Philonexus
|
spam warning edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Palm Island, Queensland 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 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, 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.
The addition of external links like you did to the Palm Island article and others, even if its a link to a Walkley award winner(WP:AGF) is considered spamming. Everybody is able to contribute to article content if you have sources that offer additional information then please use them to help expand the article. Then you add the source as a citation for the text you've written. Gnangarra 08:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
September 2009 edit
If you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
- editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
- participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
- linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).
Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.
For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. kollision (talk) 09:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ckatzchatspy 06:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
{{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cirt (talk) 07:05, 15 September 2009 (UTC){{Unblock on hold|Cirt|I wish to request an unblocking of my account because I don’t consider my adding external links to be promotional, a conflict of interest or advertising. I understand that my repeated adding of 19 Monthly article links on the 14th of September has been perceived as spam because they aren’t official links for the subject, rather articles about the subject, and are all related to the Monthly but I am simply an avid reader and student who finds this an intelligent source for film reviews and essays. And I believe that the links I added provide a unique reading beyond what is offered on the page. I find Wikipedia to be a good way to find sources when researching for assignments, not just by reading the page but by looking for external links and further reading resources the page offers. I added long and in-depth article links because I believe they are better off listed as such so a reader can read it in full - if they choose. I feel that just referencing an article means it would become lost in the reference list and a good source is being looked over. I also wish to apologize for continuously adding links after I received warnings. I actually did so because I hadn’t checked my talk page and was unaware I had received the messages. I promise to be more careful and considerate when editing in the future and will provide legitimate reasons in my edit summary why I believe a link is an appropriate source, rather than just adding it to a page. Or, if it is considered more appropriate I will reference a link instead.|Your candor is appreciated, and your intentions sound sincere. I think that - if you were to be unblocked - you would need to understand that the external links guideline has by consensus indicated that links should wherever possible be used to reference material, rather than just being links to interviews.
Ckatzchatspy 03:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)}}
Reply to Ckatz: Thank you Ckatz, I have just re-read the guidelines for adding external links and I now understand that this area is for direct links to the material and I promise to endeavour to place any useful sources as references.
- {{adminhelp}}Dear reviewing administrator Cirt, I was just wondering when you will be able to provide a comment on my request for an unblock. Since my request I have looked up the policies on wikipedia in regards to spamming and now fully understand that just adding links to a topic page is incorrect, and that any sources must be added as references embedded in the text of the topic. I promise to stop adding links, and any references I may contribute will be inserted only when appropriate and relevant, and only as references. I would gratefully appreciate your comment, thank you.
- Comment - I'm canceling the {{adminhelp}} template - you just need one. I also moved your response and request out of the {{unblock on hold}} template, so that others are not confused about the timeline of your responses and the admin's comments. Tim Song (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
- Took this out of the hold category, it's stale. Philonexus, the blocking administrator disagreed with unblocking because he felt your unblock request indicated you would continue to add external links to "The Monthly". You would do well to address this concern in future unblock requests. I also agree with others that these are not appropriate external links, but that they may be good sources. Perhaps adding them to the talk page if you don't plan to insert them as inline references yourself. –xenotalk 14:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
January 2011 edit
Welcome and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you. Someone65 (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)