Refsjjehhgshh

July 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 10:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This link was directly related to the text being added to the website. Which specific aspect of the external links guideline does this violate? The source is reliable and cites its own sources. It appears we must defer, in situations like these, to the “assume good faith” direction and allow the text to stand unless there is a specific violation that can be shown by the reverting party. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 10:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a self published student journal, so not reliable. Repetitively adding links to the same unreliable site is spamming as Wikipedia defines it. 'Assume good faith' never means that common link promotion patterns are ignored. If you are here to help build an encyclopedia and not to insert links to one particular website, I suggest you find something else to cite. MrOllie (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia’s own pages state, “Self-published works are those in which the author and publisher are the same.” The source in question is a journal that publishes various authors works. I understand the concern, and with regards to helping build the encyclopedia, that is also of concern, but it is important to differentiate a personal blog (self published source) from a student journal. The content added so far is by no means exceptional or extreme. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

If you want more input, feel free to take it up at WP:RSN. You'll be told the same thing there, though. MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I decided to take the issue there to hear further input per your suggestion. I can understand how one might believe I am engaging in spamming, but I really do want to make the encyclopedia better and look forward to adding additional content from a variety of sources to the site regardless of the outcome of this disagreement.

I appreciate the work you do fighting spam. Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

So I hope you will stop add that journal. Also you misunderstand what we mean by Self-publishing. We even have a list of self-publishing companies. Thanks Doug Weller talk 18:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Just a heads up about deleting threads

Hey, I just wanted to let you know we aren't supposed to delete threads from a noticeboard once others have replied to the topic. However, you can close the discussion if you wish.[2]. I would suggest using the write a summary section here wp:Closing_discussions#Writing_a_summary. Take care! Springee (talk) 11:29, 13 July 2022 (UTC)