User talk:Coxandy

Welcome!

Hello, Coxandy, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions, such as your edit to the page The Elected Member, seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, please see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributors' help page, or you can click here to ask a question on your talk page. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Simplified Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Amortias (T)(C) 22:40, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Please help me with...

For all 46 Wiki pages relating to Booker Prize Winners, I have added a reference link to my website, www.collectibleEx.com.

This is a reference link to a page, which uses both narrative and images to assist in identifying the UK first edition of the book.

Please take a look. This isn't money making, it is a reference link which collectors will find beneficial. Furthermore, to my knowledge, there is nowhere else out there on the web that has done this.

I thought that this was exactly what Wiki is all about: collective Knowledge share?

To compile the data to accurately identify all 46 books has taken a long time and weeks of research. Why has it been remmoved?

I'd be very interested to hear your response,

Kind regards,

Andrew Cox (coxandy)

Coxandy (talk) 16:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your link was WP:SPAM and does nothing but promote your website. Wikipedia is not here to promote or advertise any person, place, website, or thing. In addition to adding inappropriate external links, you have added a link that you have a clear conflict of interest in. Adding in your own website to these pages is highly inappropriate as it strengthens the argument that you are only doing this to promote yourself and your website. Also, your personal website would not meet our standards for a reliable source anyways and should not be included in any pages. If you truly believe that this link should be there, you should have used the article's talk page and gotten input from other editors. Unilaterally adding your website to dozens of pages is not really how you should have approached this. If you want more help, stop by the Teahouse, Wikipedia's live help channel, or the help desk to ask someone for assistance. Majora (talk) 16:46, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help me!

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Ok, so it is my web site. And, yes, I see why you may think this may appear to be a conflict of interest.

However, the data the website provides is free (after all, you can see it) and it is unique:

It offers accurate information in defining a UK first edition It offers a price based upon online retailers (abebooks, alibrisa, ebay, biblio and more)

Please take another look. This data could be hugely beneficial reference data for many collectors.

I am a collector and it has taken a long time to collate.

All I am doing is trying to share that information. Is that not simply following the Wiki ethos?

Rgds,

Andrew Cox

Coxandy (talk) 16:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have already told you, that is not how it works. Your quick reposting indicates that you have not read any of the links that I have provided to you in my previous response. We do not consider your website a reliable source. We do consider the addition of those links SPAM. We would love it if you stayed and improved some articles. Fix some spelling mistakes, improve the text. We would not love it if you continue to add these links to our articles. Continually adding spam links can result in your website being blacklisted. Please do not continue to add this link to our articles. --Majora (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your site is of highly specialized information only, even if it were to be determined to be of unimpeachable truth in all regards (which determination has not been made). It is at best trivial with respect to encyclopedia articles on individual books. Absent consensus from other editors to the contrary, please do not add such links again. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:37, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]