User talk:Thesib12

Welcome!

Hello, Thesib12, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! -- Jytdog (talk) 16:44, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

request for help
✅

Hi there. I've just seen this warning message below. I am a new user and am learning how to link to websites correctly on Wikipedia. From what you've said there, I can clearly see I am going against Wikipedia's policy. This is totally due to my haste to start contributing and entirely my fault, I accept all responsibility. Please accept my apologies, I had no idea I was doing anything wrong at the time. I've read up on why sites are blacklisted/users flagged and it's due to the nature of the way they are cited rather than their content (Of course, as you can see, the content of the websites are not inappropriate/spammy and are valuable to their respective viewers). I can see that I've linked to two particular sites a couple of times each - I was not trying to spam or be abusive, just laziness on my part, though please don't think that I can't now clearly see how this is regarded as spamming. I totally understand that it is.

This will not happen again, if you could direct me to sources on how to correctly contribute and add links properly that will be great, I had a hard time figuring out how to do things the right way, in terms of policy and also physically working out how to add references etc,as you can see from my edit history, it often took me a few attempts to get it right. I'd also like to know what constitutes proper 'encyclopedic content' - this has confused me some what because I read it is the manner in which content is referred to not the content itself that gets blacklisted? None the less I felt the content was appropriate at the time and more reliable than some other content that was referred to on particular articles.

In the meantime, perhaps it would be best to remove those sites from the blacklist, I can see how I've used them against the policy, but to be fair to those websites I only added 5 links so I think it would be best if I spend my time becoming a better user/contributor rather than blacklisting them for those contributions, it looks like other websites on the Wikipedia blacklist are massive spam sites and are abused 100s of times, of which I and the respective blacklisted websites in question, are not trying to be.

If you could direct me on how to request the websites removal from the blacklist, that would be great, and I will make sure I do not engage in anymore poor practice once I've read up on correct form! You certainly do not have to worry about those websites being abused again, and there are websites of very similar natures being used on wikipedia usefully. Since it is only me who has linked to these websites just a handful of times, there is no history of abuse with those sites, and I've now seen the warning message, I can assure you these links will not be abused in anyway from now on, if they are, then they of course deserve to be on a blacklist.

Thank you for your time.


 * Thanks for your note. If you used those websites in good faith, and not because you are spamming, I will urge you to read WP:RS which is our general guideline that describes what a reliable source is, and WP:MEDRS, which is our guideline that describes what a reliable source is for content about health.   The two sources that you used repeatedly are not reliable, and your repeated use of them led me to have a concern that you might be reference spamming.  I will not remove them from the spam blacklist - no one should be using them as sources for content.   They were used by you, as well as 2 IP addresses (those might have been you as well; i have no way of knowing).


 * With regard to your request for guidance on how to contribute, please see the links in the welcome message above - they teach you how this place works and how to contribute.


 * Thanks again for your note - good luck here! Jytdog (talk)


 * Hi there, thanks for getting back to me. I did use these in good faith, however wrong that may have been in hindsight. I understand now that these are not suitable for encyclopedic content. However, since they will no longer be used as references, I think they should be just denied the link if an user uses them in the future (base on it not being suitable), and they will certainly not be abused, since it was just me who linked to them. I feel that, if that is the sole reason they are on the blacklist, they should be removed; there are many sites that are not appropriate sources used on Wikipedia, but that does not mean they are on the blacklist and I've justified how these sites will not be abused in the future, since it was my wrongdoing that got them there. There are also links to similar websites such as these two referenced on wikipedia that are not blacklisted, and these can be found incredibly quickly on 1000s of wikipedia articles. For example, one of the articles I updated, because it had a better source was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Haskell which references to http://theathleticbuild.com/15-of-the-biggest-beasts-in-rugby/ which I now know is just as a poor source as what I referenced to, yet this site is not blacklisted.


 * If you review the list of blacklisted sites, it is a list of malicious and horrible websites, some containing horrible content, not a list of websites that just are not considered encyclopedic content. I feel that those sites do not belong there simply because of my errors and hope that they do not face consequences.


 * Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesib12 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * The correct place to request de-listing from the blacklist, is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals Ron h jones (Talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thesib12 it is unclear why you are restoring the "admin help" tag.  Ronhjones is an admin.  I am not, and neither is Mcmatter, who also stopped by in response to the tag.  Everybody here is a volunteer and there are lots of people who ask for help.  Why do you keep restoring the tag, when you are being helped?  I have reset the tag to "helped"  - I am here and am watching your page and will continue to help you.    Do not restore the tag and waste people's time.  Thanks.  Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * and thanks for pointing out the other bad source on the Haskell article. I just replaced it with a better one. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me, sorry, I didn't realise you could see these updates unless I put the help needed tag in. As you can see, I'm trying to be a positive contributor, and can see what I've done wrong and have tried to assure that these will not be abused in the future.


 * Given all the above and that there is no history of abuse with these sites, simply down to my errors, I am trying to get these removed from the blacklist. According to this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist blacklisting a URL is a last resort for massive 'spammers', not for new users clearly unaware of what they have done and then immediately tried to make amends. For example, you saw that there was a bad article on the Haskell article, but that website was not blacklisted, and I've assured you that no abuse will occur in the future.


 * If you review the list of blacklisted sites, it is a list of malicious and horrible websites, some containing horrible content, not a list of websites that just are not considered encyclopedic content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesib12 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 February 2015‎ (UTC)


 * If you add colons before your comments, the wikipedia software indents them so that a sensible "thread" is created, and if you put 4 tildas ~ after your comment, the wikipedia software will create a signature, so we know it was you, who made the comment.  Doing those two things is basic etiquette here, as basic as saying "please" and "thank you" in the real world.  Please do them going forward. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * with regard to your concern about those websites getting blacklisted, please don't worry about it, for two reasons. 1) they should never be used in WP anyway; 2) wikipedia blocks the bots that count links, so even if a company wanted to benefit from being linked-to from Wikipedia, it couldn't benefit in that way.  So it is absolutely no big deal.  Also your characterization of other sites on the blacklist is not accurate.  They are generally just commercial sites, like the two you used.   Most of them have paid people to add links to their websites to WP,  to draw people to their websites or to get more traffic.  And I want to add, that the more you protest the addition of those websites to the blacklist, the more it looks like you were actually adding those links to benefit the companies that run those sites.  I have no idea if that is true or not, but it looks bad.  So I recommend that you just let that issue go.  Jytdog (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, and noted. I'm not trying to protest, I'm just not happy with how you handled the situation. Being on a blacklist never looks nice, and as the user responsible, I feel responsible for the blacklisting of those sites. I'm simply trying to alert you to what wikipedia states, that "the bar for blacklisting is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable. Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped". So stating that they are blacklisted due to non encyclopedic content is incorrect.
 * Furthermore, wikipedia says that Blacklisting a URL is a "last resort for spammers", which is not the case here.
 * Consequently, I have shown that the abuse will not continue since I have a better understanding as the wikipedia user who submitted these sites. The most is that wikipedia users should simply reject these URLs as unreliable if cited in the future, thus, listing them in the blacklist is extreme for sites with no history of abuse by a user with clearly little knowledge of the process, and not the actions of a mass spammer.
 * Hence I am subsequently requesting their removal from such a list based on the guidelines I have now read, indeed as part of becoming a better WP user. Thesib12 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw you already did add your protest. the people who work on the blacklist will make their own decision - it is in their hands now.  (btw, everybody here is a volunteer and works in wikipedia in their spare time. it is generally better to write brief notes rather than long ones, which we refer to as "walls of text").   See the talk page guidelines for general advice about communicating with others here in WP.
 * anyway, if you have any other questions, you can ask them here and I will see them. Good luck in your journey learning how this place works!  (and nice job, picking up the indenting and signing thing :) )   Jytdog (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

warning
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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.

I am adding www.naturalandhealthyliving.com and www.bulkingbro.com to WIkipedia's spam blacklists. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment; or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button (Insert-signature.png or Signature icon.png) located above the edit window.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)