User talk:TTUP
Just a quick note: You need to change the way you are adding books to articles. They should not be listed in the "see also" section. They should either be in an existing "Further reading" or similar, or under "external links". See also is usually reserved for Wikipedia articles that are related.
Also, some may take what you are doing as spammish. I would be very careful to not flood with every book from TTUP here. Even with the best of intentions, not every related book needs to be listed here. Typically, only books that are themselves notable (as defined by Wikipedia, not your definition or mine) AND that meet the Reliable Source guideline should be used. We appreciate the contributions and hope you become a regular editor, but you might want to read a bit about the policies here before adding dozens of books as references. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Comment via WP:COIN. Agreed. Broadly, books should be added only if they're demonstrably notable and definitive references for the topic ("Further reading"), or if they were actually used in writing the article ("References"). It's not done to add "Me too" books merely because they're on the topic concerned. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- One other note, since I flubbed the summary on the article: You can't list a book that is about to be published, via the Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball policy. Again, it would do you well to hang out and read up on the policies here to keep all your edits from being reversed. PHARMBOY (TALK) 22:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I didn't realize that rule when I put that up, I have since corrected it as well as any other places that I placed the citation in the wrong spot. That being said, we are a university press, so many of our books are the definitive reference for the subjects they were placed under. We have been very careful to match our books up with subjects that could get a helpful boost from them. However, I will be sure to be more careful in the future. Thanks for the heads up. 129.118.97.104 (talk) 20:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)TTUP
In addition to the above, please do not add link to your company's web shop/advertising pages (see "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" in WP:LINKSTOAVOID). Standard bibliographical information suffices to identify books. You might also want to read Wikipedia:Why can't I advertise my company or product on Wikipedia?. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I just wanted to add that there is a good reason why we are so tight about books and other external links. Technically, every person who has every written a book about the subject matter would have the same "right" to list their book, meaning that every article would have dozens, hundreds or even thousands of "further reading" book titles. This is why there is no "right" here. I know you mean well, but it just opens up the flood gate for others, which is why the standard for listing a book is pretty tight. Topics that have almost NO books or other literature covering them (ie: very obscure) are great for adding books when appropriate. Most general topics are not, as finding books just isn't that hard. I hate your introduction to Wikipedia being a flood of "what you can't do on Wikipedia", and wanted to just explain a bit, in plain english, why we jumped on it so fast. Many people here (myself included) spend most of our time "policing" articles. You would be amazed at how fast things get out of hand with trivia lists, external links, etc., even when the hearts of the editors are in the right place. Anyway, welcome, and I hope you find a place you can make a difference here. PHARMBOY (TALK) 00:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Pharmboy, thank you for taking the time to explain these sorts of things to me in a polite way! (not everybody has been as nice...) I definitely understand the policies and why they are in place and will not be making the same mistakes. I appreciate your understanding. TTUP (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that everyone appears more rude online than they do in real life. This is very obvious here on Wikipedia, but it is due to the sheer volume of edits that have to be made. It is common for a single editor to deal with dozens (or more) problem edits in a single setting. Many devote all their time to simply cleaning up spam, or cleaning up vandalism, or a single type of problem, so after the first 1000 times they deal with the same problem, they are probably a bit quick in judgement and terse in their wording. It isn't personal, they are just trying to move on to the next issue. We all do this for free, after all. Me, I try to do a little of everything, including coming in and explaining to people like yourself, who are NOT trying to spam, but whose actions may LOOK like it at a quick glance. One of the problems of Wikipedia is that the number of "edits" an editor does is one measure of how "good" he is, at least in many circles. This leads to many well meaning editors to simply rush too much and focus on quantity of edits, rather than quality. Wikipedia awards virtual badges for number of edits, which makes the problem worse. Many people who want to become administrators (still unpaid) know that the number of edits they have can influence the decision of them becoming an admin or not. A very flawed system, but so far no one has a better one, so its the one we have. Also, the rules here aren't chiseled in stone, and are changing all the time. It's usually kinda fun here, but still a bit like the wild west for editors. I still hope you find a niche to contribute, we need all the level headed people we can get. PHARMBOY (TALK) 02:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
- I would like to add that while we can't have an account for TTUP as such, and thus this account must be blocked, that TTUP employees and other fine folks at TT are more than welcome to become editors in their own rights, and contribute their knowledge to this project. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
User account blocked
[edit]
This kind of activity is considered spamming and is forbidden by Wikipedia policies. In addition, the use of a username like yours violates our username policy.
You may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below or emailing the administrator who blocked you.
Your reason should include your response to this issue and a new username you wish to adopt that does not violate our username policy (specifically, understand that accounts are for individuals, not companies or groups, and that your username should reflect this). Usernames that have already been taken are listed here.