User talk:81.17.197.172

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hammersoft (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 22 September 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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, 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. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Johnny Bristol. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not all links are acceptable. In this case, the link you are adding is to an extremely non-notable site, containing information that is already in the article. Please review Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "extremely non-notable site"??? The site is the leading European soul music website/magazine, run by a non-profit society that has over 1000 members. The magazine has contributors from UK, Sweden, Amsterdam, Finland and U.S.A. The site is linked by myriad official artist websites, so if the artists themselves have added links to the site, it is amazing that you claim the site as "extremely non-notable" and irrelevant to the artists biography.81.17.197.172 (talk) 18:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Extremely non-notable. Have a look at it's Alexa rating. Not only is it not in the top 100,000 sites on the web, it's not even in the top 500,000. It's rank is in excess of 700,000. If it's the leading European site for this sort of thing, then why do the majority of its visitors come from South Africa and the United States? Furthermore, the content on the site is already present on the article. It's a link that adds nothing of substance to the article. Please do not add it, yet again. You are engaging in revert warring attempting to force this link on to a page in violation of Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam.--Hammersoft (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have also checked Alexa Rating, and noted that the site was about in the same league as Blues and Soul magazine, another longtime soul publication. But you seem to really believe in Alexa rating? Don't you know how it is collected? It is compiled by the data based on those who load Alexa toolbar, i.e. young male users often with porno content focus; extremely biased data and very US oriented. How representative of UK Internet users do you consider Alexa? You also don't seem to have any idea of how many websites there are in the world wide web: ranking in 700,000 amongst them requires well over 10,000 monthly unique visitors. Maybe 10,000 is not much compared to MSN and Allmusic.com which are the most often used external links on UK Wikipedia artist biographies, so maybe you really consider MSN and Allmusic.com as the highest value in music journalism... Actually both are full of artist discographies that are not only incomplete, but also full of errors, including albums by artists with the same name but a totally different person/group, mixing compilation albums and original albums etc. Personally, I still rate independent music journals much higher, especially when they are using contributors who write not for earning money but for the love and devotion of music. Also, explaining you removal of relevant links with the popularity or non-popularity of the site is totally irrelevant, the only thing that should matter is the quality and reliability of the source, not its popularity. Furthermore, "containing information that is already in the article" is also a lie, since the original Wikipedia article only mentions the album titles, not album discographies. Or do I have to explain what is a discography as well?81.17.197.172 (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not going to argue this with you further. It was obvious from the beginning that you were attempting to spam coverage of the site in question, by looking at Special:Contributions/81.17.197.172. Link after link after link after link after link after link after link added to articles obviously intended to promote the site. Removing such spamming is a routine process. You're not the only person to have ever tried to spam links to a particular site, and I'm not the only person to remove the spam links you were so kind to post. If you think you have a valid case to spam your links to dozens of articles across Wikipedia, take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard. Until you can get agreement that spamming these links across so many articles is a good idea, myself or others will remove them. Good day. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, somehow I guessed you inform that "I'm not gonna argue about this any longer" as soon as you notice that you have lost the argument. As soon as you probably noticed even yourself that your own reasoning was completely naive and totally irrelevant. You don't even seem to understand what is spamming.81.17.197.172 (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please review WP:CIVIL and understand that using insults is not an effective means of convincing someone of the veracity of your comments. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stop acting as a teacher who teaches Wikipedia contributors like school kids. Many contributors of Wikipedia hardly like the idea that you treat them like kids, especially if they are 20 years more experienced in professional journalism than these "teachers"...81.17.197.172 (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not particularly interested in your credentials as a journalist. I am interested in you abiding by our policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:SPAM. In any case, thank you for not re-adding the links. I hope you have a pleasant day. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please re-review Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam yourself. You are acting as like you were "the official administrator of Wikipedia" - you are not. You should find better arguments of removing other contributors' links/content than "the popularity of the link site", which only shows the extremely low level of your argumentation and is definitely unacceptable both according Wikipedia policy as it is against quality journalism. I warmly suggest that you start learning something about journalism and especially source criticism - the popularity of the media has certainly nothing to do with it...81.17.197.172 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:81.17.197.172&oldid=240268873"