User talk:2.39.114.220

April 2022

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Magnetic reluctance. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. SpinningSpark 11:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

One links was by mistake, I understand if you had to revert it. But why did you revert the other links? They were all within the guidelines of Wikipedia. Did you even check to see if the other links were appropriate or not before reverting them? 2.39.114.220 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

No, they are not within guidelines. You are adding references to material that is already referenced without adding anything substantive to the articles. All to the same website. This is spam disguided as references. Wikipedia is not a place to get free promotion for your website/company. If you are associated with this website, you need to declare it. If you are paid for this in some way, then you are in breach of our site's terms of use. I will add a boilerplate message about this after this post. SpinningSpark 16:50, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

How did you come up with the conclusion that "I was paid or associated with the site"?. I replaced a useless link that was meant to explain "what is a spin bike" with a source that actually explained a lot about spin bike and its differences with other stationary bikes. If one website has multiple articles that are related, non promotional, and informative that adds value to Wikipedia, those should have a chance to be listed as reference on Wikipedia. 2.39.114.220 (talk) 06:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I have already adequately explained why I suspect you may be associated with this website - every edit you have ever made has been to add a link to yourexercisebike.com. You clearly do not understand what referencing is for on Wikipedia. It is not to be "informative that adds value to Wikipedia". It is to verify the information in the article, not add additional information. Generally, only one reference per statement in the article is required. It is certainly not the purpose of referencing to direct readers to sites outside Wikipedia.

I don't know what "useless link" you are referring to, you will need to identify the article. It was certainly not the article that brought this to my attention and that I specifically linked in my first post. Magnetic reluctance has no mention of spin bikes at all, and the linked article does not even mention Bosanquet (the topic of the sentence the ref was stuck on the end of). Nor does it have anything to say generally on the history of the term (the topic of that subsection). The idea that yourexercisebike.com has more scholarly authority than the refs already in that section (The scientific papers of James Prescott Joule, American Journal of Mathematics and Philospphical Magazine) is truly laughable. SpinningSpark 10:27, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I already explained that the link in the magnetic reluctance page was a mistake and I understand that you had to remove it. I did a quick glance and thought that was "magnetic resistance". The other links were very much related to the topics and were completely inline with Wikipedia guidelines. For instance, I replaced this link with this link that I thought was more related to the topic. But you reverted it. 2.39.114.220 (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't (until now) say which article you thought was a mistake. Nor did you say above which article you thought was better with the new ref and I'm not going to search for it – I've asked you twice now to be explicit on which articles you are referring to. You are still not grasping what referencing is for. It is not to provide links that are "more related to the topic". It is to provide verification of the statements in the article. That is a core policy here, and the second time I've pointed that out to you as well. Please, no more I didn't hear that| or I won't engage with you any further. SpinningSpark 19:48, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, 2.39.114.220. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. SpinningSpark 16:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

---