User talk:Reidme

October 2012

Hello, I'm MrOllie. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added, because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. [1] MrOllie (talk) 03:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Monty Hall problem shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 17:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, I don't think that a full understanding of any of the Wikipedia links you have cited suggests that the link I added is inappropriate in any way. I have added a section to the relevant Talk page per your suggestion. Reidme (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reidme, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Reidme! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Please join other people who edit Wikipedia at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space on Wikipedia where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your friendly neighborhood HostBot (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Monty Hall problem. 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.
• learningenvironment.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://spam.learningenvironment.com

--- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not spam. How can you say that it is spam? It is no more spam than Wikipedia is spam. What are you talking about? See my response on the Spam page.Reidme (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reidme[reply]

Wikipedia is not going around putting links to Wikipedia on other people's pages, so no there is not any comparison about spamming. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could only get the comparison I was making by knowing what spam means: Spamming. How can you prove what I have done has anything to do with spam? You can't, period.Reidme (talk) 21:29, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reidme[reply]

See WP:LINKSPAM.

Regardless, any added links would need to meet inclusion criteria of WP:EL, which your link does not appear to accomplish. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen WP:LINKSPAM and it in no way applies, in my view. Can you show that any definition or description on that page appies? And if not, why not remove your spam page entry about my domain name.Reidme (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reidme[reply]

If you can't see it, you're the only one. Perhaps you should scroll down further on that page and also read the section at WP:SPAMMER. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree—try the talk page." I did that in October of 2012 and got agreement from a highly published expert on the immediate topic. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Monty_Hall_problem&oldid=520111533#Proposal_to_add_a_link_to_the_External_Links_section Reidme (talk) 22:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reidme[reply]

Consensus in October 2012 is much less relevant than consensus in Oct 2014. Again, what is needed is consensus on the article talk page that the link meets Wikipedia inclusion guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For future readers of my Talk page, the link I posted was: http://learningenvironment.com/ThreeDoors which I invite you to visit and look up on archive.org to see older copies to see if there is or was anything spammy about it.Reidme (talk) 20:22, 15 October 2014 (UTC)Reidme[reply]