User talk:CorpMike


 * Spam tracking

December 2019
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Photo manipulation. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Begoon 01:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Mass surveillance. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Begoon 01:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Nemesis (Roth novel). Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Begoon 01:37, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Flags for Surveillance Society/Nemesis
Hey Begoon, I'm not entirely sure how to respond to your messages so I'm doing so here. The Sublime Art reference I can totally understand the removal of the link but what was the issue with Surveillance Society and the Nemesis reference points. Both connect directly to the article (Surveillance Society with actual quotes I got from those individuals featured in the story back in 2013) I would love to hear from you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorpMike (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * If you've read all the linked material above then it's difficult for me to understand how you don't see that adding links to your own website/blog is an inappropriate use of wikipedia. See also WP:Reliable sources, WP:ELNO. I can't really add much more to the explanations already linked to in the messages above, except to re-iterate that wikipedia takes use of articles for spamming/promotion/driving traffic to a site very seriously and if you keep doing it you are very likely to be blocked, and potentially have the website blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as being penalized by search engines. I'm sorry if you find that disappointing, but I'm sure you can understand that if we permitted everyone to link to their own content the encyclopedia would soon degenerate into a useless linkfarm. If you genuinely believe that a page on your website is a useful resource for a wikipedia article then you can propose its addition on the relevant article talkpage, but you must not add it yourself until/unless consensus for the addition is reached with editors of that article. Thank you. -- Begoon 02:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I understand now - thanks for going into detail. How would I go about proposing a page to the editor responsible for any particular talk page. In this case the Facebook-Cambridge Analytica Scandal? - CorpMike — Preceding unsigned comment added by CorpMike (talk • contribs) 02:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You'd start a new section on Talk:Facebook–Cambridge Analytica data scandal, be patient, and wait for responses. No editor is "responsible" for any particular page - you have to wait for interested editors to respond, and that could take some time. You'd need to explain why your page would be a valuable addition, what it provides that can't be obtained from our usual mainstream reliable sources, why your page qualifies as reliable and trustworthy (and this shouldn't just be your opinion - you should point to existing mainstream reliable sources which refer to and discuss your site and the content in some depth), and why the content is notable enough to merit inclusion (again, not just in your own opinion, but in that of established, reliable sources). -- Begoon 02:42, 12 December 2019 (UTC)