User talk:Alcalazar

ALCALAZAR SWEET HOME

Hello to anyone...

Welcome!


 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style
 * If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

RSS
Hi, thanks for your message. I have removed that XUL link (on which, by the way, you have consistently misspelled "Building" every time ("Builind")--please watch for typos) several times now, and I'll continue to remove it unless you can explain to me why it should be kept. I've been patrolling for spam on that page for many months now (and yes, I read the talk page), and I think I'm aware of what WP:EL says about external links. The reasons I remove it are:
 * It contains little that's not already covered by other external links (of which we have quite a few)
 * It is relatively low quality in terms of content and presentation (typos, poor English grammar, sketchy and incomplete sentences)
 * It is an ad-supported site, which, while not absolutely forbidden by Wikipedia policy, is dispreferred when there are other, better sources to use (and one might be forgiven for suspecting that the primary reason for the page is to generate revenue via ads)

But I could be wrong about the article! If you really think that that that particular link is a good one and deserves inclusion, I think you should state some reasons on the article's talk page. I'm certainly willing to listen. It's a constant battle on the software-related articles (which I work on several of) to keep the links high-quality and the spam down. People are very persistent about adding links to sites that generate revenue in sneaky ways, and monitoring it is a never-ending job, and often requires making judgment calls. So regardless of your feelings about this particular site, or our difference of opinion over it, I don't appreciate your calling my removal of the link vandalism. I've worked hard to keep this article high-quality and free of spam now for quite a long time; you should remember to assume good faith about the work of other editors.  &middot; rodii &middot;  13:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about spam and I contribute also myself to remove links that are here just to promote commercial products (even in the body or the article where they are hidden). But this link is good because it is a step by step tutorial, starting with basics and completing progressively the knowledge. If you read the talk page of the RSS article, there is a real need for such tutorials ,users do request for such links. Lot or pages that are linked often are verbose and don't add anything new to the article at Wikipedia, and this is only after having read them carefully we can really judge them. This tutorial is here from months, I believe it is approved by most users and suddenly you decide to remove it, without explication, this looks like vandalism, even if it was not your intention. Ad-supported websites are not forbidded, sites with lot of ads must be avoided and I would had removed it myself otherwise, I don't like abuse in ads. Alcalazar 12:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I left it in. But it is not here "from months"--it has been removed before and re-added. I think you should be very careful about accusing people of vandalism--reread WP:VAND if you don't believe me, or check out my history on that article and others.  &middot; rodii &middot;  15:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)