User talk:Darladeer

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. (Requestion 21:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC))


 * The link provided was a much more valuable link than the other two current external links. Please provide your reasoning for allowing the other two - personal - sites to stand, but not one that contains extensive and sourced information. Do you have a personal relationship to the other sites? Thank you. Darladeer 21:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer


 * If you feel that those two external links are spam then you are free to delete them. In fact, if you decide to delete them I will support you. (Requestion 21:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC))


 * That isn't the point. The point is you allowed the other two links to remain, but removed a link that has more valuable and extensive content on the subject matter. I'm wanting to understand your reasoning behind that decision -and- why you would consider the link I provided to be "spam"?Darladeer 00:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer


 * WP:SPAM (Requestion 02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC))

Are you purposely dodging my questions? I do not see the link I provided as spam. If I did, I certainly would not have added it. You, on the other hand, seem to believe it is. Therefore, I am asking you what was "spammish" about that link? And, since *you* put it in the category of "spam", why did you not put the other two links, which are weaker resources (one to a very "personal" site with very little information, the other to an affiliate link), in that category? I have to question whether you even reviewed any of the links at all, including the one I added. I can provide my reasoning for adding the link. I believe it to be a more extensive and complete resource for the subject matter. Objective. Very well organized. Sourced. Quality. Plain and simple. So I will ask you again... I'm wanting to understand your reasoning behind your decisions -and- why you would consider the link I provided to be "spam"? Thank you for your time. Darladeer 04:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer


 * Two questions. Why is adding this link so important to you? How does this internal link improve the article? (Requestion 01:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC))


 * Adding the link isn't important to me. I am seeking an understanding of why it was removed. I've asked you direct questions. Why won't you answer them? I've also already provided my reasoning behind adding the link and what I felt it added to the article. "I believe it to be a more extensive and complete resource for the subject matter. Objective. Very well organized. Sourced. Quality. Plain and simple." It's a resource I use and I believe it to be a valuable resource for others who are seeking more information about the topic and related matters. So, I ask again for my understanding, what is the reasoning behind the decisions you made -and- why you would consider the link I provided to be "spam"? I've done you the courtesy of answering your questions. I would appreciate it if you would show me the same courtesy. Darladeer 09:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer


 * If it's not important to you then why all the questions? Check out WP:EL and WP:NOT, they might help explain things. (Requestion 19:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Thank you for the links once again. After reviewing the guidelines again to ensure that linking to the chosen external site fits within them, I have re-added the link. I have also removed the other two as they do not add anything to the subject that can't be found in the article. In the affiliate link's place, I added a direct reference to the book. As this is a community project, it is expected that you be able to justify your decisions in editing another's contributions. In reviewing your record, that is an area you seem to have difficulty with and should work on to improve, for the sake of the Wikipedia project. Darladeer 21:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer


 * Thank you for removing those other spam links. (Requestion 22:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC))