Cruzgirl
Welcome!
Hello, Cruzgirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Open Book Publishers, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Open Book Publishers
edit
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Open Book Publishers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Night of the Big Wind (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
October 2011
edit
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. [1] MrOllie (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Drmies (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Cruzgirl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hey guys, I am part of Open Book Publishers - we are a group of academics committed to making high quality research freely available to others. All our books are double peer-reviewed by scholars in the field and published for free online (we are a completely non-profit Social Enterprise). I have been linking to OBP books on the pages of relevant subjects in order to improve the quality and scope of Wikipedia entries. In sections which specify "further reading" for a subject, our books offer a free resource that is very much in keeping with Wikipedia's ethos. I could be wrong, but I don't think what I am doing is "spamming". Should I just be putting the ISBNs of our books? Is the problem that I am linking to our website? I would be grateful for any thoughts on this. I was also upset to see that my entry for Open Book Publishers has been removed. We are an established publishing initiative based at the University of Cambridge, and other similar companies (like Open Humanities Press) have entries on Wikipedia... what are we doing wrong? Any help or advice you can give is very much appreciated. Cruzgirl (talk) 18:45, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Firstly, you appear to be editing as a representative account - which is not allowed under the user policy. Adding links to your website has the purpose of promoting the website, which is not allowed (and is indeed considered spamming on Wikipedia). As to the deletion of the article, there needs to be evidence that the group meets the notability criteria with significant coverage at reliable sources which are independent of the subject. As your purpose does not appear to be the same as Wikipedia's, I see no reason for the block to be lifted at this time PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 20:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Comment
editI can't see that the article was all that unambiguously promotional by itself, but the bit about 'free to read online' in one link I looked at sounds rather promotional to me and that may have damned it by association. Yes, even though it's free. Promotion applies alike to charities, multi-nationals, the local soup kitchen, and providers of new lamps for old. Can I suggest you look at WP:COI and WP:NPOV - that's conflict of interest (admitted...) and neutral point of view (which can get you round COI if you're careful). The provision of some reliable independent sources is always helpful - see WP:RS. Strictly, you shouldn't be adding links to a pet venture of your own - that is regarded as spamming. The article could be shown to have notability WP:GNG with a bit of work. Remember this is an encyclopaedia, not a way of getting your stuff noticed. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Cruzgirl (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
Hello! I understand that some of the content I posted seven years ago could have been viewed as promotional. I was a young intern and was asked by the publishing company I worked for to create a page for them and to link to their books using my personal wikipedia account. At the time I didn't think this was wrong because I saw the content as useful/enriching. I now understand that, as an employee of the publisher, I should not have been adding that content. I have long since left that company and I would like to request my block be lifted so that I can continue to contribute fruitfully to Wikipedia. Many thanks Cruzgirl (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Accept reason:
With the consent of the blocking admin, and with your statement that you have read, understood, and will comply with WP:PROMO and WP:COI, I have lifted the block. Welcome back, happy editing! Yamla (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Cruzgirl, the problem wasn't just your violation of WP:PROMO, it was also your violation of WP:COI. Your unblock request does indeed address this, but I'd like you to very explicitly state you've read and understood both of those policies, and that you'd avoid directly editing any article for which you had a conflict of interest, going forward. Any admin is free to act on the above unblock request, or any follow-up statement by Cruzgirl, in case this page drops off my radar. --Yamla (talk) 13:25, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks Yamla. I have read the policies and I do now understand that what I did seven years ago represents a conflict of interests. Cruzgirl (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Drmies: This user was blocked more than seven years ago. Given the statements above and given WP:SO, any objection to me lifting the block? --Yamla (talk) 14:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not at all, Yamla--please go ahead. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Robin Hughes (filmmaker) has been accepted
edit
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Missvain (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)