Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively 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 for
advertising or promotion. Since 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.--
John (
talk)
03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John. Many thanks for your comments but you have not answered either of my questions. I have looked at the wiki guidelines and I think my link adds value. But since you deleted it you must have a reason and I would like to know the reason. Many thanks.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John and thank you for the info. I respect your status and it is important that people like you are around to keep things in order. I have just gone through the list of links to be avoided and I cannot see why you excluded me. I do not sell anything, do not have any objectionable material, do not promote a personal blog or fall under any of the objectionable practices mentioned. The material I provide is helpful because it is a personal account of Rathlin, not only what is on the island but what I, as a visitor, enjoyed most. Furthermore, my whole website, run by my wife and myself, offers a similar approach for the whole of Northern Ireland and is already growing in popularity. If you are going to keep it off, I would like to know the specific reason with reference to the wiki guidelines.
Furthermore, I checked the other external links in the Rathlin Island article. Two are empty. Another has only one photo, nothing else. One is there to sell accommodation. Another promotes a business, the island ferries. So I think something is not fair here.
I would like this to be amicably resolved please. Thanks.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John and many thanks for the clarifications. One of the major (but not the only) criterion is whether a website causes harm or is there to promote sales. Just look at the long list of don'ts provided by wiki. Furthermore, the presence of bad links there for quite some while shows, if nothing else, partial treatment. Also, your statement about "red flag behavior" is wrong in my case. Each link I added is different to the previous. They all point to different pages within my website, each page relevant to the topic at hand. Which suggests you did not bother to even check the links I posted but assumed bad behavior and deleted. My view is that my website offers tourism with a personal touch and therefore contributes value and I would like to put it on. Please do not remove. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for confirming and for being a gentleman. Best regards. -- Timotheus7 ( talk) 08:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus7. John has advised me you seek a second opinion. Give me a bit to review this matter and I shall let you and John know what I think. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I sampled some of the articles where you have been putting links to www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com ... this review is not exhaustive, but merely enough to determine if John's comments are off the mark. First, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means writing within it should be encyclopedic, and that with rare exception, material linked from our articles should be definitive, suitable for scholars doing research as well as for general interest reading. Not just random material, however interesting or charming it may be. So then. I did some spot checking.
Of the 4 links that I examined, two do not work, and two are not suitable. Based on my spot checking, then, I concur with John's assessment of this matter. Note: this is rather more attention than most editors get... you've had matters explained to you by an extraordinarily patient administrator in John, and you should heed his advice. He is spot on. Keep adding those links and you will be blocked.
While I have your attention, I cannot help but point out that I noticed that you seem to be engaged in a bit of an argument at Daniel's Vision of Chapter 8 and the talk page. I'd advise caution there as well, my skim of the talk page back and forth is not showing the collegiality we expect. Please do not accuse others of bad faith or of prejudice against a particular religion.
I hope this review has been helpful. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lars, thank you for your mail. You didn't answer part of my question. Maybe before assigning reading to others you should first do your own homework, reading carefully what others write and replying accordingly.
For the URL's, I copied and pasted from my website and they worked initially, I can't explain why they don't. By the way, I wasn't particularly bothered that my links were removed. Having, however, experience of other editors removing things at will in the Daniel 8 page I wanted to be sure that the person who removed the URLs (a) was a person of responsibility within wiki and (b) gave proper explanation and fair treatment. This has been (eventually) done (in a nicer way by John than you) so to me this chapter is closed. End of story, to use your words.
I will however pick you up on Daniel 8 because I believe I am being victimized (or otherwise you have poor communication skills). I never said "they started it", this your patronizing summary of my comments to trivialize the value of the discussion on the talk page. Foolish statement. Furthermore, "you only glanced in there"? and come here to rebuke? I request that you either point to statements I made that are outside the bounds of propriety. Or otherwise, retract. I believe my contributions were not only valid, but clearly and respectfully expressed and always in reply to others.
I will also expect that you compare my comments to what others wrote and maybe go and rebuke them to. I will not accept cavalier behavior from someone who hasn't even bothered to read what has been written, neither being singled out for special treatment. Thank you.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lars. You rebuked me about Daniel 8. I deserve to know exactly why with specific references. Otherwise you can withdraw your original statement. My request is fair and clear. Best regards.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Three months and no reply which suggests you have nothing to say. Next time be more careful how you express yourself-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively 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 for
advertising or promotion. Since 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.--
John (
talk)
03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John. Many thanks for your comments but you have not answered either of my questions. I have looked at the wiki guidelines and I think my link adds value. But since you deleted it you must have a reason and I would like to know the reason. Many thanks.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John and thank you for the info. I respect your status and it is important that people like you are around to keep things in order. I have just gone through the list of links to be avoided and I cannot see why you excluded me. I do not sell anything, do not have any objectionable material, do not promote a personal blog or fall under any of the objectionable practices mentioned. The material I provide is helpful because it is a personal account of Rathlin, not only what is on the island but what I, as a visitor, enjoyed most. Furthermore, my whole website, run by my wife and myself, offers a similar approach for the whole of Northern Ireland and is already growing in popularity. If you are going to keep it off, I would like to know the specific reason with reference to the wiki guidelines.
Furthermore, I checked the other external links in the Rathlin Island article. Two are empty. Another has only one photo, nothing else. One is there to sell accommodation. Another promotes a business, the island ferries. So I think something is not fair here.
I would like this to be amicably resolved please. Thanks.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello John and many thanks for the clarifications. One of the major (but not the only) criterion is whether a website causes harm or is there to promote sales. Just look at the long list of don'ts provided by wiki. Furthermore, the presence of bad links there for quite some while shows, if nothing else, partial treatment. Also, your statement about "red flag behavior" is wrong in my case. Each link I added is different to the previous. They all point to different pages within my website, each page relevant to the topic at hand. Which suggests you did not bother to even check the links I posted but assumed bad behavior and deleted. My view is that my website offers tourism with a personal touch and therefore contributes value and I would like to put it on. Please do not remove. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for confirming and for being a gentleman. Best regards. -- Timotheus7 ( talk) 08:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Timotheus7. John has advised me you seek a second opinion. Give me a bit to review this matter and I shall let you and John know what I think. ++ Lar: t/ c 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. I sampled some of the articles where you have been putting links to www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com ... this review is not exhaustive, but merely enough to determine if John's comments are off the mark. First, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means writing within it should be encyclopedic, and that with rare exception, material linked from our articles should be definitive, suitable for scholars doing research as well as for general interest reading. Not just random material, however interesting or charming it may be. So then. I did some spot checking.
Of the 4 links that I examined, two do not work, and two are not suitable. Based on my spot checking, then, I concur with John's assessment of this matter. Note: this is rather more attention than most editors get... you've had matters explained to you by an extraordinarily patient administrator in John, and you should heed his advice. He is spot on. Keep adding those links and you will be blocked.
While I have your attention, I cannot help but point out that I noticed that you seem to be engaged in a bit of an argument at Daniel's Vision of Chapter 8 and the talk page. I'd advise caution there as well, my skim of the talk page back and forth is not showing the collegiality we expect. Please do not accuse others of bad faith or of prejudice against a particular religion.
I hope this review has been helpful. ++ Lar: t/ c 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lars, thank you for your mail. You didn't answer part of my question. Maybe before assigning reading to others you should first do your own homework, reading carefully what others write and replying accordingly.
For the URL's, I copied and pasted from my website and they worked initially, I can't explain why they don't. By the way, I wasn't particularly bothered that my links were removed. Having, however, experience of other editors removing things at will in the Daniel 8 page I wanted to be sure that the person who removed the URLs (a) was a person of responsibility within wiki and (b) gave proper explanation and fair treatment. This has been (eventually) done (in a nicer way by John than you) so to me this chapter is closed. End of story, to use your words.
I will however pick you up on Daniel 8 because I believe I am being victimized (or otherwise you have poor communication skills). I never said "they started it", this your patronizing summary of my comments to trivialize the value of the discussion on the talk page. Foolish statement. Furthermore, "you only glanced in there"? and come here to rebuke? I request that you either point to statements I made that are outside the bounds of propriety. Or otherwise, retract. I believe my contributions were not only valid, but clearly and respectfully expressed and always in reply to others.
I will also expect that you compare my comments to what others wrote and maybe go and rebuke them to. I will not accept cavalier behavior from someone who hasn't even bothered to read what has been written, neither being singled out for special treatment. Thank you.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello Lars. You rebuked me about Daniel 8. I deserve to know exactly why with specific references. Otherwise you can withdraw your original statement. My request is fair and clear. Best regards.-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Three months and no reply which suggests you have nothing to say. Next time be more careful how you express yourself-- Timotheus7 ( talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)