Thunderstix

February 2008

As I'm sure you know, the links that you left on several pages today have been reverted as spam. Please don't do that anymore, or you may end up banned. NJGW (talk) 06:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Clean Tech Law & Business

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Clean Tech Law & Business, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Clean Tech Law & Business. DGG (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

April 2008

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Multiple Articles. 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.
I have removed multiple spam links to various "clean tech" sites from a number of articles. Do not add any more. I can and will block you if this continues. DGG (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to contribute to Wikipedia because I think its a valuable resource for individuals. I happen to know a lot about clean tech and thus have focused primarily on making contributions in that area. In my experience, readers can only trust information to the extent they can verify it with additional sources. This is standard operating procedure in any academic discipline. I don't understand why you consider external citations "spam." I have relied on Wikipedia as a point of departure in learning about any given topic and, in my view, much of its value depends on the quality of sources it guides readers toward. I disagree with your characterization of the external links I've cited as "spam" and believe most of those who are familiar with clean tech would do the same. I've only linked to websites that are widely considered to be authorities on whatever topic I've sighted them for. I will review the policies on citations, but more likely will simply stop contributing. I can appreciate advice and even a warning, but your last sentence sounds more like a threat and that is how I've interpreted it. thunder (talk)

Hi Thunder. Your links may not be spam exactly, but they do fall under the guidelines of what not to link to, specifically the first, fifth, and sixth entries. I definitely commend you on the upcoming journal, and I'm sure you have a lot to offer as an editor, but because of your affiliation you should only help with editing content that won't create a potential conflict of interests. Remember, if everyone who has a company to promote (no matter how noble it may be) starts putting up links in the articles, we would be awash with commercial links and at a loss over how to choose which were the "good" ones. I hope those issues help explain why some might come accross a bit harshly when defending wikipedia (it can be easy to forget that new comers are good for Wikipedia). NJGW (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)