User talk:Wcspaulding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Your edits to Put option

I removed your link to thismatter.com for a couple reasons.

1. The site has been spammed on numerous occasions to other wiki pages and subsequently removed, and
2. The pages look terrible in Firefox.

GeneralBob 00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"I looked at the pages with Firefox. They look good to me. Are the images too big? I did provide a link—the same link—to the page on Options a couple of times, but somebody kept taking it out. I think the page is valuable and is at least as good as the other links listed, so that's why I thought it had value."
I'm watching this page, so we can keep all discussions here. If I recall correctly, either the images were overlapping the text, or vice-versa. The problem isn't that the site isn't useful. One could easily create a site that basically rephrases everything that wikipedia states. The problem is that the links don't necessarily provide information that isn't already on the wikipedia pages. There are plenty of sites out there that provide information, and it becomes difficult to determine which ones should be linked to. Personally, unless the site provides information that you can't put on wikipedia, I don't think it needs to be linked to. Dynamic content such as screeners and calculators have more of a purpose than a site that repeats the same information. Hope that clarifies. GeneralBob 06:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please do not place external links to your website

Thanks for all of your contributions. It is clear you've done a lot of work. However, linking your your own website violates the "conflict of interest" policy (WP:COI). It is likely that these links will be removed. In the future, if you believe content from your website would make a good contribution to an article - bring it up on the talk page of that article and let other editors decide if it should be included. More information about external link guidelines: WP:EL. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nposs (talk • contribs) 03:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Linking again to personal website

It's clear you are a great asset to Wikipedia and are very knowledgeable about your subject. There really is no need for you to engage in violating the terms of WP:External_links and WP:COI. I see you have reverted your link on the Credit_score_(United_States) page. I won't revert it, but why not delete it yourself and add it to the talk page for the article? Then other editors can review and decide if it is worth including and add it without a violation of the guidelines. Nposs 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Who are you? The reason why I added the link is because it gives another view. When you read different articles about the same subject, you get a better understanding of it. This is particularly true when you consider that much of the information in Wikipedia is wrong, and/or poorly written. I do try correcting a lot of it, but it is difficult to rewrite so much of it, because of its lack of organization, and its constant editing by others. Other articles give people more references so that they can verify or learn better what they learned in Wikipedia. I also did look at the spam policy. Although it is a link to an article that I wrote, I do not promote the site within the article itself, and I do maintain content neutrality. It is clearly labeled as an external link. The question that I ask is, is the article worthwhile? I think it is. Some people are bothered because it has advertising, but there are many other external links to sites that also have advertising. Advertising does not make a site useless. Quite the contrary, generally the best content does have advertising, because who really likes to work for nothing? Even people who write for government websites are paid by the government. And many of the links are to companies, such as exchanges, who make money, although indirectly, from such information. That's the way the world turns. It is because I do make some money from advertising that I can spend the time learning about finance, and can make the contributions to Wikipedia. I did put the link back, but removed everything except the title. I guess I generally feel that if the article is worthwhile, and I spend time adding valuable contributions to Wikipedia, then I don't see anything wrong with it. Consider all of the links to sites that have never contributed to Wikipedia, and never will. Yet they are benefiting from the external links. Investopedia.com is a good example. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wcspaulding (talk • contribs) 08:14, 3 January 2007.

I don't think it's spam. Just breaks some guidelines and it doesn't seem like it has to. I won't change it, but I do recommend posting it to the talk page of the article for discussion. Sorry if I stepped on your toes. Nposs 08:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] [1][2][3][4] ThisMatter.com on article Credit score (United States)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. --Hu12 20:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)