Hello, Scilit, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Figma06:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Figma for the welcome. I'm new to editing content, so thanks for the links to help pages. So far so good but eventually I would like to write some pages.
Sorry... I don't need help. I thought that this is the only way to communicate with you by using the helpme template. I just wanted to thank the person who welcomed me. Please tell me how I should answer you without making it look like I need help. Thanks.
The helpme template links to a channel in IRC where Wikipedians try and answer any questions that you have. If you would like to communicate with people, you can do this through their Talk Page. In this case, the page you are after is Figma's talk page. --Ali K07:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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 name 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!--Hu1217:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your ip address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Hu1208:36, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the warning. I am not spamming. I am not adding promotional material or links to commercial sites. I am only adding external links to educational articles on a non-profit educational web site. Is that prohibited? Please advise. I will not continue to add links if this is not allowed.
I would suggest reading the policy on external links. We've gotten pretty strict on what's allowed and what isn't. Generally, if it's specific to the topic and it's something that is educational, it's allowed. I would suggest starting small. Add the link to one or two higher traffic pages (such as Bacteria) and then on the page's talk page, ask if the link is useful. The problem when you upload links en masse like you did is that it makes it look like you are a serial spammer, which is a major problem on the project. --WoohookittyWoohoo!09:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clarifying the adding of external links. I will certainly review the policy on that. I'm sorry that I caused you concern. I will not add a lot of links in one sitting next time to avoid future problems and I will use the the talk page for entries. Please know that I am not a spammer, just someone who values the site's contribution to knowledge.
Have you now removed all the links I added permanently? Do I now have to reenter them -- a few at a time?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scilit (talk • contribs) 09:19, 14 January 2007.
Actually, a good thing to learn is about Wikipedia is history. If you go to any site, you can click on the history link (which is probably towards the top). This is the history for the article on Bacteria. If you click on any of the date/time stamps (such as your edit of 07:27 14th January), you can see the page as it existed as of that edit. So to readd the link that you added on that article, go to the history, click on your edit, click on the "Edit this page" button and then save the page. It will restore the link that you added. --WoohookittyWoohoo!09:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But, yes, in short, you'll have to undo the damage yourself. I am sorry that you have been introduced to Wikipedia in this manner. Another editor, recognizing the error, might have undone the mistaken edits themselves. You'll also find some Wikipedians quite collegial. --Wetman12:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"I am not spamming. I am not adding promotional material or links to commercial sites. I am only adding external links to educational articles on a non-profit educational web site" - It doesn't matter--being non-profit (etc.) doesn't confer a license to spam. Your contributions to wikipedia consist only of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, all seem to be external link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? see What Wikipedia is not, Spam policy & External links policyHu1217:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
130 link insertions in the past day. This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. --Hu1217:38, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
W
You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia for continuing to add spam links. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. alphachimp17:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Am I now temporarily banned from adding to the site? Even though the links I've been adding are all educational links to a non-profit educational site? Today, I was only following instructions from Woohookitty and Weman (see talk thread above) about how to reinstate links that were deleted when I got the spam warning. Gosh, this is not what I intended. I thought I was adding useful links for your site visitors. Now I get a message popping up when I go to pages in wiki what says there is no user called Scilit, which is me. Very confusing. Why is a person like me who has good educational intentions is considered a spammer just like a person with commercial intentions? Anyway, I appreciate those who have tried to help me through the process.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scilit (talk • contribs) 18:36, 14 January 2007.
It's not confusing at all. 130 + links to the same site in less than a day is spam. Have a look at WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer. I'll repeat what i mentioned above, It doesn't matter--being non-profit, non-commrcial... (etc.) doesn't confer a license toWP:Spam.--Hu1219:53, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...for the rough entry into the world of Wikipedia. Yes, you've been blocked and unblocked twice already! (You can see this by clicking on the "User contributions" link on the left side of this page, then clicking on "Block log" at the top of the contribution page.)
There's a lot to learn here about the wiki-culture, expectations, etc. It can be overwhelming. Don't feel bad about running aground a bit here at first. I've made my share of mistakes and more; see my user page where I proclaim as much. Your good intentions have not gone unnoticed, I assure you.
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Scilit! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot12:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wikipedians, now I am totally confused. As you know I made the mistake that some new contributors make of adding too many external links to pages and as a result I got a warning about spamming. After a series of explanations and suggestions from various wikipedians, I understood that I can still add links to relevant educational material but not many at a time. So, I've added a link or two once in a while. Each link is relevant to the topic and always leads to an educational article that has no ads or commercial content on it whatsoever. However, a new wikipedian, shadowbot, is removing even these few links because these links are on some sort of spamlist. If the previous wikipedian, Figma, told me that I am now unblocked and said "may it be smoother sailing for me", why do I continue to have problems? Don't all wikipedians get the same messages so they know the history and status of a contributor who once was flagged and is now okayed? I have read all the guidelines and the guidelines tell me that's it okay to add relevant links to educational material. Am I not understanding something? Thank you for helping me out on this.
The best thing to do is post a message on the talk page of the "person" doing the reverting and ask them for more information as to why it is flagging your edits as spam. I'll muddy the waters a bit by pointing you to the external links policy. The first item under the "links normally to be avoided" is "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.". I have not followed through on your links to see if this is the case or not, but I would suggest bulk linking to a given site or sites would tend to suggest that they haven't been evaluated against that criteria (at least). The project is to build an encyclopedia, not to provide a link farm to dozens of similar articles. --pgk17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I request that you allow me to create a new page for the web site ActioBioscience.org (I have provided the proposed text below). A month ago I had created a page for ActionBioscience.org but it was removed by Eagle 101 on the 18th of January for being too commercial in tone and not in the encyclopedia style that Wikipedia requires. The situation was probably more complex because as you can see from my history, I was confused about adding external links and added too many. I have stopped adding external links. I have also taken the time to read lots of sample pages and your guidelines. If the new writeup about ActionBioscience.org meets with your approval, please be so kind as to remove ActionBioscience.org from the watch or blacklist so that I can create the page. Let me know if I have to contact Eagle 101 directly for this request. I appreciate any help you can give me so that I can post the new page.
The new writeup that I propose is:
ActionBioscience.org
ActionBioscience.org is an educational web site of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). The site's goal is to promote literacy in the biosciences by offering resources for the science curious, such as articles, interviews, postings in Spanish, "learn more" and "get involved" links as well as resources for the classroom, such as ready-to-go lessons and correlation charts to match the site's material to National Science Education Standards. Access is free and no login is required.
ActionBioscience.org is about topical issues in the biosciences, such as cloning, stem cell research, global warming, genetically modified food, and species extinction – issues that affect people's lives today. These issues are organized into seven challenges facing society: biodiversity, environment, genomics, biotechnology, evolution, new frontiers (cutting-edge breakthroughs), and science education. All articles are peer-reviewed, i.e., reviewed by other, independent scientists or educators for accuracy, before they are posted online. Authors include Edward O. Wilson, Niles Eldredge, Rita Colwell, Mark Plotkin, Norman Borlaug, Margaret Lowman, Fred Hoyle, and Donald Johanson. Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., chose the site for its Sci/Tech Web Award for one of the best biology sites in 2003. The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has officially endorsed ActionBioscience.org.
History
In 1998, a retired mechanical engineer/industrial products manufacturer who wanted to contribute to the advancement of bioscience education and to conservation biology, allocated his personal funds to create the non-profit, non-partisan corporation, BioScience Productions. The organization had as its sole purpose the promotion of public literacy in the biosciences. ActionBioscience.org was launched in 2000.
On, January 1, 2004, ActionBioscience.org was transferred to The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific association headquartered in Washington, D.C. AIBS was founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences and has been an independent organization since the mid-1950s, governed by a Board of Directors elected by its membership.
Scilit18:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SciLit - I'm not sure your proposed article would fit the notability criteria; click here to check the guidelines out for yourself. Figma19:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! The article on ActionBioscience.org that your propose may pass the notability criteria, I didn't mean to sound like I thought it wouldn't. I'm just not sure. Another possibility is that it could be merged into the American Institute of Biological Sciences article. And the ".org" in the suggested name may be a red flag for some people on new page patrol. I'm assuming, of course, in all this that your intent is not promotion.
What I would suggest is that you work up the article, complete with wiki-links and references, in a sub-page of your userspace (I can help you set that up, if you like). Then, when it's ready for prime-time, post it as an article and see how it's received.
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name 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!--Hu12 17:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
