Diy2345

Hello, Diy2345! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

October 2008

Resolved

 – New user misunderstanding Apparition11 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page MythBusters 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 for advertising or promotion. Since 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. Apparition11 (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to MythBusters‎. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since 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 rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Apparition11 (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Hack (technology). 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. Apparition11 (talk) 01:04, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking to blogs

Perhaps, I was a little WP:BITEy in my initial response to the addition of this link, and I should have explained more. The way this link kept being added to several different articles without any discussion made it appear to be just a normal spam link. I apologize for that, but I still do not believe the link should stay and I'll explain why.

In response to your user page [1], WP:EL doesn't say that you absolutely can't have links to blogs because there is an exception when linking to blogs is appropriate. This exception is when blogs are written by a recognized authority. Taken directly from the guideline article: this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies. Is this blogger a recognized authority by Wikipedia's notability criteria? If so, then I was wrong to remove to it, and I would sincerely apologize for it. If not however, it should be removed, and to be included, there should be a discussion on the article's talk page whether or not this link should be included. If there is WP:CONSENSUS to add it, then it should be included. Failing either of those, the link really shouldn't be included. As a sign of good faith, I won't revert again until you've had time to reply about the blogger being a recognized authority. If s/he's not though, I would implore you to remove it and start a discussion about whether or not to include it.

On a side note, just for future reference, please be aware of the three revert rule, which you didn't violate here as you were right at three reverts and not over. In the future, if you have an edit reverted, it is usually best to take it to the talk page and discuss instead of edit warring. See WP:BRD. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I am going to go ahead and remove the link to the blog again. I looked at the blog and cannot find any evidence that the blogger is notable by Wikipedia criteria. The WP:EL guideline is not official policy, but it is a guideline that has gathered consensus in the community. Since it is not policy, it is possible to ignore all rules when it is appropriate, but when there is any doubt (as in this case), it should be discussed first. Instead of simply re-adding it to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page. If the community agrees that it should be added, then the link will be reinserted and will remain in the article. Furthermore, judging by your username and edit history, it appears that you may have a conflict of interest when it comes to this blog. When this is the case, it is very important that you discuss linking to your article or blog before actually linking to it. Without discussion, it can be, and often will be, considered WP:SPAM. Thanks. Apparition11 (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, based on the edit histories of the article and its talk page, it appears that it is not watched by many people now. Since we're the only two who seem interested, I will ask for a third opinion if other editors don't come to comment on it. I'm giving you this heads up, because you may want to make a case for why the link should stay on the article's talk page, probably best as a reply to my comment. The third opinion would be much more likely to side with you if you make an argument based on policies and guidelines, as it's interesting or it's useful are generally not considered to be very good arguments. Apparition11 (talk) 06:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page. I believe you mis-looked at the edit history as there have been no reverts since I removed the link. The only edits between you adding the link and my removing were simply vandalism and the reverting of that vandalism. Apparition11 (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello Again

I replied on the article's talk page. Sorry, but I removed the link because of the reasons I had previously stated. Don't worry about not understanding the rules, all new users make mistakes, well all users make mistakes, not just new ones. I take a lot of the blame, I should've explained better originally. Don't let this discourage you from editing. No hard feelings on my end about this ordeal. If you need any help with anything, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll help as much as I can (or at least point you where you need to go). It's just important to remember that our policies and guidelines have been set up over time by community consensus. There are times when it is alright to ignore the rules, but the community usually needs to agree with it. There are a lot of articles that need help. I think it's safe to say that you have an interest in technology. You may want to think about joining a Wikiproject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology or Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing. If not, feel free to improve the article's on your own! Cheers and happy editing! Apparition11 (talk) 22:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)