User talk:Guardianofhistory
Welcome
[edit]
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 theNew 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:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
September 2010
[edit]
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. [1] MrOllie (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Gospel, Hadrian, and Hadrian's Wall. 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. At the bottom of the site you keep linking, History Hungers International, is the text "Powered by WordPress & the Atahualpa Theme by BytesForAll." - It is a personal blog by some random guy who doesn't even properly identify himself, with user generated content. There is no evidence of editorial oversight nor any credentials, they do not meet the site's guidelines, do not use that site anymore. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Almagest, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you may place {{unblock}} on your user talk page to have the block reviewed. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia.
OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:37, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Guardianofhistory (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I do not feel that my editing and additions to Wiki should be blocked. I have not been given a valid reason that I can see. The references that I have posted are not spam. The articles are primary source material, much of which is written by university professors and other scholars, some of them, wish to remain anonymous. So, I would suppose that this is user generated, but then again, so are many reference books, and scientific magazines. Wordpress is used by many notable sources for online magazines. Would you consider this site, http://www.archaeology.org/ just a blog? Adding the links to the bottom seems to be where Wiki wants them placed, and is simply adding useful information for people who want to read more. As you point out, there is no need to advertise, I am not. I am simply adding primary source material to the subject. If you take the time to go to the site, read the material, you will see that all material is properly referenced, documented and cited. We have had nothing but favorable responses to the articles. I ask that you reconsider the block, and I would ask also that reconsider explaining to me why this is a disruptive link, other than you may personally not agree with the content.
Decline reason:
It is clear that all of your editing was aimed at calling public attention to a particular site. That is what "promoting" the site means, and is against Wikipedia policy, whether you agree with that policy or not. I also call your attention to the comments below, which are all relevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
- Our external link and reference guidelines (which you've had plenty of opportunity to look over) state that self-published (i.e. any monkey with a keyboard) sources like blogs are generally not to be used because any crackpot can put any misinformation they want on there, and there is no oversight from editors and fact-checkers and no accountability for making mistakes. The blog you promoted has absolutely no evidence of credentials. As far as we know, it's just some basement dweller claiming to be a university professor. If they actually are professors, they should have no reason to remain anonymous if their work is actually credible. Receiving only favorable responses to articles means nothing because wordpress blog owners are allowed to block unfavorable comments, and people that would likely have a negative reaction probably wouldn't bother with the blog for long.
- It isn't a matter of disagreeing with the blog's content (the article Christ myth theory is doing pretty well), but questioning the source of that content, and disagreeing with representing that content as accepted scholarly work.
- Also, "We?" You're affiliated with that blog? Congrats, you have a conflict of interest, which isn't going to help your case. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I can certainly understand your kindred reference to a basement dweller with a keyboard. User:Guardianofhistory
- We don't link to forums either, but I will note that it is tiny, with only 28 members, and the website itself doesn't even have an Alexa ranking. It's pretty obvious you are trying to promote the website. And to compare it with a website which is "A publication of the Archaeological Institute of America" is sheer chutzpah. Dougweller (talk) 18:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not trying to promote the website, I am providing links to relevant source information. The Wiki page has a placeholder for External References. You are taking the comment out of context, which was made in reference to the use of WordPress as a site engine. I simply referenced another WordPress site, of which, if you were to check, there are over 31 million sites powered by WordPress. If you did some fact checking, you would note the Alexa rankings, Archaeology.org UK 55,8K, Historyhunters 21.5K, and we are not far behing in worldwide rankings.Guardianofhistory
- Also, if the authors of the material "wish to remain anonymous" then we have no way of knowing who they are, so the source of the material is unverifiable. As far as we can tell it may be as unreliable a source as Wikipedia, and the fact that some anonymous person comes here and tells us it is by reputable authors does not prove otherwise. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
- The source of the material is completely referenced and cited. Guardianofhistory