Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. -- GraemeL (talk) 22:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. Owen× ☎ 23:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)And what about links that are actually relevant?So cooking sections are not relevant to a recipe website? And yet people can make comments about Allrecipes.com, and add links to cajun cooking websites, but I'm not allowed to add one to mine?OOPS...admittedly the leftover salmon placement was wrong....(I neglected to notice it wasn't about leftover salmon...food..but leftover salmon...band...I'm sorry to see you have decided to ignore our warnings. Owen× ☎ 23:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC){{unblock}}I'm sorry to see we disagree about this. Whether or not I have added items, which my site has relevant material about, should not be a determination about whether that is spam. There were NO articles about them, and I added relevant material where there was no content.Were I adding a leftover link to something like, say censorship of the media, or selective publishing, that would be a reason for spam.Why is my site and the additions I made not permitted, while you retain links to other such locations as: Foodgeeks.com, realcajunrecipes.com, or studentrecipes.com (all in the cooking section of the wikipedia, all of which are advertising supported sites.)?If you thought it was not appropriate in a couple areas, fine, but to remove it wholesale from the wikipedia because you didn't agree with my actions, is reprehensible. It is like shouting down a speaker so that others cannot hear them because you don't like what he's saying. If you were going to remove my site because it is commercial (i.e. ad-supported), then you should do so for ALL external links posting any ads and not be selective in your removal nor your blocking.Is this an example of wiki elitism? Some are better than others? I had the bright idea to add my site to wiki today, and I'm sorry I didn't do it to one topic one day at a time...Maybe that would be a way through your filters. I was handling this honestly as an individual.Incidently the definition of spam, according to your own precious wikipedia is: "...the use of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk. While its definition is usually limited to indiscriminate bulk mailing and not any targeted marketing, the term "spam" can refer to any commercially oriented, unsolicited bulk mailing perceived as being excessive and undesired."If you think that making six edits/additions in one hour (or one day, or however long it took me to do so) is BULK, well then you need to look up the definition of BULK and EXCESSIVE as well (although that is subjective).I completely oppose this block, not that you will change your mind about that. But I would challenge you to post this response to my blocking in any public place on this site and see if you will get more people agreeing with you or agreeing with me.And furthermore, if you continue to disagree with the status of linking to my site, I would challenge you to remove ALL commercial/ad-supported links and/or references to commercial sites in the Wikipedia. To single one, or a few, out as inappropriate and irrelevant puts all such items into question.Closing note: You can associate this IP with mkamensek - My Username. And block it as well. I will not oppose you doing that, as I am challenging the blockMean remarks retracted - by mkamensekI agree, and I will add NO MORE THAN ONE relevant link to the RECIPES section. Please do me the favor of copying this entire section to User Talk on my username MKAMENSEK. Should I link the "offending"""/>