User talk:AbsolutDan/Archive003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Contents

Whoa!

Wow, I just noticed your revision on my userpage. Thanks, I owe you on that one. Yanksox 00:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


video links

How is it advertising? Please explain why a link to the Coca Cola video is advertising? It is relevant content for the articles. It's a part of their brand. Is it not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.186.108 (talk • contribs) 02:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the video the content? I don't get it. I thought this was supposed to be a compilation of relevant information. I don't make the rules. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.139.186.108 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Link removal

I would argue that this link (and a couple of other links from related topics) to this specialist GNU educational content source is of relevant interest to many of the readers interest in the topics, and it is not a promotion of a commercial site. If you look at the destination you will see that it is a pro bono site containing a massive amount of open source technical content for use with e-learning/distance education/LMS/VLE etc. One of the biggest problems educators have with the whole idea of e-learning is the shortage of shareable content, and this pointer to an open content source is useful and encouraging. Most of the GNU content has been contributed privately, but some of it has been derived with acknowledgements from Wikipedia itself, so your decision that to link to it is inappropriate is surprising.

Peter Bull

PS. I forgot to sign in first. I have now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peterbdvp (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Maintenance tag removal

In the spirit of civility, first of all, there is no such thing as "required" changes on Wikipedia. Secondly, Wikipedia policy is to not use citation in the scientific sense. It's an encyclopedia - that's all. Lastly, no need to raise the vandalism issue (that was way out of line). I noticed that in the past you're quick to call other people "vandals" or "spammers." You need to stop this now.

Replying to "Please do not remove maintenance notices from pages unless the required changes have been made. If you are uncertain whether the page requires further work, or if you disagree with the notice, please discuss these issues on the page's talk page before removing the notice from the page. These notices and comments are needed to establish community consensus about the status of an page, and removing them is considered vandalism. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 14:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


Where to start?

There's so many things wrong with your positions that I don't even know where to start. I don't agree with your "work model" in the encyclopedia. We don't need self-appointed "super-editors." Why don't you just focus on a few topics that you know something about, and leave the rest to the other experts. Also, it's ridiculous to think that every topic is going to be a fully-cited scientific monograph. I'll say it again - it's an encyclopedia. Few cites - and they better be good ones (like to a monograph or review article). Lastly, don't hide behind some standard message/template, when you call someone a vandal or spammer - libel is libel is libel.
Replying to:
The original message I left on your talk page ([1]) is not my own wording. It is a standard Wikipedia template that is recommended for placing on a user's talk page who has removed maintenance tags. The template is ... . While it may not be "honey and flowers", it is cordial and is intended to convey the importance of maintenance tags. If you disagree with the need for a particular maintenance tag, it is important to either do the requested work or discuss it on the article's talk page. Simply removing the tag can and often is interpretted as vandalism. I don't make up these rules, I just help to convey them. Regarding citing, it actually is Wikipedia policy that information in articles should be cited. See WP:CITE for guidelines regarding citing. As for my other edits, a number of the messages I leave on users' talk pages are templates like the above. Check out Template:TestTemplates for a complete list of the templates I use. Again, I don't write them, I just use them. Yes I do at times refer to some as spammers or vandals. If I were to rob a convenience store, I would be labeled a thief. Likewise, if someone spams or vandalizes, they will be referred to as a spammer or vandal. It's a label given based on behavior. I believe I'm fairly careful about labeling though - if a person inserts only one spam link, I may still leave a template message, but I won't necessarily refer to them as a spammer. In your case, the only edit of yours I questioned was the template removal, so I don't consider you a vandal and never referred to you as such. Please understand that the work I do here is primarily fighting vandalism and removing spam; as such it may seem like all I do is warn. If you pick through my edits though you'll notice that if anyone replies to my messages in a civil manner I do take the time to reply in kind. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns about either my edits or Wikipedia in general. --AbsolutDan (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Agree to Disagree

Let's just agree to disagree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dilettante99 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


Charity links

No problem, I quite understand. I was just experimenting. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.78.59.211 (talk • contribs) 4:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


BU Bridge

Unless downtown Portland is a no-fly zone, wouldn't the Steel Bridge qualify? --SPUI (T - C) 17:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


Thanks

Thanks for catching this. [1]. --mtz206 (talk) 04:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


virtual library links

I don't think that adding the oldest non-commercial history page concerning the context of Andrew Jackson's period of power -- WWW-VL: US History: Age of Jackson -- is "adding commercial or private" sites? I work with the Virtual Library, and all sites are completely non-commercial and have been developed by leading historians. Why should this be removed? Please contact Ray Trygstad at wikipedia for my bona fidas. Best, George www.vlib.us/glaughead.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.66.102.23 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)


Links out of Wikipedia

Hi Dan,

I appreciate your vigilance in keeping Wikipedia free of useless and irrelevant knowledge. I understand that Wikipedia is a community effort and it is wonderful that people like yourself have the dedication to create this invaluable resource. As a personal acquaintance of Jimmy Wales, I fully support the goals and mission of Wikipedia, and would do nothing intentionally to derail that effort nor to breach Wikipedia's policies.

With that in mind, I am hoping you can elaborate on why you deleted my link to the borassus palm photo and information page on the Jungle Photos website. The photo page contains a picture and an internal link to additional natural history information. I am sure that this photo and information would be useful to students, teachers and travellers who wanted to know more about this fascinating tree.

For me, the point is that I spent thousands of dollars getting this and other photos and spent several years in school obtaining advanced degrees in biology that enable me to bring a certain expertise to the subject matter. I am just not prepared to put this work out there in the public domain where it can be freely copied without acknowledgment of any kind. I guess I am just not that altruistic.

I am not entirely selfish, either. Over the years, I have made corrections to Wikipedia articles where I see mistakes, and added paragraphs here and there where I have noted omissions. But I do not want to put my entire intellectual and artistic effort into Wikipedia. Hence, I created Jungle Photos. Maybe one day, I'll hand over everything in Jungle Photos to Wikipedia (Jimmy and I talked about this) but right now I want some recognition for my efforts. By removing the link you are depriving Wikipedia visitors of the very thing they seek, which is free information (albeit on my page it is not copyright free). It would seem a shame that a website such as mine with its rich variety of subject matter, photos and high quality content should be denied to the very people you so diligently serve: the Wikipedia visitor.

I have just begun a wiki project on my own website, Jungle Wiki, and once I receive contributions, I will be happy to share those with Wikipedia.

With that in mind, I would appreciate a detailed consideration of your thinking on this subject.

Regards,

Roger Harris —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.87.174.156 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

POV

Tim LaHaye

Please tell me how his belief in the so-called end of days is NOT a suicidal fantasy. Please tell me how his belief in the illuminati is NOT a delusion. How is it "vandalism" to tell the truth about someone's false beliefs? --24.199.67.217 07:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Jenkins

The WIKIPEDIA definition of "hack writer" is someone who is paid to write about the thoughts and opinions of others. Isn't that EXACTLY what Jenkins does? --24.199.67.217 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

Is wikipedia a souce for hagiography or real information? If I read an article about a controversial public figure that has NO critical remarks, I find that biased. And you bet I'm going to add some criticism for balance. Stop deleting my contributions, especially if I have footnotes that back me up. --24.199.67.217 02:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


Yari Road

There's not enough encyclopedic content there to tell if it is actually "notable", but a Google search seems to indicate that it is. --SPUI (T - C) 00:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Hey Absolut

So how do I add new content to wikipedia? Seems my other contributions have all been eliminated.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emulsionla (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Ken Standfield

Hi Dan, please take a look at the entry I made on the Spam page. I feel this is one for you.

On a separate note, when I saw the question from Roger Harris above, I just knew the answer on his talk page would be good. I was not disappointed! Thanks and regards Nelson50 21:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


RE: External Links

Hey Dan, please do not remove links to my Game resource sites. The pictures contained within the gallery and the content on the site such as lyrics are beneficial to users interested in the Game and this is not advertising but serving the purpose of leading users to other resources where they can find more information along with other content that would not be presented in Wikipedia.

It's frustrating having to undo changes when I check to see the links once again removed.

Cheers, Tony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.48.88 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


Ken and Intangibles

Hey Dan -- do you want to list *all* of the Ken Intangibles articles? The whole thing seems like a massive spam game to me, and it really is nonsense (that "institute" is a page full of google ads.) Sdedeo (tips) 02:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan

Wether or not you agree that my links are useful, does not mean I am breaking wiki rules. Please leave editing of Hip Hop pages to those who have the knowledge to make judgement. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.51.186 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

AIMC

I am sorry. I was not aware that not-for-profit associations should not list. There are a number of consulting organizations listed in a wide are of consulting topics.

The AIMC is an information and resource network, just like a publication, or any other professional association. We do not sell products or services. At most, we charge a nominal membership fee, but information and professional resources are available, either through the membership section or upon request.

If it is possible to list our association, I would greatly appreciate it.

Thank you,

Neal Braver —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nbraver100 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Darkzero

Thanks. I was busy not deleting something. Look at the history of Biddy here. That was my favourite non deletion of the night. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

DotNetNuke - External Links - Directory Resource

Dan,

With regards to your message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.211.113.2

Apologies if I added the DotNetNuke Directory link in error, but I believe it is useful to the community as per your comments here:

“As this article is attracting a great deal of external link spam, I am removing all but the official link and a directory site from the External links section. Please do not add any additional links to the article itself without first discussing them here and allowing editors to reach a consensus regarding their inclusion. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)”

This website is a free directory of high-quality, human-edited sites (much like this Wikipedia) and is advert-free. I would appreciate it if you could add the Directory back again.

Yours Sincerely Rodney Joyce —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.113.2 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

KDFDM

Thank you for experimenting with the page KMFDM on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. --mando

Note: This message was left for me in error. First, the link it refers to is incorrect. The change I made is [2], which was a revert to remove vandalism. The next user reverted a bit further back to a "cleaner" version afterwards ([3]). EvanCS/mando somehow interpreted my edit as vandalism. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

KMFDM website

I recommend you take a look at Beat By Beat again. Indeed I do own it, but it is a KMFDM site. Not a commercial site at all. If you look on my page there are no ads, nothing for sale or anything like that. -- mando 20:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Right, so then ... what counts as notable?

Or, rather, how does something become notable if it isn't presented?

Though I'm expressly told not to take offence to my article being marked for deletion consideration, I have to admit that I am. What I thought set Wikipedia apart from other user-driven information sources was its grass-roots feel and breadth of content. I can see all-out advertising as being offensive, but why is a single individual able to determine what is considered "notable" ?

Should you run a similar search on "Rose Colored Glass", a popular band of the seventies with two national hit records, you'd quickly strike through with your digital red pen any article featuring them, proclaiming that since Google did not pull up many web pages featuring their work they are clearly "not notable". However, Dick Clark would beg to differ, seeing as he once greeted them on the set of American Bandstand where they performed aforementioned hits.

Bottom line? I'd like to know what gives a single user the right to define noteworthy content, as I'm suddenly getting a very sour taste in my mouth about the whole thing. (And I obviously wouldn't seek to contribute if I wasn't already an avid reader. In fact, my boyfriend re-wrote the current article on agnosticism, and a good friend holds the title of creator for the article featuring the U.S. dollar and the gold standard debate. I'm not saying either of these facts makes me "wiki-worthy". I don't enjoy riding on coattails. My contributions are worthy in their own right. It's just a bit frustrating to be written off so quickly.

Thanks for your time.


- A., creator of Lachesis Falling Original Roleplay —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspratling (talk • contribs) 04:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


I appreciate your civility.

On second thought, perhaps it does make sense in the context of a traditional encyclopaedia. Richard Kelly was a prodigious film student before the release of 'Donnie Darko', his overnight cult hit. Should he have attempted to make mention of it before its eventual fame in an encyclopaedic interface, I can see how it would appear rather backwards.

I suppose given the fact that this is simply the latest of many successful projects I have undertaken that it gave it a bit more buoyancy. (After all, the original edit credited it to me, and I have pages of Google hits, should that be the issue.)

Perhaps the better way to go is with a larger project that's garnished more notoreity. Leave the fledgling to walk before expecting an audience to watch it run.

I appreciate your assistance.


- A. Spratling —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aspratling (talk • contribs) 05:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


Hey

Hey Dan. Looks like you've found my attempt at a wiki page. Damn, I was hoping no one would notice... Well, here goes nothing:

Erm, how can I save on my page? The game is coming out within the 5 days of your delete notice, and I plan to have all of the CW members help me improve on it.

PS: Thanks for helping a newb out...

Peace, FFoX -Head Admin, CW Project —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeLance FoX (talk • contribs) 04:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


CW

Mmm... Indeed, Custom Wars may not have notibility yet. However seeing as beta hasn't been released, only time will tell. I, personally, expect atleast 1000 downloads within the beta release week. Even though the AW Community is a small one, this is big news there. It's going to get some notability from the press alone on the larger sites.

So, I implore, let it be until we see how it goes. Until then I plan on expanding the article to have a short guide of new content.

Peace and Respect, -FFoX —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeLance FoX (talk • contribs) 05:22, 16 June 2006


^_^

Thanks again Dan. Peace -FFoX —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FreeLance FoX (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Confused

Hi Dan,

You'd left me a message saying that I shouldn't add external commercial links or links to my own personal site on the KM page. However, I didn't add a commercial link or link to my own site. I added in the link for the Knowledge Management Professional Society (KMPro). http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Knowledge_management&diff=next&oldid=58617643

KMPro is a non-profit organization and is the world's largest KM professional society. I added the link because although I saw the link to the Canadian Institute of Knowledge Management (which isn't either a non-profit or a professional society/association) I realized KMPro wasn't listed and that certainly seemed to be an oversight.

FYI...I am a Meta Editor ("hudson") for the Open Directory Project (dmoz.org), and have been involved in that since nearly day one and a Meta Editor for six years. I understand well the goals of Wikipedia, but don't understand your rationale for not allowing this link. I'm hoping that you simply didn't understand the nature of the link and that you'll reconsider. Feel free to contact me at [e-mail address removed -Dan] if you'd like to ask other questions.

Regards,

Dan

Dr. Dan Kirsch [some personal details removed -Dan] E-Mail: [e-mail address removed -Dan] LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/profile?viewProfile=&key=1513291 OpenBC: https://www.openbc.com/hp/Dan_Kirsch/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drdan01 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


KM Page

Hi Dan,

Understand. Yes, did just signup -- primarily because I had been adding in links in Open Directory that were links to content in WP, and I followed a trackback to the WP page that had the other links. So while I wasn't necessarily coming to the page to add content so much as to look at it to see what other links were there (which is how ODP often finds new links), I realized that KMPro wasn't there and figured that was an oversight.

But adding an article/content is definitely a possibility and had thought about that when I realized that I do know personally some of the folks that have contributed to the current content there. I have over 16 years working in KM, along with a Ph.D. in management so I imagine that I might have something to add.

As for your question about the links and ODP -- every link there on that WP KM page is now contained inside of the ODP, and you could certainly list one single link that would cover that as well as anything that someone would want to submit as a general link (meaning not referred to directly in an article). That link would be as follows: http://www.dmoz.org/Reference/Knowledge_Management/ . That would take them to the top level inside of ODP's KM area, and from there they can do a search anywhere inside of that category.

Regards,

Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drdan01 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Pink Toe Tarantula

Greetings AbsolutDan, I'm Lucas, I noticed that you have taged me for the links that I have added in regards to the pink toe tarantula. I know and understand that you patrol RC here on wikipedia. I do the same on wikiHow. However since I don't regularly work with wikipedia I might be at a bit of a disadvantage as to how things are done around here. On wikiHow we encourage relevant links in regards to the article. As a tarantula keeper I have found that many people have no idea how to properly care for a tarantula as a pet and they regularly go neglected or die prematurley. I arssure you that none of my added links are comercial or personal sites as you have indicated with you rubber stamp message. I only tried to contribute relevant educational information.

Since I'm only put down with all my edits, perhaps you can let me know how dose and average guy like me actually contribute to wikipedia. I spend normally 8 hours a day working on wikiHow.com and I would like to contribute to wikipedia as well without being a bother.

Any guildence for a novice like me ??

Lucas H 18:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


king's college article

[The following comment was added to my userpage -Dan]

Dan i'm sorry i dont know how else to talk 2 u......what edit did i make 2 the king's college web page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.167.73 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW!

Seriously, Dan, thanks for the shiny! You are doing an excellent job yourself dealing with new users! Yanksox (talk) 02:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


Guild for Exceptional Children and advert tag

I'm responding to the advert tag that you added to the Guild for Exceptional Children article. I was trying to be strictly neutral when I wrote the article, and I have no affiliation with the Guild for Exceptional Children. I wasn't able to find any information about litigation in which it was involved or even any criticism from families or other agencies. Could you please take another look at the article and make whatever edits seem appropriate to you, so that the advert label can be removed? I added a bit more information to the history section. I think because of the Guild for Exceptional Children's size and 50-year-history, as well as its profile in the community, it's clearly notable, and I tried to do the best I could with the information I had available. TruthbringerToronto 04:39, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty.

Here's the lowdown incase you forgot: You gave me a heads up to cool it during the CW (Custom Wars) deletion debate. Thank you for the reminder. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VGN (talk • contribs) 19:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

(con't) Yes, I hope it succeeds as well. VGN 19:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Rappers

"gibberish", eh? you droll fellow. watch out or i'll pop a cap in yo set WP:HH on you ;-) W guice 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

HA! fear not, we're not on the whole an easily-offended group of fans... glass houses and all that W guice 23:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of King Kong II

Are u for or against King Kong II speedy deltion??? Domo1234 09:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Knowledge Management

I have just noticed that you erased my entry into the page on Knowledge Management named "KM Issues". It would be beneficial if people will have a chance to address these importaant issues and not automatically erase the entry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmoozing (talk • contribs) 15:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Knowledge Management Take 2

How about addressing the issues that I put in my revision? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmoozing (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


Knowledge Management Take 3

My intention was to point out to the world that the field of KM is not in such a great standing as one might get from reading the page as it is now. Therefore I added some important issues that are important to the "well being" of the field. I was not asking to have a discussion on the KM page but rather expected that when updating/changing the page, you will react on these issues- meaning adding some of yours, editing mine and rather commenting on rules and regulations and not addressing the issues in your edits. I believe that my contibutions changed twice while reacting to your previous deletions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Schmoozing (talk • contribs) 17:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

external link fluff?

Was wondering what I need to do to keep my website on the external links section. I am one of the original KLR enthusiasts since 1989. Thanks, Conall —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConallOB (talk • contribs) 01:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcome,

Hi Dan, Thanks for the welcome and all the info, and no problem with the revert on your author page. I know how frusterating vandals can be. I appreciate the explination for why you removed the link... I can understand what you mean. It just seemed like everything I've tried to contribute seems unwanted.... but thats cool.

Thanks for showing me the ropes. Feel free to send me a note if you think I'm outta line... I'm not on Wikipedia much... I perfer to do most of my editing on wikiHow... we haven't reached anywhere near the size of this site yet.

Talk to you later.

Lucas H 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate revert

Please do not make inappropriate reverts [4] of links to professional associations and research institutes at Program evaluation. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 18:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the links because a) they were added by users whose primary additions here have been external links and b) the links were undiscussed on the article's talk page. External links are not necessary to make a good article here, and in fact should only be added sparingly to an article. Considering the Program evaluation article has several links already, please consider determining which links are most appropriate for the article and removing the rest. Thank you --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The vast majority of Wikipedia edits are not discussed on talk pages before they are added. Also, you clearly did not verify the authenticity of the links. Mechanistic rules for deletion fail to address the actual value of contributions. Here's a case where you were "off base." It happens. Rfrisbietalk 21:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right in that most edits are not discussed first. However because Wikipedia's popularity is increasingly making it a target for external links spam, the intention of link additions have to be reviewed, not just the content of them.
If you read WP:SPAM, under the second "how not to be a spammer", one of the indications of spamming is "adding the same link to many articles." If you then review Bondag's edits, you'll see his only edits were to add the same link to 3 articles, one of which he wrote. In addition to violating spam guidelines, he also likely violated WP:EL, which clearly states:
"Because of neutrality & point-of-view concerns, a primary policy of Wikipedia is that no one from a particular site/organization should post links to that organization/site etc. Because neutrality is such an important — and difficult — objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked. The accepted procedure is to post the proposed links in the Talk section of the article, and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether or not it should be included."
Based on his edits, it seems likely that the editor is at least affiliated with W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
Fancisr10's edits, though not quite so blatently spam, have been solely to add external links, which goes against point #2 of "how not to be a spammer" in WP:SPAM, "Contribute cited text, not bare links".
As I mentioned above, external links do not need to be present in an article to make it a good one. Plenty of articles that have even made it to featured article status have zero external links. If a link does not have a corresponding discussion, then there is no obligation to keep it. Removing it is not "inappropriate", nor is the link "valid" or "authentic" without said discussion.
I will not, however, argue with your decision to re-include the link - I will defer to your judgement as I am not an expert on the article's topic. However, I'd appreciate it if you didn't refer to my edit as "invalid", as if I had done something incorrectly. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 22:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I apologize for offending you. However, without following someone's edit trail, these still are legitimate evaluation links, IMHO. I also have to point out the obvious that externally-linkless or linksparse articles are not inherently high quality either. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 22:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
That's fine - my "task" is primarily to remove links that are spammed. If a regular impartial editor like yourself later reviews the article's history and determines the links are useful, then as far as I'm concerned it's no longer spam.
While I feel that there is something noble about writing a complete and informative article without external links, I concede that some articles do simply require them.
Cheers! --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
In general, I think spam patrol is fine. In cases like this, however, (a professional topic) some slack might be warranted here and there. A few months ago, I went to the U.S. association's discussion forum and tried to recruit editors for these types of articles. I got zero replies! :-( When I see someone who actually knows enough about the topic to even be aware of a link, I want to encourage them (assume good faith - don't bite the newbies, as it were). If a spam patrol "slaps them on the hand" with a terse and interpretably confrontational revert, I'm not at all surprised it's so hard to get newbies to dig into sparse but specialized articles. Regards, Rfrisbietalk 23:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)