User talk:GeorgeMichaelFarewell
February 2018[edit]
Hello, I'm 331dot. I noticed that you made an edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person on George Michael, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source, so I removed it. Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, so please help us keep such articles accurate and clear. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! 331dot (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
March 2018[edit]
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Kuwait. 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. Thank you. Begoon 11:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Qatar. 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. Begoon 11:06, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Expatriate[edit]
Dear Begoon,
You deleted 4 edits on the page expatriate, where I had added this piece of information about worldwide distribution of expats — "The best country for expats to live in is Bahrain, as voted by over 12,500 expats in the 2017 Expat Insider Survey conducted by InterNations." The reason you gave was "refspam".
I must confess, I'm puzzled by this, since the sentence directly after the one you removed is a sentence about the HSBC Expat Explorer survey and the most highly rated destinations according to it. The citation used for this little nugget of information is a direct link to the HSBC Expat Explorer survey.("HSBC expat explorer". HSBC Expat Exporer. Archived from the original on 19 December 2014. Retrieved 9 November 2017.)
I wonder if you could possibly give me some further explanation as to why my piece of information was is considered an inappropriate link/source, when an identical survey/piece of info has been allowed next to it, with the exact same type of source (regarded as "spam" by your good self)
Yours curiously,
GeorgeMichaelFarewell (talk) 14:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) GeorgeMichaelFarewell
- First of all, it's not a reliable source - see WP:RS. Secondly, the reason it looks like spam is you've been adding links to that site to several articles. I noticed a couple of other edits you made were reverted as promotional too. If it wasn't your intention to spam, I apologise, but it certainly looked that way. As for other links, yes, there are many other inappropriate links in articles, but the fact that they exist does not justify others. You should read the material I linked to see which links are appropriate: external links in the article body never are, external links in an external links section sometimes are, but only in limited circumstances, and references must use a reliable source as defined at WP:RS and actually be used to support content. You can discuss those matters on article talk pages if you disagree with a removal. Thanks. -- Begoon 14:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Begoon, thank you for your reply. It wasn't my intention to spam, I thought I had found a piece of information equally as, if not more, important than the HSBC Expat Explorer survey (since their citation is very old). Does this mean you will be deleting the inappropriate link in the sentence I highlighted to you? Also, you mention that external links should never be used in the article body. I thought so too, and assumed that you could only link to an internal wikipedia page — but what do you know... you can! I'm not too sure why it would allow you to externally link, if it's not something that you are allowed to do. Is there a page that confirms this? Kind regards, 14:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)GeorgeMichaelFarewell (talk) GeorgeMichaelFarewell
- Yes, you can see Wikipedia:External links and WP:ELNO for what you may or may not link. External links in the article body are not allowed. The fact that it is technically possible to do something with the software does not make it permissible or acceptable. Yes, I made some further removals in that article. No, the fact that I have made one type of edit in one place does not make me obliged to make all other edits which someone may deem similar. If you reply, although you do not need to, please reply here - your page is on my watchlist, and splitting conversations makes them difficult to follow. Thank you. -- Begoon 15:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
March 2018[edit]
Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice:
{{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.