User talk:Dogtoyco

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< what is a sock puppet? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogtoyco (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006.

Sock puppetry is basically when a person intentionally uses multiple accounts or IPs to try to hide edits, make it appear as though more than one person agrees with an edit or statement, etc. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry - that gives a more extensive explanation of sock puppetry. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well i have never done that? i do use multiple computers?Dogtoyco 14:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. - Trysha ^(talk) 14:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. -- Mwanner | Talk 00:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry that you consider my removal of your commercial links to be "mean", but I am simply enforcing existing wikipedia policies and guidelines. You should realize the purpose of wikipedia is not to promote your website, if these sorts of links were allowed - wikipedia would be a useless pile of advertisments. I really suggest that you read Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers as well as the no personal attacks policy for information on how to deal with disagreements. Violating the NPA policy will get you blocked, as will repeatedly re-adding external links to your web site. - Trysha ^(talk) 07:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, you added links to your web site after being warned the second time, therefore

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. - Trysha ^(talk) 07:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dog-Toys

Dog agility[edit]

You wrote: "How is putting a link to a dog agility forum under the section called Dog agility diccussion and email lists spam, commertial or not relevent?"

When a user has added as many commercial links as you have, it is natural for those cleaning up behind you to assume that any external link you add is "spam". The link you added to Dog agility may not be selling anything (yet), but it is also so new that it would appear that you are adding it to try to draw attention to it. Even if it were a long-standing site, though, it still would not warrant being added as an external link. See Wikipedia:External links, under "Links to normally avoid", #3, #4, #9, #10.

Although Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, that does not mean that anything goes. -- Mwanner | Talk 12:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I HAVE NEVER ADDED A COMMERCIAL LINK!

House training dogs[edit]

I should have you banned for your House training dogs edit. Don't try another. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pages vs. Talk pages[edit]

Please do not write comments on peoples' user pages, like you did on Mwanner's user page. Instead, write to them on their Talk (discussion) page. My Talk page, for example, is here. Thanks. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What it has to do with me...[edit]

You wrote: "What has it got to do with you? i dont see why you think you have any importance on this site."

I don't have any importance on this site, but the project is important, and the rules I and others are enforcing here are rules that make the project a better encyclopedia. If we didn't keep commercial sites from adding links as they see fit, the articles would be buried under them, no one would care about Wikipedia, and you wouldn't be itching to hang your links here. What is special about Wikipedia, why it is the site that "makes the Internet not suck", is, first and foremost, that it is non-commercial.

Trust me, if Trysha and I didn't remove your links, someone else here would. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

So basicly absolutly nothing, you just live on here to anoy people.

most of the links im adding are non profit..... how it http://www.agilityforum.co.uk/ not with in wiki rules it costs money to run but has 0 return.

Also your telling me any commertial links in wiki can be edited out by me and no one will remove my changes?

Read my comments above under Dog Agility, especially the policy link. Also, WP:Point. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

--Nlu (talk) 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from my talk page[edit]

How is adding a dog agility forum to a list of dog agility forums wrong? Wiki is ment to be edited by everyone not just a select few who have no lifes and spend all day on wiki.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogtoyco (talk • contribs)

Response You mean this link? You have a site that primarily sells dog toys that includes some relatively low-content information pages. Sorry, that's spamming. I'm not alone in that opinion, either. Your arguments are transparent and becoming tiresome. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The rules[edit]

In this case, you are simply trying to attract web visitors to your own web site - that alone is enough for you to be unlinked. The fact that you are adding non-commercial links it in the hopes that web visitors will click through to one of your stores just makes the issue worse and is not the sole criteria for exclusion of such links.

Here is a subset of the external links rules - you cannot link to:

Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

The websites that you link to are:

1 - "unverified original research" - and not an "official site on the article's subject"

2 - not unique beyond what the article has or should have.

3 - links to promote your web site (note: PROMOTE says NOTHING about COMMERCIAL)

8 - A site that YOU maintain.

So, if your website manages to become an authoritiative site about the topic on the internet, and provides sources of information about the topic that are unique and notable, and someone totally unaffiliated with you adds the links in - then we'd consider letting the links stay. Otherwise, no.

There are others rules that you are in violation of, but any one of these alone is more than enough. - Trysha ^(talk) 16:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, Trysha. Dogtoyco; simply claiming that your site is "non-commercial" does not make it so, especially given the evidence. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 16:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal[edit]

Please do not remove valid citations as you did on Flehmen response. I suspect you removed it to try to make a point. Please see Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Be aware that your overall behavior here has thus far been considered mostly disruptive. If you continue adding spam links and otherwise causing a negative effect you run the risk of being blocked. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please follow the basic WIKI rules that states anything thats main purpose is to sell products is against the rules. Please read up on the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dogtoyco (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006.

The link in question wasn't quite so cut-and-dry. The link was a citation, not just a normal external link. The page it linked to does provide information relevent to the topic. It was also unclear to me at first whether or not the site's primary purpose is to sell products. Upon further review by another editor and myself, we have determined that your removal was correct. Please understand that based on your recent activities, your motives in removing the link were questionable -- it appeared like you were removing the link in order to try to make a point. In the future, when making edits that may be deemed controversial, it's a good idea to make note of your change on the article's talk page, giving a more extensive reasoning for your change. That way there's no question about your motive for said edit. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. well im sorry for my previouse actions i did not understand wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.16.24 (talk • contribs) 21 May 2006.

S'ok we're a forgiving bunch! Since you seem interested in helping out Wikipedia, here are a few good links for newcomers:

One more tip: when using talk pages, you should sign your name at the end of your messages by typing four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your username and the date.

If you ever need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your own talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you Dogtoyco 14:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Please be aware of the three-revert rule. Violation of this rule may result in a block of your account. OhNo itsJamie ^Talk 23:29, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i only removed things to follow the WIKI rules you guys should try it