User talk:Jlockard

Dear Jlockard,

On nearly any notable topic one could find a wealth of other websites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article; however we much endeavor to keep the articles' external links section down to a bare minimum. To this effect, myself and other volunteers must regularly traverse many articles and prune links.

One the primary methods used to determine whether a link should stay or go is the method in which it was added to the article(s). In this case (as I mentioned above) the links to the Antislavery Literature Project were added "bare" (with no additional content added to the article) across a multitude of pages. This raises a major red flag; had it not been me that reverted the changes, someone else likely would have.

Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external website into an article is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. You may also wish to consider adding the link to a smaller number of articles - preferrably one main article on the topic.

I hope this helps to explain the reason these links were removed. In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links:

• WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 2 in this guideline)
• WP:EL External Links guidelines
• WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the history of the John Pierpont article, and you're right, in that case I did overlook your previous edit in which you contributed much of the article's text. However I do stand by the remainder of my removals, as only the bare links were contributed (Special:Contributions/129.219.46.76).

One of the major goals of Wikipedia is to compile a print version, for which more content and citations is much needed. If you are adding a link that serves as a reference for text that is in the Wikipedia article, then great (and thanks!) - but I implore you to focus on adding more content to the articles as you did with the John Pierpont article. If your website can be used a a source for the content you add, then by all means include it as a citation. Thanks! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

JLockard:

Thanks for the edits to Underground Railroad and William Still. It was so nice to see an edit that wasn't vandalism on those pages. Keep up the good work! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy messages

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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. 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. Thank you. [1] (Requestion 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Please ignore User:Requestion, who appears not to have read the guideline he's referencing. The links you have added are to valuable source material that people like myself who view the Wikipedia articles for reasons of research are glad to find there. -Moorlock 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Requestion -- This question of whether and under what circumstances external links constitute link-spamming was discussed at some length a year ago, with another admin. The linked source is a well-recognized scholarly and educational resource, located at two major universities. We link to Wikipedia as public scholarship that seeks to make available high-quality educational and research resources via the Internet. We link only to articles relating to the literature of slavery, and contribute to those articles where appropriate. We have no commercial purposes and no interest other than in providing public scholarship. It is rather discouraging to explain this annually, let alone contemplate restoring now-missing links. There really are better things to do with a work-day. As User:Moorlock points out, you have misconstrued Wikipedia policy, and in a manner that defeats educational purposes. Indeed, you have misconstrued it in a manner that would lead to elimination of all legitimate standard reference source links. Thanks for not doing this again.--Jlockard 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)