Talk:Parenting plan

I have changed the link number 12 as it was dead and found a relevant link that contains information extracted from the guide (Varun 19:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.73.244 (talk) [reply]

I've added a link to www.custodyiq.com/pp_main.html which is a multi-page free resource on how to put together an effective parenting plan. It's among the most comprehensive non-commercial guides available on the web. Before removing, please discuss reasons.

(Custodyiq 17:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

I am seeking to add a link to the Parenting Plan entry of an example of a parenting plan that is both non-commercial (aka free - no one is after money) and has no copy right restrictions. The aim of providing this sample is to give people access to a useful resource that will give them a list of parenting plan elements or items to consider (from the real life sample parenting plan). This is not a self-promotion and the site only contains copies (in several formats) of the parenting plan.

Additionally, I have sought to add a link for the Shared Parenting Council of Australia, which provides free information for separated parents re parenting and parenting plans. This link is already at Shared Parenting and would be useful addition at Parenting Plan given that the Shared Parenting Council of Australia is an Australian co-operative not for profit organisation like the Shared Parenting Information Group (UK) and the National Fathers' Resource Center (USA). It doesn't seem consistent to allow the latter two but to exclude the Australian link.

My attempts are being thwarted by Hu12 who keeps removing this link/info and implying it is spam.

According to Wikipedia:External links http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL it is not SPAM:

What to link to:

There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

   * Is it accessible to the reader?
   * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
   * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

Each link be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

What should be linked to

  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

My actions are genuine and specific. The desire is to provide useful additional resources to readers of these pages that will help connect them and their children. There is no desire to profit or to spam.

Can this removal please stop? Or can you tell me how and where to lodge an appeal against this action?

Thank you, Manumit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manumit (talk • contribs) 04:02, 8 December 2006.

Copy from User_talk:Manumit; :First there is no need to cross-post the same message 3 times. Both articles Shared parenting and Parenting plan atract quite a bit of spam. second please refrain from altering notes left in articles as you did here [1] and here [2] it is consideredvandalism. Your contributions to Shared parenting consist mainly of adding external links [3],[4] as does your contributions to parenting plan [5], [6] and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole Manumit contibs, the majority seem to be external link related only. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right?

As you have stated on my talk page I am the author, according to Wikipedia external links policy Links normally to be avoided #3Links mainly intended to promote a website and #11 Links to personal websites WP:V. Hu12 09:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

I don't think the text

"Without question, your Parenting Plan is the most important document you will file which is why the courts will not grant your separation or divorce without one."
"There are good reasons for this. Today's county courts are overloaded with cases and they would much prefer that parents make the important decisions about the lives of their children and the type of relationship the parents will have with them. A well-constructed parenting plan would address such things as:"
And the rest of the article basically...

represents a neutral point of view. So I'm going to undo the most recent change. I'm just clarifying here so I don't look like I'm trying to create an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devourer09 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Parenting plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:04, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]