User talk:Audacity/Archives/Linkspam

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Linkspam? 2 Check-up 3 Problem? 4 Looking good

Linkspam?

I noticed you removed an external link from Conventional warfare, citing it as linkspam. Why? The article linked to is well-written, well-sourced, knowledgable on the subject, and is a reasonably complete analysis of conventional warfare. It contains "neutral and accurate material not already in the article" and "meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion" - both criteria that qualify an external link in WP policy. While I understand the need to prevent spam on WP, I can't see this would be such a case. uriah923^(talk) 20:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll give you another day, and then I'm going to put the link back on. uriah923^(talk) 14:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, it says right at the bottom of your own talk page that "there is a clear consensus that links to ON should not be in Wikipedia articles unless added by a longstanding contributor, and not prompted by Uriah." thejabberwock 17:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

The issue you bring up is in the past. There was concern for a certain period of time that any link to an article published on OmniNerd was spam, as I had added lots of them and am an administrator on that site. However, since then I've proved my "loyalty" to building a quality encyclopedia (see my user page and contributions) and ceased adding any links myself to avoid violating NPOV. Thus, the conflict is in the past and things can proceed as normal. In this case, then, we should evaluate the situation as I outlined above. In other words, you should evaluate the link you removed according to WP policy with the intent to build a quality encyclopedia. What do you think of the link within that context? uriah923^(talk) 20:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

It appears that the issue has been resolved. Thanks for your help, anyway. uriah923^(talk) 14:35, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Check-up

You're going to check on me, eh? You won't be the first. uriah923^(talk) 15:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No offense meant - I was glad to work with you on Conventional warfare, and I'd like to continue the process of including information from ON into Wikipedia. Maybe you could ask me about ON articles that would provide valuable links, and I'll back you up (or advise against their inclusion). thejabberwock 02:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the ON thing goes way too deep for me to get into at this point. thejabberwock 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

What an unpleasant first two messages... TheJabberwʘck 16:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Problem?

I saw your comment on Taxman's talk page. I have to say that I'm disappointed; I thought I had found someone dedicated to objectivity. I must rescind my previous offer to support a future adminship for you (if such should ever become a possibility). uriah923^(talk) 13:51, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Even objective people have to make a decision at some point. Your preceding comment ("If you refuse, then I guess it's back to endless arguing") was probably the deciding factor. TheJabberwock 00:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking good

Your changes look good. No need to go through and update last seen and add comments to them all I think. More trouble that it's worth. They wont be needed for those that age off and the long term ones can be commented as they return. It might also be better to just order by date added, but we'll try with last seen date and see how much work it is to keep sorted that way. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)