Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added 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 constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. —EncMstr (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Internet censorship in Australia. 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 web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site 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 article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Bidgee (talk) 09:42, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Internet censorship by country with . 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. Thank you. - Happysailor (Talk) 09:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thank you to Bidgee (talk) and HappySailor talk for advising me about Wikipedia external links policy. I would like to know why is a Floss Manual regarding tools and advises on circumvention of internet censorship would not be accepted on Australia's page whereas it is on others countries' pages. I have read the guidelines, and I don't see what is wrong with the link I am adding on Internet censorship's page on wikipedia. Please provide explanations and point out the specific recommendations I am not respecting.
Thanks Qwyrxian for explaining why you removed my http://freeales.fidh.net links. I understand for not adding a See More when the sources is already mentionned as a reference but regarding the other edit (on Ales Bialiatski's article), you mention : " we don't link to advocacy sites per WP:EL". Although FreeAles is the main (and only) English, French and Russian speaking website for information about political prisoners conditions of detention in Belarus, it is indeed a website created by Fidh, but it does not only give Fidh views, but other European Institutions and International NGOs' views are represented. It works more as an information and translation tool than to promote a single organization's view. Also, I carefully read the External link of wikipedia and cannot find any mention to advocacy websites being restricted in this section. I can even show many other Wikipedia articles linking to NGO edited pages.
- The standard stance on all external links is that they are not included. The burden is on you to go to the article's talk page and argue why it should be included. If necessary, we can also ask at the external links noticeboard. Please do not re-add it until you can establish a consensus that it is appropriate. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)