User talk:Mkneisler

Welcome!

Hello, Mkneisler, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page Moed, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

• Policy on neutral point of view
• Guideline on spam
• Guideline on external links
• Guideline on conflict of interest
• FAQ for Organizations

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:

• 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

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! Nat Gertler (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Linkspam

You have added a link to http://www.godsholydays.com/ to a number of articles. Please see our WP:EL external link guideline, that we really don't need those links. Such activity is called linkspam, and may lead to your editing privileges being revoked. Needless to say all the additions have been reverted by me and another editor. Debresser (talk) 18:51, 16 July 2016

Gods Holy Days

Nat and Debresser, hello! Today you removed several external links which were conscientiously and strategically added to enhance the user experience. I have many other websites, but this one applies nicely and provides rounded information for other users. I m not a spammer, but hard working American that has information to share with others on the topics which are available on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an awesome tool and I appreciate the website and the editors. I would appreciate if you would reconsider the edits for if I were studying these subjects, I would like to see other works. Please take a look at the site and see for yourself. There are several pages which fit nicely with the content in Wikipedia. http://www.godsholydays.com/

Also, I was actually correcting an old link, which was removed by you and your team. Please consider reestablishing the one for Tabernacles even if it is incorrect, I have added a redirect on the website. Thank you again for your consideration. Mkneisler (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

First, allow me to clarify something: there was no "team" involved in this. Two experienced editors independently came upon your edits and found them worthy of undoing. @Debresser: and I did not have contact with one another before starting the deletion; I only learned of Dovid's efforts by seeing that he beat me to some of the edits.

With that out of the way: I fully understand that you think that your pages would be of use to Wikipedia readers, and I'm glad to hear it. (Certainly, it would be overly cynical for you to think they weren't of use and yet link anyway!) But even if you're not thinking of your edits as promotional, you have a clear conflict of interest in adding them to the pages. The Wikipedia guidelines on conflicts of interest point to steering clear of such edits. Instead, when you really feel that one of your own web pages would make a good source, you should go on the Talk page for the article (you'll find a link marked Talk above the article), and add a new section stating that you thinking you have a good page to add to the External Links, explaining why it's a good link, and also presenting your conflict of interest in doing so yourself (i.e., mention that it's your website.) Allow the other editors of the page to decide whether your link should be added.

As for the link to the Feast of Tabernacles information, that was in the External Links section, which is specifically for links to web locations that aren't on Wikipedia. Links to other Wikipedia pages would go in a See Also section. However, See Also sections are generally limited to links that are not otherwise in the article, and that page is already linked to in the article.

And yes, you were just updating the link to your Feast of Tabernacle page now... but you were the one who had inserted that link in the first place in 2008. That was not the appropriate thing to do eight years ago any more than the new insertions were appropriate today. (And yes, I noticed that even when updating the link, you also promoted it to be the first on that list.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I hope that this response was of help in clarifying matters! --Nat Gertler (talk) 08:10, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Agree with every word. We noticed your edits independently. I too disliked the fact that you placed your links first. Debresser (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)