Tahniyat

Your external links to Islamic websites

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. You may have noticed that some of the external links you provided were reverted by other editors. This has nothing to do with the fact that your links weren't valuable; it was because Wikipedia often gets lots of external links from people, and that's called spam, even if it isn't commercial (see Wikipedia:External links). If everyone was allowed to add all the external links they wished, the sites would all become cluttered (look at this [1] site, for example, before it was cleaned up). I hope you understand; thank you. -Patstuart 21:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated at Pope Benedict XVI Islam controversy. In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! -Patstuart 21:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Please take an action after a review

I think you shouldn't hasten to remove a link before first reviewing it. In this particular case, the link presents objective analysis. Going by your take with regards to NPOV, the Pope's remarks are one-sided! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Thank you very much for your response, it is appreciated. As a matter of fact, I did take the (unusual) step of downloading the file poperemarksandthetruth.pps (it's still on my desktop). I looked at it, and it is clearly stated from a point of view (as per the statement "the words are not worth quoting in a speech by the pope."). It also seems to be more of an attempt to convince the reader that Islam is not violent than to give an analysis of the speech. I don't contest this assertion whatsoever; in fact, I am convinced that Islam is not the violent religion it is often portrayed as. However, the point of the article is not to convince people that the Pope was incorrect, or that Islam is peaceful; rather, it is to give a simple reporting of the facts. I would similarly delete an article that stated something like, "the Pope may have had a valid point".

Also, another point is that the links fails the WP:External Links category; normally, as a page watcher, it would be my job to delete all your external links, because of the rules stated in the policy. However, this past time, I saw that some of them might be relevant, and though it's cluttering up the pages, I didn't remove them.

I hope you can understand my reasoning. Thank you again for your response. -Patstuart 22:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reploy. With regards to your comment that other posts violate external link policy, I think you are referring to rich media. However, the policy permits rich media when appropriate. As such, please clarify how would it be your "job to delete all external links". Appreciate your response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Please don't misunderstand; I do not wish to make it look like I'm opposing you. So if I sound harsh, please understand that it's only in response to your question.

To pull several quotations from the external links policy page:

What should be linked to

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article.

Links normally to be avoided

• A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

Rich media

• As remarked above, there is a strong presumption against linking directly to rich media.... In an instance where a direct link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the content must be given, as in the following examples:

I believe that all of the above apply to your link, with the exception of the first, which I believe does not (please see the context). The rich media part was only an aside. Mostly it's the other two that are a bigger deal. However, it does say that rich media is to largely be avoided, except in special circumstances. I hope this answers your question. -Patstuart 22:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I support Patstuart's removal of the links. Please understand that many readers who do not have a particular program made by one company cannot easily view PowerPoint files, so the link runs afoul of the Wikipedia:External links guideline against links "that are inaccessible to a significant proportion of the community". That alone is a good reason not to include the link, aside from the neutrality and self-linking issues mentioned above. ―Wmahan. 22:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on my talk page, it's not enough to say that a majority of users can view PowerPoint files. The files are inaccessible to a significant portion of the community, which the guideline warns against.

If you think the link should be included, please do not re-add the link but instead ask on the talk page to try to build a consensus for it. I don't need to get a "review" of my removal of the link; rather, the burden is on you to show why the link does not violate the Wikipedia:External links guideline. ―Wmahan. 23:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Note

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. -Patstuart 23:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Why I am not allowed to edit?

I am really trying to understand why am I not allowed to edit. Moreover, I have received a warning. I am frustated with constant removals of my edits! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

You have misunderstood my links as spam when they are not. I agreed with your reasoning on the Pope's pps. However, I think other links provide rich information on Ramadan and Muhammad. They are very relevant to Wikepedia. As a user of Wikipedia, I have full right to contribute. Noone can incorrectly judge as SPAM and remove the edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

Someone else put a message on your page which was a little rougher than needed [2]. I didn't want to remove the message, but I clarified it and toned it down; this was especially so because I wasn't sure if you received the message after not making any more edits (the poster may have erred) - I apologize if this was the case. You may edit, and you will receive no more warnings, unless you try to repost any links to your webpage (or other obvious vandalism) before having a discussion on the talk page, as suggested in your comments. If I see that you make good faith edits, I'll definitely come back and remove the last of the warnings (but don't do so yourself, or someone else will put it back, and you'll just get warned again). -Patstuart 23:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

See my above comment. I didn't remove the other links; someone else did. They're not spam, but they fail WP:EL, as per the reasons he stated, mainly concerns of vanity. Again, if you add them to the talk page, and people agree to let them in, go for it. -Patstuart 23:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

BTW, please sign your comments by placing four tildas (~~~~) after each one. -Patstuart 23:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Re external links

If your talk page was still empty, i'd not have warned you from refraining to insert external links that should be avoided. Please have a time to read some of the policies, guidelines and manual of style in wikipedia. Don't just jump and start edit warring with other editors. Inserting multiples external links to articles is so common in wikipedia and for that reason wikipedians have devoted their precious time to limit their random insertions. You have been reverted a couple of time because of the same reasons people were explaining above. It is about Links to be avoided. Now, the site in question is a PowerPoint presentation and obviously is not notable. The guidliene reads that a website that you own or maintain (in our case geaocities.com), even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

I hope i was explicit enough. Cheers -- Szvest 00:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence i wrote to you above (re If your talk page was still empty) is a reply to your last comment on my talkpage. Weren't all the notes left to you by all those wikipedians above sufficient for you to fathom? Why should someone repeat the same things tens of time until someone understands? -- Szvest 00:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I am wondering how come you know alot about wikipedia policies but not the one related to external links! Geocities.com links are usually removed and the reason for that is explained in the guideline. Now, the important thing is to abide by the policies and save others a bit of time. Cheers -- Szvest 01:05, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

re: Dispute Policy

Thanks for your earlier response.

Since we are trying to comply with the Wiki policies and guidelines, I have a question.

The Dispute Policy states:

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

In this backdrop,don't you think that anyone who wants to remove my edit should first talk to me on the talk page and request removal?

Thanks Again.

Tahniyat 00:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Edits that are against Wikipedia policy can be immediately removed; yours appears to be that, as several editors have pointed out. Even controversial edits can be removed: take, for example, this frustrating example of my own, where people will not allow the mention that LDS and Watchtower are considered, by most, to be outside the mainstream of Christianity (which is true; most use the word cult): [3]. However, I can do nothing but add to the talk page, and discuss the changes, hoping for concensus before I add it back in. As a matter of fact, that's what a Recent Changes Patroller is; it's our job to look for changes which are against Wiki policy, and revert them; often this is External links. -Patstuart 01:02, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

There's no dispute. The point is that your ext link doesn't pass the test of wikipedia critereon. A dispute would have been existing if someone is blatantly removes your edits that are clearly respecting the rules. As Pat points out above. Your site does not. -- Szvest 01:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)