User talk:AlexPBenes

Link additions
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection 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, please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:51, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jamie, I looked at the External Linking Guidelines and rule 4 states that you should add: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Please explain what I did wrong, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone here, and I will gladly listen to anything you have to offer. AlexPBenes (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Beetstra, I looked at the External Linking Guidelines and rule 4 states that you should add: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Please explain what I did wrong, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone here, and I will gladly listen to anything you have to offer. AlexPBenes (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. McGeddon (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

McGeddon, I looked at the External Linking Guidelines and rule 4 states that you should add: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Please explain what I did wrong, I don't want to get off on the wrong foot with anyone here, and I will gladly listen to anything you have to offer. AlexPBenes (talk) 15:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * An amateur weblog reviewing a can of drink fails both WP:SPS (as a source for information about that drink) and WP:LINKSTOAVOID (as an external link). If we're going to source the ingredients of a drink, we should do so from a manufacturer's press release, a newspaper article, or an academic paper that's written about it. --McGeddon (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes sense. For future reference, what defines what an amateur site is? As BevNet has user contributions that anyone can add.AlexPBenes (talk) 15:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We should only link to a blog if it's been written by a "recognized authority" (WP:LINKSTOAVOID) or "established expert" (WP:SPS). I'm not familiar with BevNet, but if it's unedited user content, then it may also fail these criteria. --McGeddon (talk) 15:32, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Very well, thanks for clearing that up :). One last question, what defines a "recognized authority"? If the site I linked to had 1000+ reviews, would that be enough credibility? Also, sorry that I was linking to stuff that didn't fit guidelines. --AlexPBenes (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:SPS - "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". It's the authority of the writer, not the site. --McGeddon (talk) 15:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Blogs are indeed generally to be avoided, though there are some exceptions.

You were above a couple of times warned, which was unresponded to, and the whole series of edits seemed mainly to be to include links to this site only, and the whole of your edits seemed promotional. Therefor all was reverted. For the majority of the external links, we are not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory.

The inclusion of the drink may have been true, but it was uncited, so that was reverted in the line of the other edits, but you can rerevert it if you do have a reliable source. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Beestra, I found a site that I thought could be linked to and I got all excited that I could add stuff to Wikipedia. It was in no way promotional, and I'll double check next time before I add stuff.AlexPBenes (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 15:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)