User talk:Yembi

AMA request

Hello Yembi, I'm Royalguard11 from the AMA, and I've accepted your case. I have got a few sugestions up front for you. You have been trying to add a link to the article bodybuilding, and it keeps getting removed. My suggestion is that if you look under here, you'll see that its better to contribute cited text, not bare links. So it would be better for you to add information to the article and cite it, instead of just providing a link. It would be better to just keep the link out until there is a reason to add it (eg, to cite information in the article). It is important to maintain NPOV and a worldview, but it's better to add information into the article to provide that NPOV and world view (check here for details).

If you have anymore questions, don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page, or on my advocacy desk, or to email me. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:04, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Royalguard11, thanks for taking the time to accept my case. However may I remind you what I'm expecting from Advocacy? I would like AMA/Advocacy to help me to restore the principle that states that an article must represent all significant views fairly and without bias, in the Bodybuilding article.

You seem to be from Canada and I have nothing against Canadians. But Yankees76 is also from Canada...

I agree with you that an article is better than a link, but right now there's no article. A link to African bodybuilding should be left in the meantime, and I'm not talking of a particular link.
I agree with you that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. There's only 1 link on the Bodybuilding article (which by the way is very useless and points to a site filled with -illegal- copyrighted pictures). If I add a link, that makes 2 links, which is far from being a collection of links.
Who is Yankees76 to threaten somebody else to be banned when he himself is violating the three revert rule by constantly removing this link without waiting for others to express their opinions.

I have carefully read the Wikipedia rules about external links. Wikipedia External links policy N. 4 & 5 states that should be linked sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article... and sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article. www.ntpowerhouse.com thoroughly meets these guidelines. Why should it be removed?

Just a note, I'm not threatening anyone - I posted a standard Wikipedia template given to those who are in danger of violating the three revert rule as you were on September 22 on the Bodybuilding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. The lanuage in the template is standard and used throughout Wikipedia. Yankees76 13:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to add my $0.02 as the founder of the bodybuilding WikiProject (not that this means my opinion is any more or less valid)... In my opinion the link is not a valid addition. See Links normally to be avoided - the site clearly fits in this category. Sorry, - Glen 17:10, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've gotten quite a lot of feedback here. Is there anything else you need? -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 04:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no reply in 6 days, I'll assume that you need no more help, and close the AMA case. I would encourage you to fill in the followup. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 23:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]