As you can i see from the article edited, they're dead links and I have followed wikipedia editing guide and also supplies relevant links relating to the articles.If a website is repeatedly supplied by me sometimes, maybe due to the site has the information required and does not necessary mean that I am the owner of the sites because, i can see, most of the dead link I updated have been reverted by you and that's means discouragement to contributing to wikipedia for the legacy to live on. Check the history of my account and you'll see that it is an old account and I am not here to supply spam websites or links. Therefore, I urge you to revert the change or some by carefully reviewing them before taking action.
However, I by omission, I mistakenly go against the rules, my apology but blacklisting people websites where i source information without the owners knowing may be detriment to the people resource, therefore, a clear understanding is required in handling situation that we sometime holds assumption.
>> Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. KH-1 (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I tried to add a link as it is really very helpful. People need to know in which states short-term loans are allowed and which are prohibited. Do you think that this information is not important to people?
Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Picard's Facepalm (talk) 03:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Nomination of Ventoura for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ventoura until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
Speedy deletion of Stephen Zechariah
2402:3A80:19AE:7863:258D:6CDE:AF5A:C3EA (talk)Hi there, I see the article Stephen Zechariah was created by a banned user. But the person in the article is completely notable. Kindly remove the speedy deletion template.
speedy deletion on Stephen Zechariah
ButterSand0 (talk) hello! KH-1, i came across you are nominated the article Stephen Zechariah and I also saw it was created by a suspected/banned user. Yes it was created by a blocked user. But I believe the article Stephen Zechariah is notable to WP:NMUSICIAN and Please remove the speedy deletion. Thank you ! 🙂