User talk:RU123

May 2012
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. 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. Cntras (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, 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. Alexf(talk) 15:30, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the links being added are appropriate and valuable. They are specific to the article and are not spam. The links are explictly allowed by policy: WP:ELYES "What can normally be linked....Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues,[2] amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons." Rjensen (talk) 23:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Rjensen. (See also discussion on Cntras' talk page). I really fail to see why this would be spam. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 04:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rereading the policy and checking a couple of links by this editor, I am revising my position. Placing links to the same site in a number of articles in succession certainly looks like spamming. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. -- Alexf(talk) 11:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not too familiar with how Wikipedia works, but someone suggested I come to this page and leave a comment explaining some of the edits which I had been doing a couple of days ago.


 * I was recently telling someone about The Reporter, which had been one of the most influential publications in America during the 1950s and 1960s, but is totally forgotten today. I mentioned that its entire memory has disappeared so completely that it only has the barest entry in Wikipedia, containing just four short sentences and providing very little detailed information.


 * Thinking about it, I decided to add a link to the online archives of The Reporter, so that anyone interested could read all the old articles, which would also allow Wikipedia editors with the time and inclination to begin expanding the entry into something closer to what it deserves. I'd never used Wikipedia before, but I figured out how to register, looked at that the structure of some of the other entries, and added the link to the online archives.  Once that was done, I considered that lots of other once-prominent publications could also probably benefit from having their online archives made available, and did the same thing for a couple of dozen other entries.  This apparently triggered some sort of "spam alert" because I was doing a lot of editing and linking here and there, and perhaps the format of my links also wasn't completely correct.


 * Anyway, I'd think that convenient online access to e.g. the almost 500 issues and 25,000 pages of The Reporter would be a very useful resource for anyone visiting that particular topic and also an excellent collection of high-quality source references for general topics from the 1950s and 1960s, and the same would be true for many of the other once-prominent publications I was adding. I'm tied up with other projects, so I can't really make effective use of this research material myself, but perhaps others might find it interesting. -- RU123 (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Linkspam
Your addition to Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr. has been reverted as it goes contrary to Wikipedia's guideline on external links. Please note that per WP:ELNO #9, "Links normally to be avoided ... Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches ...". --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "normally" means not always. see the above discussion which agreeds with adding the links. The link is allowed by WP:ELYES rules. Rjensen (talk) 03:55, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The links are not appropriate, and should not be restored. ELYES applies to information, not search results.  Note that I did not remove all of the additions, only the author search results.  I left the publication archives in place, as those are appropriate links - however, even in those cases, they should not be added if the primary site of the publication already contains the archives themselves (in which case, the new links become redundant) - I've already spotted one or two where this is the case, but haven't searched all of those links to verify which additional links should be removed (if any).
 * By the way, having the same discussion in multiple locations is confusing at best. It would be more efficient to centralize the discussions on an applicable noticeboard, such as at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:28, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice regarding discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at External links/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Links to digital archives at unz.org. Thank you. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)