User talk:Jedwardnet

April 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Video projector do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Dawnseeker2000  15:15, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Jedward. 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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Anemone Projectors  19:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So to clarify...the jedward article is allowed links to the official site because it's sony (whom don't even have jedward signed anymore) and which has basically NO content on it, however it is not allowed links to a non profit fan site which has many pages of content and an active forum.... As a sidenote, this whole article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TheForce.Net is about a fansite, yet I get my edit removed for adding a paragraph and a link about a fansite. SO if I write a whole article about jedward.net then I assume that wouldn;t get removed or that could potentially be seen as discrimination could it not? Jedwardnet (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, first read WP:FANSITE. Then read WP:SPAM (as judging by your user name, it's your own website that you are promoting). Then read WP:OSE. Hopefully then all your questions will be answered. Anemone  Projectors  20:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it amusing that you are incapable of a human response so instead you point to irrelevant links. I'll address each individually. 1. The fansite link I could accept this if it were not for the numerous other articles on here I have seen that have fansites listed, not to mention theforce.net one to which I pointed out. 2. I would look up the official definition of spam before trying to treat me like an idiot. Spam is classified as unauthorised email to a personal email address, the use of "spam" in your context is innacurate. 3. The final article you pointed me to I briefly skimmed as this was an avoidance tactic by you, which was clear when I saw the part which said something along the lines of similarites that are "painfully invalid". For a start off I found that article condescending, aside from that I would point out that my similarity which was pointed out was not invalid theforce.net IS a fansite. Also inline with the articles you directed me to the jedward article points to youtube (flash plugin is required which I belive comes under your rich media guidelines). It also points to their facebook page, I do believe that facebook is a social networking site listed in point 10 of the first article you pointed me to.
 * I would also like to point out that whilst I am affiliated with the jedward.net site I also am aware that the main article was wrote by sony (I know this because I dealt with them) so this is contradicting. It is also worth noting that at least I am honest, it would have been all to easy for me to create an ambiguous account and do the edit or get someone else to. I find it ridiculous that such a great source of information has moderators that will try and quote guidelines without actually reading them properly first and clearly do things based on wikipedias own agendas.


 * No doubt I will be blocked from editing after this in order that you can assert yourself, but I do not care as I will not back down on something which you are clearly in the wrong about. My edit was factual and linked to a source of information about jedward, an ACTUAL source rather than the official website which realistically is of no value to anyone apart from advertising for sony as they gain royalties and click costs everytime someone clicks a link to buy the track. Jedwardnet (talk) 22:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well there are plenty of other fansites on Wikipedia articles. This is well known. What we're working to to is minimize the amount of fansites and other low quality external links. When we see a user whose username matches that of an external link that they're adding we can be confident that this is a person that will be promoting a website. Don't take this personally; we're just trying to follow the guidelines. Dawnseeker2000  22:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the human response Dawnseeker, however my point is that the guidelines are just that "guidelines" not rules for a start and these guidelines, pertaining solely to the jedward article now, are only being enforced on what I wrote, the "guidelines" for youtube links and facebook pages are clearly not being followed within that article. Also, and this is not directed at you personally but the article you directed me to was shockingly laughable, it may as well be one line which reads "What we say goes. this is a dictatorship and it depends what mood we are in if we allow your edit or article" Jedwardnet (talk) 22:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Jedward article needs a lot of cleaning up. The reason is that fans come along and add things while other editors do not always check if the additions are appropriate. So just because these links are there doesn't mean that we have to allow more. Anemone  Projectors  22:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll enjoy pointing out the many articles where people are not "moderating" them within your rigid guidelines that you choose to enforce or not dependant on your mood then. I'll also enjoy creating a whole website dedicated to pointing these articles out, and belive me when I say it WILL rank high, unfortunately I am not some kid who will be walked on and accept these hipocritical guidlines that are being quoted to me yet clearly only being enforced when it suits you. Rules are put in place for consistency, however you contradict your own guidlines. I will be taking this up with someone higher than a moderator also, maybe they will have the intellect to either follow their own guidelines or reinstate my edit, I refuse to roll over when I am in the right, whether it be by you removing the guidline breaking links or reinstating mine. Jedwardnet (talk) 22:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We're not walking on you. We're working to improve this encyclopedia. There is an incredible amount of absolute garbage within Wikipedia. But there are also a good number of contributors that work hard to stop garbage from being introduced and to remove it altogether, but Wikipedia is open to anyone. Any person regardless of age, knowledge, or education can insert anything they want. Unless the edit is seen by an experienced Wikipedian that understands or cares about the content that we have, you can guess that the content will likely stay there for quite some time, until the article is patrolled by an experienced editor. But I can tell you that we just can not keep up with all the rubbish. It's too much. Dawnseeker2000   22:56, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No disrespect, but then you are inexperienced editors as you removed my edit from an article that has other links it that break guidlines as I have previously stated. So the two options are...you are either completely inexperienced or you just edit within the guidlines when it suits you. If you really can't see the point I am making then I wouldn;t even bother responding to me as neither of you have the basic intellect required to understand logic and are trying to go around in circles to prove your point...and failign miserabley I might add. This conversation is tiresome now and you clearly are not going to reinstate my justified edit and link so I will go on with my aforementioned plan. Expect me to help you become more "experienced" with the guidelines by pointing out, regularly, all of the content which falls outside the slightest guidline. On a final note...why would I need to promote (or spam in your inaccurate words) a non profit site with not 1 single ad on it that already appears on the first page of google and yahoo for all the search terms I want it to, no logic there. Jedwardnet (talk) 23:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)