User talk:68.98.145.55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] January 2008

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Log home. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. TerriersFan (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

i think it should be kept as a valuable resource on the page. there is plenty more information on loghome.com than there is on that national park services page. just because it is a .org does not make it inherently more helpful. the national parks site is actually pretty useless for someone looking to learn more about log homes or someone planning on building one or buying one. do you actually read the sites or do you blindly follow misguided policies?

LogHome.com is a directory of commercial companies and adds nothing to the article. See WP:EL. This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Log home, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. TerriersFan (talk) 16:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


"LogHome.com is a directory of commercial companies and adds nothing to the article." Are you kidding me? Did you even go to the site?

There are over 2,500 articles related to log homes, for enthusiasts, builders, or anyone vaguely interested in finding out more about log homes: http://www.loghome.com/community/log_home/

Example 1: http://www.loghome.com/community/log_home/tips_and_how_tos/

Example 2: http://www.loghome.com/community/log_home/decor_and_more/

Example 3: http://www.loghome.com/community/log_home/thinking_green/

Example 4: http://www.loghome.com/community/log_home/real_estate/

This is insane. I hate spammers just as much as you must, but this is not spam. You are abusing your power by labeling this as "spam," when it is clearly not.

AND MY NUMBER 1 OVERALL QUESTION TO YOU IS: How is "www.loghomesjournal.com" any different in terms of editorial content? They're selling ads on that site, making money, and talking specifically about individual log home companies.

I have to say that it always looked pretty marginal so I have taken that out too. Loghome.com certainly contains some factual information but it prime purpose is plainly commercial and I see no basis for its inclusion. TerriersFan (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I think we can agree to disagree here. If you say that it contains factual information then there is "basis for its inclusion," but I suppose that would be splitting hairs.

I can respect the removal of all said links - the thing that was really bothering me was that loghome.com was not allowed, and loghomesjournal.com, run by David Krug (a notorious website "flipper"), was allowed. He often takes content directly off of our pages and uses it on his blog with "nofollow" links. So, I hope, you can see the frustration it caused when his site was deemed "appropriate" whereas loghome.com was not.

Regardless, I respect you for doing your job. You may want to consider adding: http://www.loghomes.org/

Have a good night - I appreciate you being transparent with your rationale with me.