Thanks for the information. Do you think posting articles for a long time and than start adding links will help in successful addition of link.
Adding quality non-commercial links that enhance the article will help. Registering should also be a consideration.
Can one post a link inbetween the article...supoose i have a travel website having many pages on information...i am writing a article on california travel and in between the article a add a link to my website page on californial travel which is both informative as well as commercial. can it get added?? Thanks a lot man u been a great help..
Deamn, my links were online untill I added another website to "Real Estate"... After 1min ALL of my links were removed Im so stupid.. same IP... The OLD links were ALL absolutely relative and non-commercial The last one in Real Estate was a real estate agency offering free consulting... Deamn, dont put links with the same IP, dont put links in commercial topics! Zero traffic for the 2 links that were 24+hrs online, but deamn, I liked them...
I guess you had ads on that site. Your site might be free, relevant, even super-uber-relevant, but if it has ANYTHING that can be tagged as commercial, it's gone. There's no difference. Non-commercial = a page with nothing else than content aka no banners, no affiliate links, etc. might be a good possibility though yet this is against the rules, especially if on your website you have a copyright at the end. Everything must be under GPL license in order to be used. As I'm currently an editor there (I do some work daily), I know what is ok and what is not and let me tell you, as soon as editors see links, they check the website for ads, then if the content is relevant or not. Even if the content is relevant, your website can be removed because they see no point in it (repetition of what is on the wiki already) and it might even be removed for no reason (because they clearly see it's for link purposes)
tomzx, ok... I did not have a signle link, banner, affiliate.. the articles were in subfolder of my real estate agency. Once again: no single banner, affiliate, real estate offer... Only original content, written by myself (about a ski resort in Bulgaria). The text was unique (no dublication of information or something). What the heck ?
As others have pointed out, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia. It is not a website directory. To me, Wikipedia articles linking to other websites simply because they are similar or "on topic" does not make any sense. I also think, submitting an article to Wikipedia simply to slip in a link to your own site is in essence spamming Wikipedia and I can fully appreciate why Wikipedia editors delete those links. Really, the only reason I could why see Wikipedia would want to link to other sites is for purposes of citing primary sources of information. In this case the Wikipedia should almost have an obligation to provide complete bibliographies of the sources of information using proper citation as is the traditional practice when writing reports. While the URL of online sources referenced should be provided. Whether or not citations have live links or just provide unlinked URLs should be an editorial decision. In reality only providing URLs and not linking to reference sources is a great way to eliminate link spamming. All reference sources should be treated the same way whether they are government sites, non-commercial or commercial. Linking or not linking, citing or not citing simply based on whether or not a site has ads is a philosophical criteria that has absolutely no business in appropriate bibliographic citation. If Wikipedia does not want to provide citation to a source simply because it is a "commercial" source then that source should not be used or even looked at when researching an "article". Either be willing to give credit where credit is due or don't use a source at all. In this day in age when anybody can post anything they want, it is exceedingly important to provide citations along with URLs so that readers can verify information on their own. While I personally provide complete citations with URLs in bibliographies I provide with articles I publish on my site, I do not provide active links to reference sources.
Encyclopedias aren't looking for "example" of real estate agency. They talk about what it is but do not give links to them. It's possible that there were some links available on the page but they must have been about what real estate is, it's history, etc. not about agencies.
tomzx, you didnt understand me... I have article about a resort in Bulgaria.The resort has a page in wikipedia, 5 lines of text, 5-6 external links, all of them spammy. I posted my article link there... What is the connection with my real estate agency(except the hosting) ?
Link will get removed as soon an editor reviews it. I wrote about your real estate agency because you wrote about it. By the way, wikipedia isn't looking for links to pages where people can read stuff. If you article is good, put it on wikipedia and write that it's a reference at the bottom of the page (linking to your website which must NOT have a copyright on it). Your article will then lose it's copyright, it's now part of open-source... Otherwise, you are not allowed and wikipedia doesn't want links to webpage on the subject. They want reference link. I'm sure there are hundred of pages similar to yours (talking about bulgarian resort), wikipedia isn't a link database.
tomzx, if it isn't directory - why are still there around 10 spammy sites ? With not a word about this resort, just porn and random content ? No offence
Wikipedia removes your links because they want the visitors to stay on their site. They only have external links to the Official sites of the topic or something like that. I think it total bs but they own the system and there are lot of editors that just kicks you out within minutes if you add an external link. Yes you are right, that external link could be relevant but they don't care. They should change the way they operate because people are just going to find the garbage information from wiki and not the real info.
The problem is not that they are removing links, the problem is that they are protecting pure spammy links... grhh
Who are "they" though? Ultimately anyone can join in and be part of it. If you see spammy links then you can delete them. If they get re-added then you can delete them again, you can then go into the Discuss tab to discuss the merits of the spam links with whoever is posting the links. If there are repeated additions and deletions then there is an arbitration system to judge the best way forward. This doesn't help you get your article linked of course, but if your true motive is to enhance the wikipedia then you should be integrating your article into the wikipedia rather than linking to it!
Well, then point us to the page you've been working on so hard and we'll see if you are right and if those link are spammy.
I might even take a look see and weigh in and I avoid going to Wiki if at all possible. I'll even spend an hour looking for an alternative source than rely on Wiki, but I do want to help put to rest whether the links are or are not spam.
what i dont like is when an editor picks on someone and chases them around wiki erasing their additions.
Well, lots of things happen when something can be edited by many. I think wikipedia is trustable though. There are a lot of people on wikipedia which have has a job to block ips which they think are used as spam proxy. When someone picks on you and start deleting all your stuff it's possibly because 1. You've been promoting you stuff all over the place 2. You edited something of his own (is spammy link) and now this is going to turn into childish play of who's going to win on add-delete.