User talk:Micahburnett

Spam[edit]

Please stop adding spam to articles by referencing your website as an external link. This website is not nearly notable enough to belong on Wikipedia. -CapitalR 02:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CapitalR. If you believe I'm spamming, please be more specific. I didn't know a notable site was a requirement to add an external link to Wikipedia. Regardless of whether the site is notable or not, there are more than a thousand verifiable quotes on specific topics that are very targeted, and not spammed. And this is not a commercial or a self-promiting site -Micahburnett 04:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Spam for the notes on adding repeated external links and for promoting one's own site. Also see Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. -CapitalR 02:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will take a look. -Micahburnett 03:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with CapitalR. Please stop spamming Wikipedia with links to zeios.com or you may soon find your account blocked from editing. Mass addition of links is never appropriate, no matter how useful a link may be. Please go to the talk page(s) of the article(s) you wish to add the links to and see if there is agreement for it to be added before continuing. . - auburnpilot talk 04:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy against adding links to several pages with relevant content. If you disagree lets go on a case-by-case basis, and not mass-remove all of the work that I've contributed. Mass removal of content based on a link or a user is spam itself. You are removing links without even reviewing the content. -Micahburnett 04:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is your final warning. The next time you add a link to zeios.com, you will be blocked from editing. As explained in WP:SPAM, "Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Discuss the links on the relevant talk pages before adding them again, or your account will be blocked for spamming. - auburnpilot talk 04:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what is your requirement then. When add a request to the talk page and how long do I wait, if no one responds, before I can add the link? And if there's is a discussion, who decides if it gets added? Also, apparently you're an administrator? How do I tell that you are and that you have the power to do what you threatened? -Micahburnett 04:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the site further, I recommend strongly that you not add one single link to the site. It is your personal website, and that is a clear case of spamming and a serious conflict of interest. If you truly believe the link should be added, bring it up on the talk page and ensure that consensus exists for its inclusion. You can confirm that I am an administrator by viewing the user rights logs for me here. - auburnpilot talk 04:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I am new to contributing, and I thought relevence was enough to contribute, especially since I am not selling anything on my site and I have very little of my own content. I will seek consensus for adding my content in the future. -Micahburnett 14:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a problem, really. We all make mistakes when we first start editing, including me. Within the first month I started editing, I found myself blocked for violating the three revert rule. Instead of cursing the project and running, I took it as an opportunity to familiarize myself with relevant policy. Since then, I've tried to become well versed in Wikipolicy and have subsequently been granted adminship. In other words, life moves on. Feel free to blank this page and put the issue behind you. Happy editing, - auburnpilot talk 21:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]