Talk:Free frank

Inappropriate external link
(I have moved Gwillhickers post from my talk page to here)

You first removed the link from the section and said it had "nothing to do with Free franks", which I found sort of amazing as the link had numerous examples and brief commentary on the items. After restoring the link and pointing out that it had much to do with Free franks, you reassert the claim, no explanation, and remark that I should take some advice sometime. The remark was uncalled for and certainly inappropriate as I often take advice. If there is a real issue here, kindly bring it to my attention. Now here's some advice. If you want to affect an outcome, you might want to try a little diplomacy first. Gwillhickers (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you find my removing this "amazing" that may be because you do not understand Wikipedia rules on extenal links. An external link is supposed to provide  “meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy”   External links specifically should not be:


 * “13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject.”
 * This article deals with “free franks”, or letters sent through the mail franked by an authorized signature. The link you keep adding,this commercial website, is a huge list of hundreds of links to various postally used covers, the vast majority of which have stamps and thus have nothing to do with this subject.  It is expressly and plainly an improper link for this article.  Ecphora (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)