User talk:Roux153
June 2010
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Vancouver do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Biker Biker (talk) 06:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your recent edits
[edit] Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Your Third Opinion Request
[edit]Your Third Opinion request has been removed from the list at the Third Opinion project. Per the instructions set out on that page, opinions are only available for disputes which have been discussed on the talk page of the article. I found nothing about about your request at Talk:Vancouver, so your request is not appropriate for a Third Opinion. Let me suggest that you ask your question at the content noticeboard or at the New Contributor's Help Page. If I might make a comment about your request, though, you asked,
Please provide me with some explanations for that. I would like to know precisely why a site like bcpassport.com got approved and not 2VancouverBC.com.
I'm concerned that you may not understand how Wikipedia works. The only person who can answer your question for certain is the user who removed the link. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, subject to policies and guidelines which have themselves been adopted by the consensus of those who participate in Wikipedia. With the exception of a very few things which only administrators can do (and a few even rarer things that only a few higher mucky–mucks can do), there are no bosses or "senior editors" here who have more rights than you or any other editor have. Unless the editor who removed your link can point to a policy or guideline which clearly supports the removal, then it's just his opinion of what he thinks is best here against yours. (Note, however, that I'm not suggesting that he's right or wrong. I don't know whether he is nor not. I am only speaking in the abstract about general principles here.) The only proper way for such a dispute to be decided is to bring in other editors to form a consensus one way or another. (One way to do that is through a request for comments, but a Third Opinion won't do it because Third Opinions cannot be "counted" towards consensus: they're just neutral opinions to try to get the disputing editors to come to an agreement.) While Wikipedia policy requires experienced editors not to be rude to newcomers, experienced editors don't have to cut newcomers any slack in the way they enforce Wikipedia policy and guidelines. For that reason, it can be pretty mystifying to a newcomer why his contributions are removed. Though it may not look like it on first blush, there are strict policies on what subjects and content can and cannot be included in Wikipedia. Without a working knowledge of Wikipedia policy it can be very frustrating to try to write an article or make contributions that won't be deleted. I've tried several times to write a better introduction to editing than can be found at the Article Wizard and Your First Article and I can't. Don't be tempted to skip past sections of either one, they're full of solid gold information. Also, if you've not done so already, you need to read the Notability, Verifiability, No original research, What Wikipedia is not, and Conflict of interest policies from beginning to end. Good luck with your editing, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)