User talk:Oviddawen
Additions of http://.greatbuildings.com
[edit]Please do not add advertising or inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Respectfully, how is it that those links are in appropriate? The very few links I have added are exactly on the topic of the Wikipedia article page to which they're added. And the links meet the requirements of item 3 at Wikipedia:External links#What should be linked to whit:
"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."
Thanks!
--Oviddawen (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
- What Wikipedia is not
- Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption
- Persistent spamming
- Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I do absolutely grant that your actions are well supported by the written policy. And I agree that such rules are pretty justified in general. Still, it also seems as though, with the most minimal application of common sense, an occasional exception seems to be justifiable.
This seems especially true in the case of links to relevant, neutral, copyrighted content, which in most cases exceeds in relevance and raw, informational and educational value, any of the other external links on the page.
Surely, the increased, and I think, objectively measurable _educational_ value to Wikipedia through judicious and very occasional additions of these links outweighs any trivial benefits in the rigid enforcement of the policies pertaining to conflict of interest and link spamming.
thank you.
24.21.18.109 (talk) 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please see the welcome page. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I've said something that offends you. I have no intention to take any further actions which violate these policies. And I have not violated the policy since your warning on May 18, as I'm sure you can see. I'm just trying to have a friendly, meaningful conversation about this policy, which I agree to follow, but for which I think there should be reasonable exceptions. And I'm afraid I don't see anything in my actions or replies which warrants the increasingly glib and threatening tone of your replies.
Sorry if there's been some kind of misunderstanding.
Thanks for your time!