User talk:DPSW

Welcome!

Hello, DPSW, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Dian Parkinson

Why are you removing the link to the Dian Parkinson Swimsuit Site from the Dian Parkinson entry? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DPSW (talk • contribs)

Hi, because angelfire.com is not an approriate site to link to. Thanks, --Tom 18:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say angelfire.com is not an appropriate site to link to? Is that a rule that you created yourself or is that Wikipedia rule? If it's a Wikipedia rule please provide a link to where I can see the rule? If such Wikipedia rule does not exist please stop removing the link.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DPSW (talk • contribs)

Hi DPSW, I would refer you to WP:EL. Also, can you please sign your messages with four(4) tildes(~). This lets folks know who signed what and when.--Tom 18:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the link you provided that leads me to believe that angelfire.com cannot be used as a link. The fact of the matter is that there are MANY angelfire.com links all over Wikipedia. I don't understand your agenda against Dian Parkinson and / or the Dian Parkinson Swimsuit Site.

According to this website angelfire.com is one of the websites with the most links from Wikipedia. http://www.online-utility.org/wikipedia/top_500_websites_wikipedia.jsp DPSW 18:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats the point! I have NO agenda against this article or person. What is your agenda and insistence on linking that site?? Its more about appropriate external links. Feel free to delete the other links you see or point them out to me and I will delete them. --Tom 18:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tom is correct: personal websites (such as those on angelfire) are not generally subject to editorial review or reliable fact-checking and, in the interests of making Wikipedia as reliable as possible, we try to avoid sending our readers to sites with unregulated content. Some of them can be linked to in certain circumstances (not in this case, though), and lots of the ones that shouldn't still slip through. But that doesn't mean we've given up on trying to limit them. Yours is only one of many being removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, so we don't link to other sites for no reason. And repeatedly inserting links to personal websites is a form of spam, even if no monetary gain is involved. You may also want to see our conflict of interest guideline; it's clear that after a year of trying to insert this link, you have a vested interest in its inclusion here. Kafziel ^Talk 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now why can't I be as elloquient? :) Thanks and well said! --Tom 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The insistence on linking that site is quite simple. The site has a lot of information, pictures and video clips about the subject and based on the comments of the site's Message Board anyone looking for information on the subject would find the site extremelly valuable.. but I guess all those people that value the site don't matter because of Threeafterthree's agenda... DPSW 19:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: the site has a lot of copyright-violating pictures and video clips. If your visitors find them valuable, that's great. If CBS hasn't sued you, that's great, too. We're not interested. Kafziel ^Talk 19:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]