User talk:Coldfloor

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This is not spam; I don't even think you have looked at the link. The abuse in this case is not on my part but on yours. Leave the editing up to the experts maintaining this page. If you are an expert, I am open to hear your reasons why this link should not be displayed; but if you don't have a valid argument against it, I must insist that this go to mediation.

How about this: I add the link to the discussion page and someone else posts it to the main page instead? Is this something you would be satisfied with? Will another person be able to post the link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coldfloor (talk • contribs).


 * The link in question is a site with Google ads. You've been warned for adding similar links to Asia and Africa. I'm not sure what sort of expertise you are looking for, but I am an administrator on Wikipedia and am reasonably familiar with its policies and procedures. Feel free to take it to Request for comment or whatever other avenue you see fit. Before doing so, you'll probably want to read up on Wikipedia's External link and spam policies, and check out the discussion at Wikiproject Spam. Regarding your last request; I don't make such deals. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I am having difficulty finding where it states that a linked page can not have advertisements. I would appreciate it if you would point me in the right direction. Coldfloor 18:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There isn't a black-and-white rule that links can't have advertising. However, the links I provided above provide plenty of information about what links are appropriate, and suggest that only highly relevant links be added. When you add the same link to three different articles, it makes it pretty obvious that you are trying to use Wikipedia to promote a site. If you'd like to debate it further, I'd be happy to place a note on the Wikiproject Spam page, but I can tell you right now that you won't find too many sympathetic ears there. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The three links were to different pages, all pages that I myself thought were relevant to the page that it was linked to:


 * http://www.ilike2learn.com/ilike2learn/europe.html linked from Europe article;


 * http://www.ilike2learn.com/ilike2learn/africa.html linked from the Africa article;


 * http://www.ilike2learn.com/ilike2learn/asia3.html linked from the Asia article.


 * All three links were added at the same time; if I remember correctly, you immediately removed Europe and Asia and gave me a scolding for it. I was brand new to Wikipedia and had never attempted to do anything there before. In any case, the Africa link persisted for several weeks, before you removed it. If memory serves me correctly, at that point I felt you were specifically attacking me. I wasn’t trying to spam anything, and it seemed to me that everyone else had been happy with that link because it had never been removed, and I believe it had even been moved around the list by other editors.


 * I would have contacted you then to discuss the issue, but I was and still am very unfamiliar with Wikipedia and its functions. I wasn’t even sure that I was responding to your message correctly until you responded to my comment yesterday.


 * All I am asking is that an unbiased third person or group would tell me that these links have no place on those pages; so that it wouldn’t be just one individual (yourself) making that decision.


 * I think these links are relevant; and believe that if you and an unbiased third person would take a few minutes to review these pages, both of you would agree they belong there. If the third person does not think they belong there, I will be satisfied and yield to you, as long as you agree to do the same for me if they rule in my favor.


 * Looking at the Wikiproject Spam, it seems that this is not an unbiased third person; I rather see it as your peer group and would instead prefer to follow the guidelines of Official Wikipedia Policy on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes.
 * One suggestion they make is to use a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Third_opinion, but they want the third opinion to be from the discussion page of the article in question. From your comments yesterday, I am under the impression this is not something you are willing to do. Did I understand correctly?
 * If that is the case, then the next step would be to file a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment.


 * I would really prefer the third person opinion step. I am willing to yield to the consensus if you will agree to do the same. As I stated above, my problem with your deletion is that I feel like it is only one person (yourself) against the links I submitted.


 * As I said, I wouldn’t yield to the Wikiproject Spam decision, because I don’t see it as an unbiased group; but I am interested in their thoughts on the matter if you would be willing to post something there.
 * Coldfloor 22:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reply I feel very strongly that links with ads that do not add significantly to the article are spam, period. It's also been my experience that the more someone objects to the removal of external links, the more likely it is that they are intended for the promotion of a commercial or personal site. You can go anywhere you want for a third opinion, but I'm letting you know as someone who's been around for awhile that I highly doubt you'll find a consensus supporting their inclusion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not clear if that means you will yeild to a consensus or not.
 * Coldfloor 23:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I will yield to a consensus. I'm just cautioning you that you are unlikely to find one in your favor. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Personal sites
I see that your IP is registered to Tallinn, Estonia, as is the domain ilike2learn.com. I doubt that is a coincidence. The very first line in the spam1 warning states that users should not add links to their own sites. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I never claimed the contrary. I have only asked to be allowed to submit links that I consider relevant but that have a conflict of interest through the appropriate channel, using the discussion board. This is what you and I had agreed on, and this is also the appropriate action for submitting conflict of interest links according to the Official Wikipedia's guidelines. You are correct that they were submitted inappropriately at first; but that was because of ignorance, not because I wanted to cause problems. Coldfloor 15:14, 20 September