Blackfeathor
July 2008
edit
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Shadowbane, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Shadowbane was changed by Blackfeathor (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2008-07-25T06:10:01+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Reported as per ClueBot instruction. Also replaced the word "sex" with "gender" in the edit to keep ClueBot away. Blackfeathor (talk) 06:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
mmohub review
editFYI: You left the message for the wrong user. The one you posted on the talk page was the one who had added the link, I'm the one who removed it. The link posting was actually a poster-child for Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming - most if not all articles in wikipedia where the site has been linked has been done by two IPs on separate one-day link-spamming sprees (one on July 18, 2008 and one on Sept 26, 2008) - this falls under WP:ELNO #4.
Also per WP:EL, note that the external links section should only contain
- "... information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail; or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy. ... Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but Wikipedia's purpose is not to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable." (bolding added by me)
Nothing in the link is unique beyond what is already included in the article and/or better covered by other existing links. This is directly relevant to WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was considering that the link was a decent reference precisely because what is covered in the article can be reference by this additional source. Please notice my previous edits on the talk page about the lack of source material. It seems like most of the article is WP:OR, including, unfortunately, my own edits to the page. I see you have added a link of your own but I haven't read that article as of yet. Do you know of any other sources which can be sited in the article? Blackfeathor (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I somewhat see what you mean; still, I think if it's used as a citation, then it should be added within a ref tag to appropriate parts of the article. I disagree with it being used in the external links section, mainly because such sections need to abide by WP:EL and WP:NOT; but I have no objection to an editor who is familiar with the article, such as yourself, adding it as an in-line citation where such use is appropriate and relevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand and agree with your position. I'll consider that. Thanks. Blackfeathor (talk) 15:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I somewhat see what you mean; still, I think if it's used as a citation, then it should be added within a ref tag to appropriate parts of the article. I disagree with it being used in the external links section, mainly because such sections need to abide by WP:EL and WP:NOT; but I have no objection to an editor who is familiar with the article, such as yourself, adding it as an in-line citation where such use is appropriate and relevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
- I was considering that the link was a decent reference precisely because what is covered in the article can be reference by this additional source. Please notice my previous edits on the talk page about the lack of source material. It seems like most of the article is WP:OR, including, unfortunately, my own edits to the page. I see you have added a link of your own but I haven't read that article as of yet. Do you know of any other sources which can be sited in the article? Blackfeathor (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC)