Hi, I noticed that you've added several links to websites apparently owned by one person. Please don't do that; Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotion. Please see Wikipedia:External links for a guideline about what links are appropriate. Thanks, Wmahan . 00:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've added links to sites that I know about! I don't make any ownership distinctions when adding links, I just try to ensure that they're directly relevent to the article. Obviously, if anyone else disagrees with me over their relevence then they're entirely at liberty to remove them or replace them, and I'm not arging with that. I'd only ask that anyone who disagrees with a link that I've contributed follows it to check the site and see whether it is relevent or not, in their opinion, before editing it.
- On a more general note, I'm in favour of more links, not fewer, in Wikipedia. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, so space isn't an issue. Provided that links don't become so numerous as to dominate the article (in which case they're better moved to a separate list), then external links add to the value of the article for the reader as it gives them more opportunity to explore the subject away from Wikipedia. Articles without external links, or with only a limited number of external links, restrict the ability of the reader to follow up information and compare Wikipedia's content with that of other providers. Wikipedia is not a directory, but neither is it an Intranet - a selection of relevent offsite links enhances an article rather than detracting from it. MarkSG 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Mark - looking at the motorway service link you added for the UK I am afraid that I do not agree with you (indeed I have removed some other links that were there too). In practice Wiki can have very good pages without any external links and they really must add to the encyclopedic aspect of the page. As you say - space is not an issue and what is required is content not links. It would be good if you would familiarise yourself with WP:EL, WP:SPAM & WP:NOT when looking at adding links rather than content. I realise from the above that your view is not the same as the other editor's and mine however ours is the prevailing view in Wiki. All the best -- Nigel ( Talk) 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've read these policies in depth, and it seems pretty clear to me that none of the links I've added (or, indeed, the others that you've removed from that particular article) are in contravention of WP:SPAM or WP:NOT in any way. They're certainly not spam by the definition used in WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT doesn't ban links, it merely makes it clear that they need to be an element of an article rather than being the substance of it. So the relevent question is whether the links are appropriate under WP:EL, and that's primarily a matter of opinion - some will consider certain links to be more relevent than others.
- You say "I don't make any ownership distinctions when adding links," but that's part of what WP:SPAM is about. It appeared you added the links for promotional reasons, and WP:NOT does prohibit that. You're right that the guidelines can be interepreted according to one's opinion, and I indicated mine by removing the links.
- Sure; I don't have a problem with people editing my contributions according to their own opinion of them. I'm certainly not claiming to get it right all the time!
- You also argue that Wikipedia needs more links in general. On the contrary, Wikipedia would do well with fewer links than it has now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it needs more content and references for content, not duplication of what web directories already provide. ― Wmahan . 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'd argue that links are content, provided that they're relevent and don't dominate the article. But we clearly disagree on this, so it's probably best to leave it there as I doubt either of us will convince the other to change their mind. Your comments have been useful, though, so please don't feel I'm having a go at you - it's been a constructive exchange and I've learned something more about how Wikipedia works. Regards, MarkSG 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mark
I guess in my mind pretty simple. It's a site about the history of motorway service areas, operators and a number of other interesting pages (assuming the reader is interested in motorway service areas). In addition it has a reasonable and compact set of other links that might be useful and mean that they are not needed themselves on Wiki. Hopefully this explains it but feel free to get back to me - regards -- Nigel ( Talk) 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, thanks MarkSG 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
About your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington services
Hello there. Just wanted to remark that you commented that the article being discussed may have been created as a vehicle for linkspam, but you have not stated your opinion explicitly as whether the article should kept or deleted! -- Nehwyn 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you've added several links to websites apparently owned by one person. Please don't do that; Wikipedia is not supposed to be used for promotion. Please see Wikipedia:External links for a guideline about what links are appropriate. Thanks, Wmahan . 00:33, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I've added links to sites that I know about! I don't make any ownership distinctions when adding links, I just try to ensure that they're directly relevent to the article. Obviously, if anyone else disagrees with me over their relevence then they're entirely at liberty to remove them or replace them, and I'm not arging with that. I'd only ask that anyone who disagrees with a link that I've contributed follows it to check the site and see whether it is relevent or not, in their opinion, before editing it.
- On a more general note, I'm in favour of more links, not fewer, in Wikipedia. This isn't a paper encyclopedia, so space isn't an issue. Provided that links don't become so numerous as to dominate the article (in which case they're better moved to a separate list), then external links add to the value of the article for the reader as it gives them more opportunity to explore the subject away from Wikipedia. Articles without external links, or with only a limited number of external links, restrict the ability of the reader to follow up information and compare Wikipedia's content with that of other providers. Wikipedia is not a directory, but neither is it an Intranet - a selection of relevent offsite links enhances an article rather than detracting from it. MarkSG 06:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Mark - looking at the motorway service link you added for the UK I am afraid that I do not agree with you (indeed I have removed some other links that were there too). In practice Wiki can have very good pages without any external links and they really must add to the encyclopedic aspect of the page. As you say - space is not an issue and what is required is content not links. It would be good if you would familiarise yourself with WP:EL, WP:SPAM & WP:NOT when looking at adding links rather than content. I realise from the above that your view is not the same as the other editor's and mine however ours is the prevailing view in Wiki. All the best -- Nigel ( Talk) 17:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I've read these policies in depth, and it seems pretty clear to me that none of the links I've added (or, indeed, the others that you've removed from that particular article) are in contravention of WP:SPAM or WP:NOT in any way. They're certainly not spam by the definition used in WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT doesn't ban links, it merely makes it clear that they need to be an element of an article rather than being the substance of it. So the relevent question is whether the links are appropriate under WP:EL, and that's primarily a matter of opinion - some will consider certain links to be more relevent than others.
- You say "I don't make any ownership distinctions when adding links," but that's part of what WP:SPAM is about. It appeared you added the links for promotional reasons, and WP:NOT does prohibit that. You're right that the guidelines can be interepreted according to one's opinion, and I indicated mine by removing the links.
- Sure; I don't have a problem with people editing my contributions according to their own opinion of them. I'm certainly not claiming to get it right all the time!
- You also argue that Wikipedia needs more links in general. On the contrary, Wikipedia would do well with fewer links than it has now. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it needs more content and references for content, not duplication of what web directories already provide. ― Wmahan . 07:07, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I'd argue that links are content, provided that they're relevent and don't dominate the article. But we clearly disagree on this, so it's probably best to leave it there as I doubt either of us will convince the other to change their mind. Your comments have been useful, though, so please don't feel I'm having a go at you - it's been a constructive exchange and I've learned something more about how Wikipedia works. Regards, MarkSG 14:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Mark
I guess in my mind pretty simple. It's a site about the history of motorway service areas, operators and a number of other interesting pages (assuming the reader is interested in motorway service areas). In addition it has a reasonable and compact set of other links that might be useful and mean that they are not needed themselves on Wiki. Hopefully this explains it but feel free to get back to me - regards -- Nigel ( Talk) 07:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's fair enough, thanks MarkSG 13:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
About your comment in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Washington services
Hello there. Just wanted to remark that you commented that the article being discussed may have been created as a vehicle for linkspam, but you have not stated your opinion explicitly as whether the article should kept or deleted! -- Nehwyn 09:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)