User talk:Pschrey

Your links
You asked why your links were innappropriate. Read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for the reasons, if you cant see why you fit the definition of a spa and your links spam then we can't really help you beyond what's written there.

As for your statement: "I'm not linking a wiki, I'm linking specific articles within the wiki (that's a difference! I'm not saying: hey, take a look at this cool wiki, but I'm linking to a page with additional informations)" Haha. You are linking to a template containing an external link. Ridiculous attempt at a justification.

I'm somewhat perplexed you arent blocked already, as I certainly would not have been so patient. But, I would not attempt to push the limits of your good-fortune. Glen  07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Glen, what is wrong with a link like that: http://www.skipperguide.com/wiki/Smögen ?
 * To clarify: the template earlier contained a parameter to link to a specific article within the wiki. (Was something like that: www.skipperguide.com/wiki/ where the was replaced dynamically by a specific article.
 * Or did I missunderstood you completely? Which template did you mean? --Pschrey 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It doesnt matter what is on the template it contained an external link so it must comply with WP:EL. That is, unless the article is about your company/website/group specifically (ie; if you were John Kerry and we were discussing you linking to http://www.johnkerry.com ) then its unlikely we can add it, at least with your discussing it on the article's talk page with other editors. You cannot imagine howmany wikis there are in the world, how many info sites, how many organizations there are, all crying they they arent commercial links, and all arguing they have some info that may be helpful to our readers. Now, imagine if we added them all... chaos.  Glen   07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Glen. Thank you for your answer! I agree with you, that not every link can be added. I also deliberate about adding a link. Of course I consider WP:EL. However, I haven't found a conflict with it, but I'm still open to discuss it.
 * But something different is happening here at the moment: I was blamed for spamming, maybe because of an misunderstanding at the beginning. And now it seems, I'm evil, and also everything I'm doing. It also seems, that it is not neccessary to take a look on the content of my doings, the "fact" that I'm evil is just enough to jugde my contributions. This is really not fair and - I think you can agree with me - annoying for me. --Pschrey 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply
Yes, see WP:EL, #12. Khoikhoi 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Khoikhoi, the difference between my links and the rule #12 is, that I never tried to link the wiki itself (e.g. to place a link at the article Sailing or Cruising). This would be spam and I agree completely to this.
 * But I've added links to content within the wiki. This content is useful, because there are additional informations. I can't see, that information is less worth because it is hosted on a wiki. Do you can follow this argumentation? What do you think? --Pschrey 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not sure what the big difference is between adding the link to the main page of the website and adding the link to the specific article in the website. It's still pretty clear advertising. If the content is useful, why can't you add it to Wikipedia? Khoikhoi 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A direct link to content is a link to additional information. A link to a wiki in general is unspecific and can be understood as advertising, because there is no befit for the reader. The history of different articles proves, that at least a few users consider the linked informations as useful.
 * To your point adding content: I can't just copy information editied by different users to WP. Further, the focus of this informations is beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia. --Pschrey 15:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed
Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pschrey. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pschrey~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours, Keegan Peterzell Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation 02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)