User talk:Hjalmarsson

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Rome General Peace Accords. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links as long as the content abides by our policies and guidelines. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hjalmarsson, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you want, you can leave a note at Wikipedia:New user log to get some personal newbie type help. If you need editing help, visit Wikipedia:How to edit a page. For format questions, visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Newcomers' Village pump. And of course, feel free to talk with me or ask questions on my talk page. More specifically, though, I'm happy to see someone interested in conflict resolution, and I'm sure you have a lot to add to the wikipedia project. Please don't be discouraged that your first batch of edits has led to a conflict. WP works funny, Criticism of Wikipedia has some of the problems listed and linked to. But in general, its a fun place for a lot of people to pretend they are smart, important, and the like. If you are tenacious (and pander a bit), you can do a lot of good work. If you don't want to offend people, here are a few suggestions: first, of course, be patient and try to compromise, in general don't break WP:3RR, try to sign posts to the talk page with three four tildes at the end of a note like this: ~~~~, and finally don't clear your talk page of a dispute until the dispute is over. There are lots more conventions of the community that will come over time. Most important to me, and many others, is WP:IAR, although WP:RULES do "exist." Smmurphy^(Talk) 03:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the warning about spamming. Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page. Removing warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments.

Also, if you would like to have a normal conversation with me about the links, please pick a username and stick with it. I have now left messages this matter on 3 separate account pages, 2 of your usernames and your IP address (as apparently you edited once while logged off). As I mentioned on your other account's page (User talk:Dr.peter), and per guidelines, please discuss your link on the article's talk page first. You should stop adding the links directly to the article - WP:SPAM guidelines are fairly clear on the fact that you shouldn't add links to websites you are affiliated with. Thank you --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your unilateral re-inclusion of links just proves the point that this is a spam account. Why the apparent refusal to suggest links on the article talk pages to unbiased editors? Femto 12:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message Smmurphy, This is all very Kafka-esque to me :) and a certain eye-opener in regards to people's virtual interactions, has it really come to this (see above) when the only point really is whether people would benefit from reading the primary texts and agreements? The main accusation that this is blatant self-promotion I concede may have some value in addition that my actions on wikipedia probably suffer from the same Kafka-esque inability to know what form to get stamped where by whom and how! The point though being is not to sell anyone anything (Viagra, stock or penis enhancements etc)but rather provide a gateway where people can see how actors in conflict managed to tweak out their disagreements and hopefully draw some parallel lessons from other peace processes. CR is a trusted and unbiased not-for-profit source that gives those who are interested access to primary documents as well as analysis on the peace processes in question, a rather benign mission in my opinion and again nobody is making monetary profits at any point (the peace business is regrettably less profitable than the war business). In the final analysis though, I give up, apparently I am a spammer and really an unfortunate 'victim' of overzealous guardians who while doing a good job of sifting out weed also in my opinion manage to slaughter some pretty flowers, but hey hope someone else gets what information CR is providing and makes the links where appropriate. All my best, good luck and adios, Hjalmarsson

It's impossible to distinguish whether someone adds links to their site in an honest but misguided attempt to improve the encyclopedia, or simply for blatant self-promotion. In both cases the same arguments get used.

You just don't go around planting rows and rows of your flowers in someone else's gardens. "But they're pretty, why are you complaining?" The purpose of strict linking policies is not to victimize but to protect. All that is asked of you is to discuss mass additions of your own links with unbiased editors first instead of adding them yourself. Femto 13:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]