User talk:Margaret Mowczko

February 2021
Hello, I'm Elizium23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tabernacle have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia.   Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Elizium23‬ Please have a look at the footnotes in the article. I have included information from several independent, scholarly sources.
 * I believe the article adds to the conversation about the two tabernacles of the Israelites. I also believe the claims in the article are objective, reasonable, and rather small. Yet, they shed some light on the women who served.
 * I frequently link to Wikipedia in my articles, not to promote Wikipedia, but to allow readers to find out more on a particular subject. For the same reason, I have linked https://margmowczko.com/women-entrance-tent-of-meeting-tabernacle/ to the Wikipedia article on Tabernacle, so that curious readers can find out more.
 * Your blog is not a reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Elizium23 My intention is not for you to reinstate the link. That is neither here nor there. I posted the link in good faith thinking that some might find it interesting.

However, my blog is considered a reliable source by several universities and seminaries. For example, some of my blog posts are on reading lists at Yale University. Another example is Northern Seminary which lists my blog as a recommended resource in one of their courses of the New Testament.

I have had journal articles and book chapters published in peer-reviewed academic publications. For example, I have a chapter in this book: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/deacons-and-diakonia-in-early-christianity-9783161566462

I disagree with your reasons for deleting the link, but I accept your prerogative for doing so. Shalom and Goodbye Margaret
 * 1. Please sign your comments with ~ (four tildes, they will be expanded to your signature). 2. A blog is rarely considered a reliable source. See WP:BLOG. 3. When you add links to your blog to Wikipedia articles, you may have a conflict of interest. Quote from WP:EXTERNALREL: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." Quote from WP:SELFCITE: "...adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." Quote from WP:REFSPAM: "Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work." — Chrisahn (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Chrisahn. This is useful information. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion, as you did at Tabernacle. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. —  Newslinger  talk   06:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Margaret Mowczko, feel free to request an unblock if you are willing to agree to refrain from adding links to your website in Wikipedia articles. If you have authored peer-reviewed academic publications or other publications that meet the reliable sources guideline, you are welcome to suggest them on talk pages of related articles. —  Newslinger  talk   07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sure. I meant no harm. And I had no spamming intention. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy not to have editing rights again. I haven't done much editing. Just a few corrections and improvements here and there. But I don't want my website to be considered a spam site as this is untrue. It is a legitimate website and I have always done my best to act ethically. Can I appeal my website being listed in the WikiProject Spam? Margaret Mowczko (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the first step would be to appeal your block, using the suggestions from Newslinger above, as well as having a look at WP:GAB. Once unblocked, you would be free to participate in the conversation on the WikiProject SPAM.


 * It's of little consequence that your website was mentioned there. It is not on a blacklist and it will not be reverted on-sight by bots, as of yet. The posting there just serves as a "heads-up" to other editors for us to check for remaining links and clean up. It's a discussion, so any editor is free to discuss the relative merits, and protest its being labeled SPAM.


 * We can also discuss the site's status as a source. I said it is not reliable, now I have seen evidence that you may be an expert in the field, so that is good news. A final determination could be made at the reliable sources noticeboard, again, once you are unblocked and back in good standing.


 * I wish you all the best. Cheers. Elizium23 (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Elizium23. And thanks for your friendly words. I was feeling a bit miserable and misunderstood. I'll appeal the block and won't post any more links to my website. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)