User talk:Paradigm68

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Paradigm68, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Satu Suro 02:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please[edit]

When adding external links as extra reading - please create Externa links and put the full http:// address in and visible - thanks Satu Suro 02:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Patrick (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest[edit]

Hello, I have also noticed that you are spamming references to your work in unrelated Wikipedia articles. Could I suggest that you take time to read WP:COI and WP:COS? Please note that you will be blocked if you continue spamming references to your own work as you are currently doing. If your writings have been published then you may cite yourself, but only where appropriate. Nick Dowling (talk) 09:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External Links guideline[edit]

Hi, I noticed a discussion about your addition of external links. While External links -to some extent- do help our readers to learn further about a subject, we try to avoid them in order not to become a repository of links. We have therefore a quite extensive guideline describing the consensus of the community in these matters. Unfortunately, many people try to add links to their work or to promote products they are related for, and we need to enforce this guideline very strictly. I hope this won't seem unfriendly, but your addition of these links of multiple articles is a source of concerns, firstly because of the amount of pages you added these links too, but also because the content is only loosely related to the subjects at hand. I cannot comment on the value of this link in the Howard Kippenberger article (I am not an expert in this area), but I don't think this is a good idea to add them on any other article. If you disagree with me, please don't put the links back but instead contact people that are knowledgeable of the field, for example the Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand who will be able to provide some more guidance. I hope this helps! -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Last Two Posts[edit]

Thanks for the replies. To lucasbfr some good links and lots to digest. I hope you will appreciate that many of us don't yet know the 'ins and outs' of wikipedia and that it would be a shame if we were excluded because of that. I will certainly read the links you have provided in more detail. Thanks as well Nick, though the mainstream understanding of the word 'spamming' relates to the garbage we get realting to cheap watches, drugs, body enhancements etc and surely not academic discussion papers?

09:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem, if you need any help, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Wikipedia functions pretty much like an immune system, sometimes overreacting to what it sees as a threat. As I said, some people are very persistent in their efforts to spam on Wikipedia and won't listen to reason. Sometimes editors forget that adding a link can be done in good faith. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers lucasbfr. Good analogy and points all noted and heeded! Paradigm68 (talk) 19:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]