User talk:Mvoltron

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant Info

The information I am providing is relevant, informative, and useful, don't you think?

If everyone were free to add all the links they want to to every article, the articles would be a mess. You are welcome and encouraged to add information from your sites into the articles. What we don't need is a brief article followed by 27 links to similar brief articles covering the same material slightly differently. We're an encyclopedia, not a link farm. See Wikipedia:External links-- Mwanner | Talk 22:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm doing fits your criteria.

We should ABSOLUTELY be able to put in ONE link to our quotes database which is one of, if not THE best source for quotes for each of the teachers to whom we will be linking. Clearly our 5 links in a sentence was too much, but

Einstein Quotes — Web’s largest collection

It is not inappropriate.

From the site you directed me to:

Under "What Should Be Linked To": "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article." -Yep, that's exactly what we have. "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews." -Again, that's exactly what we have... a database of quotes by these teachers. This is meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the articles.

Under "Links Normally to Avoid"

"1. Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, unless it is the official site of the article's subject or it is a notable proponent of a point of view in an article with multiple points of view. (See WP:RS for further information on this guideline.)
2. In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.
3. Links that are added to promote a site. See External link spamming.
4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
5. Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising
6. Sites that require payment to view the relevant content
7. Sites that require external applications (such as Flash or Java) to view the relevant content unless (1) it is the official site of the subject of the article (2) the article is about those media, or (3) the site is being cited as a reference.
8. Bookstores. Use the "ISBN" linking format which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources.
9. A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.
10. Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard."

I don't see that we're violating any of these. Zaadz is a social networking site, but the website is of particularly high standard, one of the exceptions noted.

~Matthew

Well, for starters, what validates the claim that "the website is of particularly high standard" in this case? Also, wouldn't it be nice if the quotations came with some hint of context? I would take that as a sine qua non of a quote site that operated under a "particularly high standard". I would say that your site falls under "Links Normally to Avoid" #3, "Links that are added to promote a site. See Wikipedia:Spam" as well as #10, "...social networking sites..." -- Mwanner | Talk 19:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]