User talk:AlaTEST

Promotion of your own web site.
As per User_talk:81.225.15.138, I refer you to the appropriate Wikipedia guideline articles:


 * Spam
 * External Links - Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest

You don't appear to have actually followed any of the links in the warning template, just read the title of one of them.

In addition, most mobile handset articles have far too many review links as it stands, and adding more is not required. Replacing them with a link just to your site, as I suspect you want to do, is even less welcome since it replaces a variety of sources with a single source.

And finally, please do not re-add your link to any articles without discussing it in the article or you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Wibbble 13:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for Wikipedia incompetence - but no "spam" intentions
Dear Wibbble,

My apologies for not being that competent on Wikipedia communication, I have only just now found this page which I will use for further communication with you. I appreciate your time to give feedback, and will try my best to follow your and wikipedias guidelines. Still, I strongly disagree with your definition of calling alaTEST a spam service, as this is - if you spend some time to visit our website it should become apparent - totally the opposite of our intentions. I will spend time to increase my knowledge of Wikipedia consensus and guidelines, and will not add any links. However, my overall understanding of Wikipedia is that it is the ultimate encyclopedia aimed at informing it's visitors in an as objective as possible manner about the articles' topics. This is precisely our intention, thus there should be less "spam" name-calling if possible. Thank you again and hope to come back soon. alaTEST 10 February 2007


 * While your site itself may not be 'spam', your means of promoting it is, and that's the issue here. Adding a link to your own site to several articles is considered spamming on Wikipedia. Your best bet is to focus on your own site, and if it is a relevant and worthwhile link, it will be added to articles as appropriate by other editors. Trying to promote your site on Wikipedia is only going to tarnish its reputation. Wibbble 14:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue is "promoting our own site"? I understand and agree that this is the case and should not be allowed in principle. But to learn your understanding of the principles of Wiki-ethics - and to argue that self-promotion is not the issue here - I have a few inquiries:
 * - What if the result of this "self promotion" is an actual benefit to the wiki community? Then the discussion is not about promotion, but about "relevant and worthwhile". In that case, do you not consider the information on alaTEST site about N70 "relevant and worthwhile"?


 * As referenced in the guidelines I linked to previously, no, it's still not appropriate if the links are otherwise appropriate and helpful. In that case you should bring it up on the talk page of the specific article you wish to add the link to and another, unbiased, editor may add it.


 * - If the link on the Nokia N70 page to a review by e.g. GSM Arena is added by GSM Arena itself or by you - is there a principle difference?


 * Yes, the difference is clear: one is being added by an uninvolved party, and one is not. If you are promoting your own site, your ability to judge where it is appropriate to add links is compromised.


 * - Who decides that a link to GSM Arena is ok, but a link to e.g. Mobile Burn (http://mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Id=1318 ) is not ok?


 * The editors of the article, based on their understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, the content of the link in question, and any relevant wikiproject guidelines - and the existing content of the page, as well. If there exists an over-abundance of external links in an article, some may be selected over other equally 'good' links just through randomness.


 * - If all external links to reviews are ok, we could share our database of aggregated reviews with the WP community. The result of this - without our value added algorithms to analyse these results to a relative "alaSCORE" - would be a great number of external links (directory) where the amount of data makes the actual information minimal. There are for example 4 links to CNET on this N70 page.


 * This is a wider issue, although I suspect that Wikipedia would not be likely to tie itself with a commercial site. Would you, for example, be prepared to licence all of your content under the GNU Free Documentation Licence, which allows anyone to copy and use your content?


 * - If the issue is about not adding editorial content by merely linking? Then this is also true for the other external review links, and on the other hand we could publish our results on globally comparing this product based on the total review consensus here, such as average ratings, rating behaviour per source, product review lifecycle, top products, etc.


 * The issue is that you have added your own site to articles, not if your site is appropriate to be added. I've pointed you several times at WP guidelines which make it very clear that adding links to your own site is not appropriate.


 * - Is there a forum where the principles can be discussed, rather than this particular N70 page? alaTEST 10 February 2007


 * You can start discussion on the talk page for the relevant guideline article.
 * Also, once again, the sole issue here is the self-promotion. Regardless of if your links are appropriate to include or not, you should not be adding your own site. This is something that is plainly stated in guidelines such as WP:ADVERT and WP:EL, to which you have been referred several times. If you disagree with this guideline, I would recommend starting discussion on the talk page for the guideline. Wibbble 19:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)