User talk:Bluetongue: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:50, 6 October 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Bluetongue, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! -- Longhair\^talk 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schapelle Corby

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 that you are affiliated with, 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. -- Longhair\^talk 07:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Schapelle Site

Bluetongue, Longhair With regards to the Schapelle page, - are you both aware of the 3-revert rule?? [1]. I suggest care be taken. --Merbabu 09:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like some petty game to me. The guys/girls that run that site do so to help Schapelle Corby - nothing more and nothing less. I am interested in Schapelles situation and considered the link a worthwhile and postive addition. They even linked back to wikipedia!! To suggest that a link to a supporters forum for schapelle corby on a wiki for her is spam is completely outrageous and your decision to repeatedly remove it is indeed 100% malicious. The site is non profit so I do not for life of me what you think they have to gain for doing so. Why that link in particular would be removed whilst 'dead' links where left indicates the purility of all this. Furthermore, the removal of ALL relevant links from the Schapelle Corby wiki serves absolutely no purpose at all. Bluetongue 09:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please don't forget that wikipedia is an encyclopedia and must therefore be based in fact. it is not there to push a certain point of view (in this case, neither for or against Schapelle). I removed that link as external links to forums, particularly those pushing a certain point of view, are generally discouraged. If you have come to wikipedia to push your opinions on Schapelle (or any other topic) you will find it difficult here. But if you are here to contribute to building an impartial factual encyclopedia, then welcome. You should get to know how wikipedia operates, and it's policies and procedures. This is good place to start:[2] then maybe move to here: [3] --Merbabu 13:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Come here to push my views" lol is that a joke mate? ALL the links on schapelle corbys wiki support her. Most of them have been there for 12 months!!! To suggest that everything that appears in wikipedia is based on fact is laughable. Alot of it is peoples points of view. Removing the link i readded whilst leaving links that pointed to non existant pages shows how petty this really is. There are THOUSANDS of wiki pages that have links to other sites pushing a certain point of view. The title of the heading under which the link did appear was Schapelle Corby Support Sites which is exactly what the link was. You removed it and left links to domains which were also supporter sites and has been placed on the wiki long after the link in question had. Why remove one but not the other? Why leave sites that had no content on them whatsoever? Why then would Longhair remove ALL links as being 'unencyclopedic" yet i could list thousands of wikis which had more links than Schapelle's wiki did.

I dont need to be told how wiki operates when all I did was readd a link that had previously existed for months. How about you check out the page that says [4]

Revision as of 23:48, 6 October 2006 edit Bluetongue (talk \| contribs) 40 edits →‎Schapelle Site ← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:50, 6 October 2006 edit undo Bluetongue (talk \| contribs) 40 edits →‎Schapelle Site Next edit →
Line 23:		Line 23:
	"Come here to push my views" lol is that a joke mate? ALL the links on schapelle corbys wiki support her. Most of them have been there for 12 months!!! To suggest that everything that appears in wikipedia is based on fact is laughable. Alot of it is peoples points of view. Removing the link i readded whilst leaving links that pointed to non existant pages shows how petty this really is. There are THOUSANDS of wiki pages that have links to other sites pushing a certain point of view. The title of the heading under which the link did appear was Schapelle Corby Support Sites which is exactly what the link was. You removed it and left links to domains which were also supporter sites and has been placed on the wiki long after the link in question had. Why remove one but not the other? Why leave sites that had no content on them whatsoever? Why then would Longhair remove ALL links as being 'unencyclopedic" yet i could list thousands of wikis which had more links than Schapelle's wiki did.		"Come here to push my views" lol is that a joke mate? ALL the links on schapelle corbys wiki support her. Most of them have been there for 12 months!!! To suggest that everything that appears in wikipedia is based on fact is laughable. Alot of it is peoples points of view. Removing the link i readded whilst leaving links that pointed to non existant pages shows how petty this really is. There are THOUSANDS of wiki pages that have links to other sites pushing a certain point of view. The title of the heading under which the link did appear was Schapelle Corby Support Sites which is exactly what the link was. You removed it and left links to domains which were also supporter sites and has been placed on the wiki long after the link in question had. Why remove one but not the other? Why leave sites that had no content on them whatsoever? Why then would Longhair remove ALL links as being 'unencyclopedic" yet i could list thousands of wikis which had more links than Schapelle's wiki did.

	I dont need to be told how wiki operates when all I did was readd a link that had previously existed for months. How about you check out the page that says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers]		I dont need to be told how wiki operates when all I did was readd a link that had previously existed for months. How about you check out the page that says [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers\|hejeje]