User talk:Andrewmagliozzi

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Literature do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Rbellin. This link is promotional (perhaps WP:COI) and doesn't specifically enhance the pages. WP is not a collection of links--the only external links on a page should be precisely helpful to the topic. Cheers, --Smilo Don 15:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding that link all over the place. I don't want to have to block you. Bishonen | talk 15:47, 26 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Brother, I'm not doubting that if you get in there and start hunting around a person could find some good things. But on WP we try to have direct links to scholarly material. I'm sure you mean well. We try to make an article a tight source of info., not a place to go hunting around the web. Cheers, Smilo Don 15:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But it is scholarly material. More scholarly than most of those links anyway. Have you even followed the link?

I am glad to talk more about the links to TheFinalClub.org. But, first I ask, have any of you followed the link to the annotations of the Shakespeare plays. Those annotations were done by a PhD from Harvard's English department. The line-by-line Macbeth commentary is probably better than anything available online or in-print. Furthermore, links to for-profit sites such as Sparknotes and Cliff's Notes remain on those pages. I don't particularly understand the deletion.

You might have a point. Can you make the link DIRECT. E.g. , if you want to link MacBeth, could you put a DIRECT link to TheFinalClub's stuff on Macbeth? Otherwise, you're asking the user to hunt and search and ... it's not what we're after. For Critical Theory I did a search for "Frankfurt" and came up empty... does this site really have crit theory ? (Also came up empty for "critical theory". --Smilo Don 16:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. Just followed your link to Macbeth. The annotations are by "sagitarius." Click on that and you have to be a member... It's a bit rough. Seems like the project is in its early phases. There's potential at finalclub.org to be useful, but it seems like it needs more work, eh? Smilo Don 16:48, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed the site is in its early stages, but the idea is to have a wiki-like community to contribute, hence the motivation behind my links from these wikipedia entries. While there are not yet specific entries on close reading, new criticism, new historicism, and literary theory, the annotations of the texts are applications of the theory. I can understand holding off on those links until items are posted.

As for the direct link to Macbeth, I did have that from the "Macbeth" page, but it too was deleted. I also had a direct link to Romeo and Juliet from the "R+J" page which was deleted too. It seems to me that people aren't terribly open-minded before deleting things from this site???

In response to your comments on my Talk page and here: please read through the WP:SPAM and WP:COI guidelines (and maybe look at WP:EL as well) in order to understand a little better why several users thought these links should be removed. And yes, I did take a long look at the site before removing them -- it seemed painfully slow-loading and opaque, and I couldn't find much useful reference information there even after clicking around and looking for it. The text attached to the links was unacceptably promotional, and the links didn't even go to topic-appropriate pages on the site. -- Rbellin|Talk 01:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Since 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 rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Ckatz^chat _spy 18:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, please, please read through the external links guideline and the spam guideline. Several editors have tried to explain why the links you're adding don't meet Wikipedia's standards. That doesn't mean your site is "bad" - just that Wikipedia doesn't need a link to it. Remember, this is an encyclopedia project, not a directory, search engine. I should also add that repeatedly cloning the same message to multiple talk pages is also discouraged per WP:CANVAS. Please feel free to ask if you need more information. Thank you. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, Thanks for your thoughts, but most of the comments by other users have been fixed or were just wrong:

1) Site visitors do not have to create a login to read annotations

2) The site is open to annotation contributions from anyone

3) All of the links you deleted were "direct links"

4) All aspects of the site have been updated for faster loading, ease of use for incoming visitors, and improved academic content.

If there are additional measures you think can be taken, please tell me any specifics and I will do my best to oblige the WP community. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that you would feel strongly about your site, and it is also commendable that you are trying to adapt it based on comments from others. However, one key problem lies in you being the one to add links to the site, since there is an obvious conflict of interest. You'd need to convince other editors that the site has something unique and distinct to offer, and let them be the ones to add the site. FYI, blogs and user-edited sites often have a more difficult go of it than other sites with stricter editorial oversight. As for the other links you mention, the general feeling here is that the existence of invalid links (again, using "invalid" as a reflection of WP's links guideline rather than site quality) does not justify the addition of more links. If you feel some existing links aren't appropriate, you are encouraged to suggest they be removed. (Ordinarily, I'd say to remove them yourself, but again the "conflict of interest" issue arises.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts of user Andrewmagliozzi's edits

Ckatz, Why did you remove all of those links? For several of those I'd even posted on the talk pages with no dissenting remarks. Was it inappropriate to post if no one disagreed? How does anything ever achieve approval on Wikipedia? Also, did you even take the time to visit those links and read the content associated with each of the articles? If you had, I don't think you would have deleted them. I'd love to talk to you about this. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, per the comments that have been left on your talk page, at least three editors other than myself have reviewed your site and felt that it did not meet the external links guideline. This doesn't mean your site is bad, but Wikipedia is not a links directory or a search engine. We don't link to every site with content. The project works on based on consensus, and the consensus so far has been that your links don't belong. Please see my note on your talk page as well. --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, what specific problems were there with the site? If there is any way I could fix them, I'd like to know how. Second, should I just leave some talk on all of those pages with the assumption that someone else may read, follow the link, and repost? Sorry if you think this is spam, but it is a great site that I worked very hard to make for the benefit of others and it seems rather unfortunate that it would be rejected from the entire WP community by three people. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I have been persistent with these links because I am certain my site is a better resource than several other external links that appear on these pages. Also, I wonder why links to Sparknotes and other painfully commercial sites appear on these pages. Also, while some editors did criticize these links months ago, I made many changes to the site based on their comments. Please clarify. Andrewmagliozzi (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is understandable that you would feel strongly about your site, and it is also commendable that you are trying to adapt it based on comments from others. However, one key problem lies in you being the one to add links to the site, since there is an obvious conflict of interest. You'd need to convince other editors that the site has something unique and distinct to offer, and let them be the ones to add the site. FYI, blogs and user-edited sites often have a more difficult go of it than other sites with stricter editorial oversight. As for the other links you mention, the general feeling here is that the existence of invalid links (again, using "invalid" as a reflection of WP's links guideline rather than site quality) does not justify the addition of more links. If you feel some existing links aren't appropriate, you are encouraged to suggest they be removed. (Ordinarily, I'd say to remove them yourself, but again the "conflict of interest" issue arises.) --Ckatz^chat _spy 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'll just try to convince you. First, a link to a recent article about the site (http://thephoenix.com/article_ektid57117.aspx). Second, the point of the site is to encourage open education and academic discussion, considering the dedicated users of Wikipedia, my goal was not the wide promotion of the site as much as encouraging people like yourself to enjoy the site and contribute your own knowledge. Third, I have looked into every hypertext commentary engine on the web, and I guarantee that none is better than the one on TheFinalClub.org. Furthermore, the content of this hypertext commentary is absolutely fantastic. Read Macbeth or Bartleby for ten minutes and I guarantee you'll agree that there is no other comparable website anywhere on the web.

I'd like to jump in here, since I considered removing your link from Thomas Hobbes but was beaten to it. I will say in your favor that this site is not an egregious violation of Wikipedia policy on external links, but I do agree with Ckatz that it doesn't warrant inclusion. Your site seems to provide two free services: the full text of the Leviathan, and a commentary on the Leviathan. We already have several links to sites that provide the first, and without extensive advertisement content on the page (in this case for one of your companies — your site even manages to make a plug for it on its About FinalClub page). The second service your provide is certainly valuable, but un-reviewed (let alone un-published) commentaries are routinely taken off of Wikipedia pages; links to original research still run afoul of WP:NOR. The argument you just posted above may be sound, but is a clear example of what is discouraged under Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest.

By the way, it's easier if you respond to comments left on your talk page on the other person's talk page, not on your own. We get a notice saying that you've left us a message when you do that, but not when you leave yourself one. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, keep in mind as well that I'm not the person you really need to convince; while I am an administrator, that role is more one of enforcing the site's policies and guidelines. When it comes to content, my vote is the same as any other editor's. The better approach would be to ask regular contributors on the talk pages of specific articles. If, for example, you can convince the editors at Romeo and Juliet that your site adds value to the article, they may well put the link in. If there is a consensus, you'll see that editors help to maintain that consensus if someone repeatedly removes the link. Likewise, if the Hamlet editors reject the link, it would stay out at that article. (It is very much a case-by-case assessment.)

One point to consider: the message you're currently posting is too "promotional" in nature, and may well cause additional problems. I would suggest you remove the old text and reword it to briefly describe the site and its features in simple, "hype-free" text. Most importantly, be sure to mention your role, the fact it was deemed unsuitable previously, and that you have reworked it on the basis of comments received here. That way, there is nothing "hidden", you avoid the "hey. look at this great site" spam messaging that is discouraged here, and you put everything out there for editors to assess. Again, you may or may not be successful, and it would probably be case-by-case. Hope this helps. --Ckatz^chat _spy 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]