User talk:Sci13
Hello, I'm A13ean. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. a13ean (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Question for administrator
[edit]{{admin help}} I am a new user, but an experienced science editor. Somebody named A13ean has deleted 'all' of my contributions without my prior consent, which I found very strange. I think I made some very pertinent contributions to these articles and enriched the knowledge further. If my contributions appear 'promotional', then I have to say that I found many contributions on those pages 'promotional' as well, but they still exist. Please intervene into this situation and please bring back my contributions.>
--Sci13 (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Welcome to Wikipedia. Administrators have no special authority in content questions. The way Wikipedia works is described at WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle: be BOLD if you think a contribution would improve the encyclopedia, but if your contribution is then reverted, discuss it on the article talk page or with the reverting editor, and try to reach WP:Consensus with other users. If you cannot reach consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution procedures.
- At a quick look, I can see that your edits, with repeated addition of the same link to multiple articles, would raise a suspicion of spamming. Wikipedia is extremely resistant to being used for any kind of promotion. Please read WP:SPAMLINK and WP:External links, particularly WP:ELNO and WP:EL#ADV.
- Here are some more pages that you might find helpful:
- Regards, JohnCD (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Sci13, I reverted your edits because they appeared to primarily promote the work of a researcher, rather than improve the encyclopedia. For example, the source added here is not a reliable source since it was not published in a "peer-reviewed source or by [a] well-regarded academic press". If you have any material which you feel is both a reliable source and pertinent to a article here, I would strongly suggest proposing it on the article's talk page so other uses can consider it. Thanks, a13ean (talk) 20:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
Question for administrator
[edit]{{admin help}}
I have NOT added the same link to multiple articles, rather I have added eight different links to seven articles, so only one link was repeated twice. I believe that my contributions improved the contents of the articles and will appreciate your assistance in bringing it back.--Sci13 (talk) 17:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
- You appear to only be adding links by one author - it does look like self-promotion. No one is entitled to have an article the way they want it - all pages are constructed on consensus. JohnCD has already given you the options for obtaining consensus. P.S. you put your text around < > - and thus it did not show until I removed them. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:11, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Sci13, you are invited to the Teahouse
[edit]
|
Hi Sci13! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. |