Ciro612
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Libya. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 17:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
- NicholasTurnbull: The links you deleted related to actions in Libya, many of which are accounts from professionals who have studied this area of the world. Given the current events in Libya, offering historical examples, before WWII then moving forward, offers an opportunity to understand the country, its development, the impact of other countries, and so on. Please do consider including the links. Thanks for your consideration. --Ciro612 (talk) 10:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Bay of Pigs Invasion
editHi, Ciro612, having seen the above notices, I'm pleased to report that your addition of an external link on the BoPI page is more than welcome, to this editor at least, particularly on this anniversary of the event. PeterWD (talk) 19:47, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
PeterWD: Thanks for approving this link. I've tried to include similar links as projects with which I work offer such historical background on other topics and I thought it would be valuable for Wikipedia readers. However, in the case of Libya (above) and the Operation Eagle Claw links (see comments below), they were marked as SPAM. Also deleted yesterday, with no comment on my talk page, were links to first-hand accounts from the Battle of Ia Drang. These are all original accounts of the battle from people who were there (or in the case of one wife, her memories of thinking her husband was dead), so I'm not sure why they aren't allowed. Any insight you have would be helpful. I'm not trying to SPAM. Just trying to share some of the info. I've worked to pull together in other arenas. Thanks.
This is your last warning; the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Operation Eagle Claw, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. - Rklawton (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- Why were the links marked as SPAM? They offer important information, including a full account of the operation, from historians who are experts in Special Operations. With the coming anniversary, it is an opportunity to remind readers of the events as they occurred, with lesson on how these operations may work/not work in the future. In hindsight, I can see how one of the articles, which lists additional reading sources might not be applicable here, but the one titled "Beyond Hell and Back" provides valuable historical information.
- Ciro612, thanks for your response. Rklawton is an administrator, so he will no doubt get back to your comment on his talk page. I just hope that he treats you a little more gently, to ease you into our practices here, the first being to always sign your 'talk' comments with four tildes, so we all know who you are and when you said it (also see pen logo link above edit box). Also note here colon (:) indents comments. I would like to restore your link on the BoPI page; I think we probably just need to see more diversity in your contributions. PeterWD (talk) 09:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC) PS I've put this page on my watchlist, so I'll track what is said here.PeterWD (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC) PPS. Oops, corrected typo to four tildes, noted your response below. PeterWD (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks, Peter. I am new to this. I work within the fields of history and am passionate about sharing that information and the personal stories in particular - am trying to be helpful and not SPAM and it is confusing as I've posted a number of links of the same type and some have been accepted while others have not. --Ciro612 (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Hiding spam via diversification of edits doesn't make it not spam. See WP:SPAM for more details about spam. See external links for our policies regarding external links. If you are interested in contributing to our history articles, I suggest sticking with academic sources - "Command Post" is not one of them. "Command Post" exists to market St. Martin’s Press' authors. Rklawton (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Rklawton, Thank you for your reply. I read the information about "Book Spam." The excerpts and articles I've linked to do provide additional information beyond what is in the context of some of the Wikipedia links. And while CommandPosts is run by St. Martin's Press, it does not "exist to market St. Martin's Press' authors." If you look at the Ia Drang series as one example, you'll see that none of the authors of those articles have books with St. Martin's Press. In fact, I believe only one has a book period. The same is true for other articles on the site, which I've tried to share on Wikipedia. So while yes, the site does share info. about St. Martin's Press' authors/books, it is incorrect to consider the site and/or pieces a marketing tool. We all have an interest in military history in particular and we're working to collect personal stories, which haven't been recorded anywhere also. And we're fortunate enough to have book excerpts available to share, too, which do offer more information. Thanks for your time and consideration. I understand your point, but hope you'll reconsider r.e. the Command Posts links. Again, the original stories of the men who fought at Ia Drang, particularly the three who were at LZ Albany and retell that story from three different points with the column, is valuable historic information. --Ciro612 (talk) 16:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't allow link canvassing, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That practice, as I understand it, isn't consistent throughout Wikipedia. globalsecurity.org is one site I've seen quite a bit. If the objection to CommandPosts is that it links to St. Martins' Press' books, then the same should hold true for globalsecurity.org which has a site that shares info. that pushes its agenda and thus its books/papers. The same is true of traditional magazines, to which Wikipedia links quite a bit. Why is it ok to link to some outlets on what seems a routine basis, but not to others? Not trying to give you a hard time. Just trying to understand as Wikipedia's practices don't seem consistent and the idea of having content blocked, which is original and useful, but is on a site run by a publisher, seems biased. Why not the same for magazines or newspapers who are selling themselves? Or to specific orgs, such as globalsecurity.org?--Ciro612 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- If a single editor went around adding globalsecurity links to every article, the situation would be the same and they would be reverted and warned. Likewise, single instances of additions of commandpost links would likely result in no controversy. See also WP:COI and WP:SPA. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- So this is about me sharing numerous links to one site? Or is it about the site being operated by a publisher, which is what I inferred from what RkLawton wrote? Every site online is operated by someone with an agenda. Everyone is trying to share something. I see other book excerpts shared, but it seems ok if they aren't linked to excerpts on a publisher's site. Doesn't make sense. R.e. WP:COI and WP:SPA: I understand your point. However, my intention in sharing goes beyond both. Right now, I happen to be working with Command Posts and have found some amazing information, worked with veterans to feature their stories. From what you are saying, my understanding is that I'm not allowed to share them via Wikipedia, to advance the knowledge there, because I'm linked to the site and thus the assumption is that my motivation is just for promotion? Moving forward, I'll do my best to share documents I've been retrieving from the National Archives and other outlets, too. But am I to assume that I'm not allowed to share anything from Command Posts? Going back to the Battle of Ia Drang stories, from Vietnam, I'd like to see those shared. They are amazing stories, and for some of the veterans, it is the first time they've shared them. And for the LZ Albany portion of the battle there's just not as much available, which shows the same battle from three different positions within it. Can I share those links or am I going to see myself blocked because they are on the Command Posts site? --Ciro612 (talk) 18:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- If a single editor went around adding globalsecurity links to every article, the situation would be the same and they would be reverted and warned. Likewise, single instances of additions of commandpost links would likely result in no controversy. See also WP:COI and WP:SPA. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That practice, as I understand it, isn't consistent throughout Wikipedia. globalsecurity.org is one site I've seen quite a bit. If the objection to CommandPosts is that it links to St. Martins' Press' books, then the same should hold true for globalsecurity.org which has a site that shares info. that pushes its agenda and thus its books/papers. The same is true of traditional magazines, to which Wikipedia links quite a bit. Why is it ok to link to some outlets on what seems a routine basis, but not to others? Not trying to give you a hard time. Just trying to understand as Wikipedia's practices don't seem consistent and the idea of having content blocked, which is original and useful, but is on a site run by a publisher, seems biased. Why not the same for magazines or newspapers who are selling themselves? Or to specific orgs, such as globalsecurity.org?--Ciro612 (talk) 17:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- We don't allow link canvassing, period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You've been told by several veteran editors/admins to stop it, and the "why" has already been explained. I'm not discussing it further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
The CommandPost website says it exists to promote its authors, your comments to the contrary notwithstanding. External links exist to provide readers with additional online information - not teasers to buy books. If you wish to link to an article, and if the article is sufficiently reliable, useful, and notable (or in the case of history, sufficiently academic, etc.), then it would be welcome. But teasers to buy a book - absolutely not. And keep in mind that St. Martin's Press publishes mass market popular books and is not known for its academic rigor. And history on Wikipedia is an academic subject. Rklawton (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The CommandPost site does not state that it "exists to promote its authors." It states: "CommandPosts.com was launched on October 5th, 2010 as a site for the authors of St. Martin’s Press to comment on military news, history, and relevant fiction. The editors of CommandPosts bring readers interviews, excerpts, and original commentary from a wide range of authors: honored veterans; award-winning historians; and bestselling novelists are all represented. It is the intention of CommandPosts to foster a community that will engage the audience and provide a location rich in rational discourse and commentary, and find creative ways to support the military community. Please share your thoughts about posts you’ve enjoyed, suggestions for topics you’d like to see covered, and comments about the site in general." The books and authors featured on the site include but are not limited to St. Martin's Press' authors. And many of them are award-winning writers and authors. And certainly while there are books published by St. Martin's Press that aren't academic in nature, it is incorrect to assume the title of non-academic for all of its books - and it is certainly not true for the authors and books repped on the site. AND - it is not a valid argument to keep a publisher of "mass market popular books" off of Wikipedia. Under such an argument, you should also eliminate many of the magazines to which you link, as well as a number of other links I've seen which are far from "academic." Per the historical pieces on Command Posts which are of value, I once again use the examples of the original stories in the Battle of Ia Drang series. More recent is the memory of General Samuel Vaughan Wilson's account of his family's connection to the Civil War Battle of Saylers Creek. General Sam is alone an amazing individual (look at Wikipedia's own listing for him). In terms of sales, nowhere on the site is there a link to buy a book or sell a book. There are no teasers to buy a book. And, again, the site features more than books and authors - well beyond St. Martin's Press.--Ciro612 (talk) 22:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- As you quoted above: "CommandPosts.com was launched on October 5th, 2010 as a site for the authors of St. Martin’s Press to comment on military news, history, and relevant fiction." In short, it's a promotional website, with no academic credentials, and the links are to book excerpts (teasers). The fact that there isn't a "buy here" link isn't relevant. Wikipedia is not the place to flog books. Please tell your employer that you struck out. Blame us or me personally if you like, or just print out our policies and tell them the truth. I don't care. If you persist, I'll submit your website for blacklisting, and our software will automatically ban it here on out. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- My questions for you aren't about me being able to go to an employer and say I made it into Wikipedia for them. This isn't about trying to avoid striking out. I'm trying to understand your policies. I'd like to know how some sites are deemed academic and others aren't. What makes something academic. What makes one excerpt from another site acceptable, but an excerpt link from another site that happens to be run by a publisher is unacceptable? I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time and certainly don't want to see anything "blacklisted." I'd just like to see the inconsistencies in your policies addressed. In reading through the back-and-forth here today, alone, there are a number of inconsistent comments. I'm just trying to understand and while I understand why you would question my motives, I really wish you'd stop doing so and simply address the different items. At the very least, address the Ia Drang series. Here's a link to one of the stories, about John Eade, written by Boston Herald reporter Jules Crittenden, who is not related to St. Martin's Press, does not have a book with the press, and to my knowledge, doesn't have a book period: http://www.commandposts.com/2010/11/john-eade-i-am-going-to-die-well/ These personal stories help advance the knowledge of that battle. If you won't address the other issues I've brought up, please address this one. What is it about this post and the others in this series that makes it unworthy of Wikipedia sharing? They advance the knowledge of the battle. They are accurate. With the exception of one written by a journalist, they are all from the individuals who experienced them, individuals who don't have a lot of time left to share. Please address some of what I've questioned. Where on Wikipedia is the definition of what is academic and what is not?--Ciro612 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you are looking for perfect consistency across 2+million articles, you won't find it. Frankly, if I found an external link to other book excerpts, I would remove it just as I have yours. Please feel free to list them here. You've been given links to WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. If you've got a specific question about something written therein, please feel free to ask. The article to which you refer does not come from a peer reviewed or refereed journal. There are hundreds of such articles, and we have no need to list them here. Your notion of "sharing" these lovely stories is wonderful. Go do that. Just don't do it here - that's not what Wikipedia is for. And therein seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding. This is not a public forum, this is not a blog, this is not a collection of stories. This is an encyclopedia. So, I'll add WP:NOT to your reading list. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll start pulling a list and sending them to you. Your comment about the link I sent you not being "peer-reviewed" is interesting. On Wikipedia's peer review page, I found this quote: "Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[26]" And since, as you noted, "there are hundreds of such articles," how do you decide which to include and which not to? With your focus on being an "encyclopedia" I would think that you'd want to include first-hand accounts of, again, Ia Drang as an example. Per the "sharing" comment: I understand this isn't a blog or collection of stories. I get it. I also get that editors share information, which is how the encyclopedia grows. Afterall, if you didn't start your piece on Limenitidinae, how could you "expect to see the number of individual butterfly articles to bloom" (as your wrote on the discussion page). You shared something of interest to you, in the interest of seeing additional articles on butterflies added. --Ciro612 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- When a process comes along that's better than peer review, I'm sure we'll adopt it. How do we decide between hundreds of articles which to include? One way would be to rank them according to the publisher's reputation. In the present case, we've got a website that's less than a year old primarily flogging books. Indeed, one could easily argue that articles that aren't flogging a specific book are published instead with the intent of boosting the website's search rankings all for the same purpose - flogging books. You should note, by the way, that Wikipedia is set up so that search engines do not take into consideration links published herein when assessing the website's merits. Lastly, the article on Limenitidinae has no bearing on this matter. I wasn't spamming Wikipedia with links to new commercial websites. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The articles that aren't related to books are not intended to be used to "flog" other books. You've continued to assume motives and place them where they don't exist. Again, I understand how that is so, but what I don't understand is your tone, assumptions, and criticisms beyond what is being discussed here. As someone new to Wikipedia and genuinely interested in learning more, I've been presented with a leaning tower of inconsistent comments that don't serve to help anyone - and add additional inconsistencies to Wikipedia - per your comment that it is impossible to stay consistent through so many articles. Your article on Limenitidinae was brought up not as an example of spamming but of sharing, since you chose to comment on my use of the word "sharing." --Ciro612 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- We've provided you with several links explaining our policies and related polices. If you've got questions about them, let me know. As for my tone, it's in response to your edit history which shows a clear pattern of link-spam and conflict of interest. And yes, I get pissy when people think it's a good idea to use the hard word of hundreds of thousands of volunteers to promote their own self-interest. Rklawton (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- The articles that aren't related to books are not intended to be used to "flog" other books. You've continued to assume motives and place them where they don't exist. Again, I understand how that is so, but what I don't understand is your tone, assumptions, and criticisms beyond what is being discussed here. As someone new to Wikipedia and genuinely interested in learning more, I've been presented with a leaning tower of inconsistent comments that don't serve to help anyone - and add additional inconsistencies to Wikipedia - per your comment that it is impossible to stay consistent through so many articles. Your article on Limenitidinae was brought up not as an example of spamming but of sharing, since you chose to comment on my use of the word "sharing." --Ciro612 (talk) 23:50, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- When a process comes along that's better than peer review, I'm sure we'll adopt it. How do we decide between hundreds of articles which to include? One way would be to rank them according to the publisher's reputation. In the present case, we've got a website that's less than a year old primarily flogging books. Indeed, one could easily argue that articles that aren't flogging a specific book are published instead with the intent of boosting the website's search rankings all for the same purpose - flogging books. You should note, by the way, that Wikipedia is set up so that search engines do not take into consideration links published herein when assessing the website's merits. Lastly, the article on Limenitidinae has no bearing on this matter. I wasn't spamming Wikipedia with links to new commercial websites. Rklawton (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'll start pulling a list and sending them to you. Your comment about the link I sent you not being "peer-reviewed" is interesting. On Wikipedia's peer review page, I found this quote: "Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.[26]" And since, as you noted, "there are hundreds of such articles," how do you decide which to include and which not to? With your focus on being an "encyclopedia" I would think that you'd want to include first-hand accounts of, again, Ia Drang as an example. Per the "sharing" comment: I understand this isn't a blog or collection of stories. I get it. I also get that editors share information, which is how the encyclopedia grows. Afterall, if you didn't start your piece on Limenitidinae, how could you "expect to see the number of individual butterfly articles to bloom" (as your wrote on the discussion page). You shared something of interest to you, in the interest of seeing additional articles on butterflies added. --Ciro612 (talk) 23:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- If you are looking for perfect consistency across 2+million articles, you won't find it. Frankly, if I found an external link to other book excerpts, I would remove it just as I have yours. Please feel free to list them here. You've been given links to WP:COI, WP:SPAM, and WP:EL. If you've got a specific question about something written therein, please feel free to ask. The article to which you refer does not come from a peer reviewed or refereed journal. There are hundreds of such articles, and we have no need to list them here. Your notion of "sharing" these lovely stories is wonderful. Go do that. Just don't do it here - that's not what Wikipedia is for. And therein seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding. This is not a public forum, this is not a blog, this is not a collection of stories. This is an encyclopedia. So, I'll add WP:NOT to your reading list. Rklawton (talk) 22:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- My questions for you aren't about me being able to go to an employer and say I made it into Wikipedia for them. This isn't about trying to avoid striking out. I'm trying to understand your policies. I'd like to know how some sites are deemed academic and others aren't. What makes something academic. What makes one excerpt from another site acceptable, but an excerpt link from another site that happens to be run by a publisher is unacceptable? I'm not trying to give anyone a hard time and certainly don't want to see anything "blacklisted." I'd just like to see the inconsistencies in your policies addressed. In reading through the back-and-forth here today, alone, there are a number of inconsistent comments. I'm just trying to understand and while I understand why you would question my motives, I really wish you'd stop doing so and simply address the different items. At the very least, address the Ia Drang series. Here's a link to one of the stories, about John Eade, written by Boston Herald reporter Jules Crittenden, who is not related to St. Martin's Press, does not have a book with the press, and to my knowledge, doesn't have a book period: http://www.commandposts.com/2010/11/john-eade-i-am-going-to-die-well/ These personal stories help advance the knowledge of that battle. If you won't address the other issues I've brought up, please address this one. What is it about this post and the others in this series that makes it unworthy of Wikipedia sharing? They advance the knowledge of the battle. They are accurate. With the exception of one written by a journalist, they are all from the individuals who experienced them, individuals who don't have a lot of time left to share. Please address some of what I've questioned. Where on Wikipedia is the definition of what is academic and what is not?--Ciro612 (talk) 22:27, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- As you quoted above: "CommandPosts.com was launched on October 5th, 2010 as a site for the authors of St. Martin’s Press to comment on military news, history, and relevant fiction." In short, it's a promotional website, with no academic credentials, and the links are to book excerpts (teasers). The fact that there isn't a "buy here" link isn't relevant. Wikipedia is not the place to flog books. Please tell your employer that you struck out. Blame us or me personally if you like, or just print out our policies and tell them the truth. I don't care. If you persist, I'll submit your website for blacklisting, and our software will automatically ban it here on out. Rklawton (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Gates of Fire, U.S. paperback edition.jpg
edit
Thanks for uploading File:Gates of Fire, U.S. paperback edition.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:22, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
