User talk:Scribbleman

Accusations

Stop spamming wikipedia. 83.233.154.50 18:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Scribbleman: Please explain yourself instead of threatening me. See comments on new user page. By deleting every word I write, you really overrule the page owners involved.

Hmm, sorry if my comment sounded a bit too strong (these are boilerplated standard messages, as you can perhaps imagine, and it seems I picked one too strong). But still, I'll maintain that the links are inappropriate and I'd ask you to refrain from reinstating them. Please see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided (and elsewhere on that page). Thank you, Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing

Awww, poor you, here you are, completely innocently trying to gain visitors to your website and then mean people like me and Fut.Perf. tell you that that kind of advertisement isn't approved on Wikipedia. Snap out of it, thousands of spammers are doing the same thing as you are and there's absolutely nothing noble or justified about promoting your own website here. 83.233.154.50 07:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FIRST: Why do you - the last one - write this? All you do is smearing me and everybody else who approaches Wikipedia. Isn't there a rule against such behavior?

SECOND: If you read what I wrote, you would know that I don't have any website, so I can't promote that, can I? I'm published at several travel portals, whose names would of course appear whenever my links were clicked on, but the world is organized in companies, isn't it? These portals give me the opportunity to reach large numbers of readers, and that's what in it for me. I have no reason to promote them, but if my articles are popular, that might of course have a promotional effect.

THIRD: If I promote anything, that must be my articles. I invested time, effort and travel in them. I'm serious about my writing and enjoy seeing my things used in new contexts, like Wikipedia would be. Of course I don't suggest them as External Links unless they are relevant and represent something new around the actual subjects. My articles are not revolutionary, they are perhaps untraditional in that they look at things from more or less odd angles, and as such they might complement Wikipedia's information-heavy articles about cities for example.

FOURTH: My articles were never before characterized as spam. I have a suspicion that some of you have spam on the brain and stopped separating things, also when reading your own rules. It would suit you better to meet new people and new situations with openness, you could ask instead of judging - I imagine curiosity is necessary when creating an encyclopedia..........

Questions to Editors

1. Where do we go from here? Nothing in "External Links" and "Links normally to be avoided" seems relevant in my situation.

2. Do you still maintain that I'm spamming? Not more than Wikipedia is, for I guess we have the same objective: to inform - and therefore seek new readers/users.

3. Is it possible for you to reinsert those of my links that you removed - leaving it to the article owners to decide whether they want my links?

4. If I have to start from scratch - and since you find me so suspicious - is it then possible to let each proposed link pass through your hands?

Answer: Nope, sorry, no way. Wikipedia doesn't do these kinds of links, period. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added to the page Syros do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. _{El Greco}^(talk) 14:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship

What you call spam in this case, has nothing to do with that. I promote the places I write about, not the publishing company. After writing an article about a favourite destination, I look for a publisher, and I do need a publisher to get my message out, right? You have decided to interfere in this process - you withhold my work from WP readers - that is in my eyes censorship.

Your persecution is way beyond WP's own spam rules and any other. I can only find one explanation to this - El Greco must be a robot! It seems to be time for reprogramming....... Scribbleman 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Retiro

I happened to notice the link you had added to Parque del Buen Retiro when I was checking the article history prior to adding a citation for the free concerts there. I also noticed that another editor removed your link.

It might help you to know that when one's mission here is to add external links to articles, a better approach is to post on article talk pages (Talk:Parque del Buen Retiro in this case). For example:

Terje Raa (July 2006). "Madrid's Sunday Ritual". Article about El Retiro on artist-at-large.com.

It will also help if you provide a brief description of the content. Then other editors who watch over those articles may assess the external link you have suggested and add it or not as they determine according to the policies and guidelines for this encyclopedia.

In this specific instance, my view is that “Madrid's Sunday Ritual” is a good external link for the Parque del Buen Retiro article, and I will add it. Another editor might not agree, the link might be removed again, or it may be further discussed on the article's talk page. — Athaenara ✉ 13:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still problems with approach to editing

Wikipedia is not a directory of external links (see WP:NOT). Adding links to the same websites is viewed as a form of spamming (in this case you also seem to be adding articles by one author only, as well). Your new technique of bringing up the edits on the relevant talk pages is better than simply adding the links, but it does not solve the problem that you are fundamentally spamming Wikipedia, if in a polite way. If you are truly interested in bettering the encyclopedia, contribute content to the articles themselves - don't simply direct users off-site to short, unencyclopedic travel accounts. That isn't to say that the reviews you link are not fine items in their own right. They are simply inappropriate for an encyclopedia and your method of adding the links is at odds with the external link guidelines. If you would like to discuss the matter further, I suggest you bring it up on the talk page for the external link guidelines: WP:EL. Nposs (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are Terje Raa^[1] . Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote yourself and your articles. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Scribbleman consist entirely of promoting Terje Raa / bootsnall.com / travellady.com and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Terje Raa/bootsnall.com/travellady.com related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" 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. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote yourself, right? --Hu12 13:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

You have successfully deleted every single external link of mine - congratulations! There were actually other websites than bootsnall.com and travellady com, what about artist-at-large.com and zuvuya.net. I do not own, maintain or represent any of these sites. Neither do I breach any WP-relevant policies or guidelines - read with my eyes. And I do not promote myself or my articles, that would mean I got something out of it financially - sorry, I don't. I feel I can contribute with a different angle on cities that you cover in WP, but I have learnt by now that WP is not interested in covering a subject broadly. Some of your articles are in such a poor condition that I do understand you may have to prioritize - the improvement of all the bad writing in WP for example, although unfinished articles seem to be tolerated indefinitely. My own articles, however, are at least ready to be used, as all of them have been through a publishing process and appear legible.

You are welcome to carry out all your threats: blacklisting, blocked account and whatever. Or will you content yourself with the smear that you just published on every discussion page involved? Anyhow, I have wasted too much time on WP already. To be honest, I never experienced so much hysteria and narrow-mindedness before. One particular editor should be praised, though - she listened, understood, explained and advised, always kind. I wish her attitude would spread.....

Scribbleman 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breach of Privacy

Hu12 equals my user name, Scribbleman, with the author of the travel stories in question, which I never did myself. Whether the assumption is correct or not, this is a serious breach of privacy. I demand that his/her piece must be removed - both from this page and every other page where it has been inserted.

Scribbleman 11:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]