User talk:Proffviktor

May 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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 for advertising or promotion. Since 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 before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. 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. MrOllie (talk) 11:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned many times these links are not spam and follow requirements. These links support the article. PLEASE stop fighting and leave this article as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proffviktor (talk • contribs)


 * Look, we have very specific guidelines on what can be a reference, which you can read here. You need to find a real reference, rather than adding these promotional examples. If you don't do that soon, it's likely that the whole article will be deleted as original research. - MrOllie (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

This is area of my expertise. These references are very supportive and the best I found. I do not see why original research applies here. I do not promote anything. Please help me to understand what I need to do in more details as an expert in wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proffviktor (talk • contribs)


 * You need to find articles in newspapers, or in scientific or trade journals that support your statements in the article. Just linking to an example and extrapolating is exactly what wikipedia calls original research. And, frankly, your examples/'references' don't support much of anything in the article. If they are really the best you can find that is a strong argument that the article should be deleted. - MrOllie (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will put examples from scientific journals.

Proposed deletion of Automated submission web directories


The article Automated submission web directories has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * It's been months and no sources have appeared to address the problems with original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MrOllie (talk) 15:02, 3 December 2009 (UTC)