User talk:Dalibor.Selucky.TC

Welcome!
Hello, Dalibor.Selucky.TC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:


 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Izno (talk) 01:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Draft:World of Warcraft: Traveler
The sources should be in the article after the wording that they are confirming. I can't tell from the article if it is in print or an e-book. Right now it has a bunch of external links but they don't look like anything other than establishing the book exists. The sources all seem to be connected with the book except for Amazon and Goodreads. Neither of those go towards explain the notability of the book. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Goodreads may be OK. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:50, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Neurofeedback Training Company for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Neurofeedback Training Company is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Neurofeedback Training Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jmertel23 (talk) 19:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:World of Warcraft: Traveler


Hello, Dalibor.Selucky.TC. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "World of Warcraft: Traveler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 11:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not hide spam as minor edits
Hi Dalibor.Selucky.TC! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello J.M., let my try correct it by adding more versatile links to more sources. I indeed know Wiki is not a collection of links, but some items deserve more, that is why I add links where appropriate, and remove where I find them useless.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Maintenance (technical). 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.—J. M. (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

July 2020
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Functional safety. 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.  MrOllie (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello MrOllie,


 * please take a look at the following rules for avoiding links.


 * Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[5] one should generally avoid providing external links to:


 * Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page. See.
 * Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting.
 * Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or content that is illegal to access in the United States. Suspected malware sites can be reported by following the instructions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
 * Links mainly intended to promote a website, including online petitions and crowdfunding pages. See Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming.
 * Individual web pages[6] that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article should not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.
 * Sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[5] See § Sites requiring registration.
 * Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that work only with a specific browser or in a specific country.
 * Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See § Rich media for more details.
 * Any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.
 * Social networking sites (such as Myspace, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, Usenet newsgroups or email lists.
 * Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc., controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities who are individuals always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)
 * Open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.
 * Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.
 * Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.
 * Sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools.[5] For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.
 * Sites that are not reliably functional or not likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.
 * Affiliate, tracking or referral links, i.e., links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.
 * External links on Wikipedia navigation templates or navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category pages.
 * Websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.


 * Read through please MrOllie (talk). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Warning.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] I am sure MrOllie is well aware of these rules. That's why MrOllie is posting these warnings on your talk page and reverting your link additions. I am also doing the same thing, because I am familiar with these rules. So this is my last warning: Stop spamming on Wikipedia. If you do not stop spamming with links to the website, you will be blocked from editing.—J. M. (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello. In a recent edit, you changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For a subject exclusively related to the United Kingdom (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to another English-speaking country, such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, India, or Pakistan use the variety of English used there. For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to another, even if you don't normally use the version in which the article is written. Respect other people's versions of English. They, in turn, should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any questions about this, you can ask me on my talk page or visit the help desk. Thank you. —J. M. (talk) 14:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Dalibor.etc., please don't cite Wikipedia policy and guidelines here; MrOllie has been around since before dogs were domesticated, and is well aware of what is and is not accepted. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 22:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * At this point, www.roadtoreliability.com is not a reliable source and is WP:REFSPAM. If you'd like me to codify that, I could go to WP:RSN to ask for additional comment, but in my opinion, it should not be used to support any content on the project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello Gorlitz, please go ahead and codify it, I will follow the judgment of community, not of a single person, doesn't matter how long has the person been here. That's how it works here, doesn't it ?

I will wait for the codification now, please tag me there as well.

(talk) 22:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello J.M., how long the person is here should be only relevant in cases he/she is to guide others, for nothing else. Let's codify the inability of this link now. I will follow judgement of community, as this is, after all, community encyclopedia and not MrOllie-pedia.

Dalibor.Selucky.TC (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a judgement of a single person. Several experienced editors (including an administrator) have been saying exactly the same thing to you. The community consensus on this matter is clear. Just accept the fact that your links are inappropriate and move on. You cannot keep edit warring when everyone else is reverting your edits.—J. M. (talk) 15:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:World of Warcraft: Traveler


Hello, Dalibor.Selucky.TC. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "World of Warcraft: Traveler".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗ plicit  23:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)