User talk:Uzbyte

Welcome!
Hello, Uzbyte, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see: If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia: I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Policy on neutral point of view
 * Guideline on spam
 * Guideline on external links
 * Guideline on conflict of interest
 * FAQ for Organizations
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and how to develop articles
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * Article wizard for creating new articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

August 2015
Hello, I'm C.Fred. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Stanford University, because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. Thank you. —C.Fred (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I'd like to see where in the guidelines it gives information as to how you came to the conclusion that the links I provided were spam? Under what guidelines? They were identical in scope to the other external links on the page. There were 4 other external links to webpages also made by professors or students with less information from less verifiable sources, and yet you did not mark those as spam. Your profile page says you're a CPA, which means you have no expertise in graduate school or major university admissions and yet felt qualified to edit links on that topic? You just deleted every link I posted in question because you have nothing else to do and thought I was spamming, which is fine, but by keeping actual relevant links off the site while maintaining links for outdated sites you're doing everyone in a field you know nothing about a disservice. I work as an Oxford University researcher and know the individuals who run this site, so I'd be happy to show that I actually have credentials in this area, which you--do not. Several students complained that the external links were old and no longer helpful so I created an account to fix it and was met with an arrogant male accountant. Thanks Wikipedia! Uzbyte (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Unless there is a good reason to keep the links I posted off, but the other identical website links still there, I expect the other links to be deleted today as well. I'd like an explanation as to why you made the judgment call that awful unreadable (and old) websites such as howigotintostanford.net are NOT spam but a professor operated website with current information directly relevant to the wikipedia page is not--because if you can't give a good reason beyond my account being new you shouldn't be allowed to delete content. Uzbyte (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's see. You added the same external link to three different articles. The site has nothing to do with specific schools, but rather provides general information about grad schools—and offers services to help people apply to grad school. The motive of adding the links is clearly blatant promotion, and the link does not comply with WP:EL. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

"clearly" is not a reason. Something cannot simply be "clearly" anything, I would like a detailed reason why what I wrote was unacceptable but the other links to websites which offer identical services and are absurdly outdated are acceptable. I'd also like for you to delete the other links that offer the exact same services, i.e. free information for graduate applicants. I should also note the other external links offer paid services and haven't been account verified. If there is an issue with the way I wrote the details, you should have corrected that or explained that aspect. A simple "you cannot promote services on the page, please remove 'offer services' from the link would have gone a long way, because regardless of how it was written the website is still operated by more reputable sources than the other external links and your sweeping edits were done hastily assuming anything by a new user must just be commercially motivated. I repeat: our economics students complained that links to websites such as the ^stanford one were on the wikipedia page which they're unreadable. If you want to be useful, delete those then. But seriously, you're not a PhD and you didn't go to a top 10 U.S. or U.K. university so beyond trying to catch spam, you shouldn't be commenting on the value of these topics--you know nothing about them. Uzbyte (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

And for clarification, the same link I posted was to 100% relevant wiki sites and only to ones which had identical types of external links. I'd delete the other "inappropriate" links myself but the trolls of wikipedia will just run around undoing any edits I make at this point so I'll just delete the account and go back to working IN ADMISSIONS. Thanks Mr. Accountant! Uzbyte (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2015 (UTC)