User talk:Loosestring

Welcome!

Hello, Loosestring, 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! -Isopropyl 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

links

Because your first few edits were to add links which looks awfuly like an attempt to promote a website.Geni 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links are perfectly relevant to the content. Every link on wikipedia "promotes" the organization to which they are linked whether placed for that reason or not. Does one need to ask your permission in order to place a relevant link in an article? Loosestring 14:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason will have a tendancy to distort the resulting linkset. Consider it from my view. A new user turns up one the site and starts adding links. They are for the record the ~200,000 to do this. At the same time I know from various soruces that placeing links in wikipedia is considered a standard stratergy for promting websites. If you feel that those links have something wikipedia does not why not add it to the article?Geni 15:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point noted. The link I posted was still relevant to the content. Christian Churches of God is an nontrinitarian group. If that link doesn't belong then please explain what constitutes a "relevant" link for that particular section of the article? There are several links to other nontrinitarian groups. How and/or why are they more relevant than CCG? I would understand if it were a blatant attempt at advertising or promoting the site, but in this case it isn't.

well the links on Trinity need to be trimed somewhat. One aproach would be to suggest the addition of the links on the article talk pages or on the talk pages of editors who have in the past edited the article. They should have a reasonable idea as to what is and isn't relivant.Geni 16:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]