User talk:Alukasz2

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute 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 as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because 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. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be a bit more specific? I was tidying things up a bit in a couple of articles and introduced some material that was relevant. I fail to see how I violated Wikipedia's rules of conduct. Please advise. Alukasz2 (talk)

Per your talk page, I am letting you know that I disagree with your undoing of my edits. Please advise explicitly as to why you think the external links were inappropriate. As it took you but 11 minutes to remove my edits and I can't readily spend days chasing up the why's and wherefore's of this, I would appreciate your reasoning within the next hour (5PM GMT, 12Noon EST, 9AM PST). Failing that, I will conclude that you won't be coming back to me on this, that the undos were done in haste, and I will undo the edits. I look forward to your reply.

You are spamming links to kettlebellfitness.com, as if you didn't know. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are coming off as obtuse. Fine, they go to that domain. If the content is not found in Wikipedia but is good and relevant, what is the problem? Further, you undid the several stylistic changes that I did to the body of the articles. You seem to have taken issue with the links and thrown the baby out with the bath water. Seems a bit heavy-handed to me. Alukasz2 (talk)

The site is commercial and does not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. If you want to add content or make style changes, please do so without spamming commercial links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In total agreement. The edits are clearly promotion of the newly created site ( Jan 22, 2011 ). brontide (talk) 16:23, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have not known Wikipedia admins to undo with such a broad brush. The domain is not commercial at all. If you take issue with the domain, then you should also remove all links to About.com, whose writing is not vetted and is wholly commercial. The authors' payments are based on driving traffic. So, the link you undid on Body fat percentage replaced a non-commercial link with a commercial one. Further, it reverted the order of the links to a hodge-podge rather than putting the book citation first. What is worse, the first link is to another commercial site who, like About.com, has advertisements plastered on the page [linear-software.com]. My other inclusion of links on BMI was because there was a hole in Wikipedia's coverage that I sought to shore up. So, the site is non-commercial and offers valid information in a way that is trying to contribute, unlike the aforementioned links. In fact, on Body fat percentage, the only external, non-book link that is not selling something is superskinnyme.com, whose presentation is a lot like the domain to which I linked. Consequently, your undo seems unjustified given the reasons you present. Alukasz2 (talk)

I'm not arguing further. If you continue to add the link, you will be blocked from editing. If you'd like to make non-promotional edits, feel free. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From my perspective, I am not arguing. I am trying to reason and understand your perspective and how it is manifest in your undoing of my edits. Based on the reasoning I just outlined and based on the parameters you set forth, I am inclined to at least remove the commerce-oriented links. However, I must say that this affair has really put me off editing Wikipedia and further brings into question its content. Sorry to have caused you any trouble, but please let me know if you would agree with the removal of the commercial links in body fat percentage.Alukasz2 (talk)

Links have already been replaced. The consensus on About.com articles is that they are usually acceptable links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even though they are in violation of the aforementioned Wikipedia rules? Alukasz2 (talk)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_16#Huffington_Post.2C_Gawker_and_About.com About.com is usually ok, but a more reliable source can often be found for the same information. About.com would be inappropriate in the case of making controversial claims without additional sources. brontide (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]