• User talk:Mwanner/Archive 1 - 12/05/2004 - 09/17/2005
• User talk:Mwanner/Archive 2 - 09/18/2005 - 12/22/2005
• User talk:Mwanner/Archive 3 - 01/06/2006 - 05/16/2006
• User talk:Mwanner/Archive 4 - 05/16/2006 - 06/21/2006
• User talk:Mwanner/Archive 5 - 06/27/2006 - 10/05/2006

Curious as to why you removed one external link on the rammed earth page but left others.User:xxxmicrobexxx

thanks for the reply regading removing spam - good on you.

I started the rammed earth page and don't really regard that link as spam. David Easton is one of the leading proponents of rammed earth building.

But at least your edit made me have another look at the page and make a few updates :o) Xxxmicrobexxx 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that Ampersand Bay is not in the village limits? Gam3 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the link you removed ( A Sociological Perspective on the Lifestyle ) is actually one of the good ones. I didn't revert, since it seems like you were editing in good faith, but you might want to put that one back in. Maybe. OscarTheCat 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

I dunno-- seems weak to me. I tend to lean on WP:EL's "Sites with meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". It's not clear to me that this site fits that criterion. If you want to put it back, though, I won't revert. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that strongly about it. It's been in there since 07 August 2006, but the article doesn't suffer from not having it. At least it pointed to an article, and not to yet another swinger profile website. Thanks for responding, though! OscarTheCat3 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I followed the link, and the person looking at it can get free pdf e-books. I will not revert back, but why not give the reader a chance to have a better e-book than the meagre stuff that Gutenberg provides? I appreciate your work on an article that is of great importance to me.--Drboisclair 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, you may have a point. In assuming that the ebook itself contained ads, I was relying on the discussion on User_talk:Riapress, where User:Ron g indicates that there is "hidden advertising" in the Riapress books, and User:Riapress doesn't refute the point. I just looked at the Riapress Black Arrow pdf, and it is certainly ad-free, so I'm going to revert myself. Personally, if I wanted to print from an online source, I would want plain text that I could dump into a word processor and format to my own tastes, but to each his own. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do Wiki a helpful service in following up on the links. On the Pilgrim's Progress page, which I have edited, an editor linked to research that found that Pilgrim's Progress was considered the most boring book by readers. I followed it up: 1) he linked to "Highbeam," which charges those who go to that website to see their documents, and looking at the other "free" source of information I found that 2) the information was from one survey that was over 50 years old. I thought it fair to delete that dig at Pilgrim's Progress. Even though English students over 50 years ago may have been required to read it I was never required to read it in my English classes. The site I like best is the one put out by Google that posts pdfs of very early editions. --Drboisclair 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

do you have a better suggestion for this ?

So, I think I'm learning this wikipedia thing. It's pretty cool so far. I will make sure to only put very relevant links (if any) on any of my future edits. Thanks! --Roadkillu 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the nice welcome! Neat. --Roadkillu 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are somehow right as the link lead to the top level of that site. I believe it should have gone to http://www.microirrigationforum.com/new/archives/ which allows to access the "compiled" knowledge, and not just postings, in this area since 1994 related to:

• Chemical Use
• Cultural Practices
• Effects On Crops
• Engineering
• Landscaping
• New Ideas
• MIF Contributions
• Related Information Tables
• SDI
• Soil Moisture Instrumentation
• Water Problems
• Other

It is of course based on 'discussions' but it is manually compiled and quite unique worldwide that's why I believed it would add value to it. However, its up to you. Cheers Thomas

"What should be linked to

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link. What should be linked to."

I wrote these pages based on material gained from the website CharterWorld. That site is a legitimate external reference which adds hundreds of pages of accurate material not in the articles and not elsewhere on the web, pursuant to the points above. Accordingly, I have added references to my work.

I expect you are removing that link and accusing me of spam in good faith but perhaps you would like to reconsider your position. --Turtleflipper

If these sites that you have readded aren't spam, then I have never seen spam, and clearly GraemeL agrees. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The external links on the valet parking page are in compliance with Wikipedia's policy... "a small number of highly relevant external links to further information can enhance an article. This guideline assists editors in identifying what is and isn't a "highly relevant" link." ValetPark.net is the only place I've found that offers information on hiring a valet parking service... Also the article on the history of valet parking on valetparking.com is informative and well written. Valet Parking is a niche market and there's not a whole lot of good info out there... both of these links are valuable to the wiki user.

Also these links have already been approved by another wiki editor.. they've been up for months. Please explain why you removed them?

As the vast majority of your edits are devoted to adding this link to this article, and the closely related link (limofinder.net) to the Limosine article (also deleted as spam), these edits clearly violate the WP:EL sanction against adding one's own site to an article. They also add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the wikipedia policy on externals links and I wonder if you were not a bit to hasty in removing the link to this site.

Wordnet is a semantic network. Grokitbetter is a visual semantic network based on Wordnet. It allows you to browse the semantic network by clicking on images.

Why is a visual semantic network not relevant to a page on semantic networks? Have you actually checked the contents of the site?

Please go http://grokitbetter.com and enter a word like 'peace'. Click on the images few times and convince your self that it is in reality a visual semantic network. What is the problem? Please explain why a visual semantic network based on wordnet is not relevant to the topic of semantic networks.

Perhaps you missed the part of the policy that specifies that you should never add a link to your own site? There's more to it than that, but that's a good starting point to my objections. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Fair enough.

I'm very sorry about the mixup. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with British spelling, so I mistook the spellings of those particular words I changed for misspellings. I'll try to be more aware next time. -- Thebanjohype

Could you please explain why LoungeSyndicate, a trip-hop radio stream was removed from the triphop wiki, when Calmscape is effectively a similar type of site relating to triphop.

-oreonix

The difference is that I noticed you adding the same site to three different articles, which you have done twice, having been reverted previously. If you read Wikipedia's External links policy, you will see that adding a link to your own site is a no-no. When an editor's only edits consist of adding an external link to multiple articles, one tends to assume that they have a promotional interest in that site that precludes their having an unbiased opinion of its importance.

Should the link to Calmscape be deleted too? I don't know. Perhaps you could develop an interest in working to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, rather than just using it for your own ends? If so, your input on such questions would be valuable.

Incidentally, new posts go to the bottom of the page-- I have taken the liberty of rearranging this page. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mwanner-

That sounds fair, initially I felt the change was malicious nature, but as i researched it more and went through the history I noticed the amount of self posting being added. Sorry for the annoyance.

No problem, thanks for understanding. With Wikipedia's open content and high traffic, we're kinda getting massively spammed. BTW, you can put a note on the article's talk page suggesting that someone might consider adding your site. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would you, please, explain me why the RussArt.com has been deleted from the List of online DVD rental companies? It did not contain a link as, say TigerCinema, which was left in the List. What's the difference between these two companies in terms of notability? I would either restore RussArt entry or delete the whole list. Sincerely. --Bakhteiarov 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Which link did you remove? It would be helpful if you told me on my talk page rather than just issue a warning. Skoppensboer 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see why one might view the addition of the same site (http://www.chronicprostatitis.com) to several articles as linkspam, or the site itself as a commercial endeavour we should not be promoting. However, looking beyond the ads, I personally think it has a lot of good information so IMO the link can stay even though I do not like the site's somewhat commercial aspects. I would go so far as to say that I think a limited number of other articles can also link to it (where relevant - as you have seen, it also covers a number of related conditions).

(I agree that two links to the same site in one article is too much, at least in this case.)

My two cents... AvB ÷ talk 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Hey, why did you remove the link to kidswithfoodallergies.org from the food allergy article? It's a very useful nonprofit site.... Would you please put it back? Asbruckman 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it offers direct retail sales-- it may or may not be non-profit, but it is a commercial site. Also, it requires registration to view its resources. If it were a truly extraordinary site, it might be OK even with these drawbacks, but it just doesn't look that valuable or unique to me. You might want to read through Wikipedia's External links policy. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi " Would you tell me, why did you remove the link to caius zip? i am a math teacher and I have a site about Caius Zip, the time traveller. At each lapse of time, Caius Zip will meet characters that made or will make history and will have to face challenges in the form of enigmas in critical moments of history and in battles of men and gods. I'd like to invite you to visit this site. It"s very informative and educational. Would you please help me and put it back? Profes001 21:15, 9 november 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's External links policy, specifically the part about not adding links to your own site. Thanks, Mwanner | Talk 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making me aware of the 'external links - sites you own' policy. I will endeavor to avoid violating it in the future. If you have a chance you may wish to visit the map resources middleforkmaps is able to provide and decide objectively their relative merit. I would note that that the 'Maps and Aerial Photos' template included on 10s of thousands of Wikipedia locality pages automatically links to googlemaps, yahoomaps, terraserver, and topozone giving these large corporate providers a huge free benefit while locking out other providers as a matter of policy. Me: 5 pages; Google: 100,000 free links. I'll do my part to be fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by middleforkmaps (talk • contribs)

This is David John Barnes. I find your post about me to another editor inaccurate and very aggressive.

I am not a 'spammer'. I run an award-winning website www.retrosellers.com which has a great deal of valuable content and I am spending my Sunday trying to get relevant articles listed in appropriate areas of the Wikipedia enyclopdia. The rules for a newcomer are impossible to understand and the idea that I am involved in a 'duel' is outrageous. I wasn't aware that I was getting warnings because I didn't get any emails through telling me there was a problem. I had to stumble upon the notion that communication is via these page edits rather than email or online forms.

Why my articles are not relevant to you I do not know. They are very specific to the pages I have tried to associate them to.

Far from welcoming people to improve your encylopedia with their content, it seems that you assume we will understand all there is to know about your rules and procedures straight away and if we don't then we must be spammers.