User talk:Dhanmondi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] April 2007

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. ITAQALLAH 14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Zakir Naik. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 11:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. ITAQALLAH 20:43, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] May 2007

Please stop. If you continue to blank out (or delete portions of) page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Zakir Naik, you will be blocked from editing.

Please do not replace content on the subject of the article with unrelated links which can be classified as spam. See WP:SPAM#External_link_spamming for the policy on this issue. Thanks. → Aktar (talk • contribs) — 09:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Zakir Naik

Hi Dhanmondi, This is a good link that is suitable for this article. Let me know if you can find a better one. As you found out, this site has some rules by which all editors must adhere too. I can help you in becoming familiar with the rules here. Let me know if you need any help. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 04:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. For one, the "See also" section has links to internal articles on the website. Outside links like http:, go in the External section. You'll find many editors who will revert your changes without much explanation, so the best way is to be familiar with policies and take up the issue on the Talk page of the article (if editor doesnt see your message there for sometime, ask them on their own User talk page). It takes some time to understand the policies but its worth it in the end if you're willing to put the time in. For the links you're putting in, see: WP:EL. As long as you do everything according to policies and defend your edits using them, you're good to go. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 14:01, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last warning

This is your only warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia and other sites that use the MediaWiki spam blacklist at all. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The point is that your account only contributes spam. If an active editor wishes to make a case for a particular link on a particular article, fine, but running around various pages and pushing (and edit-warring) the same spam link isn't acceptable. See [1], [2].Proabivouac 06:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dhanmondi

Dear Fayssal I got your message I am a new user so have to know many rules regarding editing wikipedia. But I think the link I put in Dr.Zakir Naiks article is completely right because I think wikipedia stands for non-bias information not for advertisenment for some people.In Dr.zakir naik page if you put his fan club link or link to his selling materials its ok but if you put any link which is critical against his view it is not ok what kind of regulation this is!.In wikipedia every kind of view should provided to its user. It will increase the acceptablity and popularity of wikipedia I suggest you please visit opus Deiin this site you will find that in the External links both kind of Sites supporting Opus Dei and Sites critical of Opus Dei are included so why editing Dr.zakir naiks biography should be different!!!!. If editing muslim or Islam relating articles need to follow different kinds of rules Please informed me . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhanmondi (talk • contribs) 06:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

It is not about having a balance. You are posting the same website on a dozen of articles which is unacceptable as it is considered spamming. If it was concerning one specific article it would have been another case. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM carefully. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 10:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like more spam...and with a misleading label:[3]Proabivouac 01:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio warning

Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Vishva Hindu Parishad. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. -Andrew c [talk] 22:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)