Welcome!

Hello, Mary quite contrary, 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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! 

Cynrin 19:05, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me for my english, why link spam? I have linked to a page of photographs of Rome district by district. have you controlled the page before cancelling?Alexlot 19:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I looked at your page. Please see WP:EL for Wikipedia guidance on acceptable external links. Your page appears to be a random collection of links for things the owner finds interesting - news, weather, sports, a survey, and Dan Brown. The pages you linked to do not contain any scholarship or information especially beneficial to the articles you placed the links on. And that's your second problem - articles, plural. You placed your links across several other pages, including Seven Wonders of the World, New Seven Wonders of the World, and Seven Natural Wonders. While placing your links on one page would have just been perhaps a misunderstanding of acceptable external links, placing them across several pages is what makes it linkspam.

To compound your problem, you're also doing the same thing under Camelot31. This is sockpuppetry, and what makes me not buy the "innocent mistake" thing. Please refrain from linking to your page on Wikipedia. I have also posted this response on your talk page. Thank you. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 20:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you have written 'Your page appears to be a random collection of links for things the owner finds interesting - news, weather, sports, a survey, and Dan Brown.' This is not true because the web site contains weather, news and so on, but the linked page contain a clickable map of Rome with hundreds photographs about Rome order district by district, and link to pages only about Rome. And without ANY banner or sponsor. I have reintroduced link to seven wonders poll because my link appeared for several weeks before desappear without any reason. You have written "your page appears to be a random collection of links"...this is not true but look about this site that is between external links http://dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/Italy/Regions/Lazio/Localities/Rome/Travel_and_Tourism/Travel_Guides/ it is a collection of links or not????? you have written "random and not contain any scholarship or information" please look this site that is between external links http://www.adilrasheed.com/site/links/photographs.html this web site contains photo (like mine, but less) of Rome and of Goteborg, yes Goteborg. Then I'm Roman so i think i'm able to speak about my city. you have written While placing your links on one page would have just been perhaps a misunderstanding of acceptable external links, placing them across several pages is what makes it linkspam. But this site http://www.new7wonders.com/ have more links in wikipedia, is spam also that one??? in the end i have read WP:EL infact i have delete 2 commercial sites. About vandalism, i have read that sockpuppetry is not automatically vandalism. I have not damaget any page, and i think that add a external link about the argoment of the page is not vandalism. And my english is not to good to allow me to express what I would want. Ciao.Alexlot 21:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ps i will open a discussion on the Rome page because i think my page is not in contrast with WP:EL, at least not more than various others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.17.211.174 (talk) 21:44, 3 April, 2007 (UTC)

(Response also posted on your talk page)

First, I want to address the vandalism claim - never once did I call you a vandal. Second, the fact "that sockpuppetry is not automatically vandalism" does not excuse sockpuppetry.

On the subject of the information you can provide as a Rome native - I'm from Boston, but I can't create a website about Boston and go around linking it to Boston-related sites on Wikipedia. I can link to Boston-related articles in established news media, I can link to academic research on Bostonian subjects, etc., but I cannot self-reference. Even if a friend made a website about California, unless my friend is a scholar, scientist, or journalist following the accepted research guidelines of her community, I can't link to her site in an article about California. Make sense?

Wikipedia has some fairly-well established policies about these things - WP:NOT, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:EXTERNAL are some of the ones you should read up on. However, given the language barrier (and that's not a slam on your English skills - these policies confuse plenty of native English speakers as well), you may want to try reading up on these over at the Italian Wikipedia. I suggest you start at [1], which will better explain the examples I came up with in the paragraph above, [2], which contains guidelines for external links, and [3], which is what not to put on Wikipedia. You should also really look around for the sections on Attribution (Attributizione) and Reliable Sources (Fonti Certe? - VERY important to answering your query). I would have linked to them, but my Italian is far, far worse than your English. Take your time getting a feel for these guidelines and policies, as they are close to the hearts of those trying to maintain Wikipedia's integrity. Thank you. --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know guidelines infact I have made precise references to others external links but you haven't answered about this.i still waiting for an answer to the examples, you have also cancelled my edit about newspapers of Rome, as you was known some more than me. cmq i think it is right to make a public discussion to compare all external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexlot (talk • contribs) 00:28, 4 April, 2007 (UTC)

It is getting very obvious that you do not, in fact, know the guidelines, otherwise not only you would not have a sockpuppet, you would also understand why your link doesn't fly. And you're right, I didn't answer your argument that "other links do it, so I should be able to", because it's not good logic. No, I haven't checked every other link on those pages, but just because other non-kosher links have escaped attention doesn't mean that we shouldn't remove any of them. I'm going to go back and look at the others when I get a chance.

However, your use of the dmoz link as an example shows that you probably haven't read a line of Wikipedia's external links guidelines, because right in its very first section is stated:

Rather than creating a long list of external links, editors should consider linking to a related category in the Open Directory Project (also known as DMOZ) that is devoted to creating relevant directories of links pertaining to various topics. (See {{Dmoz}}.) If there is no relevant category, you can request help finding or creating a category by placing {{Directory request}} on the article's talk page.

And if you want to make a "public discussion" about the links, you should always feel free to do so at the Rome article talk page, because community discussion makes Wikipedia what it is. However, I want to let you know beforehand that I'm not making this stuff up on the spot - this is general Wikipedia consensus on external links, so you should really give WP:EXTERNAL a good read-through before starting that argument. Take care, --Mary quite contrary ^(hai?) 06:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Response originally posted to Alexlot's talk page.[reply]

I have spoken about external links because they are an example of like is interpreted the law, in a country, England (but also United States) that applies the common low. So, after the festivity, if i see again those links it means that those kind of links are all right, so also mine link. Or i will start a pubblic discussion about what kind of links are all right but non only in Rome talk page but in a public space of entire comunity. Every other thing is another speach and i know i'm not a vandal.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexlot (talk • contribs) 03:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message [4] on my talk page; I was about to start pulling my hair out. Since it appears that you are several days farther along the hair-pulling process, I will stop pulling mine and agree with your conclusions. Thanks!! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I could certainly be mistaken, the latest message [5] leads me to believe that either he just does not get it, or he is being deliberately obtuse. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record."; look that up, it's all over the place, google news and similes… regards. Lovelight 02:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS A lot of Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials will be referenced in the template, there is nothing outrageous about it, and template has been renamed…. Lovelight 02:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Because I want to be President of the United States, I know that unless you address that lack of trust, you're not going to be able to successfully lead a nation. And I want to be quite specific about this. It's my intention as Chairman of the Domestic Policy Subcommittee to focus in on two areas that I've -- there are a number of areas, probably dozens of areas that haven't been appropriately probed -- but I know of two, that I'm looking at. I'm not at liberty to discuss exactly what they are, but our committee will hold hearings on two discreet areas that have major implications with respect to the story that Americans have been told about 9/11." – his words, that said, it appears to me that his presidential run is based on truth, so it might be important addition to the article. Here, you might find it interesting;). Take care. Lovelight 02:59, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently participated in this AfD. There is a discussion going on at the article's talk page about the title of the article, so I am notifying everyone who voted or commented on the AfD in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Tufflaw 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your comment on the talk page of the article An Inconvenient Truth, and I have to thank you for trying to resolve the edit-warring. I think that everyone has their own views on the movie, but that they should only edit content in the article if they have discussed it on the talk page first and if it does not reflect their personal views on the movie; hopefully, they will only edit for the sake of improving the article for Wikipedia. Once again, thanks for attempting to clear this all up. We need more people like you! Regards, Gabycs 15:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An article you previously commented on is up for AfD again, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may want to comment there. DGG (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]