User talk:Siraj88

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks! Hesperian 23:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the reasoning behind moving the last link I added. I agree with that. I saw two other useful articles on that site so I just provided a link to the root of the site. In hindsight this was sloppy and I apologize.

That said, after reading the Wikipedia rules on external links, I do think the previous ones have merit. They do add value in that it's very credible and researched information that balances out the links above. I think it's important to realize that while the tree is considered to be an 'invasive species' by many, it also has good uses--in particular its oil. I am not affiliated with the sites I posted. Those pages do add value and balance to the external links section.

True, but the other two articles described the oil as that of a particular species. I'll tell you what; give me ten minutes to create a stub of Melaleuca alternifolia. Then we can figure out what external links would improve that article. Hesperian 00:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link before I saw this note sorry. I just would like a good link that balances out the 'invasive species' one above it. Out of the ones I posted before, the one I just posted has the most information and other credible links by far. Again, I am not associated with the site--it's simply a useful page. I'm not a big fan of "this is just a weed" mentality. My grandmother used to say that 'A weed is just a plant in the wrong place.' The articles on 'invasive species' are referring to very specific and limited geographical areas (and probably a specific species that was naively transplanted as well). Likewise, the very useful melaleuca oil comes from a specific species. May I please keep the remaining link?

Well I'm Australian, so I don't think of it as a weed!

It turns out that we already have a tea tree oil article. This would be a more appropriate place for your external link.

And we have an article on Melaleuca quinquenervia, the species that is a weed in Florida. This would be a more appropriate place for the "weed" external link.

I've added the "weed" external link to Melaleuca quinquenervia, and will now remove both external links from the Melaleuca article (how's that for balance). I'll leave it up to you to consider whether to add your link to tea tree oil. Hesperian 00:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, there's some discussion at Talk:Melaleuca Tea tree oil about the decision to rename the page. Care to jump in? Oasisbob 00:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

=) I hope you know I wasn't referring to you specifically--just a general mentality that I've indulged in from time to time as well. I personally think both of the links together add significant balanced value to the page over being absent altogether (I wouldn't want just the Melaleuca Oil one there without the other). I seem to be out-gunned though so I do appreciate your obvious genuine desire for a quality page. I don't think you will reconsider, but if you would remain open to revisiting the idea, that would be great. Regardless, you did provide a good alternative and thanks for that! Take care

re: :"Well I'm Australian, so I don't think of it as a weed!"

smile* well it's a considered a 'weed' in many places in AU too so being Australian isn't very descriptive about someone's beliefs on the matter. Siraj88 18:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1 month block

Pursuant to the investigation at WP:COIN for WP:COI, WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT, WP:POINT, and gaming the system. Durova^Charge! 03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]