User talk:Princeofpalms

Welcome!

Hello, Princeofpalms, 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! —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 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

Editing request
Did you read my blog entirely? It's the most comprehensive guide to cultivating Eucalyptus deglupta on-line. Yes I sell seeds, and I understand that my on-line information supports a commercial business, but if unique information is what you are looking for, then my blog provides it. What really annoys me is the hypocrisy here. You allow a reference - Garner, LariAnn. "Under the Rainbow". Are you aware that this person's reference also contains a link directly to their website? A website that prides itself on selling Eucalyptus deglupta trees. That's all they do. They don't offer the information that my blog does. I'm happy to put my blog content into a PDF and post it as a reference too. Perhaps you might rethink, or re-check your existing content. BTW, I only figured out the messages recently. I was not avoiding your comments. My apologies for that much. —Princeofpalms (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See response below, at the second help requeset. Banaticus (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Eucalyptus deglupta do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Eucalyptus deglupta. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please do not add a link to your own blog, website, or any similar site that you have a conflict of interest with. Such promotional links are not allowed. If you think the link complies with the external link guidelines, you may state your case here or at Talk:Eucalyptus deglupta. However, you must wait for other editors to agree before the link may be added. If you add the link to the article again, you will be blocked. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study
Welcome to Wikipedia. I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 21:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Eucalyptus deglupta has been reverted. Your edit here to Eucalyptus deglupta was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://eucalyptusdeglupta.wordpress.com) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked
Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended or used for publicity and/or promotional purposes. Please read the following carefully.

Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, celebrity or other well-known individual, or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements, and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Probably not. See WP:FAQ/Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, or organization. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit again. Consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.
 * Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

You are still welcome to write about something other than your company or organization. If you do intend to make useful contributions on some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:
 * What can I do now?


 * Add the text on your user talk page.
 * Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
 * Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
 * Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
 * Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.

If you believe this block was made in error, please see how to appeal a block. —C.Fred (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Helpme tag
Did you read my blog entirely? It's the most comprehensive guide to cultivating Eucalyptus deglupta on-line. Yes I sell seeds, and I understand that my on-line information supports a commercial business, but if unique information is what you are looking for, then my blog provides it. What really annoys me is the hypocrisy here. You allow a reference - Garner, LariAnn. "Under the Rainbow". Are you aware that this person's reference also contains a link directly to their website? A website that prides itself on selling Eucalyptus deglupta trees. That's all they do. They don't offer the information that my blog does. I'm happy to put my blog content into a PDF and post it as a reference too. Perhaps you might rethink, or re-check your existing content. BTW, I only figured out the messages recently. I was not avoiding your comments. My apologies for that much. Princeofpalms (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe you need to read some of our policies and guidelines here, such as Conflict of interest. The main problem with the links you added are shown and Verifiability:


 * Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media&mdash;whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets&mdash;are largely not acceptable.




 * Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.


 * Your blog, regardless of the information posted to it, does not merit a link. Furthermore, there is a difference between using a PDF file for a reference versus a simple external link to a wordpress site.


 * Unless you can prove the above - that you are an established expert whose work the relevant field has been mentioned in reliable third-party publications - then this matter is resolved.


 * I hope this helps to clean up any misunderstandings. Avic ennasis  @ 21:45, 11 Nisan 5771 / 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Here's the problem in a nutshell. LariAnn Garner's Under the Rainbow reference goes to a single non-blog page (and that page is a good reference article).  Your link is to the main page of a blog (and if you added more posts later suddenly the link wouldn't point to information, it would point to whatever you most recently posted about) which then asks a person to click through to a second blog to read the full article, although you then have to click through to a third page in order to start really reading the full article.  Good luck appealing your block -- you might try reading How to avoid conflict of interest edits and making use of the  template next time.  Banaticus (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes I can provide the information from a third-party expert in this field, who will validate my work and do what is required to publish a PDF article, containing a link to my business, as per LariAnn Garner's "Under the Rainbow" article. How do I go about having someone submit my work? Princeofpalms (talk) 21:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, PoP. This isn't about getting someone to vouch for you, only to show that other, independent third-party have recognized your expertise and your website.  If you have such articles, you can link to them or provide citations to them for other editors to check out.  Although we try to be fair, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is generally not an accepted argument for inclusion of content.  It's possible LariAnn's work is also in violation of policy, although I have not looked at it.  Sometimes, we select from among similar sites and pick one based on subtle criteria, status, or how long it has been on the page.  Wikipedia is not a link-farm, nor a promotional directory.  The only purpose of external links is to connect users with non-commercial information to further their research.  Please try to make your case without regard for Lari Ann's site, but rather provide evidence that bolsters your own.  Ocaasi c 11:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

"The only purpose of external links is to connect users with non-commercial information to further their research."

Well, that makes sense, and is how I imagined Wikipedia. So as the situation stands, a business competitor is allowed to link to their business website by way of a link in a PDF reference file, whereas I am suspended. I half-imagined that I was being discriminated against, when in truth, and as I explained, I was unfamiliar with the messaging system when I repeatedly posted my original link. Bullish I know, but I was in a hurry. Lesson learned. "This isn't about getting someone to vouch for you, only to show that other, independent third-party have recognized your expertise and your website."

Does this mean I need to have had my name and work mentioned in an independent third-party article? The person I had in mind is a Eucalyptus expert and runs a forestry commission with his own website, but all the acknowledgements I've received to date have been private. The problem is that Eucalyptus deglupta cultivation outside of its natural habitat is not that common. As far as I know, I am the only major retail seed supplier, and the first to cultivate the species in Europe. I've sold seeds to buyers in over 30 countries, and my instructions for germination and cultivation provide unique, concise information, supported by photos. This is what I want to publish, by way of a PDF. If I can't provide a link to my blog, then so be it. Perhaps an email address would be allowed? To reiterate, my work is self-published simply because it is unique, but that's not to say it's unknown professionally. Catch 22 really. Is it the case that I should be asking an independent third-party to publish my work before I approach Wikipedia? Princeofpalms (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the fact that the acknowledgements have been private is an issue. It means, essentially that we have to take your word for it.  We don't do that, and it's no comment on your trustworthiness.


 * Email addresses are not allowed. Contact information is not allowed.


 * Remember - we don't care about your business. At all.  And not cause we don't want you to succeed.  And we don't care about your competitor's business.  At all.  So, it might be the case that an inadvertent result of you not having a published reference document is that it slightly benefits your competitor, but those kinds of concerns--though surely central to your livelihood--are not something we even consider.  We're commerce blind, and we like it that way.


 * You're on very thin ice trying to promote your company through content or links, so keep that in mind as you try and make your case. I don't mean that as a threat, it's just very common for every business to want their company linked in the External Links section.


 * Yes, we tell individuals all the time, 'if you want us to mention your work, get a reliable independent source to do it first'. Usually that's said because it's never going to happen, but it's still true:  if you or your site meets our notability/reliability guidelines, it's a very different story.  Not a guarantee, but a different set of considerations.


 * From reading this section in its entirety, I am of the opinion that if you read it closely (and WP:Self-published sources again), you will have your questions answered. Please do not add another helpme template unless you have a question about a new topic to ask. If you need further help on this topic, I recommend you get on IRC and talk to us live. Thank you,  Ks0stm  If you reply here, please leave me a  message on my talk page. 03:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)