User talk:Lucan1971

March 2014
Hello, I'm DMacks. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. DMacks (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add soapboxing, promotional or advertising material to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. DMacks (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you use Wikipedia for soapboxing, promotion or advertising, as you did at Sexting, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion; I'm not soapboxing, promoting or advertising, just linking to a relevant academic article, freely available, and directly relevant to the pages to which it has been added. No financial gain occurs in this.


 * The entire sum of your contributions to Wikipedia from May 2012 till now consists of additions of links to the work of Benjamin Halligan to articles to which they're only tangentially relevant. As the two articles of Halligan's you've added references to have a combined total of one citation between them, it's kind of hard to see your slathering of his work all over the place as anything other than an attempt to promote it, which seems to be in direct contradiction to WP:PROMOTION clause #4.  Is there any reason to suspect that Halligan's views on Britney Spears or sexting or cunts are relevant to anything whatsoever in light of the fact that his work on those subjects and the others to which you added the links is not cited in the scholarly literature?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

An article on The Vagina Monologues is deemed as irrelevant to the entry on The Vagina Monologues, etc? Nothing done here violates the facets of WP Promotion that you note. But you win --- I won't bother contributing these links, and then building the in-text citations I intended. Well done. (Btw - it's "in the light of", not "in light of")


 * Maybe at Salford it's "in the light of," but not on this side of the pond. If every article on the VM were relevant to the article it'd be nothing more than an indiscriminate bibliography, not an article.  Thus we require some secondary indication of the relevance of additions.  If the article you're adding (and not just to the VM, but to about 38 other articles) were relevant, you'd think it'd be cited in the scholarly literature, eh?  And I didn't win, the encyclopedia won.  It's not a contest, you know?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)