Link guidelines do not apply to reference sources, and the content I added was relevant. Furthermore your reworded version of what I put down is a worse explanation then the one I gave about Ritonavir process.
Please stop adding inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Peanut. It is considered
spamming and
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Plantdex.com is an anonymous, self-published source and is therefore considered unreliable for Wikipedia.
Joja
lozzo
20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing is valid and im not just inserting links. Plantdex has authorship and is not unreliable according to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore if I had a different source for the info I would use it but none of the common gardening sites have the information I needed to verify.
- Please read about talk pages, especially on formatting. If you sign your talk page posts with "~~~~" the wiki editor will automatically add your user name and a timestamp when you submit the edits.
- Please read policy on reliable sources, especially concerning self-published sources. It requires that sources be verifiable and be recognized as authoritative. Plantdex.com is self-published and anonymous. There is no way to verify the accuracy of the information on that site. Please do not add any more links to it. Joja lozzo 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You are "cleaning" the "inappropriate" links incorrectly, if my sources are so unreliable why do you leave the content? I have taken the liberty I removing the content I added from all pages because there is no source which I guess for you is better. I look at authorship standards and you are a poor evaluator of the source.
Golb12 (
talk)
00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct. My bad. Thanks for helping fix this up. Joja lozzo 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Stop removing content. If you would like to see something cited then use {{cn}} which will add a citation request. Your mass removals are unacceptable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who added the content, then someone went through and removed the sources. I will remove any content that I have added without discretion especially when people like you keep tampering with my edits. Wikipedia cant be improved cuse people like you think you are the boss.
Golb12 ( talk) 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can use other sources such as google books to improve articles and add citations. It doesn't need to be linked to the one specific site.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can use other sources such as google books to improve articles and add citations. It doesn't need to be linked to the one specific site.
I agree, but I have the right to contribute how I want, and I don't want to contribute if what I put up is immediately altered not based on any sensible standard. I don't want to go do more research just so I can be helpful. Again, any content I add that gets changed I will continue to remove.
Golb12 ( talk) 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- On its face, that is contradictory to a variety of policies and guidelines. WP:OWN is probably foremost...WP is a collaborative process, not "my content as I want it or not at all". It's great that you want to help improve articles, but you also have to recognize that the nature of this site is that disputes arise and not get overly defensive or frustrated. It sounds like there is a dispute over the quality or reliability of certain sources, or appropriateness of certain links, or something like that? That happens a lot in this environment because again, collaboration means differences of opinion that have to be resolved. I recommend seeking WP:3O on the article talk-page or WP:RSN or some other public venue to draw in other editors to get their take on the situation. DMacks ( talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok well I will stop editing the pages, sorry for causing conflict. Golb12 ( talk) 02:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you DMacks...I have posted at
at AN/I concerning this before receiving your assistance. I simply wanted Golb12 to stop removing material from articles. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I also have some responsibility here in clumsy handling of the issue and in not replacing the links I removed with 'citation needed' tags. I agree that much of what Golb added was valuable though I did remove text that I considered more how-to than factual. I offer my best wishes to all towards a bigger and better encyclopedia and my apologies to those whose toes I may stepped on. Joja lozzo 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Link guidelines do not apply to reference sources, and the content I added was relevant. Furthermore your reworded version of what I put down is a worse explanation then the one I gave about Ritonavir process.
Please stop adding inappropriate
external links to Wikipedia, as you did to
Peanut. It is considered
spamming and
Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you may be
blocked from editing Wikipedia. Plantdex.com is an anonymous, self-published source and is therefore considered unreliable for Wikipedia.
Joja
lozzo
20:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
The sourcing is valid and im not just inserting links. Plantdex has authorship and is not unreliable according to Wikipedia standards. Furthermore if I had a different source for the info I would use it but none of the common gardening sites have the information I needed to verify.
- Please read about talk pages, especially on formatting. If you sign your talk page posts with "~~~~" the wiki editor will automatically add your user name and a timestamp when you submit the edits.
- Please read policy on reliable sources, especially concerning self-published sources. It requires that sources be verifiable and be recognized as authoritative. Plantdex.com is self-published and anonymous. There is no way to verify the accuracy of the information on that site. Please do not add any more links to it. Joja lozzo 20:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
You are "cleaning" the "inappropriate" links incorrectly, if my sources are so unreliable why do you leave the content? I have taken the liberty I removing the content I added from all pages because there is no source which I guess for you is better. I look at authorship standards and you are a poor evaluator of the source.
Golb12 (
talk)
00:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, you're correct. My bad. Thanks for helping fix this up. Joja lozzo 00:44, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- Stop removing content. If you would like to see something cited then use {{cn}} which will add a citation request. Your mass removals are unacceptable.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:55, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
I am the one who added the content, then someone went through and removed the sources. I will remove any content that I have added without discretion especially when people like you keep tampering with my edits. Wikipedia cant be improved cuse people like you think you are the boss.
Golb12 ( talk) 01:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can use other sources such as google books to improve articles and add citations. It doesn't need to be linked to the one specific site.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- You can use other sources such as google books to improve articles and add citations. It doesn't need to be linked to the one specific site.
I agree, but I have the right to contribute how I want, and I don't want to contribute if what I put up is immediately altered not based on any sensible standard. I don't want to go do more research just so I can be helpful. Again, any content I add that gets changed I will continue to remove.
Golb12 ( talk) 02:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- On its face, that is contradictory to a variety of policies and guidelines. WP:OWN is probably foremost...WP is a collaborative process, not "my content as I want it or not at all". It's great that you want to help improve articles, but you also have to recognize that the nature of this site is that disputes arise and not get overly defensive or frustrated. It sounds like there is a dispute over the quality or reliability of certain sources, or appropriateness of certain links, or something like that? That happens a lot in this environment because again, collaboration means differences of opinion that have to be resolved. I recommend seeking WP:3O on the article talk-page or WP:RSN or some other public venue to draw in other editors to get their take on the situation. DMacks ( talk) 02:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok well I will stop editing the pages, sorry for causing conflict. Golb12 ( talk) 02:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Thank you DMacks...I have posted at
at AN/I concerning this before receiving your assistance. I simply wanted Golb12 to stop removing material from articles. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 02:31, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
- I also have some responsibility here in clumsy handling of the issue and in not replacing the links I removed with 'citation needed' tags. I agree that much of what Golb added was valuable though I did remove text that I considered more how-to than factual. I offer my best wishes to all towards a bigger and better encyclopedia and my apologies to those whose toes I may stepped on. Joja lozzo 02:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)