User talk:Matt FJ

April 2011

This is your only warning; if you insert a spam link to Wikipedia again, 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. CliffC (talk) 01:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have started adding links from other sites now, not just WGTC, I won't add WGTC as much anymore, sorry about that.

I suggest that you follow the blue "spam" link above, and read the material I've added below. Take time to consider them, and if you still do not understand come back and ask for more information tomorrow. It doesn't matter what site you are spamming, you will be blocked. --CliffC (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! --CliffC (talk) 02:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so how often am I allowed to post any given website's link as a citation? Once a day? Once a week? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MattFJ (talk • contribs)

The problem is that you are not adding the links as a way to improve the encyclopedia; you are adding the links as with the aim of promoting the website being referenced. This is against the spam policy, no matter how often you do it. Please read the guideline on spam and post here again if you have any questions. Thanks, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 03:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well then should I just not add any citation when I edit an article? I mean, I have to add some website as my citation don't I?

Then use citations that are not wegotthiscovered.com. You have been warned many, many times. Rehevkor ✉ 09:26, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So I can never use wegotthiscovered.com again? I just don't see how that's fair. People add in film sites all the time. WGTC is just as legitamate as any other film site. I understand that I can't spam it but to not use it ever seems unfair. You always delete my WGTC citations but never any of my other ones. Honestly, how is citing Screen Rant or First Showing different from citing WGTC. Like I said, I understand you don't want me spamming it, and that's fine. But to use it as a source once in a while should be fine. Like I don't see how that's a problem or any different from using other film blogs like The Film Stage or Screen Rant etc. My site has been added by other people and you never remove it when they do it. For some reason you only target me and I don't know why. My intentions aren't bad and I don't see why it's a problem if I use WGTC as a source once in a while.

If you want to avoid a block, then yes, never use that site again. In your case almost every one of your edits has been to add a link to that site, this is what we call reference spamming and indicates you are in some way affiliated with the website and linking to it is violates out guidelines on conflicts of interest. Your talk page is full of warnings (including final warnings) about this site that you have ignored, having continued to link to this site, you are beyond being given the benefit of the doubt. Continue to engage in reference spamming and further action will likely be taken. Rehevkor ✉ 15:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]