User talk:Margaret Mowczko

Margaret Mowczko, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Margaret Mowczko! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Gestrid (talk).

Visit the Teahouse

We hope to see you there!

Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts

16:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Margaret Mowczko! You created a thread called Information in the article on Saint Marcella seems to be plagiarised. at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

February 2021

Hello, I'm Elizium23. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Tabernacle have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles should be written objectively, using independent sources, and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23‬ Please have a look at the footnotes in the article. I have included information from several independent, scholarly sources.

I believe the article adds to the conversation about the two tabernacles of the Israelites. I also believe the claims in the article are objective, reasonable, and rather small. Yet, they shed some light on the women who served.

I frequently link to Wikipedia in my articles, not to promote Wikipedia, but to allow readers to find out more on a particular subject. For the same reason, I have linked https://margmowczko.com/women-entrance-tent-of-meeting-tabernacle/ to the Wikipedia article on Tabernacle, so that curious readers can find out more.

Your blog is not a reliable source. Elizium23 (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium23 My intention is not for you to reinstate the link. That is neither here nor there. I posted the link in good faith thinking that some might find it interesting.

However, my blog is considered a reliable source by several universities and seminaries. For example, some of my blog posts are on reading lists at Yale University. Another example is Northern Seminary which lists my blog as a recommended resource in one of their courses of the New Testament.

I have had journal articles and book chapters published in peer-reviewed academic publications. For example, I have a chapter in this book: https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/en/book/deacons-and-diakonia-in-early-christianity-9783161566462

I disagree with your reasons for deleting the link, but I accept your prerogative for doing so. Shalom and Goodbye Margaret

1. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ (four tildes, they will be expanded to your signature). 2. A blog is rarely considered a reliable source. See WP:BLOG. 3. When you add links to your blog to Wikipedia articles, you may have a conflict of interest. Quote from WP:EXTERNALREL: "While editing Wikipedia, an editor's primary role is to further the interests of the encyclopedia. When an external role or relationship could reasonably be said to undermine that primary role, the editor has a conflict of interest." Quote from WP:SELFCITE: "...adding numerous references to work published by yourself and none by other researchers is considered to be a form of spamming." Quote from WP:REFSPAM: "Variations of citation spamming include academics and scientists using their editing privileges primarily to add citations to their own work." — Chrisahn (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Chrisahn. This is useful information. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion, as you did at Tabernacle.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Newslinger talk 06:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Margaret Mowczko, feel free to request an unblock if you are willing to agree to refrain from adding links to your website in Wikipedia articles. If you have authored peer-reviewed academic publications or other publications that meet the reliable sources guideline, you are welcome to suggest them on talk pages of related articles. — Newslinger talk 07:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sure. I meant no harm. And I had no spamming intention. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 08:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy not to have editing rights again. I haven't done much editing. Just a few corrections and improvements here and there. But I don't want my website to be considered a spam site as this is untrue. It is a legitimate website and I have always done my best to act ethically. Can I appeal my website being listed in the WikiProject Spam? Margaret Mowczko (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret Mowczko, the first step would be to appeal your block, using the suggestions from Newslinger above, as well as having a look at WP:GAB. Once unblocked, you would be free to participate in the conversation on the WikiProject SPAM.

It's of little consequence that your website was mentioned there. It is not on a blacklist and it will not be reverted on-sight by bots, as of yet. The posting there just serves as a "heads-up" to other editors for us to check for remaining links and clean up. It's a discussion, so any editor is free to discuss the relative merits, and protest its being labeled SPAM.

We can also discuss the site's status as a source. I said it is not reliable, now I have seen evidence that you may be an expert in the field, so that is good news. A final determination could be made at the reliable sources noticeboard, again, once you are unblocked and back in good standing.

I wish you all the best. Cheers. Elizium23 (talk) 09:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Elizium23. And thanks for your friendly words. I was feeling a bit miserable and misunderstood. I'll appeal the block and won't post any more links to my website. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 10:19, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Margaret Mowczko (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Insert your reason to be unblocked here My intention was not to spam. I thought the link was relevant and useful. But I promise not to post any links to my website in the future. I see that all links to my website on Wikipedia have been removed, even the ones I had nothing to do with. I hope other people will still be able to share information from my website on Wikipedia, and a link, if and when appropriate. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 10:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Thank you for confirming that you will not post links to your website in the future. As an exception, you are still welcome to include a link to your website on your user page, User:Margaret Mowczko, as a way of introducing yourself to the community. We do appreciate any expertise that you are willing to share with us, although all content in Wikipedia articles still needs to follow the verifiability policy and the other core content policies. You may find the simplified ruleset to be a helpful explainer for Wikipedia's expectations. The entry at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam § margmowczko.com is for tracking purposes and has no effect at this time. Please feel free to ask the friendly editors at the Teahouse or ask me on my talk page if you have any questions about editing. — Newslinger talk 10:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Margaret Mowczko (talk) 11:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]