User talk:88.98.23.210

December 2011
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Cointreau, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Shuipzv3 (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Removing AfD template
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Rebound therapy. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it. Snotbot  t &bull; c &raquo;  11:00, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Muqarnas has been reverted. Your edit here to Muqarnas 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GH7N38vX-6I/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original. 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) 16:33, 2 March 2016 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

April 2016
Hello, I'm Chiswick Chap. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Islamic geometric patterns because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Islamic geometric patterns
(Moved from other talk page)

(@Chiswick Chap): I'm trying to make the Islamic Geometric Patterns wikipedia page better and more complete, just like you are. It benefits from a further reading section and my books and website benefit many and are populr. It doesn't make sense to keep deleting them just because I've added them. Please respect my additions. Thanks,

Eric Broug 88.98.23.210 (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Eric, I'm honoured to meet you, and I found your Islamic Geometric Design extremely useful and enjoyable when I brought the article up to "Good Article" status. Your contributions are already mentioned and cited in the article: my personal view, with which other editors might not agree, is that these do not need to be repeated in any further list. However, when an author wants to edit topics that he works on for a living, Wikipedia policy at once considers the possibility of a Conflict of Interest. Wikipedia's interest is simply to obtain a impartial account of each topic. Without wishing to suggest anything about your intentions, which I am sure are honourable, it is an unfortunate fact that people (from scientists to musicians and fiction authors) with a professional interest in a topic often wish for publicity, something that Wikipedia explicitly forbids. I completely understand (having written books on other subjects myself) the desire to add lists of books, and the feeling that it's weird that anyone can add anything except anyone who happens to be an expert in a subject. It may help a little to see what another editor has written on Good practice on CoI for academics: the general point (not only relating to academics) is that Wikipedia has its own logic, enforced by policies, which is not like what authors need to do in books, nor like what academics have to do in technical papers.


 * It would make things far easier if you could declare your interest in the topic so that any future editors can see the situation. The simplest way to do this would be to create an account, if that's not too much of an imposition - it's a bit tricky otherwise, as internet addresses (IP addresses, like your 88.98.23.210 above) constantly change, and it's hard to keep track of them. You would then get your own user page and talk page, and could put a note there of potential conflicts of interest. The general advice in such a situation is to be very cautious about adding anything that might be misinterpreted; generally the best thing to do is to propose additions on the subject article's talk page, so that impartial editors can consider whether to add them. It's a bit clunky, but it does get around the problem. For my part, I shall step back from getting involved, as I too am now not neutral in the matter. If you don't want to open an account, you could just put a note on the talk page, or I can do so for you (along the lines of the note you put on mine) and we can wait to see what other editors think. Since another editor than me has already reverted you at least once, the only likely outcome if you keep trying to push your additions in without agreement is your being blocked from editing by an administrator, which we obviously don't want. I'd therefore urge you to discuss the matter on the article's talk page. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)