User talk:Ab7fh

Vandalism
I have reverted your wholesale deletion of the external links at Dodge Dart. The links are valid, they do not violate Wikipedia guidelines and rules for external links, and there is no call for the "section to section consistency" regarding presence or absence of external links you claim to be preserving. As carefully explained above, the problem is not with external links per se, it is with the specific site you want inserted on particular Ford articles. Dodge Dart is not the place to bring your Ford-related crusade, and your removal of valid external links constitutes vandalism. Do not repeat it, or you will be reported to administrators for repeated vandalism. If you think you and the website you're seeking to promote are being unfairly singled out for harrassment, open a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles, where your complaint will receive the attention of a large number of editors who work on automotive articles. --Scheinwerfermann 04:19, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Ford Explorer
 Website not getting many hits, ? Well, I am sorry to say that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise it. Your edits were considered Spam, and were reverted. Just to warn you, excessive spamming can lead to you getting blocked, so could you please quit while you are ahead? Karrmann

I really wish that you would please stop fighting against us and just understand what you are saying. Yes, it is a top Explorer website, but it is nothing besides a forum. Besides, I found that you are probably the same person who continously added a section in this article advertising the site. Basically, what I want you to understand is that Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia, not a billboard. Also, I can explain how it is not a content relevant link. There are rare ocassions where forums are allowed. Like on the Ford Taurus article, there is a link to the Taurus Car Club of America. Although it is a forum, it also has a very informative encyclopedia that goes over the history of the cars, and a Wiki with a lot of technical information and maintainence info about the cars, while the site you are trying to boost is just a forum, although it has some helpful info like the aftermarket product reviews. Still, it does not have enough info about the cars itself to make it is a relevant link, as you can not find more about the history of the cars there, which this article is basically about. I just want you to know this, the link is not approiate. Karrmann 11:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel I have to weigh in on this one - it is a clear and widely accepted rule on Wikipedia that external links to sites that are predominantly blogs or forums is not allowed. The reason is that these sites change every day - we can't verify that the information there is still correct or relevent.  The rules require that external links point only to places that contain solid information that is in more detail than the encyclopedia could hope to provide.  These guidelines have been tested by people like User:Ab7fh time and time again - and the final result is always the same - the links get removed and either the user backs down and stops misbehaving or they get a ban - possibly a long one.  Linkspammers typically argue that there is no harm in it (irrelevent - we have rules here) or that there is benefit to our readers (irrelevent - we have rules here) or that there are countless other instances of links like this (yes - please tell us where they are so we can fix them!) or that they know the rules better than me (no - you don't - I've seen your contributions list and just like every other linkspammer I've met, your only contributions to Wikipedia have been bad links and arguments about those bad links - I'm an active author - I've made 6,000 substantive, useful edits including two featured articles and I help to write the very guidelines we're arguing here).


 * Trust me - I've seen this same debate happen time after time and I can assure you that there is simply no way for you to win this argument. For clear confirmation of this policy regarding blogs and forums, please read External_links - your link only has to fail one of those criteria in order to be excluded - from what I can see yours fails criteria 2, 3, 4, 10 and 11 - and probably others too.  So, please bow to the inevitability of this and stop upsetting so many normally sane, calm people (except Karrmann who is a nut job! :-) ) - we're trying to write a kick-ass encyclopedia here - we don't get paid for it - and fighting off blatant linkspammers is a waste of our freely-given time.


 * Thank-you in advance. SteveBaker 03:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)