User talk:Chris Kutler

Welcome!
 Welcome!''' Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, they are appreciated. I hope you like it here, and decide to stay. Here a few pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask at the help desk, leave me a message on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up to answer your questions. Again, welcome! · AndonicO Talk
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Verifiability
 * Manual of Style
 * Neutral Point of View
 * Civility

Adding external links to articles
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, 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 mere directory 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, then please discuss it on the before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 14:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Whilst I can understand that you would feel hard done by, personal attacks are not the way to resolve anything, especially as I did leave you a message explaining why this was done, and explaingin why when a users sole contribution to wikipedia is adding external links to various articles, it comes across as adding spam external links. In addition I was not the only user who reverted your edits as at least one of the links was reverted by another user for the exact same reason as I did, it was therefore most definitely not vandalism. I would ask you to take a look at the links in my message above and also calm down before you reply. Making accusations of vandalism is not how to resolve anything. I made no such allegations when I left the message above, and left the message ion good faith. I did not vandalise anything. I would refer you to the following: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." (See Spam In your message on my talk page you stated that it is your site you linked to, so unfortunately that comes across as promoting your website. With regard to your question about why other links were not removed, again I would refer you to this: "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another." (see Spam This should also hopefully help, which is especially relevant in this instance - "Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to. That is, they do things which Wikipedians consider to be spamming, without realizing that their actions are not in line with building an encyclopedia. A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it." (see Spam) as that is what you appeared to do as a new user. That is not a personal attack just pointing out how your edits could be taken as spam external links.

By all means raise your concerns with wikipedia, but I acted out of good faith as did the other user who removed your links. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 13:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I really would suggest that you read the various wikipedia policies regarding external links. I do not make that policy, nor did I vandalise any work you did. However, as I have already said to you, your only contribution to wikipedia thus far has been to add external links to your own website. That is not a pesonal attack on you, nor a criticism, just an observation. I am quite sure that you have a lot to contribute toward wikipedia. I will again though give you a few links and ask you to read them -


 * WP:NOT this section - Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files states, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not: Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See External links for some guidelines."


 * WP:ADS this section - External link spamming which states, "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Unfortunately, and this is not a criticism at all, is what you did.


 * WP:ADS this section - How not to be a spammer states, "Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia—not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site"


 * Just a suggestion but perhaps you could edit articles as suggested in the final section above, citing as a source the database? That way the site would be linked to, and information from it used on wikipedia. I am quite sure that you have a lot to contribute to wikipedia, but hope that you can understand why when someones sole contribution is adding links it can come across the wrong way, despite your good intentions. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 13:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it seems that my lengthy explanations above seem not to have got across fully why your edits were reverted, and there is not a lot more I can do other than refer you to wikipedia policy and encourage you to get more involved on wikipedia, rather than simply adding links to your website. Firstly though, I have never at any point accused you of being a "spammer". I have said that unfortunately the way you added links came across as spam external links, and explained why that is so, and linked you to the wikipedia policy stating that new users can at times add links that come across as spam. I have also mentioned your clearly good intentions. That is not accusing you of being a "spammer". I have also suggested that you get more involved in wikipedia by adding sourced content to the articles rather than just adding external links. As for you being annoyed at my reasons, I fail to see what more I can do than what I have already done. I have linked you to various wikipedia guidelines and policies. I have suggested you add sourced content to the articles rather than just adding external links, get involved. I am sorry if that annoys you. As for your comment about other links, I have already mentioned this above, however I will again quote -


 * WP:ADS this section - Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another states, "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article and not yet removed. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another." You appear unfortunately to be taking this personally when there is nothing personal about it. It is not a matter of reverting your links and not others. I was simply editing one specific thing at that time, and as you had done this (again taken from the WP:ADS article), "A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it." I reverted your edits. I have tried to encourage you to add sourced content. Your point about speficic archaeological training is not unfortunately relevant as this is about wikipedia and adding links over a short period of time. I would again though encourage you to get more involved in wikipedia. And as I said in my original reply, it was not only me who reverted your edits. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 16:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, merely adding the links again is also not how to sort this out. Please see the original messages which states, "If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it." I have also just checked back and two other users reverted your edits (and for exactly the same reason) at the same time I reverted your edits. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 17:09, 1 October 2007 (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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also 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 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)