User talk:T12345Q

March 2017

Hello, I'm Deli nk. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links. [1] Deli nk (talk) 13:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Mean as custard (talk) 08:00, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thequint

Your sole purpose on Wikipedia seems to be to manufacture references pointing to a particular website. Please feel to contribute content which does not reference this website. Anything else will be reverted. . . .Mean as custard (talk) 12:47, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

April 2017

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Naam Shabana. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Diff: [2] Please don't summarise critical response without providing a link to a reliable source that arrives at that very same assessment. If you summarise a film's critical response as average, you need to find a source that says the response was average. It's too easy for people to cherrypick reviews that match their own perspective, and then codify as fact their opinion with a summary. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you keep trying to spam thequint.com into articles, I'll be more than happy to blacklist it. Familiarise yourself with our guidelines on blogs, please. Anyone can create a site and posture as sage experts. We're only interested in what reliable published sources with established reputations for fact-checking and accuracy have to say. Unless you're prepared to argue for why this site should be considered reliable, please stop submitting this source. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]