User talk:Xarg

Welcome!
Hello, Xarg, 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! Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2018 (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

Thanks
Hello Suffusion_of_Yellow,

thanks for reviewing my contributions. While I understand that Wikipedia is a favored place to put advertising on, I don't understand why you reverted my changes. Of course I linked to my site, but in that sense every linked site is advertising.

The feedback I get from visitors to my site shows that the quality and effort I put into creating the tools, makes them a good reference for related Wikipedia articles. Furthermore, the existing links to other tools are either outdated (using Java applets), do not exist anymore or link to much less intuitive implementations. All in all, the best content should win and if you refuse my contributions from a quality standpoint, I'm totally fine with it. But it seemed like a somewhat automatic or routined action, which is why I ask you to reconsider that decision or provide feedback on what should be better.

Thanks Robert
 * Thank you for responding. It was "automatic and routine" as you correctly inferred — Wikipedia gets an overwhelming amount of spam and anyone who (1) links to a site matching their username, (2) links to the same site in multiple articles, and (3) adds external links without making other significant contributions, is likely to get reverted on sight. I wouldn't say all external links are advertising — some have simply been discovered by unrelated editors — but, yes, probably half of the external links on Wikipedia are probably spam that slipped by. Now your site does not look particularly spammy, so if you want the links added back, I'd suggest making a request for inclusion on one or two talk pages (e.g. Talk:Caesar cipher and Talk:CYK algorithm) while clearly stating that you own the site. Then unbiased editors who are most familiar with the article can decide if your links will make a good addition. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:09, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute. I tried visiting xarg.org again and got taken to something called robot.gifts instead. Any idea why? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What a pity. The non-https AND www version of my domain was redirecting to a silly default. I moved to a different provider last week and must have overseen that config mistake. Sorry for that, it is fixed now.