User talk:Milomarch

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Milomarch, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{Help me}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! XLinkBot (talk) 18:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles

June 2012[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. TEDickey (talk) 22:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ted. The link I added to the article in question is relevant to the subject and does not violate Wikipedia's policy of inappropriate links. The link added was not a personal web site, is not a web site which I am affiliated with, is not meant to attract visitors nor is promoting any products. It is directly related to the subject page and meant to provide further historical information for those interested in further studies.

You have consistently promoted the site by putting it first. The links all point to the home page, rather than to specifically topical information. Do read WP:SPAM to see how the description applies to your edits. TEDickey (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I was not aware I was breaking any rule by putting a link first or in any particular order. The link I put up points to the home page, which contains a number of additional pages with specifically topical information. If you would prefer me to put up a link to each of those specific pages, please let me know and I will do so. That said, after checking several other links on the George Armstrong Custer page, in particular, links to the following: Little Bighorn History Alliance Friends of the Little Bighorn Battlefield For Traditional Scholarship Custer Battlefield Museum

I found them all to be links to a site homepage. I read the WP:SPAM and do not see where I have violated wikipedia's terms by posting up this academic oriented link, but in light of your objections, I have modified the link to reflect your concerns.

None of that seems to have penetrated. Try WP:EL. Perhaps you'll notice TEDickey (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Apparently not. Perhaps you can specifically state the reasons why you think the link to the Little Big Horn Associates website is any different from the four links I posted above, and which are also found on the George Armstrong Custer page. The link I posted contains relevant historical material to the subject at hand and is no different in relevance to the 4 other links listed above. I do not understand why you are singling out one over all the others. I have seen no violations of Wikipedia's terms regarding the posting of links. If you believe there is a violation, please be so kind as to identify specifically what that violation is and how this link differs from the others posted above. Thank you.
Perhaps some of those should be trimmed, however there is WP:OTHERSTUFF, noting that your response is still not to the point TEDickey (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Unless the other links listed above are "trimmed" or deleted as well, I don't understand why you seem to be singling out just one of them. In your link to WP:OTHERSTUFF I read this sentence which appears to be relevant to our discussion: "As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions, it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged." It would appear that your response above does just that. You have given no specific reasons why this link is not appropriate to the subject matter. Do you have some personal animosity against this organization that is causing you to take such a biased approach? You have consistently singled out this one link against all other similar links listed for deletion. This seems neither fair nor balanced to me.