User talk:Wodekanfa

November 2022

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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website 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 page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. [1] MrOllie (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. 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. MrOllie (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm sorry if my edit seemed disruptive. It was done in the best of intention. Wikipedia external links guideline allows external links in the reference section.

I would appreciate it if you visit the external link and see for yourself why I chose to refer to this webpages. These webpages are different from usual websites as I and many others have discovered. They were very informative. As you said so yourself, Wikipedia uses nofollow tags so it is not about search engine rankings, rather, about the information in this website. Most of the references made were published journal or books which are theoretical. However, Wikipedia promotes a balanced viewpoint and I was offering viewpoint from real-world project and these webpages which I have cited seems to fit the purpose. Wodekanfa (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is the latest in a line of accounts that have been adding links to this website. What is your relationship to those other accounts? MrOllie (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know who are the others that linked to this website. I do know that this website ranks very high in Google search and the website has many good pictures and information which are copyrighted. I cannot copy these pictures or texts from these websites and paste them to Wikipedia because that would be a breach of copyright. But at the same time, these information seem too valuable to pass. So I cite these website.

My bad for citing only 1 website. I should cite to more websites but there are many great information there. Please see for yourself.

Please read my contribution and then visit the cited webpage and you can see for yourself why they are justifiable. Please put aside the spam intention for a second. There is absolutely no point spamming. Wikipedia is nofollow. Wodekanfa (talk) 03:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie,

Wikipedia is a about enhancing human knowledge. The contributions I have made are valuable in the area that I have contributed to.

Many would appreciate the contributions I have made and many would like to see the real-world examples available in the webpages I cited.

Please re-consider. Wodekanfa (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia simply does not use a company's advertising materials as sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 04:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the information on this website. Sadly, you couldn't. Nevertheless, I am happy to cite other reference, if available, not from this website. As I respect the information on this website, I would appreciate if you could remove them from spamlist. My good intention has done them injustice. Perhaps, you can revert your revert and I'll remove the citation. Is this acceptable? Wodekanfa (talk) 04:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that acceptable, no. MrOllie (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let's talk a look at this webpage I cited.

https://www.jimmylea.com/cfd-analysis-services.html

Please look past their first paragraph.

There were 3 peer-reviewed journals available for download. These papers all substantiated what I had contributed.

This is the justification why I cited this paper.

DESIGN HEURISTIC OF MIXING TANK

VALIDATION CFD RESULTS VIA PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL

VALIDATION OF CFD RESULTS VIA PARTICLE IMAGE VELOCIMETRY (PIV) Wodekanfa (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with this page: https://www.jimmylea.com/cfd-consultants.html

They are sharing real-world CFD projects. Other websites wouldn't even share all these. Wodekanfa (talk) 04:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Wikipedia readers appreciate real-world projects so they can visualise the contribution or theory better. Wodekanfa (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we come to a compromise and resolve this for the best interest of Wikipedia and the readers ? Wodekanfa (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie, if you visit the webpage I cited and read slowly without any preconception, you will realise my intention of bringing real-world examples into Wikipedia without breaching any copyright law. Can we come resolve this between for the best interest of Wikipedia and the readers? Wodekanfa (talk) 04:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]