Davidwbenton

April 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. 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. http://spam.scabies-information.com MrOllie (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Ollie, your an idiot. Wiki is full of links to useful information, such as a resource of information on the subject disclosed here...scabies. http://www.scabies-information.com was listed as a resource for almost 2 years till you decided...not the public...that is was spam. It is NOT spam, but rather a resource of information on the subject. Do you consider it spam because it advertises on the site? like WebMD or the others? Advertising is how the bills are paid and the information can stay on web. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.62.106.234 (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

No, you added it on March 19th. Even if they were around for 2 years, the mere fact that no one noticed your links until now does not mean that they must remain. Please refrain from linking your own sites, it is against several guidelines. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 14:38, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok Ollie, so if someone finds my site useful, and thousands have, and they add it to the wiki, following the rules, are you going to just remove it again? It is a quality site with quality content that is spot on the subject of this wiki...scabies. Is this a vendetta? or if it is added by someone who finds it helpful will it stay? Simple question. FYI the site as originally listed as a resource for pictures in Feb 09, so it had been helpful to others for over a year. My mistake on when I put it up...

Please site those several guidelines that were violated so I can resolve them all, not just state it in general, it would impossible to fix with no specifics.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwbenton (talk • contribs)

If it is added by an editor with some history of contributions here, I would bring it up with them, but my view is that it does not satisfy the guidelines regardless of who adds it. If some brand new account were to show up and add it, I don't think that would be helpful to your cause at all. The guidelines in question are all linked above, but here they are again: the guideline on spam, the guideline on external linking, the guideline on conflict of interest. - MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm...it really does sound like a vendetta or something personal. If someone with history added it then it would not be considered a conflict of interest. External linking?? really?? it is added right below two other links that take you to sites that show images.... not sure that applies here either. Spam?? how does it fall into spam? I would really like to know that one....because you don't like it? What is your medical degree that qualifies you to judge the content of the site? I can get a couple of doctors to submit reports as to the quality of the site.

The site does not sell or endorse ANY products. It is not an affiliate site. The site makes revenue on advertising with google, Like 95% of all of the sites listed on that page in the references and other external links.

I am really confused as to why your personally against the site, is there someone else that I can escalate this issue to? or are you the final authority.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwbenton (talk • contribs)

You are welcome to bring it up on the Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard, which is used for such matters. - MrOllie (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ollie, could you please answer my other questions for me? If a trusted editor was to add the site as a reference for pictures or other information...would you remove it? as long as it meets all other guidelines. Would you still remove it? Am I wrong that the only reason you have removed it is because I added it myself? or was there something else? If there is something else, I would like to fix that so that if a trusted editor adds it, you do not vindictively remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 00:48, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have read the sections on spamming and this site does NOT fit ANY of the criteria so it must be something else...please tell me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 00:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You told me if I thought my content was relevant to add it to the talk pages so I did. I see also that you removed it. I have placed it in with the pictures of scabies and there is unique content not found on the other picture links. Can you tell me why you removed that one also?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 11:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, what I said was that you should 'discuss it on the article's talk page.' That is, you start a discussion about the link, so that people who don't have a conflict of interest may weigh in and develop a consensus on if the link should be included. You don't just find a likely spot on the talk page and add a bare link, that is not what talk pages are for. - MrOllie (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

hmmmmm a bare link??? I placed it with the other 7 links that were there for photos also! I see you removed most of the content on that page...amazing piece of work.

Were you ever going to answer my previous questions? or did you have no answers for them so you just ignore them... 1. If a trusted editor was to add the site as a reference for pictures or other information...would you remove it? as long as it meets all other guidelines. 2. I have read the sections on spamming and this site does NOT fit ANY of the criteria so it must be something else...please tell me. ( I understand the linking your own site, I am just concerned that if a medical professional finds my site helpful you will still vindictively remove it.) A valid concern considering your actions so far. 3. What is your medical degree that qualifies you to judge the content of the site? or are you just a layperson?

Thank you for providing answers to my questions, I am sure that you are very busy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidandkimbenton (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Given your accusations of bad faith 'vendetta or something personal', 'Ollie, your an idiot', etc, I don't hold much hope that even if I answered all the questions you have, that anything productive would result. Please bring it up on the external links noticeboard so you can see that my positions are not unusual. - MrOllie (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I did call you an idiot, and I apologize for that, I was upset that you kept removing the resource without giving me any real answers, just broad strokes. I would hope that as a qualified editor you would have answered my questions. I would hope that the editors here on the Wiki would be able to answer these questions and they are fair. We are all just trying to make this better.

If your really trying to do a good job then do it please, and help me understand.

1. If a trusted editor was to add the site as a reference for pictures or other information...would you remove it? as long as it meets all other guidelines. 2. I have read the sections on spamming and this site does NOT fit ANY of the criteria so it must be something else...please tell me. ( I understand the linking your own site, I am just concerned that if a medical professional finds my site helpful you will still remove it.) 3. What is your medical degree that qualifies you to judge the content of the site?

I have applied to be a trusted contributor to the wiki and I am trying to learn, your answers would be appreciated. Davidandkimbenton (talk) 02:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)