to all say "HistoryLink.org the online encyclopedia of Washington State History", it looks suspiciously like an attempt to increase one's Google PageRank. Please stop doing this. We appreciate you adding references to HistoryLink when there aren't any, but please do not change the existing references. Thank you.  howch e  ng   {chat} 20:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Granted, the template is less than perfect, which is why I added to it; the main point is that they don't replace descriptive link text with vanilla promotional link text. But even better would be that when they add links, they also endeavor to use descriptive link text. Adding links to better Wikipedia is good. Adding links for the benefit of your own site is bad. This is somewhere in between. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 21:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FTR my reverts/fixes have not removed any of the links, just repaired their spammic content to descriptive content. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA)

Link edits by HistoryLink.org
Attempts to improve the references citing HistoryLink.org as a source have been rejected by the Wikipedia community. In some cases, these corrections have updated broken or incorrect links. But since HistoryLink.org is viewed as something called a "role account" and therefore not recognized we will withdraw any further contributions to your project. HistoryLink.org the online encyclopedia of Washington State History 17:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the problem was that not all your "improvements" were really such--in many cases, they made it less clear what was being referred to. Actual updates of broken or incorrect links are welcomed and encouraged. We also don't mind employees of HistoryLink contributing to Wikipedia--I, personally, think it's great you guys are interested--HistoryLink is a superb encyclopedia of local history and the more the two organizations can collaborate the better. It's just that only individuals are supposed to have accounts--you could set yours up as HistoryLink1, HistoryLink2, etc. --Lukobe 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I would personally rather you guys didn't stop contributing to the project--just to be a little more careful with your links, is all. Glad to explain further if you like. --Lukobe 00:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

HistoryLink will not continue to add links to its own site if Wikipedia will replace their promotional link text with non-promotional, descriptive link text (and revert when they replace good link text with their miniature spam)? That's their problem. Peppering Wikipedia with links, relevant or not, in order to exploit WP to promote your own site is very questionable. - Keith D. Tyler &para; (AMA) 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I consider HistoryLink the single best source on Seattle-area history. I've probably added at least two dozen links to their pages myself. That said, an edit like this is a sheer liability. It removes information which would tell the reader why they would want to follow the link, substituting something ad-like.

I'd love to see more relevant, appropriately captioned links to HistoryLink, especially where they will serve as references for articles we already have, but which are under-referenced. It's an excellent source. But that doesn't mean that spamming from HistoryLink is any more welcome than spamming from another source (and, believe me, you are not being singled out, we've had similar issues even with the BBC), and it certainly doesn't mean that turning appropriate encyclopedically captioned links into ad copy is even vaguely OK. - Jmabel | Talk 02:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)