Gregbrown
|
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. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because even if your book is free it does not appear to me to be appropriate as Wikipedia is not a how to manual. The article is about advertising, not how to. If you think the article should have the link then I suggest that you discuss it on the talk page. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 03:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, if you think another link or source in inappropriate, you can bring that up on the article's talk page as well. - CobaltBlueTony 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Because I didn't see it the first time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Bring it up at Talk:Advertising and or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 04:34, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia's policy regarding external links within Wikipedia. What, when, and why are points I think you should pay special attention to. The links you added were to fictional stories involving the subjects of the articles in which you placed those links, none of which would meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for including works of fiction. We appreciate you trying to help, but might I recommend that first you acquaint yourself more closely with what we are trying to do here at Wikipedia, by reading the welcome message at the top of this page, for starters. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Thanks, and happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 04:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Jack Benny
editYes it was me that removed the link for your website. Please take some time to read the links that CobaltBlueTony provided and Wikipedia:Spam. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- I am a disinterested person who was invited to contribute a Wikipedia:third opinion on the Jack Benny audio book link. My first instinct is that a link to Jack Benny audio does add to the article but the link should go to the source, that is Jack Benny on Archive.org, and not through the geocities-hosted link RomaC 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Where to discuss
editYou should discuss it on the talk pages of the articles concerned, Talk:Advertising and Talk:Jack Benny, to see if you can get Wikipedia:Consensus to add the link or you could try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. There is no "higher authority" as such for discussions like this and at this stage. Take a look at Wikipedia:Overview FAQ and Wikipedia:About. Right now you think the links should be included and I don't so it's a disagrement over content. If the disagreement was to escalate then there would be remedies that could be looked at. But at this stage concensus should be what is looked for. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that you have not read the material we've both linked here for you, or haven't read it well enough, or you don't understand how it applies to the circumstances in which you have observed these policies enforced. Determining which external links should be included is really very simple: if it's something you might see talked about on a national news magazine program, or in a nationally or regionally distributed magazine, or some other notable resource. A GeoCities website, such as the one you used for Jack Benny, immediately is perceived as unreliable and/or unnotable because anyone can make a website with that service for free; moreover, an "audio history" is not perceived as a valuable resource -- at least, not nearly as much as a properly cited book from your local library, or from a similarly appointed website for which someone has taken the great personal interest to actually pay for. (Not that freebie websites are automatically scams, but that someone is much less likely to pay a sum of money to freely disseminate deliberately misleading or inaccurate information.) Remember that this is an encyclopedia, not just a collection of stuff about stuff. We seek to be better than Brittanica, for instance, by having continuously updated facts about everything possible. With a "normal" encyclopedia, you have to wait for the next edition. Everyone coming to an online encyclopedia of text is looking for text to satisfy their needs, but not nearly as many are here looking for information in audio format. Have you looked at WikiSource yet? - CobaltBlueTony 03:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- I think Cobaltbluetony has said it better than I can. Of course no doubt there are several other links to audio material that I didn't see and remove. Here's yet another link to read Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam#Common spammer strawmen. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 09:44, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- If you see an inappropriate link, by all means feel free to remove it. This is a wiki, so anyone can edit it. No sense staring at an error and complaining when all you need to do is take the 30 seconds or so and do it yourself. That's the beauty of this project! - CobaltBlueTony 16:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Wrong idea
editI don't spend my time running around looking for new editors to see if they have added external links or any other paticular edits. What I do is go through my watchlist (it shows changes to articles that I want to view, all editors can have one) to look for changes. I tend to pay special attention to the articles that interest me. Then to the articles that get a lot of vandalism. In your case it was the Jesus article that caught my eye. From there I looked at what else you had linked, not because you were new or because I wanted to bully you. As to your comment about not removing other links I had mentioned that in my last comment and if you read the link I provided you would have seen the reply to your comment. Finally, don't you think a better use of your time would have been to make a case on the talk pages of the articles you wanted to add the link to rather than spend it complaining at me? Here's another link for you Wikipedia:No personal attacks CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect policies
editWikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators and Wikipedia:Deletion policy have nothing to do with removing links. Those refere to this kind of stuff. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Your information
editDid you really mean to put your personal information like that? It makes that number easily available to people who want to harrass you or worse. By the way I really don't care if you put my name in it. Anyone who sees it will check back here and guess right away. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Link
editNot sure which link you mean. There's Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:External links or Wikipedia:Spam. You seem to have most of them here. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion given=
edit[The following was on my Talk page] I am a disinterested person who was invited to contribute a Wikipedia:third opinion on the Jack Benny audio book link. My first instinct is that a link to Jack Benny audio does add to the article but the link should go to the source, that is Jack Benny on Archive.org, and not through the geocities-hosted link RomaC 04:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC) ````````````````` My question to you is: Would you be OK with the following External Link on the Jack Benny Wikipedia page: Jack Benny Audio History on Archive.org http://www.archive.org/details/JackBrackittJackBennyAudioHistory Thank you in advance for getting back with me within the next week. Gregbrown 23:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have no problem with that. They have the proper licence and things. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problems. As far as I can see we both remaind civil. Have fun and happy editing. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)