Talk:Alexander Selkirk/External book links

I find links convenient and useful, and not a distraction. That seemed the prevailing view in the guideline proposal. Agyle (talk) 17:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I see you removed two links, with the edit comment "Removed Severin links per guideline proposal for lack of availability based on locational or other algorithms)". I interpreted the proposal to mean the opposite. Its first response, from its submitter, said "the argument that they may not be visible in all countries ignores that they are visible to millions of our readers." Just to be clear, the pages I linked are available in preview mode to me, and I understand they are not available to you. That's unfortunate, but I think one of the reasons for the proposal was to let the links remain even though Google's previews are not universally accessible. Agyle (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr.Gulliver, your recent edit removed around 30 page links, with the edit summary "Standardised reference style, with corrections, and made minor copy edits". I am reverting the removals (I'll try to restore copy edits/corrections subsequently); the content guidelines at WP:PAGELINK say "No editor is required to add page links, but if another editor adds them, they should not be removed without cause; see the October 2010 RfC for further information." If you think your opinions provide adequate cause, I'd suggest we seek the opinion of outside editors via an RFC or by other means to resolve the dispute. I'd also suggest leaving them in place meanwhile, because it is easier to remove them than add them. Agyle (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Dr.Gulliver, your recent edit again removed these page links, with the edit summary "Removed some redundancies". This is the third time you've removed the links without explanation, twice in the past week, while ignoring attempts to discuss the matter and reach consensus. This is disruptive editing. I'll provide notice on your user page, requesting your participation in this discussion, in case you have not noticed that it is here. Agyle (talk) 09:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Support Inclusion of links I support the use of links as it is easier to verify a source. Some oppose that as they may fear someone having a different interpretation and edit accordingly. Some may feel they can better own WP:OWN an article by limiting access to the source. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion and the reverts by Gulliver today demonstrate ownership issues, See WP:OWN. It seems to be his way only without reaching any consensus. Message left on Gullivers talk page with these concerns. 172.56.11.89 (talk) 02:59, 29 July 2014 (UTC)