User talk:Alexfromgalaxy

Hello, Alexfromgalaxy. You have new messages at 71.234.215.133's talk page.
Message added 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

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:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

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.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At my talk page[edit]

Hello, Alexfromgalaxy. You have new messages at 71.234.215.133's talk page.
Message added 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

May 2014 - Reliable sources[edit]

Please use reliable sources for references in articles. Self-published websites that are not authored by acknowledged experts in the subject are not reliable sources, even if the website says it uses sources from those experts. The original sources must be used on Wikipedia, that they may judged on their own merits and not based on what a random website creator deemed accurate, factual and/or relevant.

Your repeated addition (1 2 3 4 5) of a link for a particular website leaves you in danger of being called a spammer or a single-purpose account, or accused of a conflict of interest or tendentious editing. None of these will end well. At best the website could be added to the spam blacklist; at worst you could be blocked from editing. Please go back to the original sources and use those, and not the website you have been linking to; it simply is not a reliable source. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page[edit]

You and I had a conversation last month about the reliable sources/website problem. I am copying it here so you can more easily find the advice and links I gave you previously.

Convo from IP's talk page

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Why did you delete link at Birthstones page[edit]

You don't have a nick name yet. Why do you think you are profi in this niche "Birthstones". The link which I've been provided is not a spam. This is additional information by the subject. Open google.com and type "Birthstones". Look at the top 10 and show me any site except Birthstones Online, which provide more information about the subject. If you will.....I'll accept your edition., because Wikipedia, itself, provide scanty information about this subject. This is a free encyclopedia and anyone can edit it. But you must to study SUBJECT, before delete external links. Please find any source better than http://www.birthstonesonline.com/!?!?!?!?! Find, and I'll delete this edition by myself!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 07:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The external link you added is to a blog or personal website by unknown author(s). As such, it fails the Wikipedia guideline for external links and the Wikipedia policy for reliable sources, and thus appears to be spam. Please use the original journals and/or books when adding information to Wikipedia. Be sure to <ref></ref> them with the year of publication and the page number you are taking the information from. Paraphrase it so as not to violate Wikipedia's copyright policy. DO NOT COPY TEXT DIRECTLY FROM A SOURCE TO WIKIPEDIA.

By following the guidelines and policies I have linked to above your time editing Wikipedia will be much more productive and a lot less frustrating. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, this way, at this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_flower

Jump up ^ "Birth month flowers". Birthstones.org. Retrieved 2012-09-16. - This is not a proof link...Where is the source??? Private site. Jump up ^ "Birth month flowers". Birthmonthflowers.org. 1999-02-22. Retrieved 2012-09-16. - Private site...Where is the source??? Book or Journal???? This is just a link to a private site...Besides this is MFA (Made for Adsense)...Look this site content: Birthstones this is birthstones and birthstones of course are birthstones, but birthstones bla...bla...bla... Why didn't you delete these links??? I can add same table with birthstones from http://www.birthstonesonline.com/ but you'll delete it...Where is the justice??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 17:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: This link http://www.flowerstation.co.uk/delivery/birthday-floral-gifts-delivered/ is promotional. Look at it - there is flowers shop...There are not any informative articles. I can also add 1 string and add link to birthstones online as source...because there are information about birth flowers too, but you'll delete it again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexfromgalaxy (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this essay. To sum it up, just because "something" is in another article, does not mean a similar "something" should be in any other article. If someone added links to non-reliable sources in the birth flower article then those links should be removed (as they have been) rather than adding more links like them in the birthstones article.

Please note that reliable sources are Wikipedia policy; if information is not reliably sourced, that information – or links to unreliable sources – can be removed until such a source is supplied. You added an unreliable source as an external link to an article and it was removed. I would suggest looking for the reliable sources you say the website is based on, culling those sources for information, and adding that information and their source(s) directly to the article(s). It would be a more productive use of time and make the article(s) better than the "scanty information" they currently contain. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 01:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note that per the user page guideline you may remove comments from your talk page, although archiving is preferred to simple blanking. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 11:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]