User talk:Fieldsofthenephilim.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Fieldsofthenephilim.com, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Dr Debug (Talk) 02:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Linkspam

Your link to your own commercially motivated site from Wikipedia constitutes linkspam. You claim it to be a valid resource, but in truth it is not. The web site is nothing more than a solicitation to buy a book. It provides no information to the reader. The fact that the official band site have chosen to link to your advert does not justify its inclusion here. Please do not e-mail me in future. Use the channels here. Cain Mosni 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you continue to re-insert your spamlink you will be in violation of the "three revert rule" (WP:3RR). This is the standard warning text:

"Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you."

Please understand, I have nothing personally against you. This is not a personal vendetta, but Wikipedia is not an advertising platform, no matter how well regarded the subject of the advert may be. I have tried to explain this position already. Cain Mosni 13:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to use User talk pages

To contact me (or any user) on Wikipedia, simply go to their user page [[User:{username}]], click on the discussion tab, and edit a new section (as you would for a new article). The user will be notified in due course. The email link in the left-hand sidebar literally e-mails the user at their own e-mail. The user talk pages are much better for discussions of WP issues, if for no other reason they are public (and consequently usually more moderate) and a matter of verifiable record.

My talk page is at User talk:Cain Mosni. Cain Mosni 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your book link, and other issues

I realise that you have a passion for the subject. Why would you have bothered writing a book otherwise? I also realise that, not surprisingly, you want to publicise your book for sale as far and wide as possible. But WP is not the platform for advertising it (even indirectly, by linking to the advert site from relevent WP articles). If that were allowed for all subjects, WP would be overrun with nothing but advert links. Treatment has to be equitable and even-handed, so it is either all, or nothing. Sadly this means that there is no compromise available.

Commercial sites are simply not appropriate linkage unless they offer something directly relevent in their actual content. If your site for the book actually carried its content, and offered it as reference material, THAT could be linked and cited (and anyone consulting it would see book advert cunningly laid into every page), but as your site is nothing more than a solicitation to buy the book itself and presents no useful content otherwise it has no relevance to WP. (And obviously, I can see why you wouldn't make the the book's content freely available on the site.) The other "site" containing one page of content on one album with a link to the book ad is what a single page of the ideal site would look like, but in itself does not constitute sufficient to be linked as an external site (per guidelines). That, I'm afraid is the long and the short of it.

As things currently stand there is no compromise position. I have asked a couple of people with longer standing than me to cast an eye over the situation, because I have questioned whether I'm being unreasonable. As I have said - this is not personal. Let's see what they have to say.

In respect of your offer to help with "my" articles on NFD and Sensorium, then edit away. No one person owns any given article (see WP:OWN), and anyone who claims to is completely missing the point. If you can improve them, then let rip (preferably with suitable citations). Be merciless. Let the facts fall where they may, and let the whimpers of speculation be naught in your ears.

And once the dust has settled, and assuming you're a Londonite, I can hope our paths will cross socially at some point. Cain Mosni 14:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed this link and I am satisfied that it breaches WP policy - see here. If you wish to include a reference to this book the answer is to add a significant piece of information and you can then source it by reference to this book - see Wikipedia:ISBN. BlueValour 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. BlueValour 19:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../f/i/e/User_talk%7EFieldsofthenephilim.com_9647.html"