User talk:Pdfranz rpo

Welcome!

Hello, Pdfranz rpo, 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 my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

I modified your addition to Wm Blake to link the article here:. cygnis insignis 15:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

ULT
Hi, welcome and thank you for your additions of the library links. I would advise you to cease adding links now as they may well be taken as spam. If an account is used only to add links from one organisation, even a great one like Toronto libraries, the account and the website maybe be blocked. I'm sure you are adding in good faith, and I think the links are valuable, but there you are. Please read more about Wikipedia and spam at WP:SPAM. I hope you will enjoy editing here. You are very welcome to the community. If you have any questions please do drop me a line on my talk page. Best wishes Span (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding spam to literature articles. Wikipedia is a collaborative project that follows agreed guidelines. If you wish to discuss this further please reply here or on my talk page. You are using this new account solely to add a stream external links. This practice is not welcome, as I have said above. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL. I will pursue this. Your continued behaviour could well result in a block, so please cease. Thank you Span (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Spam
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Block
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for spamming or advertising. From your contributions, this seems to be your only purpose. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. While this account is obviously not an advertisement-only account, it has thus far only been used to add external links contrary to our policy. While I assume this has been done in good faith, there are two clear and timely warnings above which you haven't heeded. Please post here to discuss continuing to edit and whether there is a way to contribute without disregarding our conventions on external links. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join the discussion on linking
We would very much like you to join the discussion about the best way to add library links. Cheers Span (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconding the above invitation. I realise blocking you will be experienced as a hostile gesture but I'll be very happy to unblock if you'd reply here (you can't edit the link that's posted to the discussion just above). Wikipedia thrives on (a) voluntary effort and (b) discussion among fellow volunteers. Please join (b) by posting here! Then we can get your (a) on-track to the benefit of the project. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  13:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Further Wikipedia info for archivists can be found here and guidelines for galleries, libraries, archives and museums here. Best wishes Span (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Unblock Request
This user should be unblocked, unconditionally. No matter what the circumstances, or what those associated with this ANI thread were thinking, it is an exceptionally bad precedent. cygnis insignis 13:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The guidelines on external links not only permit these types of links, they encourage it.
 * This user was accused of COI, for linking their "own site". The reputable university, and its library, is not 'owned' by any individual. The content being linked is valid, produced by the subjects of articles, and would not be included in the articles here, eg. William Blake's works.
 * The only document that supports this block is an 'unpublished' essay. User:Beetstra/Archivists is an opinion piece at best, it reads like a poor attempt at a humorous essay. The last line of the first paragraph is, "Though the links as such are not spam [link to E-mail spam] in the classical sense of the word, the link additions are un-solicited (see spam) [link to Spam (Monty Python)].

Replying Pdfranz rpo and Cygnis insignis. No, while some external links are welcome, it is not Wikipedia's goal to have all possible resources linked, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Although I see that you have good and good, reliable information available, that does not mean that that should be added everywhere. There is still the basic question, does it add something that is either not incorporable, or that is at least not in the article already.

As an example - you add to Anne Brontë http://rpo.library.utoronto.ca/poet/anne-bronte.html on your server, where you host 2 poems and some data. The data is already in the article itself, and hence does not add anything. The two poems are covered by one of the other external links, via the Gutenberg project http://www.gutenberg.org/author/Anne_Brontë. In other words, here the link is totally superfluous. And going through some of the articles you edited, there are many which have several external links to works, many including a link to the Gutenberg project. And even when your site includes one poem which is not included, or already linked, but it contains links or mentions of a large number of other links, one could ask what that one extra poem does add to the total understanding of the subject. In many cases, that will be minimal.

That being said, of course there will be pages where the link will have some additional value, but that needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (and the burden is upon you, who wants to add the links, that every of the additions is appropriate).

Regarding the COI - @Cygnis insignis - this is still a conflict of interest. Although I, per WP:AGF, do not assume any promotional reasons to link, it is a concern that is real, and unfortunately the examples to the opposite do exist. And the essay mentioned is not a humorous attempt, it does describe real concerns (but you are right, it is an essay).

As you, and Andre-rpo, have noticed, editors do seem to have concerns here and there (and I guess that they fall in similar categories as what I explained for the link addition on Anne Brontë). Those concerns were not responded to, additions continued.

I would really suggest that you go into discussion, and have a second look at the relevant policies and guidelines. I am sure that you (both) are a valuable addition to the editors here, but please, when someone does have concerns somewhere, do discuss with those editors. I also understand that there is a rather steep learning curve here, but discussion is an important part of building this encyclopedia.

I will unblock you (as I read from the blocking admin that they do think that your additions are in good faith, which I do think as well, I assume also that they do not object to me undoing their block). If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:12, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, no objections at all from this blocking admin! Thanks Pdfranz for opening communication here, and Beetstra for the unblock which I entirely concur with. I'm sorry to have had to implement it in the first place but it seemed the only way to get your attention! Wikipedia's procedures are sometimes a blunt instrument, apologies if it left a bruise...


 * One problem where you are adding a simple, short link to large numbers of articles is that won't have the background familiarity with the article's development and you certainly may not have the time to read through its history and talk page to pick this up. So while the link may be welcome in certain articles, in others it will not. A possible suggestion would be to post your link on the article's talk page, perhaps in a short standard paragraph explaining its provenance. Then regular editors to the article can make their own decision about whether or not to include it, in the light of their closer familiarity with the article and its existing references and external links.


 * I'll keep this talk page on my watch list so if you do encounter any more issues I'll be aware of it, and you can always get in touch with me by posting here and/or on my talk page. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)