User talk:69.172.158.251

March 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Cardinal voting. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines.

It is not OK to add these links to the text of the article. They belong to an external links section. Better yet would be to incorporate the best parts from the linked page that are missing from the Wikipedia article and use the external link as a reference. However, if your only intention is to add links to your external domains, just stop spamming your links around here. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * BernardoSulzbach Well considering the low quality of the election science content on wikipedia one would think such references to deeper pages would be welcome. There is an open project to improve wikipedia in this regard but it will likely be slow. Calling it spam is just silly. Your loss. --69.172.158.251 (talk) 20:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * From the first sentence of External links, "they should not normally be placed in the body of an article". If you want to help improve Wikipedia, the correct way to do so would be, as I suggested, to improve Wikipedia. This is not a list of external links, the text of the articles should be enough for a reader to understand the topic. Consider incorporating the best parts from the linked pages that are missing from the Wikipedia article and use the external link as a reference, not just sprinkling links within Wikipedia text. Reading the Manual of Style may help you get up to speed with what is OK in Wikipedia and what isn't. Also, if you plan on helping to build an encyclopedia, consider also creating an account. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

June 2020
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Motte-and-bailey fallacy has been reverted. Your edit here to Motte-and-bailey fallacy was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Deepity) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.