User talk:GregSims

raystedman.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 50 • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com

Welcome!

Hello, GregSims, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! ErikHaugen (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Hi, Greg. I have reverted your external link additions to First Epistle of John and Epistle to the Ephesians because they appeared to be spam. Please review WP:EL carefully (WP:RS may provide better context). Rivertorch (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey There,

I received your talk that indicates http://www.RayStedman.org/new-testament/1-john appears to be spam. I'm sure you have much to do and can't take a great deal of time to review each page. I can't see how this page of resources about the Book of First John can be considered spam. Can you help me understand this?

I have read your suggested articles and find this kind of external link is exactly what Wikipedia is looking for:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons."

"Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." You mentioned "reliable sources" in your talk so I am guessing that you have a concern in this area. If so, I believe it is clear that Ray Stedman is a 'knowledgeable source'.

We are trying to help the Wikipedia community Rivertorch -- please help us accomplish this goal.

Thanks, GregSims (talk) 14:26, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I misinterpreted the situation, I apologize, but your edits raised red flags for me. You appear to be promoting a web site involving an organization to which you have a connection. This link suggests that you have a conflict of interest. Regarding your web site, suffice it to say that, aside from containing prominently placed banners claiming "authentic Christianity" (whatever that may be), it appears to involve the views of one man, the late Ray Stedman, whose article here contains not one reliable source. Rivertorch (talk) 15:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rivertorch, I am associated with the website. I thought the users of Wikipedia would be blessed by having the reference to RayStedman.org. For me it is not about promoting the website but making the resource contained on the site available to others. We have done our best to describe "authentic Christianity" Here if you have time to read this online book on the subject.

You mention the articles here "contains not one reliable source". Did you happen to notice the references to many Books of the Bible in the messages? I consider these references to be quite reliable and helpful in explaining the research behind Ray's thoughts in these messages. I scanned the first message in 1st John and see over 20 references sighted. Am I missing something here?

It just seems to me that this resource is much more meaningful to the users of Wikipedia (myself included) than this which is selling insurance. It is also interesting to note this which contains content that seems to be only loosly related to 1st John. These are the two external links currently on the 1st John Wikipedia page. Do you see these links more acceptable in some way than the content Here?

Honestly, I am just trying to help. Can you see my perspective and how it seems to fit within the guidelines that I posted above from the Wikipedia article you referenced originally?

Thanks for the conversation Rivertorch -- perhaps we are getting closer to a common understanding. GregSims (talk) 00:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not especially active in editing articles on religion and have no particular interest in the article in question, so I have no wish to delve into the details here. What I'm saying is very general and applies across the board to all articles on all topics. What I said "contains not one reliable source" is the article on Ray Stedman, which is true. If disagree with that, then I'm afraid you don't understand what a reliable source is vis-à-vis a Wikipedia article. Among the basic standards governing content on Wikipedia are the policies on verifiability, original research, and neutral point of view, as well as the guideline on reliable sources. Since they're primary sources, Biblical passages are acceptable only in limited contexts, and even then I suspect that we'd use authoritative reference sites or book-based refs. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Christianity may be a useful resource for you, and someone with that WikiProject probably could explain it a lot better if you post to its associated talk page.

I haven't reviewed the external links in either article and probably won't get around to it. Generally speaking, though, the presence of one unfortunate link shouldn't be seen as a license to add others. ("But teacher, Johnny did it first!" Uh-uh.) If you think that either of the links you mentioned violates the guideline, please feel free to remove them.

The content on your site is already "available" to anyone with a web browser and an Internet connection, so its being linked here really has nothing to do with its availability. There are all sorts of methods you can use to drive more traffic to the site, but Wikipedia shouldn't be one of them. In any case, it's not an impugnment of your motives or good intentions to suggest that conflicts of interest are problematic. As you might imagine, we have a guideline on this, too, as well as a noticeboard if you have any questions. Rivertorch (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2013

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gospel of John. 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. Elizium23 (talk) 06:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Elizim, It is not my intent to Spam but to add useful information to the website to users. This is what is encouraged by the Wikipedia guidelines for external links. The link I offered to the website contains over 20 well written articles on the Gospel of John. Did you get a chance to look at this link? John: Who is this Man? . I am wondering why this page is viewed as Spam for the Gospel of John and this link is not Gospel of John – collected comments . I am trying to be helpful here -- please help me understand. Thnaks, Greg

The link you mention is dead in any case and I've removed it, along with someone's personal website. It's WP:spam because you are connected to it and have added it to a number of articles and it fails WP:EL. If you want to argue at WP:ELN you are welcome to do so. But you need to stop adding this if you don't want your editing privileges removed. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply Doug. I will read WP:EL again carefully and post a reply on WP:ELN. Who is the decision maker relative to the links failing WP:EL? Is it my connection with the website that makes anything I post here Spam? Are you personally willing to engage in the discussion on WP:ELN? Thanks for your assistance! Greg