User talk:Amuro Lee

Spamming of pub-9911057097907605 related sites
Adsense pub-9911057097907605
 * abikecentral.com
 * foldingforum.com
 * stridaforum.com
 * Accounts

- This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" is strongly discouraged. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:
 * 1) editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
 * 2) participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
 * 3) linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam); and,
 * 4) avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for businesses. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to clarify that I am not a spammer!!!
Why is there an external link to folding bike section of bikeforums.net on the Folding_bicycle page which is not counted as spam nor breaks your policy and I'm treated as a spammer as I only added the link of another folding bike forum on it?

The external links which I put onto the pages are definitely related to the articles themselves and provide extra information about the subjects.

Futhermore, I am not involved in the businesses of those folding bikes, e.g. A-bike and Strida manufacturers, distributors or dealers. I don't think I have any conflict of interest on the articles. I'm just an ordinary folding bike user and like the ideas of them.

--Amuro Lee (talk) 03:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that annother link exists in an article doesn't prove that your link in question should also exist.


 * Forums are Links normally to be avoided, and are prohibited in articles.


 * Further more, your editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote Adsense pub-9911057097907605 related sites. Your contributions to wikipedia under Amuro Lee and anon IP's, consist entirely of adding external links to Adsense pub-9911057097907605 related sites and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, the all seem to be Adsense pub-9911057097907605 related only. Please do not continue adding links to your own websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion of Adsense pub-9911057097907605 related sites.  Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote Adsense pub-9911057097907605 right?  --Hu12 (talk) 18:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever checked all of my contributions? Are they really all realated to so called Adsense pub-9911057097907605? I don't care what Adsense pub-9911057097907605 is about as I'm a not a native English speaker, I can't fully understand the complicated technical terms as you can. I only know that is ridiculous to treat me as a spammer!

Besides, I didn't add any links of websites to Wikipedia which belong to me. I don't own the websites at all! The links of websites which I added are definitely related to the articles by common sense! Who will continue to contribute to the Wikipedia anymore as they are always trapped and treated as spammers so easily?!

--Amuro Lee (talk) 08:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place for comercial links, links to distibutors or forums. All are Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. Please do not continue to add such links. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Even the websites are owned by the same person, they provide useful information directly related to the articles which I have edited. They are just websites including forums on them. Except the forums, they still contain a lot of useful information related to the articles. How can they be counted as spams? How about I avoid adding direct links to the forums and just add the links of their main pages? The most important thing is, they are not commerical websites themselves even the storage space and server is provided by a commercial web hosting company. Since there're so many websites being sponsored by including advertised banners on them, it is impossible to avoid linking to commercial materials except prohibiting all the external links in Wikipedia. The boundaries between websites are vague in the Internet, how can you avoid external links directing to commerial materials by hyperlinks on the websites?

Moreover, how about the official websites or websites of brands which are related to the articles? They are always commerical and some of them may include forums, too. Why are they kept with no problem on the external links sections on the pages?

Besides, you seem aiming at me and the pages which I have edited. Whoever edited the pages and whatever the modifications were on the text bobies or external links sections, all the changes were reverted by you finally by claiming them as "spams".

Furthermore, I just cannot understand that why the links added before my editing, which are definitely the same in nature as the links which I have added, are still kept on the pages and the same kind of links added by me and the others later were removed?

--Amuro Lee (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Arguments of WP:USEFUL do not make for exemption of official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many useful things that do not belong in an encyclopedia are excluded. A list of all the phone numbers in New York would be useful, but is not included because Wikipedia is not a directory. Those links do not belong in an encyclopedia and untill that changes, those are the policies. If you have content to contribute, why not contribute that. thank you for your time.--Hu12 (talk) 21:21, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

So why the other things that do not belong to Wikipedia are still kept and only those added by me and some people were removed? The policy seems only appling to some of the people and some of the people seem to be exempted from it.

"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." Is it true?

--Amuro Lee (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Because WP:OCE and WP:OCE. Other crap exists doesn't mean that more crap should.  Delete them if you think they are not suited for wikipedia. MythSearchertalk 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Read WP:RS. YouTube and blog sites are not reliable sources. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Following on, nearly a year later, the same comment about reliable sources applies to images uploaded to Photobucket, Flickr, or any similar website. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)