User talk:Michael goldfinch

June 2013
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Safe-cracking. 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, 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. McGeddon (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Safe-cracking. 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. McGeddon (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Safe, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. 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.--McGeddon (talk) 13:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

There were several problems with your most recent edit to the article Safe:
 * 1) It was not expressed in the neutral, dispassionate form which is required for a Wikipedia article. It read more like a personal reflection expressed opinion than an objective report of facts, and it expressed personal opinion, which is not acceptable in a Wikipedia article. Moreover, the nature of the opinions expressed amounted to an infringement of the policy that Wikipedia is not a medium for promotion, containing glowing praise for its subject.
 * 2) It was a straight copy of content at www.atozsafes.com/blog/the-decline-of-british-safe-makimg, apparently infringing copyright. If you are the copyright owner, it is possible to release the content for free re-use by anyone anywhere in the world, as required by Wikipedia's terms, and I could give you a link to instructions how to do so. However, doing so would be a complete waste of your time, as the content is unsuitable for other reasons, and would simply be removed again.
 * 3) The content was copied from the web site of the business that has been the subject of all your other edits, making it look as though your purpose in editing is to use Wikipedia to promote that business. Indeed, the reason I became aware of your editing is that an editor made a report on an administrators' noticeboard page, considering your editing as being spam. Whether you personally regard your editing as spam or not, any account which is being used mainly or entirely to promote anything, including a business, is likely to be blocked, as you should realise from the warnings above. I am not blocking your account now, because the latest edit does not fit the description of "a spam link" for which you were warned. however, the warning applies not just to spam links, but to any kind of editing which appears to have the purpose of promoting or publicising either a business or anything else. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)