User talk:Manumit

Hello Manumit and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Removal of Parenting Plan Links

Re the Parenting Plan and Shared Parenting entries:

Re Shared Parenting I am seeking to add a link to an example of a parenting plan that is both non-commercial (aka free - no one is after money) and has no copy right restrictions. The aim of providing this sample is to give people access to a useful resource that will give them a list of parenting plan elements or items to consider (from the real life sample parenting plan). This is not a self-promotion and the site only contains copies (in several formats) of the parenting plan. Hu12 08:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, for Parenting Plan, I have sought to add a link for the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, which provides free information for separated parents re parenting and parenting plans. This link is already at Shared Parenting and would be useful addition at Parenting Plan given that the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is an Australian co-operative not for profit organisation like the Shared Parenting Information Group (UK) and the National Fathers' Resource Center (USA). It doesn't seem consistent to allow the latter two but to exclude the Australian link.

My attempts are being thwarted by Hu12 who keeps removing this link/info and implying it is spam.

According to Wikipedia:External links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL it is not SPAM:

What to link to:

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

  * Is it accessible to the reader?
  * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
  * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

Each link be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

What should be linked to

 1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

My actions are genuine and specific. The desire is to provide useful additional resources to readers of these pages that will help connect them and their children. There is no desire to profit or to spam.

Can this removal please stop? Or can you tell me how and where to lodge an appeal against this action?

Thank you, Manumit 04:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First there is no need to cross-post the same message 3 times. Both articles Shared parenting and Parenting plan attract quite a bit of spam. second please refrain from altering notes left in articles as you did here [1] and here [2] it is consideredvandalism. Your contributions to Shared parenting consist mainly of adding external links [3],[4] as does your contributions to parenting plan [5], [6] and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole Manumit contibs, the majority seem to be external link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?

As you have stated on my talk page I am the author, according to Wikipedia external links policy Links normally to be avoided #3Links mainly intended to promote a website and #11 Links to personal websites WP:V, and WP:COI. Hu12 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I take you point, re contributions and will reconsider my contribution style.

2. I only cross-posted because I wasn't sure where you would read my notes. You weren't specific where you wanted to engage in dialogue with me and did not respond as quickly as you deleted contributions.

2. I copied you (or whoever left the original note) in leaving notes on articles. I was trying to dialogue with you, as I was uncertain where to do that. In copying you I was not aware that a second note was considered 'vandalism'. What makes one note a 'note' and another note 'vandalism'?

4. Have you looked at the material of the parenting plan example to see that it's not spam. I only mentioned I was the author of it to let you know it wasn't copyrighted. I struggle to see how it's self-promotion, given my name isn't mentioned and there are no other links off that site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manumit (talk • contribs).

thank you for reconsidering your contribution style. please review the links above and the Welcome post I added earlier, there are many useful guidlines to help you with any further question you may have. thanks Hu12 15:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self. May need Dispute Resolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Negotiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution

"First step: Talk to the other parties involved

"The first resort in resolving almost any conflict is to discuss the issue on a talk page. Either contact the other party on that user's talk page, or use the talk page associated with the article in question."

Presumably this doesn't mean leaving notes in non-obvious comments lines but to actually start the discussion in the talk page ... particularly if you are the one acting to remove content. It would only be polite to act in good faith toward someone and not assume nor presume that she were a spammer without some due diligence and enquiry.

Some background on shared parenting links

Take a look the discussion "One more reason to avoid divorce ..." on the WikiProject Spam talk page. I'm not taking sides in the discussion of your links, but I thought you should know that there's considerable history of inappropriate linking to these articles. --A. B. ^(talk) 05:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that A. B. I've looked at that page and can see the problem. I wasn't aware of this and innocently stumbled into this and feel a bit pounced upon (unfriendly treatment by 'oldies'). Nevertheless it's a "learning opportunity" and as advised by Hu12 I will reconsider the content and form of my contributions. Much to learn. Cheers Manumit 14:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I may have pounced a little, its not personal. We tend to deal with alot with bad users and may come accross too strong at times. We are here to help so don't be affraid ask questions. I'm sure you have much to offer Wikipedia, and I wouldent want hinder that. Water under the bridge as far as I'm concerned. happy editing. Hu12 16:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising in articles. For more information on this, see

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia.

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Hu12 09:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Contents

I note Hu12 changed the order of items on this - User talk: Manumit - page. Is there are rule on this too? If so please point me at it so I can know it. I am surprised that a contributor cannot decide the order of content on her page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manumit (talk • contribs) 14:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

This is a guideline on Wikipedia, order is important to following a conversation, and to what is replied to. please read Talk page guidelines Hu12 15:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Received, read and understood. Disagree with order - prefer latest at top - but will work with existing rules. Aside: I am finding Wikipedia very rule based - expected to have some latitude on own talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manumit (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 December 2006.

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Hu12 15:59, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for HagermanBot

How did you so quickly find (and your note) that I'd not yet signed the above question re order of contents? Is this notified somewhere? Trying to understand what brought you to this neck of the woods. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manumit (talk • contribs) 15:26, 8 December 2006.

HagermanBot is an automated Bot The intended purpose of this bot is to place the {{unsigned}} template on a talk page, WP:AN, WP:AIV, WP:AfD, or WP:DRV when a user adds a comment and forgets to sign. It runs continuously and requires no human intervention. The unsigned template is usually added one to two seconds after the page is saved. see HagermanBot. Hu12 15:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]