User talk:Ab7fh
External links
[edit]Greetingѕ. You ѕeem to have a beef with the external-link ruleѕ as they are being (correctly) applied in certain Ford-related articleѕ. I am referring to your comment in talk:Dodge Dart. Appropriate external linkѕ are allowed everywhere, and inappropriate oneѕ are not allowed anywhere. That ѕaid, different groupѕ of editorѕ gravitate towardѕ different articleѕ, and that meanѕ there'll be different conѕensuѕ reached on how to interpret and apply the variouѕ Wiki ruleѕ and guidelineѕ. I've taken a look at your contribѕ, and it lookѕ like you are trying to inѕert your own ѕite, or at leaѕt a ѕite you like a lot, into the "External Linkѕ" ѕection of as many articleѕ as can be conѕidered topically relevant. Thiѕ would be considered ѕhady, improper, or diѕingenuouѕ; vandaliѕm, ѕpam, or ѕelf-promotion — again, depending on which editorѕ happen to be watching whatever particular articleѕ you want your pet external link in — even if the ѕite itѕelf didn't run afoul of WP:EL, which placeѕ reѕtrictionѕ on ѕiteѕ that primarily or ѕolely conѕiѕt of diѕcuѕѕion forumѕ. Your site iѕ a forum, and aѕ ѕuch, doeѕ run afoul of thoѕe Wikipedia regulationѕ. If you take a careful look at the external linkѕ on Dodge Dart, you'll find that none of them iѕ a forum ѕite. One or two of them may have an adjunct forum aѕ a part of the ѕite, but it'ѕ not the ѕite'ѕ primary or ѕole purpoѕe. I think you would do well to take a ѕtep back, breathe, and realiѕe that you are trying to buck the conѕenѕuѕ baѕiѕ upon which Wikipedia operateѕ. In other wordѕ: Let it drop and move on. The ѕite you keep trying to inѕert isn't appropriate for incluѕion on Wikipedia.
Alѕo, please remember to ѕign your poѕtѕ on diѕcuѕѕion pageѕ. I had to go back and add the unѕigned-post tag to your poѕt on the Dodge Dart talk page, and that'ѕ a nuiѕance. --Scheinwerfermann 00:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
- www.explorerforum.com is a comprehesive site for all Explorer and Ranger based vehicles. There is a reason the site has 65,000 registered members and 1.5 million posts. It is the hands down best resource for Ford Explorer and Ranger based vehicles on the web. The forum is only part of the community. www.explorer4x4.com and www.explorersportruck.com are geared specifically to modified Explorers. Only explorerforum.com was linked because that is the gateway to the rest of the community.
- You guys need to be consistant and fair. I have yet to see that here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ab7fh (talk • contribs) 21:40, 2007 June 5
- 1) Again, please sign your comments each and every time. I just had to go and tag your unsigned comment again.
- 2) Please learn more about how Wikipedia works, and how to edit pages properly, before you start pronouncing the system broken and complaining about unfairness. I've fixed the hierarchy on your response to my comment right here in this very thread, for example. There's a reason why comments on talk pages are hierarchical: It makes it possible to discern one poster's words from another, from the next, from the previous, etc.
- 3) It is apparent from your contribs log that pretty much the only contributions you have ever made have been repeated attempts to have your forum site inserted in various articles. Consensus and wiki rules are against you, and while that may upset you, it remains so. Drop it and move on. This is not the place to advertise your website.
--Scheinwerfermann 07:13, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism
[edit]I have reverted your wholesale deletion of the external links at Dodge Dart. The links are valid, they do not violate Wikipedia guidelines and rules for external links, and there is no call for the "section to section consistency" regarding presence or absence of external links you claim to be preserving. As carefully explained above, the problem is not with external links per se, it is with the specific site you want inserted on particular Ford articles. Dodge Dart is not the place to bring your Ford-related crusade, and your removal of valid external links constitutes vandalism. Do not repeat it, or you will be reported to administrators for repeated vandalism. If you think you and the website you're seeking to promote are being unfairly singled out for harrassment, open a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles, where your complaint will receive the attention of a large number of editors who work on automotive articles. --Scheinwerfermann 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Ford Explorer
[edit]
I really wish that you would please stop fighting against us and just understand what you are saying. Yes, it is a top Explorer website, but it is nothing besides a forum. Besides, I found that you are probably the same person who continously added a section in this article advertising the site. Basically, what I want you to understand is that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a billboard. Also, I can explain how it is not a content relevant link. There are rare ocassions where forums are allowed. Like on the Ford Taurus article, there is a link to the Taurus Car Club of America. Although it is a forum, it also has a very informative encyclopedia that goes over the history of the cars, and a Wiki with a lot of technical information and maintainence info about the cars, while the site you are trying to boost is just a forum, although it has some helpful info like the aftermarket product reviews. Still, it does not have enough info about the cars itself to make it is a relevant link, as you can not find more about the history of the cars there, which this article is basically about. I just want you to know this, the link is not approiate. Karrmann 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- I feel I have to weigh in on this one - it is a clear and widely accepted rule on Wikipedia that external links to sites that are predominantly blogs or forums is not allowed. The reason is that these sites change every day - we can't verify that the information there is still correct or relevent. The rules require that external links point only to places that contain solid information that is in more detail than the encyclopedia could hope to provide. These guidelines have been tested by people like User:Ab7fh time and time again - and the final result is always the same - the links get removed and either the user backs down and stops misbehaving or they get a ban - possibly a long one. Linkspammers typically argue that there is no harm in it (irrelevent - we have rules here) or that there is benefit to our readers (irrelevent - we have rules here) or that there are countless other instances of links like this (yes - please tell us where they are so we can fix them!) or that they know the rules better than me (no - you don't - I've seen your contributions list and just like every other linkspammer I've met, your only contributions to Wikipedia have been bad links and arguments about those bad links - I'm an active author - I've made 6,000 substantive, useful edits including two featured articles and I help to write the very guidelines we're arguing here).
- Trust me - I've seen this same debate happen time after time and I can assure you that there is simply no way for you to win this argument. For clear confirmation of this policy regarding blogs and forums, please read Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided - your link only has to fail one of those criteria in order to be excluded - from what I can see yours fails criteria 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 - and probably others too. So, please bow to the inevitability of this and stop upsetting so many normally sane, calm people (except Karrmann who is a nut job! :-) ) - we're trying to write a kick-ass encyclopedia here - we don't get paid for it - and fighting off blatant linkspammers is a waste of our freely-given time.
- Thank-you in advance. SteveBaker 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)