![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Classical guitar contained a very long list of external links when I came across it. I removed the lists of images and musical scores to start some cleanup. I feel the scores are off topic, and the images should be replaced with images uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Another editor disagrees. Discussion at Talk:Classical_guitar#External_links. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Today the account started spaming health related artilces and was warned. The IP apparently then registered a new account ( User:Joeprofes) to try to avoid detection and started spamming the same and similar articles. I left a warning on the new account's talk page. Ward20 ( talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Any opinions about edits like this that add links to a "speaker page" ( LinkSearch)? Looks as if it should be reverted to me per WP:ELNO#1. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about what the user was attempting to do with this edit. It appears to be an attempt to inject javascript into the page. Perhaps even an attempt at Cross-site scripting? I'm sure Wikipedia is safe, but I wanted others to be aware of this. The user has been blocked for now, but he could easily come back with a different IP. Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The following was originally posted at WT:VPP by User:RyanRiWilliams. I am not involved with this dispute.
Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.
Please help. PleaseStand (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
However, you miss the point that "What best serves the readers of this encyclopedia" in two seperate ways. 1: This is in-fact the Official Site, that does not direct link into any 'myriad' of business, nor is it the sole reason for the site. 2: More to the point, this site and each of it's communities are largely broken into information based summary that much of which cannot be found on the wikipedia page, therefore adding to the content of the page making it better to the reader of this encyclopedia.
The link is simply an Official Link to the subjects area and page which rebuts the removal of said page by Mr. Crawford who lives in a neighbourly area in direct conflict with Bay of Quinte, and therefore is acting towards bias. I find this extremely damaging to [User:Brian Crawford| BC ]]'s credibility as an editor as the area to which he calls 'home' contains a page link http://www.kingstoncanada.com/en/ to which the same 'links' are found, although I understand this is not grounds for argument to rules in Wikipedia.
I have noted in the history of the page, that there have been it seems more than 2 editors who have felt that the link should remain.
I look foward to more editorial in this matter. -- RyanRiWilliams ( talk) 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. The only argument that holds any water is the conflict of interest. However, I do see that another party had reinstated the link to the website, therefore this constitutes an argument to reinstate. -- RyanRiWilliams ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Machu Picchu#3D Model of Machu Picchu has flagged several other 3D model links accross Wikipedia. My personal take is that the coord tag already provides a link via GeoHack to the model (it's built into Google Earth). Also, the person wanting to add the link recently admitted to a WP:COI issue (he's the author), which adds a secondary reason to avoid linking directly from the article. But, it brings up a question of what to do with the 3D model links mentioned by him that exist in other articles. Note: Some of the articles identified are generic articles (such as Keep) which has a 3D model link to a specific castle/keep, while others are to specific locations that have both coord and a 3D model link. Here's a list of the other articles they mentioned:
I would appreciate additional opinions on both the Machu Picchu link, as well as the links identified in these additional articles. Should they all be removed as being redundant to the GeoHack link via the coordinates? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ WS}} is used for adding a consistently formatted embedded external link to articles. It is mostly used to add links to list articles (mainly lists of newspapers). This use is incompatible with WP:ELNO #20. I continue to believe that these link directories are not the aim of Wikipedia and should cleaned of the external links, but wanted to run it by editors here before flagging something for cleanup that is this embedded and extensive. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For StarCraft, I'd like to add two external links to official demos to the "External Links" section:
S@bre has reverted this edit, stating We aren't here to do Blizzard's promo work for them. Is there a policy against linking to official demo links? (There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Linking to demo games.) Smallman12q ( talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not well versed on the external link guidelines, I was hoping I can get an experienced editor or an admin to review this article, and help improve it. I have a feeling most of the links are drive-by edits and do not belong in this section. thanks riffic ( talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
User Anon111 is affiliated with FiveBooks and a frequent requester of said company's website on various talk pages. Last month the site was up for discussion here and the involved editors agreed to something like leaving it up to the editors of the article where the link was requested. This decision was partly reached, I suspect, because it was a non-commercial site (at least temporarily). If it wasn't for profit last month it's definitely now, with a huge buy button every fifth paragraph or so.
Summary: countless promotional links from a single purpose account to an online store she/he is affiliated with. I say remove all and if other editors find the site useful for using as reference that's alright. jonkerz ♠ 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting mediation for the ongoing "dispute" at Talk:Qur'an#External links. Fortunately, it is a relatively civil disagreement regarding a number of external links User:Scriber added and I removed (and added and I removed...) to Qur'an. Both of our arguments are laid out on the talk page as linked above. An additional point to possibly explain my perspective on this issue is that over the past months I have seen a good of deal external links added, presumably in goo faith, to various Islam related pages which contribute nothing to the article but lead to various on-line versions of religious works, search engines and so on.-- Supertouch ( talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
hello. I know that WP:EL says external links with malicious software should not be included in articles, but there is an article with a malicious external link that is central to the article. the article is .ps and the external link is pnina.ps. The Norton report for the malicious site is here. What is done in this situation? Thank you. Efcmagnew ( talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm usually the one removing links so this is a change of pace of me. DustFormsWords is removing all links from Dude citing WP:EL, "these links are capable of being integrated into the article proper and are therefore not appropriate for the external links section". Technically they could be right but I don't think I've ever seen the removal of informative links like [2] and [3] (which leads to [4]) using that particular reason. Usually, the links stay until the article is expanded and they're used as references. Can others weigh in? -- NeilN talk to me 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. While acknowledging WP:OTHERSTUFF my first reaction is that the links in question are very tame compared with many entertainment and other articles (i.e. I wouldn't bother removing them). However, here are my feelings re the links currently in the article:
I haven't looked at the article history, but I can imagine a lot of drive-by edits adding nonsense to the external links in this article. I would be very sympathetic with remove all if the motivation to remove the EL section is to help repel constant unhelpful additions (i.e. any link would need solid justification, and I don't think any of the above fit that). Johnuniq ( talk) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Editors/Administrators,
I hope you can help me resolve an issue.
I am a librarian at Southern Methodist University. In the past, I have placed links to our digital collections, which contain only primary resources that are carefully annotated, scholarly in nature, and contain digitized objects of historical value. In one case (August 2009), I was a bit overzealous and the link was removed, which I understand. However, I seem to be banned from placing any links to our digitized primary resources. I have been told that my account will be frozen if I place any more links to our digital collections.
I have now read "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits
Again, this is precisely what I would like to do. The above paragraph allows libraries to place links to their resources (this is an important distinction). If I am allowed to place links, which is clearly stated in the above paragraph, how can I make sure my account will not be frozen if I place such links?
Please let me know the proper procedure. I really appreciate any help you can provide in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. I will take your suggestions to add more detailed edit summaries and point to the sections you mention, as well as create a talk page. Ukexpat, does this mean my account will not automatically be blocked when/if I add more links?
Thanks and best regards!-- Digitaldomain ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is still reading this section, but I have updated my talk page. I also submitted this to the talk page for the Mt. Pelee section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Pel%C3%A9e#Suggested_External_Link
Please let me know what you think. Digitaldomain ( talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to deal with this, but Safisk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has done little but add links to
over the last four years or so. Can someone have a look please? Thanks. Safisk, please explain why this is the case. MER-C 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the suitability of the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia as an external link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Allow external links to Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia?, and would appreciate opinions from individuals outside the project. Thanks in advance! 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I'd like a second opinion on the following Link-Removal: here. The link removal, was accompanied by this note on my talk. I added a reply (r1) to the talk; and reinstated the links, but this has lead to a huge ugly "final warning" sign on my page. All I have done was add the proper author's name, to an otherwise unreferenced pdf-article; and then turned the name into a link, to a page on the author's webpage, which gives more articles written by the author. Thus, with just one link...
That about the facts. Now to my personal feelings: I feel threatened by Ronz and his big warning sign... I am not promoting anything; I am adding context and wish the best for the reader. Also 2, etc. etc. MySorAccount ( talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could some others take a look at the table at PC power management#Software Solutions? Some of those posting at Talk:PC power management#Request for Comment have self-confessed COI issues, and are simply trying to justify inclusion criteria for the article to justify their product being listed while ignoring WP:N, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM.
Sometimes, these lists are off-loaded to stand alone "List of ..." article named entries, and such an option should be discussed on if its appropriate here; but including the listings directly in the article is placing a lot of undu-weight on the highly spammish table, which overwhelms the text information within the article. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have re-worked the table to remove the external links and more peripheral fields. Overall I think the table is a good thing but clearly it has been abused by editors with COI issues. Hopefully the latest edit fixes this. hnobley ( talk - 9:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A debate has arisen regarding the appropriate size and content of the External Links section at Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Please see: Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill#News media sources. I believe it relates largely to the inclusion of news media coverage pages and blog links to the section. One side viewing the links as a reference to a further collection of articles, the other as making the section too large and being links to news media outlets that are already linked as references, albeit not the exact same page. Any suggestions or direction.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The timeline section of the article has a reasonable list of HDD events beginning in the early 1980s. The earlier era is covered by the following external link:
1950s through 1990s
see: Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts[-] maintained by Disk/Trend an HDD industry marketing consultancy.
Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts maintained by Disk/Trend [1] an HDD industry marketing consultancy lists forty-three events, ranging from the first disk drive in 1956 to the first 15,000 RPM disk drive in 2000.
The link is to a list of 43 HDD industry firsts beginning with the first disk drive in 1956 and ending with the first 15,000 rpm drive in 2000. As such the list is neutral, accurate, encyclopedic and cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia because of detail and copyright. As such it appears to qualify Therefore it is an appropriate link per
WP:ELYES. None the less an editor insists it be removed while not providing any replacement at all. I believe it is appropriate and should remain. Suggestions?
Tom94022 (
talk)
16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue concerns History of hard disk drives#Timeline and these four edits that add a short para that is essentially an embedded external link. The editor who removed the para (ProhibitOnions) is correct: we do not use that style because it sends readers to another site rather than building the encyclopedia, but mainly because it is too open to abuse (article on food: "See [my fabulous site] for great cooking tips!"; article on finance: "See [my fabulous site] for great investment info!"). The guideline is WP:MOS#External links and it is worded very politely ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"). However, in practice I am sure that "should not normally" would be "must not" for an example like the current issue. I am now watching the article and may edit it myself later; it just needs a couple of brief facts with a reference, although it could be argued that there is no assurance that the site is a reliable source. "NN" is non-notable which is probably not quite the correct terminology in this case ( notability is concerned with whether a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article). Johnuniq ( talk) 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...
Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...
I'm in a dispute with User:Wikidemon over the external links section of this article and whether they meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. I believe that only one official link is necessary, that to the center's homepage. Wikidemon argues that links to websites which the organization controls, such as physicianscam.com, obesitymyths.com, and fishscam.com among others, are also valid under WP:ELOFFICIAL.
Are these links appropriate in this article or should they be removed? Them From Space 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
At IP address#Tools we find a list of around 30 external links to websites that will tell you your IP address. On the talk page, there is a brief and unsettled discussion regarding whether the article benefits from having such a list. There is already a DMOZ link ( IP at Curlie) in the external links section, and I think that it would be helpful to readers to add two links in that section to external what is my IP? sites (with a "no more links" html comment), and remove the list in the Tools section of the article. Opinions please. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Tonyspatti ( contribs) has made one article edit in 3 years...namely to add his own website http://www.glassblower.info/ to the glassblowing article. The article already had numerous external links, I removed the link as the addition was clearly more about promoting his own website than improving wikipedia. I have removed others too. He is outraged at my actions. Can someone advice please? Teapot george Talk 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration of these concepts. Tonyspatti ( talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to review my comments. Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate (another two more days later), still seeking further discussion on the points above...
Thank you again for considering the points I raise above concerning Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to read my comments. Tonyspatti ( talk) 12:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my further comments on this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for reading my additional comments on this NoticeBoard, and I hope that TeapotGeorge will eventually respond here to explain how his actions fall within the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially for consistency. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for their time in reading this, especially WhatamIdoing who provided constructive criticism which was actionable. Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for further reading this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully there will be some additional voices added to this discussion, especially those who can weigh-in on the fundamental Wikipedia principle that "Wikipedia should be consistent.". Many thanks. Tonyspatti ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard." You're not helping your cause by posting the equivalent of 8 A4 pages of prose. Please summarize the above in a short paragraph. MER-C 05:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
3. In between 03:09, 7 June 2010 and 08:22, 11 June 2010 (a span of over four days) you Johnuniq were the ONLY person on Wikipedia who felt the need to undo my Glassblowing External Link changes (and I had cited THIS NOTICEBOARD by user and UTC as justification for the specific two changes I made).
Tonyspatti ( talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War - we have a concern that this list of books and other sources has many links to Amazon.com, but I can't find anything that says this is bad. It seems to be, intuitively... this edit [5] seems to express the sentiments of both sides of this issue. Can someone help? Thanks! Hires an editor ( talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody please take a look at the external links featured in
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and see if they meet WP standards? I have already been labeled a "troll" by the articles owner primary contributor, so I'd like an outsider to take a look. Thanks. ▫
JohnnyMrNinja
06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer added an external link to several article related to citizenship a few days ago. The link is to an article hosted on knol.google.com, and appears to be written by Tomwsulcer. A quick search couldn't turn up something that I could point to saying he's a recognized expert in the area, but that was only a quick search. The article seems to be fairly well written and occasionally refers to some sources. I brought it here because of the number of articles involved, and have invited the user to discuss here. It also looks like he's added links to other essays he's written on other topics. Thoughts on this? Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've removed the links to Tom's personal essay for now. At the very least, inclusion would need to wait until the matter has been resolved at this noticeboard, and as mentioned on Tom's talk page, there is a real concern with respect to precedent. More importantly, though, there were a few instances where Tom used his personal writings as a reference source. Discussion about the merits of the EL aside, WP:RS would prevent its use in that manner. -- Ckatz chat spy 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Andrew_Schlafly#Official_external_link_question there is a discussion whether Andrew Schlafly's user page on Conservapedia User:Aschlafly should be considered his official external link for the article about him in his article Andrew Schlafly. I believe even if the main thrust of what he wrote there is in an area he is not notable for there is enough there for it to be considered as his official page. Would you consider it a reasonable WP:ELOFFICIAL? Dmcq ( talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone like to respond without talking about de facto control which indicates the wrong page was being looked at? Dmcq ( talk) 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_in_Faith
Forward in Faith, North America has a new website: http://fifna.org/
Therefore, the appropriate links regarding our ministry should be updated to reflect this change.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Howell, Ph.D. Executive Director Forward in Faith, North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.98 ( talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some others within this project review the Video aggregator article? There's a discussion on talk:Video aggregator regarding the external links to some example sites. There are only two of us involved in the discussion - so we need additional outside opinions on the links. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
School Rumble's website is causing redirect issues for someone at a FAC. It works for me, but checklist does show it redirecting. I'm not sure what is going on nor what to do because it is relevant and does seem to work for myself. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to invite to the discussion in Talk:Swahili language#External links to on-line dictionaries ff., as there is a dispute in interpretation of the guidelines and thus with the amount of external links to online dictionaries. Thank you and best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed several inappropriate links at Procter & Gamble but there is disagreement regarding one of the links. Normally I would not worry about one link, but it really does seem unusual in an article on a major company so would appreciate another opinion.
The issue concerns the company's logo, and the link is (I think) an attempt to demonstrate that the logo involves Satan and 666. This edit is the latest addition of the link. The target of the link is a pdf. It may be faster to click Google Quick View from a search: church-of-ouzo infamous-logo Johnuniq ( talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a coi, pov, sock, and spam problem that goes back to at least 25 Nov 2004 -- Ronz ( talk) 16:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If an editor adds an external link, and the link is being removed, followed by a discussion on the link, would there be a need to build consensus for the addition, or for the removal, of the link? Cs32en Talk to me 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This concerns FiveFingers. There was an external link on this page to the unofficial fan site for Vibram Five Fingers birthdayshoes. The External Link was taken down after being up for a few months (no reason was given). I believe this link should remain as the fan site is the only content-driven site dedicated to information about FiveFingers on the web, including hundreds of photos, user based reviews, and formal reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinowings ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Myself and another editor are having a cordial disagreement about some EL's that appear in these two sections of the article. [7] [8] These are lists of Videos and Public Appearances (all with EL's) that appear in the Publications section of the article. These video EL's link to various pages at the Tolle TV web site which is already listed in the EL section of the article. Neither of us is 100% sure how to interpret the Wiki EL policies in this instance. One editor thinks these links (and maybe even the list of videos itself) are excessive and somewhat promotional, while the other editor feels it is a legitimate list of self published videos that should be linked for the readers convenience. Any feedback would be very helpful. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Bringing this here from WP:RSN#Transfermarkt.co.uk.
An editor asked over at the reliable source noticeboard whether transfermarkt.co.uk (note, its .de version has a lot more traffic and coverage) was a reliable source, as he wanted to add it to footballer BLPs. I answered that external links don't have to be reliable sources (per WP:ELMAYBE, point 4), but that he should only add it the site was for football what IMDB is for movies, to avoid it being seen as WP:LINKSPAM. He responded that soccerbase.com was linked from almost all football player articles, which surprised me to say the least. What makes soccerbase (notice the article has been a redirect to the seemingly unrelated Racing Post for three years) worthy of inclusion as an external link? How does it compare to transfermarkt.de (who has a much higher Alexa rank [9] [10]) and supposedly has more detail. And what about various other database sites (see the example below)
A look at the Frank Lampard article shows the following links
This seems serious overkill, which of these can stay and which should go? I am also posting a notice about this discussion at WP:FOOTBALL Yoenit ( talk) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it´s true, that transfermarkt is showing match reports entered by volunteers. These volunteers, known as datascouts are working on a permanently basis for the site and are assigned to their special league they are working on. There is no money involved, but it´s not true, that anyone can enter unchecked data to the database. The data for the match reports is collected from reliable newspapers and media from the country the league is playing in. So the origin of the data is from a professional source. In many cases (often Eastern Europe, Turkey, Greece and German leagues) the personal data of a player is entered directly from the player or his agent. -- Klattius ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows the input of links in the "external links" section. My link, Best Student Council Fan Site , relates to the series. I also am trying to aid the anime by bring more views to it. It is not very well known. Click on the link, see for your self, it is not spam, nor a lie. I spend time and money to get that running. Best Student Council Gokujoseitokai ( talk) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like some help in interpreting the WP:COPYLINK guidelines. The muslimphilosophy.com website (Islamic Philosophy Online) has a massive amount of WP:COPYVIO problems: for example, it hosts large numbers of articles from both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, along with many scanned books, most of which are still in copyright. I've been slowly going through deleting direct links to copy vio material and replacing each of them with a reference to the relevant material or with a link to a legal copy, especially for the encyclopaedia articles (which are usually paywalled, unfortunately).
My question is: Is it okay (on copyright grounds) to keep other links to this site that are not directly to illegal content? In terms of what we currently link to there, this pretty much boils down to: Is it okay to link to their home page? The discussion of "internet archives" in the WP:COPYLINK policy makes me think that this too would be problematic.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this in detail yet, but thought I'd get others' opinions until I get the time. It's being used in some 50 articles as an external link or a reference. My first impression is that it fails both WP:ELNO and WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Does someone know how I would include the following link in the external links section of an article?:
The problem I'm encountering is that the web address contains "[" and "]", which messes up things up when formatted in the normal way. The article is Emmanuel Rukundo. Thanks, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
%5B
and ] with %5D
(
example). The best place for questions like this is
WP:VPT.
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)In the section on Wikipedia:External links about Links normally to be avoided it says:
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
Personal web pages links to a page that has had tags about its content since 2006 and 2007 there for it is questionable how reliable that page is. What is the intended meaning of the term personal website in this context? I removed an external link because it was clearly a personal website, simply about the subject in question. My removal was undone and the edit summary said personal webpage only " refers to a web page about the author" . The incident in question happened on Humphrey Arundell over this link [14] . Should these sorts of websites be linked to in the external links section or do they not belong there? Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on WP:Village pump (proposals) about adding Open Library external links to author and book pages. Edward ( talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
These External Links currently appear in the EL section [15] of the Eckhart Tolle article:
Any input or feedback from other editors is appreciated, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Summary:
Could someone take a look and comment on the excessive external links being added without explanation here LRP Publications thank you Teapot george Talk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
|external links=July 2010
from article and adding {{
resolved}}
here.
jonkerz
♠
21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Because the web site IMBD is user based with little or no editorial oversight, it is not considered by Wiki standards to be a reliable source. This begs the question: Is the IMBD web site considered to be a legitimate External Link for BLP's? For other articles? I would say no, but would like the input of others. Any thoughts or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean IMDB? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had an external link deleted from a cuisine related page [16] that was marked as a link to a recipe and linked to a blog posting of mine. It was deleted by another editor due to a perception of COI. I do not feel that posting a non-commercial link that merely lists non-copyrighted recipe as having any conflict with any Wikipedia rules, despite ELNO#10, as there is just a stated desire to "avoid" rather than to not allow. The posting in question is HERE The information is relevant and useful to quote others above. Thanks Aktormedic ( talk) aktormedic —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC).
Please explain the reason that 90% of the cuisine articles are also linked to blog or commercial postings then. Inconsistency in rule application is ridiculous. Aktormedic ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
First and foremost, I apologize for appearing to be a spammer!! As a new user, I wasn't aware that I would be immediately tagged as such when I tried to add external links, though now I completely understand why!! The editor who removed the link from the insertion sequences page suggested I begin a discussion on this page since I have what was described as a valid reason for an exception (see User talk:Brenleymcintosh). I am a post-doc at Texas A&M Univ and have added content about the mobile genetic elements, including the insertion sequences and transposons, of the bacterium Escherichia coli to EcoliWiki ( http://ecoliwiki.net). EcoliWiki is a central resource for scientists working on Escherichia coli, its plasmids, phages and mobile genetic elements. The information I added is all properly referenced and is meant as a detailed summary of information about IS elements & Transposons particularly in E. coli, including information that is currently not available on Wikipedia and (to me) seems overly specific, including the exact coordinates of each IS element in each of the sequenced laboratory E. coli strains. EcoliWiki is working on mapping these onto the genomes that are already on EcoliWiki ( http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/Category:E._coli_genomes). Would it be ok to put back the links to the mobile genetic elements, transposons and insertion sequences from EcoliWiki? If not, can I put links to each transposon or insertion sequence (for example, http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/IS1 )? This seems less useful to me since there are 12 IS elements and 5 transposons (with others still to be added) in E. coli. Again, I am so sorry I popped up as a spammer and thanks for your consideration on this!! Brenleymcintosh ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Concerning Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#External links, up until the beginning of the month, the sections of the Official Site could still be accessed by entering the address directly, e.g. "www.firaxis.com/smac/game.cfm" (note that this is the link for footnote 14 in this diff; the root, "www.firaxis.com/smac", was not available). I have been using the internet archive because the root was not available and I have made it clear under the External Links that the official site is no longer currently hosted. Does anyone have an opinion? (Am I being excessively cautious in noting the site is no longer hosted? Is it still an official site?) There is a lot of material there that will contribute to an encyclopedic understanding (we are moving away from "in-universe" material and focusing more on "real-universe" material, e.g. development history and contributions to later games). Please note that at this point there is only one external link, although I have been considering adding an extensive online strategy guide (perhaps as a replacement) for readers interested in more "in-universe" gameplay details. Vyeh ( talk) 12:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia hinge page is lacking in information in a large number of areas. The EL http://www.hingedummy.info was recently taken down by an editor. I believe it should be reinstated since the wiki page is sorely lacking in information and the EL covers a lot of the info that should be present. I would be interested to hear other editors opinions on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you will look at the screw talk page, the deletion of the hinge page EL, which was deemed sufficient by many wikipedia editors for over a year, was a personal attack. Please look further into this matter as I do not believe Ronz has.
Yes, it has an advertisement in the side bar, which leads to a site where hardware can be purchased, but every site on the web has some sort of advertisement or promotion. The ads do not interfere with the encyclopedic reading at all. Please explain what is "not enough?" The website is the most comprehensive coverage of the hinge on the entire internet. What more do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This debate comes down to one question....Are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" than their readers? Because Hingedummy is the most informative site about hinges on the entire internet, a statement of fact, no hyperbole, and the Wiki community as a whole would benefit from this link being included without a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
So, are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" or about providing valuable information to their readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That should be the primary goal, but a great secondary goal is to add the valuable information through an EL until someone provides the information on the Wiki page. I am aware Wiki is not a commercial vessel, no one said it is or is advocating for edits that are of this nature in this discussion. Please explain how the site is redundant? The hinge page on Wiki has practically no information at all, its nearly impossible to be redundant if that is what you're referring to. If your calling hingedummy redundant in general, you are just flat wrong and being insincere. The site has a wide variety of important information, this is a matter of fact, and is hardly up for debate. Yes, it is commercial as is every other site on the web that has at least one advertisement on a page or promotoes a person, brand, name, trademark, etc in any number of words (this includes almost the entire internet). Now to the COI issue, it is funny how every time someone posts multiple times concerning a subject, cries of COI begin to come in from Wiki editors. Yet, the other people that post multiple times discussing the issue, making or changing edits, are in no way, shape, manner or form, COI themselves. Only the person that Wiki disagrees with could possibly have a COI. Instead of debating on the real issues, Wiki all too often cries COI.
As far as my EL link edits, I am just enforcing your own policies. Can I not enforce Wiki policies that were explained to me on the screw talk page? I am only trying to help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he made one inappropriate edit, but that was fixed and he was informed of the policy (not deleting entire section) quite quickly and followed the rules from then on. The other EL removals seem to be completely by Wiki Guidelines, the burden is on the person wanting to include the link, not the editor. I see no reason why the EL deletions should be undone. Again, the burden is on the editor wanting to include them. You guys need to prove that the links are valid on the pages discussion forum and receive a consensus from other editors to include them. Please follow policy next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.228.28 ( talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please someone take a look at Cheryl Dunn, which I think even without the 28 links looks too much like advertising. I removed most of them but editors say (on my talk page) they are 'relevant' and the article's creator. whose only edits are to this article, has replaced them all. Perhaps some more input would convince this editor that I'm not doing this just to be nasty to the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a debate going on at an article talk page as to whether or not leaked U.S. government documents are able to be linked to in its appropriate article. Some editors are implying that linking to it provides a method for further analyzing the subject in question, while others are opposed to it as they believe that the material is on copyright grounds, and thus should not be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. We would all appreciate a third perspective on this matter. Thanks. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the link to "CAMPAIGNS" (Children And Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation) appropriate on this page? Gabbe ( talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to add to the Anita DeFrantz page and entered a link to my YouTube documentary on her as a reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsFSxS_H54. This documentary won 1st place in the 2006 California State History Day finals (Junior Documentary Division)and went on to the Nationals. Ms. Ms. DeFrantz' has also been gracious to put it on her website. I wanted others interested in her story to be able to see it and to have access to the information contained in it. Does anyone know why it was removed and what can I do about it? Thanks, Siegen McKellar —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimSeagull ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has added books to the "further reading" section of History of Greece with links to Amazon.com. I've tried pointing to ##5 and 15 of WP:ELNO on their talk page, but they insist that the links as formed meet Wikipedia guidelines. Little help? RJC Talk Contribs 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article on Alex Jones, people keep posting links to his websites under the website subsection. While it's no big deal and I can remove them, the complaint I have is that I have removed the links several times in the past. It appears some editors keep adding the links in the article when they know it's a violation of policy. The links belong and are appropriate in the external links and infobox areas, but not in the heart of the article. These editors should know better. Burningview ✉ 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the link to CoupeDeval.com in the External links section of Deval Patrick as it's one of the usual 'anti-blogs' which seem to exist for all politicians but which we don't include. I considered it clearly Wikipedia:ELBLP, so I didn't expect the deletion to be controversial. As it's been re-listed (and I received a snarky message on my Talk page about it), I leave it to you. :-) Flatterworld ( talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. I have a blog, www.grandpasipod.com /, on which I am posting audio files of radio programs from the 1940s. Some of this audio is previously unknown and unavailable elsewhere. I had the idea of posting links to relevant programs on Wikipedia pages that relate to them. For example, I have a recording that was conducted by Andre Kostelanetz. I put a link to that program in the external links section of his Wikipedia page. I did the same with the Wikipedia pages for Archie Bleyer, Buddy Childers and Cafe Rouge (Hotel Pennsylvania). Now I'm afraid I'm going to be labeled a spammer.
Are these links appropriate, or should I remove them? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangenuer ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as you are not getting any monetary gain, and as long as no copyrights are being violated, I think links to some of these programmes could be quite useful. However, you probably shouldn't go posting external links everywhere that you think qualifies. It might be better to let people in groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz know about the site, and let them work with you to decide which ones to use. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not directly an EL question, but I hope people won't mind giving suggestions for how to deal with Provisioning#Server provisioning which includes the spam magnet "There are many software products available to automate the provisioning of servers, services and end-user devices from vendors such as Stratavia, Sigma Systems,[2] BladeLogic, IBM,[3] or HP." These four edits added the Sigma Systems item. Would it be too bold to remove the whole sentence? I was inclined to list the companies in order of my guess at company prominence, while removing the two references, which could be regarded as WP:REFSPAM. However, IBM is so big, that there is no clear mention on Wikipedia of the product identified in the IBM reference, so that is a good reason for keeping it. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
At Mitanni a Google Books overview page is being used as below:
Besides the fact that there is some edit-warring and sanction breaking involving Armenian related issues here, I've reverted it (and it's been replaced) because I can't see how it meets WP:EL and the fact that the page doesn't seem to even mention the Mitanni or Armenians (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm posting here to seek consensus regarding link to xkcd on this page. I've dealt with many external links and to me this clearly doesn't meet WP:EL, not by a long stretch, but there is one user who is pretty adamant about retaining it. His response to me was hardly constructive so I'm bringing it here for review. For the sake of convenience please try to keep the discussion on this page for now since the discussion was uncoordinated the last time this link was discussed. Them From Space 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
Classical guitar contained a very long list of external links when I came across it. I removed the lists of images and musical scores to start some cleanup. I feel the scores are off topic, and the images should be replaced with images uploaded to Wikipedia or Wikimedia. Another editor disagrees. Discussion at Talk:Classical_guitar#External_links. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Today the account started spaming health related artilces and was warned. The IP apparently then registered a new account ( User:Joeprofes) to try to avoid detection and started spamming the same and similar articles. I left a warning on the new account's talk page. Ward20 ( talk) 23:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Any opinions about edits like this that add links to a "speaker page" ( LinkSearch)? Looks as if it should be reverted to me per WP:ELNO#1. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about what the user was attempting to do with this edit. It appears to be an attempt to inject javascript into the page. Perhaps even an attempt at Cross-site scripting? I'm sure Wikipedia is safe, but I wanted others to be aware of this. The user has been blocked for now, but he could easily come back with a different IP. Justin W Smith talk/ stalk 01:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
The following was originally posted at WT:VPP by User:RyanRiWilliams. I am not involved with this dispute.
Unresolved issues in Talk Page, however I do feel that it is relevant that a non-business funded 'link' that is an 'official page' for the region should not be ommitted because of what is called : Spam. Spam is completely different, and it is well noted why there are rules for Spam.
Please help. PleaseStand (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
However, you miss the point that "What best serves the readers of this encyclopedia" in two seperate ways. 1: This is in-fact the Official Site, that does not direct link into any 'myriad' of business, nor is it the sole reason for the site. 2: More to the point, this site and each of it's communities are largely broken into information based summary that much of which cannot be found on the wikipedia page, therefore adding to the content of the page making it better to the reader of this encyclopedia.
The link is simply an Official Link to the subjects area and page which rebuts the removal of said page by Mr. Crawford who lives in a neighbourly area in direct conflict with Bay of Quinte, and therefore is acting towards bias. I find this extremely damaging to [User:Brian Crawford| BC ]]'s credibility as an editor as the area to which he calls 'home' contains a page link http://www.kingstoncanada.com/en/ to which the same 'links' are found, although I understand this is not grounds for argument to rules in Wikipedia.
I have noted in the history of the page, that there have been it seems more than 2 editors who have felt that the link should remain.
I look foward to more editorial in this matter. -- RyanRiWilliams ( talk) 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following:
Official links (if any) are provided to give the reader the opportunity to see what the subject says about itself. These links are exempt from the links normally to be avoided, but they are not exempt from the restrictions on linking. The only argument that holds any water is the conflict of interest. However, I do see that another party had reinstated the link to the website, therefore this constitutes an argument to reinstate. -- RyanRiWilliams ( talk) 20:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
A discussion at Talk:Machu Picchu#3D Model of Machu Picchu has flagged several other 3D model links accross Wikipedia. My personal take is that the coord tag already provides a link via GeoHack to the model (it's built into Google Earth). Also, the person wanting to add the link recently admitted to a WP:COI issue (he's the author), which adds a secondary reason to avoid linking directly from the article. But, it brings up a question of what to do with the 3D model links mentioned by him that exist in other articles. Note: Some of the articles identified are generic articles (such as Keep) which has a 3D model link to a specific castle/keep, while others are to specific locations that have both coord and a 3D model link. Here's a list of the other articles they mentioned:
I would appreciate additional opinions on both the Machu Picchu link, as well as the links identified in these additional articles. Should they all be removed as being redundant to the GeoHack link via the coordinates? --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 01:08, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
{{ WS}} is used for adding a consistently formatted embedded external link to articles. It is mostly used to add links to list articles (mainly lists of newspapers). This use is incompatible with WP:ELNO #20. I continue to believe that these link directories are not the aim of Wikipedia and should cleaned of the external links, but wanted to run it by editors here before flagging something for cleanup that is this embedded and extensive. ✤ JonHarder talk 00:58, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
For StarCraft, I'd like to add two external links to official demos to the "External Links" section:
S@bre has reverted this edit, stating We aren't here to do Blizzard's promo work for them. Is there a policy against linking to official demo links? (There is a relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Linking to demo games.) Smallman12q ( talk) 02:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not well versed on the external link guidelines, I was hoping I can get an experienced editor or an admin to review this article, and help improve it. I have a feeling most of the links are drive-by edits and do not belong in this section. thanks riffic ( talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
User Anon111 is affiliated with FiveBooks and a frequent requester of said company's website on various talk pages. Last month the site was up for discussion here and the involved editors agreed to something like leaving it up to the editors of the article where the link was requested. This decision was partly reached, I suspect, because it was a non-commercial site (at least temporarily). If it wasn't for profit last month it's definitely now, with a huge buy button every fifth paragraph or so.
Summary: countless promotional links from a single purpose account to an online store she/he is affiliated with. I say remove all and if other editors find the site useful for using as reference that's alright. jonkerz ♠ 02:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I am requesting mediation for the ongoing "dispute" at Talk:Qur'an#External links. Fortunately, it is a relatively civil disagreement regarding a number of external links User:Scriber added and I removed (and added and I removed...) to Qur'an. Both of our arguments are laid out on the talk page as linked above. An additional point to possibly explain my perspective on this issue is that over the past months I have seen a good of deal external links added, presumably in goo faith, to various Islam related pages which contribute nothing to the article but lead to various on-line versions of religious works, search engines and so on.-- Supertouch ( talk) 18:06, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
hello. I know that WP:EL says external links with malicious software should not be included in articles, but there is an article with a malicious external link that is central to the article. the article is .ps and the external link is pnina.ps. The Norton report for the malicious site is here. What is done in this situation? Thank you. Efcmagnew ( talk) 22:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm usually the one removing links so this is a change of pace of me. DustFormsWords is removing all links from Dude citing WP:EL, "these links are capable of being integrated into the article proper and are therefore not appropriate for the external links section". Technically they could be right but I don't think I've ever seen the removal of informative links like [2] and [3] (which leads to [4]) using that particular reason. Usually, the links stay until the article is expanded and they're used as references. Can others weigh in? -- NeilN talk to me 00:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. While acknowledging WP:OTHERSTUFF my first reaction is that the links in question are very tame compared with many entertainment and other articles (i.e. I wouldn't bother removing them). However, here are my feelings re the links currently in the article:
I haven't looked at the article history, but I can imagine a lot of drive-by edits adding nonsense to the external links in this article. I would be very sympathetic with remove all if the motivation to remove the EL section is to help repel constant unhelpful additions (i.e. any link would need solid justification, and I don't think any of the above fit that). Johnuniq ( talk) 04:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Editors/Administrators,
I hope you can help me resolve an issue.
I am a librarian at Southern Methodist University. In the past, I have placed links to our digital collections, which contain only primary resources that are carefully annotated, scholarly in nature, and contain digitized objects of historical value. In one case (August 2009), I was a bit overzealous and the link was removed, which I understand. However, I seem to be banned from placing any links to our digitized primary resources. I have been told that my account will be frozen if I place any more links to our digital collections.
I have now read "Museum curators, librarians, archivists, art historians, heritage interpreters, conservators, documentation managers, subject specialists, and managers of a special collection (or similar profession) are encouraged to use their knowledge to help improve Wikipedia, or to share their information with Wikipedia in the form of links to their resources." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Non-controversial_edits
Again, this is precisely what I would like to do. The above paragraph allows libraries to place links to their resources (this is an important distinction). If I am allowed to place links, which is clearly stated in the above paragraph, how can I make sure my account will not be frozen if I place such links?
Please let me know the proper procedure. I really appreciate any help you can provide in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Digitaldomain ( talk • contribs) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you both for the information. I will take your suggestions to add more detailed edit summaries and point to the sections you mention, as well as create a talk page. Ukexpat, does this mean my account will not automatically be blocked when/if I add more links?
Thanks and best regards!-- Digitaldomain ( talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't know if anyone is still reading this section, but I have updated my talk page. I also submitted this to the talk page for the Mt. Pelee section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mount_Pel%C3%A9e#Suggested_External_Link
Please let me know what you think. Digitaldomain ( talk) 22:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to deal with this, but Safisk ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) has done little but add links to
over the last four years or so. Can someone have a look please? Thanks. Safisk, please explain why this is the case. MER-C 10:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion on the suitability of the Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia as an external link at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Allow external links to Yu-Gi-Oh! Wikia?, and would appreciate opinions from individuals outside the project. Thanks in advance! 「 ダイノガイ 千?!」 ? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 02:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi!
I'd like a second opinion on the following Link-Removal: here. The link removal, was accompanied by this note on my talk. I added a reply (r1) to the talk; and reinstated the links, but this has lead to a huge ugly "final warning" sign on my page. All I have done was add the proper author's name, to an otherwise unreferenced pdf-article; and then turned the name into a link, to a page on the author's webpage, which gives more articles written by the author. Thus, with just one link...
That about the facts. Now to my personal feelings: I feel threatened by Ronz and his big warning sign... I am not promoting anything; I am adding context and wish the best for the reader. Also 2, etc. etc. MySorAccount ( talk) 19:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
Could some others take a look at the table at PC power management#Software Solutions? Some of those posting at Talk:PC power management#Request for Comment have self-confessed COI issues, and are simply trying to justify inclusion criteria for the article to justify their product being listed while ignoring WP:N, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM.
Sometimes, these lists are off-loaded to stand alone "List of ..." article named entries, and such an option should be discussed on if its appropriate here; but including the listings directly in the article is placing a lot of undu-weight on the highly spammish table, which overwhelms the text information within the article. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I have re-worked the table to remove the external links and more peripheral fields. Overall I think the table is a good thing but clearly it has been abused by editors with COI issues. Hopefully the latest edit fixes this. hnobley ( talk - 9:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
A debate has arisen regarding the appropriate size and content of the External Links section at Deepwater Horizon oil spill (Please see: Talk:Deepwater Horizon oil spill#News media sources. I believe it relates largely to the inclusion of news media coverage pages and blog links to the section. One side viewing the links as a reference to a further collection of articles, the other as making the section too large and being links to news media outlets that are already linked as references, albeit not the exact same page. Any suggestions or direction.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 15:52, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
The timeline section of the article has a reasonable list of HDD events beginning in the early 1980s. The earlier era is covered by the following external link:
1950s through 1990s
see: Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts[-] maintained by Disk/Trend an HDD industry marketing consultancy.
Five Decades Of Disk Drive Industry Firsts maintained by Disk/Trend [1] an HDD industry marketing consultancy lists forty-three events, ranging from the first disk drive in 1956 to the first 15,000 RPM disk drive in 2000.
The link is to a list of 43 HDD industry firsts beginning with the first disk drive in 1956 and ending with the first 15,000 rpm drive in 2000. As such the list is neutral, accurate, encyclopedic and cannot be incorporated into Wikipedia because of detail and copyright. As such it appears to qualify Therefore it is an appropriate link per
WP:ELYES. None the less an editor insists it be removed while not providing any replacement at all. I believe it is appropriate and should remain. Suggestions?
Tom94022 (
talk)
16:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
The issue concerns History of hard disk drives#Timeline and these four edits that add a short para that is essentially an embedded external link. The editor who removed the para (ProhibitOnions) is correct: we do not use that style because it sends readers to another site rather than building the encyclopedia, but mainly because it is too open to abuse (article on food: "See [my fabulous site] for great cooking tips!"; article on finance: "See [my fabulous site] for great investment info!"). The guideline is WP:MOS#External links and it is worded very politely ("External links should not normally be used in the body of an article"). However, in practice I am sure that "should not normally" would be "must not" for an example like the current issue. I am now watching the article and may edit it myself later; it just needs a couple of brief facts with a reference, although it could be argued that there is no assurance that the site is a reliable source. "NN" is non-notable which is probably not quite the correct terminology in this case ( notability is concerned with whether a topic is sufficiently notable to warrant an article). Johnuniq ( talk) 23:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...
Links to be considered
...
3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail ...
I'm in a dispute with User:Wikidemon over the external links section of this article and whether they meet WP:ELOFFICIAL. I believe that only one official link is necessary, that to the center's homepage. Wikidemon argues that links to websites which the organization controls, such as physicianscam.com, obesitymyths.com, and fishscam.com among others, are also valid under WP:ELOFFICIAL.
Are these links appropriate in this article or should they be removed? Them From Space 00:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
At IP address#Tools we find a list of around 30 external links to websites that will tell you your IP address. On the talk page, there is a brief and unsettled discussion regarding whether the article benefits from having such a list. There is already a DMOZ link ( IP at Curlie) in the external links section, and I think that it would be helpful to readers to add two links in that section to external what is my IP? sites (with a "no more links" html comment), and remove the list in the Tools section of the article. Opinions please. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
User:Tonyspatti ( contribs) has made one article edit in 3 years...namely to add his own website http://www.glassblower.info/ to the glassblowing article. The article already had numerous external links, I removed the link as the addition was clearly more about promoting his own website than improving wikipedia. I have removed others too. He is outraged at my actions. Can someone advice please? Teapot george Talk 07:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your consideration of these concepts. Tonyspatti ( talk) 02:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to review my comments. Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I reiterate (another two more days later), still seeking further discussion on the points above...
Thank you again for considering the points I raise above concerning Wikipedia's Guidelines for External Links. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for taking the time to read my comments. Tonyspatti ( talk) 12:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for reading my further comments on this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for reading my additional comments on this NoticeBoard, and I hope that TeapotGeorge will eventually respond here to explain how his actions fall within the Wikipedia Guidelines, especially for consistency. Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:09, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to thank everyone for their time in reading this, especially WhatamIdoing who provided constructive criticism which was actionable. Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you again for further reading this Noticeboard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 15:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Hopefully there will be some additional voices added to this discussion, especially those who can weigh-in on the fundamental Wikipedia principle that "Wikipedia should be consistent.". Many thanks. Tonyspatti ( talk) 16:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard. Tonyspatti ( talk) 20:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 01:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
"I appreciate those who have taken the time to read this NoticeBoard." You're not helping your cause by posting the equivalent of 8 A4 pages of prose. Please summarize the above in a short paragraph. MER-C 05:18, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 00:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 23:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Tonyspatti ( talk) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
3. In between 03:09, 7 June 2010 and 08:22, 11 June 2010 (a span of over four days) you Johnuniq were the ONLY person on Wikipedia who felt the need to undo my Glassblowing External Link changes (and I had cited THIS NOTICEBOARD by user and UTC as justification for the specific two changes I made).
Tonyspatti ( talk) 19:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
List of primary and secondary sources on the Cold War - we have a concern that this list of books and other sources has many links to Amazon.com, but I can't find anything that says this is bad. It seems to be, intuitively... this edit [5] seems to express the sentiments of both sides of this issue. Can someone help? Thanks! Hires an editor ( talk) 02:05, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Would somebody please take a look at the external links featured in
Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri and see if they meet WP standards? I have already been labeled a "troll" by the articles owner primary contributor, so I'd like an outsider to take a look. Thanks. ▫
JohnnyMrNinja
06:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Tomwsulcer added an external link to several article related to citizenship a few days ago. The link is to an article hosted on knol.google.com, and appears to be written by Tomwsulcer. A quick search couldn't turn up something that I could point to saying he's a recognized expert in the area, but that was only a quick search. The article seems to be fairly well written and occasionally refers to some sources. I brought it here because of the number of articles involved, and have invited the user to discuss here. It also looks like he's added links to other essays he's written on other topics. Thoughts on this? Ravensfire ( talk) 14:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Comment I've removed the links to Tom's personal essay for now. At the very least, inclusion would need to wait until the matter has been resolved at this noticeboard, and as mentioned on Tom's talk page, there is a real concern with respect to precedent. More importantly, though, there were a few instances where Tom used his personal writings as a reference source. Discussion about the merits of the EL aside, WP:RS would prevent its use in that manner. -- Ckatz chat spy 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
At Talk:Andrew_Schlafly#Official_external_link_question there is a discussion whether Andrew Schlafly's user page on Conservapedia User:Aschlafly should be considered his official external link for the article about him in his article Andrew Schlafly. I believe even if the main thrust of what he wrote there is in an area he is not notable for there is enough there for it to be considered as his official page. Would you consider it a reasonable WP:ELOFFICIAL? Dmcq ( talk) 18:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Anyone like to respond without talking about de facto control which indicates the wrong page was being looked at? Dmcq ( talk) 09:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forward_in_Faith
Forward in Faith, North America has a new website: http://fifna.org/
Therefore, the appropriate links regarding our ministry should be updated to reflect this change.
Sincerely,
Michael W. Howell, Ph.D. Executive Director Forward in Faith, North America —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.182.98 ( talk) 21:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Can some others within this project review the Video aggregator article? There's a discussion on talk:Video aggregator regarding the external links to some example sites. There are only two of us involved in the discussion - so we need additional outside opinions on the links. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 04:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
School Rumble's website is causing redirect issues for someone at a FAC. It works for me, but checklist does show it redirecting. I'm not sure what is going on nor what to do because it is relevant and does seem to work for myself. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like to invite to the discussion in Talk:Swahili language#External links to on-line dictionaries ff., as there is a dispute in interpretation of the guidelines and thus with the amount of external links to online dictionaries. Thank you and best regards, -- R.Schuster ( talk) 19:43, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
I removed several inappropriate links at Procter & Gamble but there is disagreement regarding one of the links. Normally I would not worry about one link, but it really does seem unusual in an article on a major company so would appreciate another opinion.
The issue concerns the company's logo, and the link is (I think) an attempt to demonstrate that the logo involves Satan and 666. This edit is the latest addition of the link. The target of the link is a pdf. It may be faster to click Google Quick View from a search: church-of-ouzo infamous-logo Johnuniq ( talk) 01:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
Looks like a coi, pov, sock, and spam problem that goes back to at least 25 Nov 2004 -- Ronz ( talk) 16:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
If an editor adds an external link, and the link is being removed, followed by a discussion on the link, would there be a need to build consensus for the addition, or for the removal, of the link? Cs32en Talk to me 17:03, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
This concerns FiveFingers. There was an external link on this page to the unofficial fan site for Vibram Five Fingers birthdayshoes. The External Link was taken down after being up for a few months (no reason was given). I believe this link should remain as the fan site is the only content-driven site dedicated to information about FiveFingers on the web, including hundreds of photos, user based reviews, and formal reviews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinowings ( talk • contribs) 19:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Myself and another editor are having a cordial disagreement about some EL's that appear in these two sections of the article. [7] [8] These are lists of Videos and Public Appearances (all with EL's) that appear in the Publications section of the article. These video EL's link to various pages at the Tolle TV web site which is already listed in the EL section of the article. Neither of us is 100% sure how to interpret the Wiki EL policies in this instance. One editor thinks these links (and maybe even the list of videos itself) are excessive and somewhat promotional, while the other editor feels it is a legitimate list of self published videos that should be linked for the readers convenience. Any feedback would be very helpful. Thanks.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Bringing this here from WP:RSN#Transfermarkt.co.uk.
An editor asked over at the reliable source noticeboard whether transfermarkt.co.uk (note, its .de version has a lot more traffic and coverage) was a reliable source, as he wanted to add it to footballer BLPs. I answered that external links don't have to be reliable sources (per WP:ELMAYBE, point 4), but that he should only add it the site was for football what IMDB is for movies, to avoid it being seen as WP:LINKSPAM. He responded that soccerbase.com was linked from almost all football player articles, which surprised me to say the least. What makes soccerbase (notice the article has been a redirect to the seemingly unrelated Racing Post for three years) worthy of inclusion as an external link? How does it compare to transfermarkt.de (who has a much higher Alexa rank [9] [10]) and supposedly has more detail. And what about various other database sites (see the example below)
A look at the Frank Lampard article shows the following links
This seems serious overkill, which of these can stay and which should go? I am also posting a notice about this discussion at WP:FOOTBALL Yoenit ( talk) 14:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, it´s true, that transfermarkt is showing match reports entered by volunteers. These volunteers, known as datascouts are working on a permanently basis for the site and are assigned to their special league they are working on. There is no money involved, but it´s not true, that anyone can enter unchecked data to the database. The data for the match reports is collected from reliable newspapers and media from the country the league is playing in. So the origin of the data is from a professional source. In many cases (often Eastern Europe, Turkey, Greece and German leagues) the personal data of a player is entered directly from the player or his agent. -- Klattius ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia allows the input of links in the "external links" section. My link, Best Student Council Fan Site , relates to the series. I also am trying to aid the anime by bring more views to it. It is not very well known. Click on the link, see for your self, it is not spam, nor a lie. I spend time and money to get that running. Best Student Council Gokujoseitokai ( talk) 03:17, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I would like some help in interpreting the WP:COPYLINK guidelines. The muslimphilosophy.com website (Islamic Philosophy Online) has a massive amount of WP:COPYVIO problems: for example, it hosts large numbers of articles from both the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy and the second edition of the Encyclopaedia of Islam, along with many scanned books, most of which are still in copyright. I've been slowly going through deleting direct links to copy vio material and replacing each of them with a reference to the relevant material or with a link to a legal copy, especially for the encyclopaedia articles (which are usually paywalled, unfortunately).
My question is: Is it okay (on copyright grounds) to keep other links to this site that are not directly to illegal content? In terms of what we currently link to there, this pretty much boils down to: Is it okay to link to their home page? The discussion of "internet archives" in the WP:COPYLINK policy makes me think that this too would be problematic.
All the best. – Syncategoremata ( talk) 12:15, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I haven't looked into this in detail yet, but thought I'd get others' opinions until I get the time. It's being used in some 50 articles as an external link or a reference. My first impression is that it fails both WP:ELNO and WP:RS. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Does someone know how I would include the following link in the external links section of an article?:
The problem I'm encountering is that the web address contains "[" and "]", which messes up things up when formatted in the normal way. The article is Emmanuel Rukundo. Thanks, — Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
%5B
and ] with %5D
(
example). The best place for questions like this is
WP:VPT.
Johnuniq (
talk)
11:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)In the section on Wikipedia:External links about Links normally to be avoided it says:
11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)
Personal web pages links to a page that has had tags about its content since 2006 and 2007 there for it is questionable how reliable that page is. What is the intended meaning of the term personal website in this context? I removed an external link because it was clearly a personal website, simply about the subject in question. My removal was undone and the edit summary said personal webpage only " refers to a web page about the author" . The incident in question happened on Humphrey Arundell over this link [14] . Should these sorts of websites be linked to in the external links section or do they not belong there? Thanks BritishWatcher ( talk) 18:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I've started a discussion on WP:Village pump (proposals) about adding Open Library external links to author and book pages. Edward ( talk) 23:14, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
These External Links currently appear in the EL section [15] of the Eckhart Tolle article:
Any input or feedback from other editors is appreciated, thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:00, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Summary:
Could someone take a look and comment on the excessive external links being added without explanation here LRP Publications thank you Teapot george Talk 21:44, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
|external links=July 2010
from article and adding {{
resolved}}
here.
jonkerz
♠
21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)Because the web site IMBD is user based with little or no editorial oversight, it is not considered by Wiki standards to be a reliable source. This begs the question: Is the IMBD web site considered to be a legitimate External Link for BLP's? For other articles? I would say no, but would like the input of others. Any thoughts or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
Do you mean IMDB? Hipocrite ( talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I have had an external link deleted from a cuisine related page [16] that was marked as a link to a recipe and linked to a blog posting of mine. It was deleted by another editor due to a perception of COI. I do not feel that posting a non-commercial link that merely lists non-copyrighted recipe as having any conflict with any Wikipedia rules, despite ELNO#10, as there is just a stated desire to "avoid" rather than to not allow. The posting in question is HERE The information is relevant and useful to quote others above. Thanks Aktormedic ( talk) aktormedic —Preceding undated comment added 21:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC).
Please explain the reason that 90% of the cuisine articles are also linked to blog or commercial postings then. Inconsistency in rule application is ridiculous. Aktormedic ( talk) 22:24, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
First and foremost, I apologize for appearing to be a spammer!! As a new user, I wasn't aware that I would be immediately tagged as such when I tried to add external links, though now I completely understand why!! The editor who removed the link from the insertion sequences page suggested I begin a discussion on this page since I have what was described as a valid reason for an exception (see User talk:Brenleymcintosh). I am a post-doc at Texas A&M Univ and have added content about the mobile genetic elements, including the insertion sequences and transposons, of the bacterium Escherichia coli to EcoliWiki ( http://ecoliwiki.net). EcoliWiki is a central resource for scientists working on Escherichia coli, its plasmids, phages and mobile genetic elements. The information I added is all properly referenced and is meant as a detailed summary of information about IS elements & Transposons particularly in E. coli, including information that is currently not available on Wikipedia and (to me) seems overly specific, including the exact coordinates of each IS element in each of the sequenced laboratory E. coli strains. EcoliWiki is working on mapping these onto the genomes that are already on EcoliWiki ( http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/Category:E._coli_genomes). Would it be ok to put back the links to the mobile genetic elements, transposons and insertion sequences from EcoliWiki? If not, can I put links to each transposon or insertion sequence (for example, http://ecoliwiki.net/colipedia/index.php/IS1 )? This seems less useful to me since there are 12 IS elements and 5 transposons (with others still to be added) in E. coli. Again, I am so sorry I popped up as a spammer and thanks for your consideration on this!! Brenleymcintosh ( talk) 22:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Concerning Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri#External links, up until the beginning of the month, the sections of the Official Site could still be accessed by entering the address directly, e.g. "www.firaxis.com/smac/game.cfm" (note that this is the link for footnote 14 in this diff; the root, "www.firaxis.com/smac", was not available). I have been using the internet archive because the root was not available and I have made it clear under the External Links that the official site is no longer currently hosted. Does anyone have an opinion? (Am I being excessively cautious in noting the site is no longer hosted? Is it still an official site?) There is a lot of material there that will contribute to an encyclopedic understanding (we are moving away from "in-universe" material and focusing more on "real-universe" material, e.g. development history and contributions to later games). Please note that at this point there is only one external link, although I have been considering adding an extensive online strategy guide (perhaps as a replacement) for readers interested in more "in-universe" gameplay details. Vyeh ( talk) 12:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The wikipedia hinge page is lacking in information in a large number of areas. The EL http://www.hingedummy.info was recently taken down by an editor. I believe it should be reinstated since the wiki page is sorely lacking in information and the EL covers a lot of the info that should be present. I would be interested to hear other editors opinions on this issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
If you will look at the screw talk page, the deletion of the hinge page EL, which was deemed sufficient by many wikipedia editors for over a year, was a personal attack. Please look further into this matter as I do not believe Ronz has.
Yes, it has an advertisement in the side bar, which leads to a site where hardware can be purchased, but every site on the web has some sort of advertisement or promotion. The ads do not interfere with the encyclopedic reading at all. Please explain what is "not enough?" The website is the most comprehensive coverage of the hinge on the entire internet. What more do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 20:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
This debate comes down to one question....Are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" than their readers? Because Hingedummy is the most informative site about hinges on the entire internet, a statement of fact, no hyperbole, and the Wiki community as a whole would benefit from this link being included without a doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 17:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
So, are Wiki editors more concerned about possible "spam" or about providing valuable information to their readers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 20:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
That should be the primary goal, but a great secondary goal is to add the valuable information through an EL until someone provides the information on the Wiki page. I am aware Wiki is not a commercial vessel, no one said it is or is advocating for edits that are of this nature in this discussion. Please explain how the site is redundant? The hinge page on Wiki has practically no information at all, its nearly impossible to be redundant if that is what you're referring to. If your calling hingedummy redundant in general, you are just flat wrong and being insincere. The site has a wide variety of important information, this is a matter of fact, and is hardly up for debate. Yes, it is commercial as is every other site on the web that has at least one advertisement on a page or promotoes a person, brand, name, trademark, etc in any number of words (this includes almost the entire internet). Now to the COI issue, it is funny how every time someone posts multiple times concerning a subject, cries of COI begin to come in from Wiki editors. Yet, the other people that post multiple times discussing the issue, making or changing edits, are in no way, shape, manner or form, COI themselves. Only the person that Wiki disagrees with could possibly have a COI. Instead of debating on the real issues, Wiki all too often cries COI.
As far as my EL link edits, I am just enforcing your own policies. Can I not enforce Wiki policies that were explained to me on the screw talk page? I am only trying to help.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.66.194 ( talk) 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, he made one inappropriate edit, but that was fixed and he was informed of the policy (not deleting entire section) quite quickly and followed the rules from then on. The other EL removals seem to be completely by Wiki Guidelines, the burden is on the person wanting to include the link, not the editor. I see no reason why the EL deletions should be undone. Again, the burden is on the editor wanting to include them. You guys need to prove that the links are valid on the pages discussion forum and receive a consensus from other editors to include them. Please follow policy next time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.102.228.28 ( talk) 13:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Please someone take a look at Cheryl Dunn, which I think even without the 28 links looks too much like advertising. I removed most of them but editors say (on my talk page) they are 'relevant' and the article's creator. whose only edits are to this article, has replaced them all. Perhaps some more input would convince this editor that I'm not doing this just to be nasty to the article. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 05:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
There is currently a debate going on at an article talk page as to whether or not leaked U.S. government documents are able to be linked to in its appropriate article. Some editors are implying that linking to it provides a method for further analyzing the subject in question, while others are opposed to it as they believe that the material is on copyright grounds, and thus should not be linked to per WP:ELNEVER. We would all appreciate a third perspective on this matter. Thanks. EricLeb01 ( Page | Talk) 04:43, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Is the link to "CAMPAIGNS" (Children And Maternal Parents Against Immigration & Government Nationality Situation) appropriate on this page? Gabbe ( talk) 18:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I have tried to add to the Anita DeFrantz page and entered a link to my YouTube documentary on her as a reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BsFSxS_H54. This documentary won 1st place in the 2006 California State History Day finals (Junior Documentary Division)and went on to the Nationals. Ms. Ms. DeFrantz' has also been gracious to put it on her website. I wanted others interested in her story to be able to see it and to have access to the information contained in it. Does anyone know why it was removed and what can I do about it? Thanks, Siegen McKellar —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwimSeagull ( talk • contribs) 21:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
An editor has added books to the "further reading" section of History of Greece with links to Amazon.com. I've tried pointing to ##5 and 15 of WP:ELNO on their talk page, but they insist that the links as formed meet Wikipedia guidelines. Little help? RJC Talk Contribs 06:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
In the article on Alex Jones, people keep posting links to his websites under the website subsection. While it's no big deal and I can remove them, the complaint I have is that I have removed the links several times in the past. It appears some editors keep adding the links in the article when they know it's a violation of policy. The links belong and are appropriate in the external links and infobox areas, but not in the heart of the article. These editors should know better. Burningview ✉ 01:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I deleted the link to CoupeDeval.com in the External links section of Deval Patrick as it's one of the usual 'anti-blogs' which seem to exist for all politicians but which we don't include. I considered it clearly Wikipedia:ELBLP, so I didn't expect the deletion to be controversial. As it's been re-listed (and I received a snarky message on my Talk page about it), I leave it to you. :-) Flatterworld ( talk) 14:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm new to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. I have a blog, www.grandpasipod.com /, on which I am posting audio files of radio programs from the 1940s. Some of this audio is previously unknown and unavailable elsewhere. I had the idea of posting links to relevant programs on Wikipedia pages that relate to them. For example, I have a recording that was conducted by Andre Kostelanetz. I put a link to that program in the external links section of his Wikipedia page. I did the same with the Wikipedia pages for Archie Bleyer, Buddy Childers and Cafe Rouge (Hotel Pennsylvania). Now I'm afraid I'm going to be labeled a spammer.
Are these links appropriate, or should I remove them? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangenuer ( talk • contribs) 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
As long as you are not getting any monetary gain, and as long as no copyrights are being violated, I think links to some of these programmes could be quite useful. However, you probably shouldn't go posting external links everywhere that you think qualifies. It might be better to let people in groups such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Jazz know about the site, and let them work with you to decide which ones to use. Kingturtle ( talk) 20:51, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not directly an EL question, but I hope people won't mind giving suggestions for how to deal with Provisioning#Server provisioning which includes the spam magnet "There are many software products available to automate the provisioning of servers, services and end-user devices from vendors such as Stratavia, Sigma Systems,[2] BladeLogic, IBM,[3] or HP." These four edits added the Sigma Systems item. Would it be too bold to remove the whole sentence? I was inclined to list the companies in order of my guess at company prominence, while removing the two references, which could be regarded as WP:REFSPAM. However, IBM is so big, that there is no clear mention on Wikipedia of the product identified in the IBM reference, so that is a good reason for keeping it. Johnuniq ( talk) 02:27, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
At Mitanni a Google Books overview page is being used as below:
Besides the fact that there is some edit-warring and sanction breaking involving Armenian related issues here, I've reverted it (and it's been replaced) because I can't see how it meets WP:EL and the fact that the page doesn't seem to even mention the Mitanni or Armenians (unless I'm missing something). Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 20:16, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm posting here to seek consensus regarding link to xkcd on this page. I've dealt with many external links and to me this clearly doesn't meet WP:EL, not by a long stretch, but there is one user who is pretty adamant about retaining it. His response to me was hardly constructive so I'm bringing it here for review. For the sake of convenience please try to keep the discussion on this page for now since the discussion was uncoordinated the last time this link was discussed. Them From Space 02:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)