User talk:Sean Bonner
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Hello, Sean Bonner, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for your contributions; I hope you like it here and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- If you haven't already, drop by the new user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
- Always sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ so others will know who left which comments.
- The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- Our policies, guidelines, and simplified ruleset
- How to edit a page and write a great article
- The Wikipedia tutorial and picture tutorial
- The handy Manual of Style
- And finally, remember to be bold in updating pages!
I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.
Happy editing!
-- Sango123 20:59, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)
[edit] SoCal WikiProject
As a Los Angeles resident, you may be interested in the Southern California WikiProject (and/or its parent California Wikiproject). Please take a look at the projects and see if there is anything that interests you. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. BlankVerse ∅ 02:59, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia is not a link directory
Wikipedia is not the right place to advertise blog communities. Please discontinue adding these external links to articles. The external link section doesn't have links to mainstream media outlets, so why would it have links to obscure ones? 24.165.233.150 22:54, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- After looking at your edit contributions I see you've run into problems with trying to insert blog links into a number of article in the past. You might want to take a look at Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files for some more guidance. In general, we should strive to make our externals link to verifyable authortative on the subject matter, not news articles or simmlar. Yes, there are a lot of pages with externals that need help, but that isn't an excuse to add more. 24.165.233.150 23:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
- The problems are because people are randomly deleting links to anything that says "blog" assuming the link is useless. In the case of Katrina major news sources are citing the blog as a source so I think it's valid. I put it in Misc because it kept being removed from "local media" which is where it actually should be. Sean Bonner 23:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I can't speak for others, but that certainly isn't why *I* removed it. The external links section just really isn't the place for that sort of resource. You've long since violated 3RR by constantly reinserting this link after other people have removed it... I haven't whined for your blocking because I believe you are well intentioned. But Wikipedia is really not intended to have a lot of external linking. 24.165.233.150 01:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- The problems are because people are randomly deleting links to anything that says "blog" assuming the link is useless. In the case of Katrina major news sources are citing the blog as a source so I think it's valid. I put it in Misc because it kept being removed from "local media" which is where it actually should be. Sean Bonner 23:59, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Jimbo Wales to Attend San Diego Meetup on October 18 2005
Hello, Jimbo Wales will be in San Diego to attend OOPSLA and has agreed to come by and visit with the San Diego wikipedians. If you are interested, you will find more info on my talk page. Johntex\talk 00:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] SuicideGirls
It appears that you have been consistently removing only links from this article which are critical of the article's subject, but leaving those which are positive or "puff pieces". Please do not do this. As you will see from looking at large numbers of Wikipedia articles, it is common practice in articles about people or busineses to include a variety and balance of external links, some of which will praise the subject and some will be critical of it. Additionally, the links provide sourcing for the "Recent events" section of the article. I am willing to assume good faith in your edits, but your selective removal of only those links that refer to the current controversy, or criticize SG, is somewhat of a warning flag. MCB 00:01, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the links were already sourced in the current event section and thus didn't need to be repeated. There's considerable dispute doing on about the situation & links in question and I would think that a collection of negative links added to a single article as the only contribution by someone would be more suspect than removing those links. If you feel the other links arn't valid or are 'puff pieces' then please feel free to remove them as well but I think including these negative links in the external links IN ADDITION to the current events skews the article from a neutral perspective. Sean Bonner 05:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
