User talk:Janock

Linkspam

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Dubrovnik. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Amatulic 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon looking at your edit history, it seems you are trying to use Wikipedia as a means to attract beta testers to a web site you're developing. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Please review the Wikipedia:External links guideline, as well as the information about conflict of interest (i.e. don't add links to your own site). -Amatulic 00:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your email

Janock, thanks for your email, but it would have been more appropriate posted here.

Because touristr.com is your own web site (you indicated in your email that you are the founder), Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines apply here. In short, you can't add links to your own site on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's external linking guidelines on advertising are quite clear about links normally to be avoided, stating: You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. The text at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer may also be instructive.

You wrote to me "The Doolin page on touristr ... received over 500 referrals in the last fiew weeks from [the Wikipedia article] Doolin. Wikipedia visitors stayed in average 5.40 minutes on this page alone! Doesn't this show that the content on this external link is relevant and meaningful to the original Wikipedia page?" Answer: not really. It only shows that Wikipedia has many of visitors, and they click on links. That's why spammers are so anxious to have their links appear in Wikipedia articles. Even if the site isn't relevant at all, the link would still get a lot of hits. If the content is interesting, the visitor will stay a few minutes regardless of relevance. I'm afraid your traffic measurements don't suggest anything about the value of your link in the article.

I observe that you haven't used your account on Wikipedia to contribute to the content of articles. You have used it primarily to add links to your own web site. I'm sorry, but despite your protestations to me that your motive isn't to promote your site or attract testers, to any established Wikipedia editor your behavior (per the duck test) strongly suggests your account exists for the purpose of spamming.

You asked in your email, "Can you please let me know how to address this situation so that genuine links to touristr stop being considered as spam."

Certainly. It may be too late to undo the damage; however, if you feel your link is useful to an article, then propose it on the article's talk page and let others decide. You clearly have a conflict of interest; therefore inclusion of your link is not your decision to make. Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Thank you for your reply Amatulic - the conflict of interest makes sense, I will follow your advice in future and suggest useful links on the article's talk page.

Speedy deletion of Maxime blanchard

A tag has been placed on Maxime blanchard requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. triwbe (talk) 11:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to email

Thanks for your email. In future please leave messages on my talk page by clicking the word "talk" after my name below, or by clicking the banner at the top of User talk:Stifle.

Maxime blanchard was deleted under criterion 7 (under Articles) of our criteria for speedy deletion because it appeared to be an article about a person which didn't indicate why it was important or significant. Please see WP:BIO for details of what might show notability. If you think that these criteria are met, please explain which one and provide citations from reliable sources to back up your claim, and I will consider undeleting it.

You may alternatively contact User:Maxim, who deleted the page, and if he does not agree to restore it, file a deletion review request. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Alsp 1232379 1 20070412.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alsp 1232379 1 20070412.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 14:01, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]