User talk:Andyfellwalker

Please see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, especially clause 3, and stop adding links to your own site until there has been some discussion. Viewfinder 22:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My tuppence worth: I think that the links that you added are of some value to the articles, but the page linked is too general. I think you can link this page too, but links more specific to the actual mountain should also be included. For example, on the Skiddaw page you should include a link to a page on your site that is exclusively about Skiddaw. Also, you should not add your links to the top of the external links section, that is, in effect, queue jumping. Viewfinder 23:01, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take your point about links to specific hills but the list in the article is only a small percentage of the total and is potentially misleading in terms of the variety and quantity of the hills, I will consider changing my site to have hill-specific pages but with the best will in the world another 214 pages won't appear overnight. Putting links in does not interfere with the article and as far as I can see there is no queue to jump in most instances and in any event my site is unique in its content of walk descriptions and associated photographs. On the other hand is it really worth the effort, I was trying to add value to what seems to be a good resource about a place that I am passionate about but if the owners of Wikipedia are too precious about their site I'm not sure I want to get involved in the politics of it.

I don't see why you cannot create a separate page for each of the links you are creating. If your existing links are reverted, and you then create these links, then reinstate a small number of your edits, then I will not remove your edits; if noone else does, then you can try adding a few more. As Stemonitis says, an editor whose sole contribution to Wikipedia is the mass adding of links to the same general page on his own site can usually expect to have his edits removed. Viewfinder 14:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another point: there is nothing unique about your site or the information that it provides. And there are many similar sites. A Google search on Skiddaw, for example will show up several sites that are unique to Skiddaw. Viewfinder 14:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

You will have noticed that I've removed the latest batch of links that you have added. You may also notice that User:Viewfinder would have done it himself if he didn't feel that that would pave the way for accusations of double standards [1]. His additions, incidentally, have been discussed by the community, and agreed upon. This has not happened for yours.

He and I both seem to have been saying similar things to you about these links. Firstly, they are too general; a guide to the Southern Lake District fells is too broad on an article about the Old Man of Coniston, but it might be well-placed on an article about the Southern Fells, if there were one. Our Lake District article could be a good place for a link to your site (I see there are at least two there already, actually, which is fine).

We all commend your enthusiasm for giving people access to information about the Lakeland Fells; however, this intention would be better demonstrated by editing the articles directly, rather than linking externally. This is not being "precious" about the site, merely a necessity given the number of spam links that get added and detract from the quality of the articles. Wikipedia is not a web directory, and any external links should fulfil several criteria before they are added. --Stemonitis 15:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]