User talk:60.242.6.177

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit that you made to the page Astronomical objects proposed in religion, astrology and ufology has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Please use the sandbox for testing any edits; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing for further information. Thank you. Geoff ^{Who, me?} 02:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Portugal do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.Template:Do not delete Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Animal protection link is really not of sufficient direct relevance to add to all of those articles you added it to - if we added every possible vague reference to every article, we'd have "See also" sections with thousands of links. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Republic of Macedonia, you may be blocked from editing. Can you please stop adding links to the see also section that are not directly related to the article. Codf1977 (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Hello, your mass additions of links to animal protection don't seem to be well motivated. Please keep "see also" sections reserved for links that are of top direct relevance for the topic. Thank you, -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please stop trying to link every single occurrence of phrases like "animal protection" to specific articles, regardless of their context. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at CITES. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Please stop spamming links to your new article all over the encyclopedia while it is currently undergoing deletion discussion. If it survives, and it ends up as an article with a clearly-defined meaning, you can then add links to it where it is specifically relevant Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, do not link usages of the phrase "animal protection" to your new article out of context (especially not when they are the partial names of organisations). You should only link specific references to your new article, and not where you simply happen to find the same words. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Please stop giving troubles to people who want to contribution to wikipedia. nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism' the page provided says this. Internal links help readers and good academic research open people's eyes, so they don't only look at things from their own perspective. It's dangerous to pretend to be an expert in an area one is not familiar with. It better to study first, then comment.