MsArtala

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, MsArtala, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! France3470 (talk) 14:32, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Article created

Callisia fragrans, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

• Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

Thank you for helping Wikipedia!

France3470 (talk) 14:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I am really surprised about such an attitude and action when deleting all of my contributions! I an not trying to spam anything and I am not trying to get higher rankings in search engines using Wikipedia as I know that all links are nofollow. Maybe you consider all of the links being inappropriate, but how could you then explain 20-30 daily visits from Wikipedia to my website and spending there starting from 50 seconds to even 16 minutes (according to Google Analytics)? I guess that means they have found what they are looking for or what they are interested in and isn't it called useful information? And from my point of view that means that these links were appropriate! I spent half a day when preparing my first Wikipedia page about Callisia Fragrans and I did it with feeling of pride. And everything for nothing! I admit some of the links might be inappropriate but they were quickly deleted by other editors and as I am new to Wikipedia I learn from my mistakes. I just do not understand why did you delete all of my contributions? I even cannot describe the way I am feeling right now... MsArtala (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

You admit that you are promote your own site. That is a conflict of interests. Please do not add any further links to it or you could be blocked.

As for the other contributions, you must understand that writing unsupported claims that certain plants are effective against cancer is not something an encyclopaedia can allow. If you make a medical claim then it has to be supported by serious medical references. I removed as little as I could but I admit that I take a harder line when it comes to medical claims than for other sorts of unproven content as I feel that the negative consequences of allowing unproven claims are greater than for other subject areas.

You can have another go at building the articles up again but you need to avoid promoting/endorsing the plants use as medicines. If they have a long and notable history of use in alternative medicines then, of course, this can be mentioned but it needs to be done in a way that does not endorse that use. Things that would be good to include would be information about what societies have used these alternative medicines and since when. That puts it in a historic context and makes a clear distinction between notable, long standing alternative medicine uses and the latest made-up health fads.

Anyway, try not too feel too bad about what has happened. A lot of new Wikipedians get off on the wrong foot with their first few contributions but go on to contribute successfully. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)