Talk:Check washing

Request for external link addition

 * I would like to make a formal request to add http://www.celtickane.com/projects/washing to the external links section of this page. It is my own website, so I wouldn't like to add it myself, but I would prefer that someone else review the website, and make the decision to add it.  The content is extremely relevant, and I feel it would be a good addition to any reader that is looking for more information on check washing. --Sugarskane 03:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

20 July 2006 - Revert of "Spam"
The article citation has been re-added, as it is an important REFERENCE of the material presented. The reference link clearly shows how alcohol and acetone can remove some inks, but not all inks. The website isn't spam if it is presenting supporting material -- material that has been added to the actual article. Had I just put a link, which I did in the past, then you may have grounds for calling it Spam (although I would still debate that) -- I have added material to the content of the article. Any further changes, without a discussion, is vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sugarskane (talk • contribs) 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Personal websites are not a reliable source and should not be used for citations. If you feel your link is useful for a particular article, please mention it on the article's talk page and allow other editors to decide its worth. Adding links to your own personal website is considered spamming. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In this case, it seems relevant because the citation I'm giving shows, as a first-hand account, that alcohol and acetone do 'wash' certain types of inks. It's relevant, used within the article's context, and backs up what has been written. --Sugarskane 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:RS covers that too - first-hand accounts are called "primary sources". Quoting from WP:RS :
 * "We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a reliable publisher"
 * --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please also take note that there are now a number of experienced editors who have explained to you in some detail that your insistance on adding external links to your website are considered spam. Pascal.Tesson 02:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * AbsolutDan, you are absolutely right -- I didn't realize that first hand sources were not valid. What about something like [] instead?  It seems rather roundabout in terms of getting a reader to what is relevant, but would someone else's link, that links to something of mine, be valid? --Sugarskane 02:05, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Pascal.Tesson, my "insistence" is the nature of an argument. Just because a small group of people argues against me does not make that group correct.  You seem to have put yourself on a pedestal -- your opinion is no more valid than anyone else's.  Yes, you are certainly more experienced -- but that does not mean that you are automatically correct.  I've done my best to argue against the points that have been made, specifically on the "Ajax" talk page, for why my posts are not spam.  I would certainly encourage you to argue against what I have written there.  I feel it would be rude to edit your own post, but you misspelled 'insistence' and used 'are' incorrectly -- it should be 'is'.  Perhaps an "experienced" poster like yourself would know better -- or perhaps, and more likely, the fact that you are an experienced poster is irrelevant to the conversation, and is not valid leverage.  If you want to prove your point, prove it -- don't inflate your discussion with your title. --Sugarskane 02:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * All apologies for those horrendous typos. I am of course not refering to myself as an experienced user (which I'll humbly confess I am not) but rather to AbsolutDan, Trysha and OhNoitsJamie who have clearly pointed you to guidelines and policies which this violates. I suppose your last post might also warrant a quick look at WP:CIVIL. Pascal.Tesson 02:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Though I think the link is slightly better, it looks like it's still a personal website, as it seems to be run solely by Mr. Eastman himself. Also, the website, might be an ok cite for information on geneology - sometimes exceptions are made for personal websites of published experts in a particular field, if what they're writing has already been published. However he doesn't appear to be an expert on checks or finances in general (unless I'm missing something), so I recommend looking around for another link. Perhaps some credit card companies themselves have this information? Maybe some banks? --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Pascal.Tesson, I was making a point, not insulting your typos. I was tying to emphasize to you that "experienced poster[s] [are] ireelevant to the conversation", and an argument is more effective than a title.  If you would have looked at my Ajax talk page, I clearly explained why EL and SPAM did not apply to my external links.  As far as CIVIL is concerned, I suppose I should have pointed you there a long time ago when you decided to alter the articles, which were under discussion, without first engaging in the discussion.  Just because you think your point of view is correct doesn't mean that you should alter an article to your way of thinking until the matter is resolved.  Instead, perhaps you should have waited for the outcome of a discussion, where a consensus is reached, before vandalizing to meet your desired goal.  Don't point to CIVIL because your feelings are hurt -- point there if someone is using insults because they no longer have an argument.
 * AbsolutDan, I will concede to you that there does not appear to be a valid citation that I can present at this time. Just like the other pages, I would like to resubmit my claim to add an external link, rather than a reference.  Just as I've discussed before, please read the Ajax talk section for my reasoning of why my personal, external link is not spam. --Sugarskane 02:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)