User talk:Sexperts/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you enjoy it here and decide to stay. Here is some information that you might find helpful:


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here, and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Additionally, the sandbox is available if you wish to test your editing skills.

All in all, good luck, have fun, and be bold! SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. IrishGuy talk 22:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. IrishGuy talk 22:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sexual literacy
A tag has been placed on Sexual literacy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

This is a neologism, with little in the way of verification from reliable sources.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 21:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamming of http://nsrc.sfsu.edu http://spam.SexualityResearch.net

 * National Sexuality Resource Center
 * Journal of Sexuality Research and Social Policy
 * Spam sock accounts

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid when:
 * 1) editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam);
 * and you must always:
 * 1) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. --Hu12 02:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sexperts. I see that User:Hu12 is deleting many of your contributions of links to nsrc.sfsu.edu. I understand that Hu12 believes your contributions collectively constitute a spam campaign. My own little role is that I pay attention to the San Francisco Pride article.  User:Sexperts added a citation there (later deleted by Hu12) in March 2007,  I reviewed it at the time, and I think it's a valid citation that's relevant to the article content. It is not in the External Links section, it's an in-line citation. Thus I restored the citation.  In general I see Hu12's point about Sexperts' contributions seeming like WP:SPAM. I also think that in many cases they look relevant to the articles involved, and if structured as proper citations of facts in the article might be useful additions to Wikipedia. I've making a similar comment at User talk:Hu12.  Best wishes for achieving understanding with Hu12, and making many future contributions to Wikipedia. --Jdlh  | Talk 18:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Hul2 and JF1h. I'm just returning from a long vacation, so please forgive the delay in responding. After reading some of the referenced literature that Hul2 mentioned, I also see Hul2's point, although I think you may have been a bit overzealous in your characterization of the entirety of my edits. JF1h is a welcome voice in this regard.

At the National Sexuality Resource Center, we have a ton of very good information about sexuality that is useful for people. Shouldn't we be encouraged to add our references, where the wiki community decides is appropriate, so improve wikipedia in general? As you can see, Hul2, some readers do appreciate what we've been adding. Please understand that I mean in no way to spam wikipedia, and frankly, what would I have to gain? I work for a non-profit, and we don't make money if more people come to read our articles. If anything, I think we're the kind of experts that should be the ones editing and adding content to the wiki entries.

Looking forward to hearing your response. In the meantime, I'll be reviewing our new content and adding it to relevant articles as I see fit. The community can decide if I'm violating any rules... Sexperts 18:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)