User talk:Angel12
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.
The onelittleangel site appears to be a collection of material from elsewhere on the web, and also pops up what appears to be an advertisement. It looks like you are trying to drive up your Google rating, or maybe your hits directly.-gadfium 09:36, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Gadfium.
I am working on the onelittleangel project together with other people around the world. The goal onelittleangel is to create a place of dialogue between different religion and traditions through quotations from the main saints, poets, and philosophers.
Yes, you are correct that onelittleangel includes an add and biographies from different books or Websites but it also include some quotations, pictures and sometimes a bibliography which are very complementary with the Wikipedia biography. Much more then some other external links. For Bodhidharma for instance the existing link http://www.onmarkproductions.com/html/daruma.shtml talk less about Bodhidarma then http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/bodhidharma.asp. Right ?
If you look at the others pages. Onelittleangel add more to the biography then many other existing links. For St francis for example: http://www.poetseers.org/spiritual_and_devotional_poets/christian/st__francis_of_asissi/poems/ or http://www.catholic.org/saints/saint.php?saint_id=50 Onelittleangel still add more (pictures, quotes or poems, and a bibliography)
For the advertisment. I understand completely and have made the neccessary changes. I have change my statistics provider so there is no more add.
I am really committed to make this Website working and I sincerely believe that it has his place in some of the Wikipedia biographies.
Onelittleangel includes thousands of pages and I am only trying to add a link where it make more sense for the Wikipedia content. Not everywhere. It might seems that this can be qualified as spamming but this is only due to the fact that onelittleangel have a lot of very interesting content so a lot of potential links. It already have a good google rank of 5. So it is already been accepted by the net and especially google.
What do you think ?
- If someone else had added the link, the pop-up would probably have caused iot to be removed. You, however, have spammed the link to your own site across a number of Wikipedia articles, and that's not allowed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:43, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I understand that adding too much unrelated links is not allowed, so I will re-add it only where it make the most sense. For instance, where the following Website (http://www.poetseers.org/ ), which have very interesting quotations too, has been accepted as External links.
- I doubt that they'll be allowed to stay. You seem to have started editing Wikipedia (and opened a User account) purely in order to add your links, not to join the Wikipedia community in trying to improve the encyclopædia. Were you genuinely to become involved in editing, then at some point your links might be accepted, but as things stand (and especially given your earlier behaviour) I think that your cause is lost. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello Mel,
I understand my behaviour might not have been in accord with the policy. I regret it and this is why I am trying to open this discussion because whatsoever I believe that the links make sense in most of the case.
Don't you think that quotations or poemes, pictures, and a bibliography are a good plus to the Wikipedia biographies ? Not to speak to the website that is a really good tool for philosophical or more specifically spiritual debate (http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/philo.asp?mc=12, http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/philo.asp?mc=47, ...) ?
Please have a look at some exemples, see the quotations and pictures and please tell me if this is worth or not ?
Bodhidharma: - pictures: http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/bodhidharma.asp - quotations: http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/saint.asp?mc=338
Saint John of the cross: - pictures: http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/saint_john_of_the_cross.asp - quotations: http://www.onelittleangel.com/wisdom/quotes/saint.asp?mc=177
and many more ...
[edit] Misterhope
I've just permanently blocked your sock puppet Misterhope (talk • contribs) from editing. You're coming perilously close to a block yourself. We will not tolerate spamming articles with links to your Web-site, no matter how good and useful you think it is, and we will certainly not tolerate your creating extra accounts to do so. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:51, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I have tried hard to put valuable links to Wikipedia but have been blocked from various people. Obviously I was wrong so I stop right now. I admit I might have use the wrong way to do it and this is what we call the learning phase. If anyone think the links are valuable please add it because I won't try anymore. Also, I will come back to my old stactics providers, which is very good despite the adverstisement.
Gadfium, Mel, Wikibob, Goethean, Keep up your good work. Wikipedia is a fantastic project. I only regret I failed to add valuable link to it.
- I don't think anyone else has made it clear what the problem is, so I'll try. There's no issue with whether the links are valuable or not. It is simply that you are the operator of the site to which you are linking. The consensus opinion is that if a website has content valuable to Wikipedia, that someone other than the site owner will eventually think so and add a link to it on Wikipedia. If the site owner adds the link instead, though, we can only assume that it is because they have a vested interest in having their site linked by Wikipedia. Thus, only links that are added by neutral third parties are allowed to survive. — Saxifrage | ☎ 17:15, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
