User talk:Exhibitionistworld

Exhibitionism

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Robotman1974 00:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Robotman1974 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that continued use of this, may result in your account being blocked from editing Wikipedia in the future. --Adam Riley ^Talk 00:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibitionistworld

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Exhibitionistworld, has been tagged for speedy deletion because its content is clearly written to promote a company, product, or service. This article may have been deleted by the time you see this message. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Thank you. Adam Riley ^Talk 00:24, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robotman 1974, That message is noted. However Exhibitionist World has been promoting the exhibitionist lifestyle before wikipedia was even registered. If you are going to promote Jerry Springer as a exhibitionist medium relevant to exhibitionism, then you have to include the most popular way used today for exhibitionists to share pictures in the web. If you truly want to say that any link for exhibitionism is not relevant take alook at the other links you leave.....none is close to being a site totally dedicated to exhibitionism. I hope you will reconsider, this not promotion, just simply fact. Exhibitionist World is a Free site known thoughout the world by exhibitionists like myself, and is worthy of recognition.

The other external links on that page are an issue separate to this. The appropriateness of a new link is not determined by the appropriateness of the links already there. I haven't been watching that page long, so I've only been focused on the new additions. I will look at those other links later. As to whether or not your site (I'm assuming it is your site because your username and the site's name are the same) is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, you must provide a reputable source for that claim. See WP:V for the policy on verifiability. If your website is indeed notable enough for inclusion in the links section of that article, then someone else not connected to your site should add it. See WP:COI. Robotman1974 00:52, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. I believe just the fact that Exhibitionist World has been on the web since 1999, longer than even this site, (Wikipedia online only since 2001) and any other exhibitionist website is verifiable proof alone. So look up the Whois and that is the reputable source for that claim. Exhibitionism is a lifestyle that deserves to be seen, not just heard. This site was never startes as a paysite. External links do help pay the bills on most sites today. However, it is still Free. As for your assumption, FYI I do not own the site, my username was chosen for a reason...I am just a person dedicated to the exhibitionist lifestlye and that website's longevity. Just as you appear to be connected with wikipedia, but probably just trying to protect the sites success and reputation.

Exhibitionism is already known on Wikipedia, as there is a full article on it. You are trying to change the article to link to a commercial website with which you are affiliated. It is not considered a reputable source as per WP:RS. --Adam Riley ^Talk 01:19, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam, yes, there is a full article on it. Too bad when you click on the "Media" link the definitions of media are not covered by the article in context to exhibitionism on the web. If I was writing about search engines and omitted yahoo and google, would that article hold weight? Type in the search term "Exhibitionist" in google and you see the top position is wikipedia, and then guess what... yep, Exhibitionist World. Usually unpaid search terms are pretty relevant, how about making the article relevant too? You say it is a commercial website, what by definition is a commerical website??? Exhibitionist World is FREE !! My guess any external links help pay for the server bills. Who helps pay the wikipedia server bills? You say I am affiliated?? How am I affiliated? I don't own it. I disagree again with you, it is considered to be reputable source as per WP:RS. It meets all criteria. Please explain in detail why you do not think it does not? It has been the oldest site on the web dedicated solely to exhibitionism! So that makes it relevant and reputable.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Because we have a policy against usernames that give the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website, your account has been blocked; you are welcome to create a new account with a username that represents only you. You should also read our conflict of interest guideline. If your username doesn't represent a group, organization or website, you may appeal this username block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice. Thank you. 7 01:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]