User talk:Voyage2mail

Welcome!

Hello, Voyage2mail, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! Karma fist 18:58, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot[edit]

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! HagermanBot 22:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of social networking websites[edit]

Hi. You cannot contact an "author" for the above page, as there is no such thing. If you understand the way Wikipedia works, you will realise that many editors contribute to many pages, but no one author has domain over any one article - including the above.

I have to advise you, though, that if you do add an inappropriate external link, it will be removed. The list is there for internal article links only - any external links contained in the references are there only to help prove notability and confirm usercount numbers. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 23:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:Social bookmarking. 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. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding external links[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the post on my talk page. You seem confused as to the purpose of external links in articles. In a nutshell, there is only one major reason for an external link in an article, and that is to provide an internet reference to help establish the notability of the subject of the article. Other external links are allowed, as long as they are relevant to the article, such as to illustrate an important facet described in the text.

However...

Merely adding links to gain 'hits', or visits, is forbidden, as is blatant promotional linking. Both of these are negative actions, as search engine rankings cannot improve from visits to websites from Wikipedia pages, due to settings instigated to deter linkspammers.

Your recent activity, whereby you planted a certain hyperlink on talkpages, is viewed with alarm, as (with respect) there is no reason why visitors to the article and the associated talk pages should want to view your personal "analysis" site, when all the information they need should be accessible from within the text of the article.

You seriously need to examine the reason why you are editing Wikipedia, because it appears to others that (assuming you are not blatantly promoting something) you have no direction or purpose in your edits. Please don't take this as overt criticism, it is not meant in that way.

Please start at Wikipedia Help, take time out to thoroughly read the important stuff there, and then decide what you intend to do as regards editing in the future.

But please don't repeat the kind of activities you have been involved in of late, as you may easily find yourself blocked.

Good luck. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 22:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being an Author[edit]

Hi. I keep trying to tell you that there is no such thing as an "author" in Wikipedia. Those who create articles at the very first step have no ownership of the articles, the only 'credits' as to who started them are in the "History" stats which you can access from the tabs at the top of the article page. They know full well that other editors (not authors) may add or change information at will, that perhaps not all edits will be to their liking, and they might either have to agree with the newly shaped article, revert many completely wrong additions of info or dubious actions, or just cool off and move on.

I myself started improving soccer referee biographical articles and protecting them from vandalism (which I still do), then decided to try a couple of my own creations, which seemed successful, so let them go into Wikipedia's domain. I have been lucky so far, in that none of my articles has come anywhere near being speedy-deleted, or even proposed for deletion by consensus 'vote'.

I have since moved on from just one type of biography, although that is what I am most interested in. I still do much work fighting vandals by reverting and reporting edits, and that's an area you could perhaps think about covering, as the wide scope of articles you will visit will give you more of an idea as to what you want to do with your most important Wikipedia editing tool, your own brain. To get involved with vandal edit reverts, check out the recent changes log, look for obvious bad activity, and challenge it. Keep looking at Wikipedia Help, as it will show you the right way to do everything here.

However, your obsession, if I may call it that, with rankings analysis, and your own analysis website in particular, are really an obstacle to your being a neutral and balanced editor here. There is honestly no place for it in Wikipedia (it is definitely not suitable as a reference point for any existing articles), unless it becomes notable enough in itself to allow an article of its own to be written. And that would have to be created by someone other than yourself, as you are advised not to submit content in which you have a vested interest, or conflict of same. There is no "partnership"-type scheme either - that's not what this is all about.

I am hoping that my advice to you will be heard and used accordingly, because I hate to see editors get it wrong through lack of knowledge of the rules. Once again, good luck in your editing. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 19:09, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]