User talk:PIrish
- If I left a message on your 'Talk Page', then please reply there. I am temporarly watching it. I will get back to you there.
- If you asked me a question here, I will answer here. This way then both parts of the conversation are in the same place.
Inactive discussions older than one week will be moved to the archive the last message's date corresponds to:
minesweeper
"1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
- Very few of these links bring up anything that isn't already included in the article already. If some of them do, they should be used as references within the actual article and not as sites tagged on to the end."
I found that nearly all of them did include things that aren't in the article aldready. I don't think you looked very hard at them
"3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.
- They were almost all personal sites that are linked to from here to solely promote and create traffic to their sites."
Some are personal sites, but I believe most were not linked on wikipedia by the owners: I've linked many myself.
"4. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
- A lot of these links are offering a product, some even require you to buy it after a trial."
Offering a product is not a problem. Any that require you to buy something to use it should be removed, but I think you seem to avoid the word "primarily" in many of these reasons.
"8. Direct links to documents that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content, unless the article is about such rich media.
- Many of these links just go to Flash/Java versions of the game
10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.
- Several of these links go straight to discussion forums and even chat rooms."
Fair enough, so remove them, don't just remove the entire links section.
"11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.
- Several are blogs and most are personal webpages of some sort."
I think you're stretching "of some sort" a bit too far here. If it says "x's website" or something like that, fair enough, but just because a webpage is owned by an individual does not make it a personal webpage.
Seriously man, removing the entire links section and just replacing one or two links looks a lot more like vandalism to me than any kind of help- maybe you should have just removed the links that violated the rules you gave. I'm adding a few links that unambiguously do not violate these rules, though I'm sure you'll find a way to construe that they do. SchuBomb 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
reverted edit
after you removed the addition i made to both the andy baldwin and the bachelor page, i added the information again WITH a citation from a source that is very often cited and is what i believe to be a credible source. unless you can convince me that the new york post is not a reliable source, i will continue to add the information if it is deleted. thank you for bringing to my attention the lack of a source being cited. jae
- I'm still going to remove the edit. While yes, you did add a source the second time, the information still isn't Wikified. Please add a spoiler tag to the section and remove the warning stuff. The statement "three lucky ladies" is POV. Just...make it sound like an encyclopedia article. You wouldn't see stuff like "had a few drinks the other night and spilled the beans" in an encyclopedia. Word it in a formal tone and then re-add the information. Thank you. --pIrish talk, contribs 16:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
- I just read the article you are getting the information from. You cannot, under any circumstance, copy and paste directly from the source like that. This is a copyright infringement and cannot be included. It will be immediately removed if put back in the article like this again. No exceptions. --pIrish talk, contribs 16:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)