User talk:Siriusgray

July 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Islamic schools and branches 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 to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 01:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Islam. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Liberal movements within Islam, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Eeekster (talk) 01:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Unintentional spam Godsmosque.org

I apologize for making edits that violate the guidelines of Wikipedia. It is not my intention to spam. I just thought the website was a relevant contribution. I have read your warnings, and the link to what is considered spamming. I had not read that previously. After reading the spamming article, I see why that link is inappropriate for what you both mentioned. I will reassess the links I added to a couple of other pages as well.

Thank you for letting me know.

--Siriusgray (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You tried the same thing in March and August of 2009. In fact adding that link is the only edits you have made to articles since your account was created. Why would it not be considered spam? Eeekster (talk) 03:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Removing Godsmosque.org from Quran alone and United Submitters International?

Okay. I do not understand why the link was removed from these two pages. I believe it is completely appropriate here. Again, I had not read the spamming guidelines, and did not intentionally run afoul of these. However the link had been on the Quran alone page for over 1 year, and I believe it is an appropriate link. And the website is a submitters website which should be included on the United Submitters International page.

Please let me know how to remedy this situation.

Thanks

--Siriusgray (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on both articles. I have just removed your link from Quran alone, again, as well as several other redundant similar sites. They are not necessary for illumination of the article. If anything, other remaining links should be deleted, leaving only official sources relevant to the subject. The same is true for United Submitters International. The external links sections need reducing, not expanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to spam accusation

I do not know how to respond within the previous message. But I do not use Wikipedia often for editing. I enjoy the sharing of ideas and reading these. Last year was my first attempt at editing. I sincerely thought that the website link was appropriate for all those pages. I thought that adding the link was a non-intrusive way to add to the discussion. If I received a warning last year, then I was unaware of it. I only discovered this "talk" feature tonight. After reading your message and the spam guidelines, I went back and attempted to reassess my edits, but they had been "reverted". By the way, if you look at the history of my edits tonight you will see that I added all those links before I received a warning message. I have not added any links since being warned.

My revised view is that the external link is appropriate for 2 pages, the Quran alone page, and the United submitters international page under submitters websites. Look I have no reason to spam. Check out the website, it is not selling or advertising anything. It is a small simple website geared toward improving the understanding of Islam based on the Quran. It discusses a broad range of issues which is why I posted it on those pages. These issues include modern and sometimes liberal perspectives on Islam, the rights of women, basic Islam. After reading the guidelines, I realize that the postings were inappropriate for most of those pages.

--Siriusgray (talk) 04:24, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank your for the response. Some clarification is in order. There are multiple reasons why your link has been removed.

• Your edit history reveals that your entire purpose on Wikipedia is to place links to this web site in articles. When an editor contributes nothing to articles, but merely adds links to the same site repeatedly, that suggests spamming. Wikipedia does not exist as a repository of external links. In fact, it can exist just fine without any external links at the bottom of each article. The internal links and the citations are all Wikipedia really needs.
• The edit history focusing on one web site suggests a conflict of interest. If you are associated with this site, please refer to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.
• The site may not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability criteria, because the site appears to be self-published.
• It is questionable whether the site is valid under Wikipedia:Reliable sources. There is no indication that the author of that site writes with authority on the subject, or is merely expressing personal opinions and interpretations. You can propose it on Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard for a consensus opinion.

I hope that explains the actions of me and other editors toward the link you have been adding. Apologies for the multiple warnings. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:44, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to spam accusation (cont)

Thanks for the clarification. To be honest, I am hesitant to make other contributions, especially now. I thought adding a few links was like dipping my toe in the water. There are articles I feel I could contribute to, but I feel a bit intimidated. I was threatened with black listing within 15 minutes last night. Is there greater tolerance for contributions within an article itself?

--Siriusgray (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a much higher tolerance for constructive contributions to article text. Contributions to articles are valued more highly than external links. Your edit history, to be honest, looks just like a spammer's, except that you have shown willingness to discuss and come to an understanding of how Wikipedia works, rather than simply insist on re-adding links.

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Editing policy for guidance before you get started. I think the most important things to keep in mind when editing are neutral point of view (that is, don't insert your own personal commentary), verifiability of information, and reliability of sources.

And always, if you feel intimidated or unsure of a change you want to make, you can always propose the change on an article's talk page to get feedback. This is good practice especially if you are considering a major or controversial change. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Response to spamming (cont)

Thanks again. I added a couple citations, and I hope cleaned up some wording on a page. I will see how it goes.

--Siriusgray (talk) 20:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)