User talk:Baby fu baby

Welcome

Hi Baby fu baby, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of Contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions — a guide on where to ask questions.
Cheatsheet — quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes.

Wikipedia's 5 pillars — an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Simplified Ruleset — a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules.

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia — a guide on how you can help.

Community Portal — Wikipedia's hub of activity.

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

MBisanz Good luck, and have fun. --MBisanz ^talk 08:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre

I know this may be a forlorn hope given your refusal to date to get to grips with the Wikipedia policies and guidelines that apply to this situation, but here goes nothing. The reference to the book in the further reading section is fine. Of course, it would be great to verify the notability of the book through external, reputable sources. An external link to a commercial page which exists only to sell the book is not appropriate. Adding a reference in the body of the text to an unlinked book is not appropriate. Just for some background on me, I'm an administrator with 14,000+ edits and almost 3 years on Wikipedia. I deal with situations like this all the time. It's one thing to claim something is notable and make a fuss on a talk page, but it is quite another when you consistently make inappropriate edits to articles. To date, you have demonstrated absolutely zero knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines and common practice, and have apparently ignored all the links provided to explain why your edits are inappropriate. If you continue in this manner, I will have no choice but to refer this to other administrators for attention, as it is disrupting the article. That another editor, in no matter how good standing, states that "this book should be mentioned" has zero weight compared to a policy or guideline. That you believe the book to be notable does not mean the book is notable - there are long-established ways to verify notability, and opinion is not one of them. I would hope that you will cease making inappropriate edits, ad hominem attacks on experienced editors, and make an effort to learn - and, importantly, ask - about processes and procedures that you don't understand. Continuing on the course you are taking now will only lead to continued disruption of the article, and may result in restrictions on your ability to edit Wikipedia. It should also be noted that terms such as "spam" and "notability" have local meanings on Wikipedia that differ from their "everyday" use. "Spam" on Wikipedia means a link or reference connected to a commercial site or product (ala the external link to the book you added), regardless of whether the subject of the link has anything to do with the topic at hand. Wikipedia:External links is very clear, and necessarily very strict, about the type of links it permits. Deiz talk 04:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]