User talk:Davidjohnbarnes

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Pete Best. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -FisherQueen 14:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Christine Keeler. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -FisherQueen 14:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Paul McCartney. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. -FisherQueen 14:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in Ringo Starr, you will be blocked from editing. -FisherQueen 14:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Paul McCartney, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. -FisherQueen 14:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue spamming, as you did in Ringo Starr, you will be blocked from editing. -FisherQueen 14:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Mwanner | Talk 14:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is David John Barnes. I find your post about me inaccurate and very aggressive.

I am not a 'spammer'. I run an award-winning website www.retrosellers.com which has a great deal of valuable content and I am spending my Sunday trying to get relevant articles listed in appropriate areas of the Wikipedia enyclopdia. The rules for a newcomer are impossible to understand and the idea that I am involved in a 'duel' is outrageous. I wasn't aware that I was getting warnings because I didn't get any emails through telling me there was a problem.

Why my articles are not relevant to you I do not know. They are very specific to the pages I have tried to associate them to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs)

Please read Wikipedia's External links policy, as well as WP:Spam#How not to be a spammer. Basically, Wikipedia is not a link farm. Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something. If the information in the link does belong it the article, it should be re-written (to avoid copyright issues) and added to the article. In general, articles should have very few links, because very few links fit these criteria. The idea is that we want our articles to be the best possible source of information on a topic, not a short article followed by a long list of links to other articles-- one might as well just google the subject and read the first dozen sites if we are going to assemble long external link lists.

Generally, if a link is trying to sell something, the bar to it's inclusion gets a lot higher-- a site with advertising, or that engages in direct sales would have to be truly extraordinary to pass muster.

Finally, don't be misled if you see a lot of links in a lot of articles that violate the above: we're being spammed pretty massively, and there is often a substantial lag in cleaning things up. And please feel free to join in the cleanup!

If you still have questions, leave a message on my Talk page. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to help you figure this (admittedly immensely confusing) place out, let me provide our standard welcome:

Welcome!

Hello, Davidjohnbarnes, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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 need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is David John Barnes. Davidjohnbarnes

How do I get my relevant and valuable content mentioned in your pages?

http://www.retrosellers.com

Take a look at the many Special Features pages....... Examples:

Janet Leigh

Christine Keeler

Klaus Voormann

The answer is by editing article text, adding content, not adding links, especially not links to your own pages. Please try to understand-- if everyone who wanted to increase their traffic by adding external links to Wikipedia articles could do so, our articles would be buried under a ton of external links, good, bad, and indifferent. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need also to be aware of out policies regarding neutral point of view, no original research, verifiability and reliable sources to mention but a few. --pgk 15:45, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikepedia needs to learn be more flexible and friendly (and easier to get involved with.) My articles are not bad or indifferent. They are quality award-winning articles and they cannot be edited to fit into your content, Far from trying to generate visitors, I was trying to add valuable and relevant links. But I have wasted three hours and won't be returning to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is so elitist and exclusive (in the sense of excluding people) that it really is your loss.

You aren't excluded, in order to maintain a focus on the goals of the project and integrity of those goals certain standards are demanded, if you can't meet those standards then we aren't going to waive the goals and integrity thus making it a free for all. --pgk 16:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia pretends to be a valuable resource, but the entries are often quite limited and sketchy, usually linking to other similarly limited and sketchy entries elsewhere in Wikipedia and thus creating a large cross-reference with basic content.

It discriminates against external sites that have more/better information on a topic on the basis that they might have opinions or be commercially based. I would say that rather than spend their time excluding people from Wikipedia and enforcing numerous elitist rules, the editors should be looking sympathetically at external sites that might add value to the Wikipedia knowledge base and to Wikipedia users.

It's also elitist in that it says it is looking for content from scientists and doctors and so on. There are lot of very knowledgeable and articulate people who aren't either of the above.

If you believe that your article has enough information to be of help to someone, then discuss it on the article talk page. (I'm going to assume that you did not know about this, please don't be angry if you do.) Similar to your user talk page, up near the top there is a "discussion" tab. Make a new section and provide an argument as to why your link should be included. Do not jump to the conclusion that we are exclusive. GofG _|^|_| Contribs 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are an encyclopedia, of course we demand a high standard of our contributions such as them being verifiable, not commercial biased or just personal opinion. Anyone is free to contribute to the encyclopedia regardless of being a scientist etc. We do however demand the information meets the required standards of verifiability, not just personal opinion etc. that policy applies equally to scientists. If you wanted a sort of meta fansite for dumping any and all "information" on a subject, then yes you are correct that is not what wikipedia is, but neither does it pretend to be. "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". --pgk 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have a a strict policy regarding external links. You should see WP:EL for more information. The website you are trying to link unfortunately fails to meet this policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: If you believe that your article has enough information to be of help to someone, then discuss it on the article talk page. (I'm going to assume that you did not know about this, please don't be angry if you do.) Similar to your user talk page, up near the top there is a "discussion" tab. Make a new section and provide an argument as to why your link should be included. Do not jump to the conclusion that we are exclusive. GofG ||| Contribs 16:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC) We are an encyclopedia, of course we demand a high standard of our contributions such as them being verifiable, not commercial biased or just personal opinion. Anyone is free to contribute to the encyclopedia regardless of being a scientist etc. We do however demand the information meets the required standards of verifiability, not just personal opinion etc. that policy applies equally to scientists. If you wanted a sort of meta fansite for dumping any and all "information" on a subject, then yes you are correct that is not what wikipedia is, but neither does it pretend to be. "Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia". --pgk 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

No, all I asked for was for someone to look sympathetically at my content and recognise its value and relevance. But as inclusion seems SUCH A CONVOLUTED AND PAINFUL PROCESS I am going to focus on my goals which don't coincide with yours. This experience today has left a bad impression of what Wikipedia is about and how it deals with positive contributions.

"content and recognise its value and relevance" - well you content may have value and relevance in it's own context. In the context of creating a neutral point of view encyclopedia the value and relevance are of course going to be different. Believe me with have 10,000's of people who would happliy add links to their own websites, would happily add their own point of view to an article, claim as facts things they heard from a friend or rumour site etc. etc. As above the rules are their to protect the goals of the project, we cannot (and do not) just change the rules every 20 seconds to accomodate anyone and everyone's idea of what wikipedia should contain. If your goals differ from ours then sorry we aren't going to change the project to suit you. --pgk 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of helpme tag[edit]

Please don't place the {{helpme}} tag on any page but your own talk page, it has no magical properties and is used to gain initial attention, once a conversation is going it serves no purpose (even adding it continually to your own page can be pretty disruptive to those checking them). --pgk 16:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I won't be here much longer. Wikepeida - It's a nightmare come true. Endless restrictions and silly rules, navigation bugs, editors who seem to be on another planet. Bye!

Ok, bye. --pgk 16:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Editing Article[edit]

I looked at your website and your edits before expressing my opinion. I personally agree with the above editors. You should try to understand that our goal is to have content in the articles, not in the external links. If you want content to be added in Wikipedia, you are free to add this content in the article, referencing your website as a source. Please understand that if everyone was acting like you, we would have a hundred of external links at the bottom of popular entries like the Beatles, resulting on a unusable directory. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate link to your web page[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Janet Leigh. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. -FisherQueen 13:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]