User talk:StopItTidyUp

Tapas Link Removal

I put a lot of effort into creating my tapas web site which has no commercial spin at all. Many people have come to it through Wikipedia and some have contacted me to say how useful the recipes etc are. Please do not remove the link again unless you can justify it.

I agree with StopItTidyUp in the discussion about External links at the Tapas page: Tapas. Wikipedia is not a place to just dump links of your own on. Either there should be a objective selection of external links, or none, but not just a handful of links owners of the websites put on. Kelley.vanevert (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Well, I was going to drop the old standard welcome template here; but it's pretty apparent you're familiar with the ins and outs and policies. Especially the WP:Bold one... Happy editing! :) Kuru ^talk 23:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link Removal

Why are you removing all those links? --Uncle Ed 20:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the ArtMagick link in the Elizabeth Siddal article even though it's a particularly informative one, and left the "Selected Poetry of Elizabeth Siddal" link in place even though it was out of date. (I've reinstated the former and fixed the latter.) Please point me to the Wikipedia guideline that justifies the removal, as your edit summary ("rmv excessive links") doesn't convince me. Charivari 09:17, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put back the link in The Lurking Horror to the Infocom Bugs List; I was the one who added these links originally. There probably are too many external links in certain articles, but the majority of external links I've seen on Wikipedia seem appropriate to me. I don't see the point of trying to minimize them; one of the best things about Wikipedia is that it's online. I think if there is a good source that is relevant and informative, a link is appropriate--especially if the volume or nature of the content itself really doesn't fit here. Ntsimp 15:47, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, external links can constitute a useful source of information for editors to expand a Wikipedia article. The person who adds the link may not have the time, writing skills, or other resources, to incorporate information from existing sources into an article, but by placing the link they can assist others. Charivari 02:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links can also confuse and dilute the effectiveness of an article. Where there's non academic sources, chat rooms and fan sites, they add little to the knowledge in the articles. Some articles have dozens of links, which is unhelpful, two or three can be useful but a long list means that wikipedia is not guiding the reader to useful, reliable, factual sources. Sensible linking is useful, unedited linking often is not. StopItTidyUp 09:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming?

You could work your trimming magic on these:

≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just be easy on the delete key, many links you are deleting are useful. Rather than deleting lin ks outright, you should consider making a note on talk page and alert involved editors of your intentions and your reasons. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:06, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Andy 04:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait for some time... I'll merge it with some other topic.(Hinduism in Scotland)

Removal of art links

I noticed you removed a link I had added to the article on Mount Madison. Specifically, the link is to a gallery of paintings of Mount Madison (Paintings of Mount Madison). My links are non-commercial and enhance each article, since they link the subjects to paintings done by 19th century artists, many in the Hudson River School tradition. Please see my discussion here under "External links": http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Albert_Bierstadt. Please respond on my talk page or the preceeding talk page. I can't seem to elicit a resonable discussion on this subject, and it's annoying to have my links removed. Please state your case. JJ 14:08, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]