User talk:Argenberg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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, then 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. --Etacar11 12:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw the original link leading to William-Adolphe Bouguereau page of MoodBook web-site and corrected it a little, and then decided to add links to Michelangelo pages as well, because their site has good Michelangelo pages as well.

Why have you deleted all of the links including Bouguereau link which was added by someone else a long time ago?

I saw the original link leading to William-Adolphe Bouguereau page of MoodBook web-site and corrected it a little, and then decided to add links to Michelangelo pages as well, because their site has good Michelangelo pages as well.

Why have you deleted all of the links including Bouguereau link which was added by someone else a long time ago? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argenberg (talk • contribs)

  • Please read the links in the warning above. Adding to links to commercial websites is considered spamming. The one on William-Adolphe Bouguereau was simply missed when it was originally added. --Etacar11 21:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

MoodBook.com is not strictly a commercial site, they have a lot of articles on art history at http://www.moodbook.com/history/. There are a lot of links to sites like this on WikiPedia... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argenberg (talk • contribs)

  • And they probably shouldn't be linked on Wikipedia either. Someone adding a bunch of links on a bunch of articles to one site at the same time is just a big red flag that gets them removed. Do you work on or are otherwise associated with MoodBook.com? That definitely puts it within the realm of conflict of interest, in any case. (And please sign your comments in the future with four tildes: ~~~~, it adds your name and the date to your comments) --Etacar11 13:38, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That was not "a bunch of links on a bunch of articles". That was just a correction to an existing link, and an addition of three more links to those articles that have good info regarding the subject, probably better than most of the other external links on affected Wikipedia pages.

I do not work for MoodBook, but I do like this web-site amongst others.

I just wanted to contribute... and it stung me that someone had reversed all the changes, that I thought are absolutely legitimate, with a single click.

Argenberg 16:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

  • No offense was meant to you personally. But it's the nature of Wikipedia that anything you contribute can be changed by anyone else. The problem with external links is they often don't bring anything of value to the article and obviously can be abused. It's much better for an editor to contribute CONTENT and not links. Anyway, 3 links may not seem much but what you were doing (inadvertently) follows the pattern of many linkspammers which is why I reverted them and posted the warning on your talk page. --Etacar11 17:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC)