User talk:Rapturous

Spamming RPGFan

Hello. Please don't spam RPGFan links to review tables. Thanks! Fin ©™ 10:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion below. Thanks! Fin ©™ 11:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: RPGFan

Official fan site for what? Is there such a thing? You'll have to prove it's a reliable source before removing of the link is considered "unwarranted edits". I saw nothing on the site that suggests it's a source of professional reviews, nothing about it's editorial or fact checking process, seems to be just run by fans, which violates WP:SPS. I also presume you're related to the site which constitutes a conflict of interest. Please cease your "unwarranted edits". Rehevkor ✉ 23:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of your edits consist of adding links to a specific website. This is spamming. Please stop. --Leivick (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking me to validate the site as a reliable source? It's your responsibility to prove it as such. So far you have provided no evidence it's a source for professional reviews that must be professional for use in Wikipedia. Also, new sections go at the bottom of talk pages. Rehevkor ✉ 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What company owns the site is irrelevant as to how reliable it is as a source. You have produced no evidence of this. Your word and opinion mean nothing without something to back it up. And I did look into the site before editing, and there's nothing there suggesting it's a reliable source, as I already said above. If you wish to continue the issue further I suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard Rehevkor ✉ 23:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are continuing to spam. Please take a look at WP:SPAM if you continue you will be blocked. --Leivick (talk) 00:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the section "How not to be a spammer" at WP:SPAM and review your actions. --Leivick (talk) 00:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided no evidence of this reliability. We cannot take your word for it. It's your job to prove it's reliable, I do not have to do it for you. Also, as a member of staff of the website, I suggest you desist your actions on articles here until a consensus is reached as it's a clear breach of our conflict of interest guidelines. And yes, the site does have an article here but it has had reference and notability issues that have been unaddressed for over a year and a half, these issues probably existed untagged since the article was created. As said, I looked into the website and agreed it could not pass our web notability guidelines so listed it at articles for deletion. But that's not really related to the issue at hand. Rehevkor ✉ 00:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding links to a website you are involved in is a clear cut conflict of interest. The guide lines are very specific. Sorry. Rehevkor ✉ 00:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits are being discussed at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

Hello Rapturous. Please see WP:COIN#User:Rapturous, where it is pointed out you seem to be promoting your own site, and you are restoring the links to your site after they are removed by others. Please join that discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]