User talk:Paul.Aucoin.la

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! --STTW (talk)  17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

LiveAdmins next step
Paul it doesn't seem like you have a next step on en.wikipedia itself. An Admin has reviewed your request and declined it. The link was added in keeping with our usual practice and it is not our usual practice to remove a link just because someone connected with the site would rather it wasn't listed. The site was spammed by one of your employees and it appears to have no value to Wikipedia as an external link. So even though you claim the issue has been dealt with on your end there appears to be no benefit to us to delisting - while keeping it listed will clearly protect us from any more rogue editors at your organization. We take a hard line against promotion and I don't see you getting further within Wikipedia's editing community.

You can always try contacting the Foundation but I don't think they take action on an issue like this. -- SiobhanHansa 17:05, 18 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Siobhan, I agree with you. Our site has nothing to do with wikipedia it was just the wrong policy of an employee that made all of this happen. There must be some way, any way in which the de-listing can take place. How will i be able to contact the foundation we have failed to even convince you people, and are cases like these forwarded to the foundation?

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Paul you should try following the instructions at: contacting the Foundation. They're a little byzantine because the Foundation doesn't really resolve disputes except in exceptional cases.  As I said I don't know that they will consider this something they should look into - they don't simply over rule the community because someone doesn't like a decision here.


 * So look through. See if it suggests other steps first and if not you should eventually get to the email address that gets to the Foundation's OTRS system (it's called OTRS because that's the software that tracks the Foundation's emails and keeps tabs on requests).  One of the people who answers email on the Foundation's behalf will look through and decide whether the Foundation should get involved and if not will probably point you back to here and let you know that you will have to abide by the community's decision.  I'm not clear on why you think there must be a way to get what you want.  You may simply have to accept that the mistake your employee made is going to have a lasting impact on Wikipedia. -- SiobhanHansa 00:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well i will try it, but i still don't think that i have made my case clear on the moderators here on Wikipedia.

We have been confused with people who would like there spammed or blocked content put back up. That's not our objective, what we are looking for is a second chance, after which we assure that nothing like this will ever happen again. Why don't you have a look around on the website and see for yourself whether spamming would even in the remotest sense help our business. And i am just looking for a second chance, i thought of asking you people because i though that its a pretty normal thing with other people appealing in a similar manner to mine. And Wikipedia being an information would not want to keep a spam list filled with websites so i asked for a second chance to right the wrongs and prove that our organization doesn't spam or promote this activity in anyway. Still searching for a solution to this problem. Would like some help. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Paul - it's very normal for people to ask but exceedingly rare for a website to actually be removed. There used to be more flexibility earlier on I think - but it ended up making a lot more work for administrators as most removed sites were later abused again and had to be cleaned up and re-added.  Now administrators seem to only remove a site if there is an obvious benefit to Wikipedia in doing so. -- SiobhanHansa 12:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * PS I want to make it clear again that I'm not an administrator on Wikipedia and I can only point you towards other avenues etc. I do not have the rights to remove or add a site to the blacklist. I just point this out because your posts sometimes sound like you are trying to make your case to me and I don't want you thinking that if you can convince me you will have solved your issue.  I'll do my best to show you how to use Wikipedia process and let you what I think your chances are of getting what you want, regardless of what I think of your position.  -- SiobhanHansa


 * Yes i am aware of my predicament here on Wikipedia. Can you just clarify "what benefits to Wikipedia" really means. I have heard this statement quite a few times now, but no body has ever clarified what it implies. Do i stand any chance of getting my organizations website removed.

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Benefits to Wikipedia means there is a good reason for editors to be able to add the link unhindered - i.e. that the link itself would be useful in our articles in accordance with our policies. Sorry that wasn't clear from the start.  I don't think anyone intends for it to be mysterious - this place can be quite jargon filled sometimes without us even realizing it.


 * I don't think there's much chance at of you getting the link removed at the moment by appealing to the Wikipedia community. If you try again in 12 months and see if you can find a sympathetic administrator you may have more luck especially if you've become a useful editor in that time.  On Wikipedia the reputation you build in the community as an editor tends to be significant in terms of how much respect your assurances are given. That's  a lot of work just to get a link removed though. -- SiobhanHansa 10:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lets suppose if i add certain sections to our website and then add content on wikipedia and then make the external link what would be the scenario like then?

and secondly hows about if i find something on wikipedia or something which can be linked to our site, how would that stand out? And am willing to become an editor if that's what it takes to clear the name in a good and descent enough way. But cant the 12 month period be a bit reduced? Or doesn't Wikipedia have another list apart from the spam list like potentially unsafe or something to which this site can be moved to, while i am passing my period of one year. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a great idea. Since you are connected to the site the editing you are suggesting - especially with the history of the link on Wikipedia so far - would be seen as promotional and would further entrench the view that you are here to benefit your site not Wikipedia.  This would make it even more difficult to have the site removed.  The benefit to Wikipedia would be proved by respected unconnected editors (i.e. ones who already have a good editing history on Wikipedia and are not connected with the site in any way) deciding the content on the site was a good source for articles and wanting to use it frequently.  Which means they wold need to think the site was better than most other possible reliable sources they could use for the same claims.


 * To build up a good reputation as an editor you would need to edit altruistically. Learn what Wikipedia is really trying to do and help it do that.  You'd probably be best off editing in areas completely unconnected with your site and its mission so there's no way for people to see a continued pattern of editing with a conflict of interest - which always sets off alarm bells.  Like I said - it's a lot of work.


 * As to another list - yes there are other lists that monitor rather control. But the site would probably be moved to one if it got off the main blacklist in a years time. I don't think most administrators at the blacklist page would see them as suitable alternatives now.  -- SiobhanHansa 11:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can not be there any other deals, like submitting generalized user beneficial information regarding our industry which is totally non-promotional holding no links to us. We have an entire content writing section and we can dedicate our efforts and prove useful. Then maybe you can see the entire work plan of this organizations work. The content that we will offer will be informative and non-promotion, which would then indicate that our site doesn't spam.

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest at this point in time would be the quickest method to un-list the domain? Will the above mentioned way not work? And naturally how long would it take for our organization to get de-listed by itself if it has no contact with Wikipedia?

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 11:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, and thank you for listening to me. I was expecting a little co-operation though still no hard feelings. We still respect Wikipedia and apologize on our behalf. On my part i thank you for listening to me.

Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)