User talk:Df68lk

Speedy deletion of InteleTravel
A tag has been placed on InteleTravel, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD G11.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add  on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add  on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Phgao 01:20, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. ' It seems to me that you are simply here to advertise products related to the travel industry and should be blocked indefinitely '' . Cheers_Ad@m.J.W.C. 01:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Travel Agent Article Contribution Deleted (Example of Inconsistent Policy Practice)
What I had to say in the article that you deleted was legitimate information. What I added in terms of external links was consistent with what was already "allowed" in the article as there was a link to Orbitz and another online company in a previous section in the article already, before I even added my piece to the Careers section. At least you removed them with mine (who knows how long they were there before that however).

In viewing pre-existing, external links already there, how else should I interpret that? Viewing pre-existing external links already in the article (and other articles I'll note hereafter), I was lead to believe it was okay, given the context, to include external links where appropriate. I am new to adding contributions to Wikipedia, so I am still learning what is/isn't allowed. However, it would seem if you are going to apply principles/rules here that you do a better job of being consistent. Why was there already external links in the article? My first impressions of this place is that you apply policy inconsistently and unfairly.

Let me give you some examples:

Why can I go to an article in Wikipedia about Expedia.com and see in the External Links section a link to that website (is it because they donate to Wikipedia, that they can circumvent policy)? That really seems fair, doesn't it? That's not only everything. I can go to an article about Travelocity and see a whole list nearly as long as my index finger of external links to Travelocity-related websites and other commercial websites... all in the External Links section.

Here's another even more ridiculous example of policy circumvention... a short, almost pointless article about Hotels.com with only the following text: Hotels.com provides reservation services for hotel rooms and other places to stay. The company was founded in Dallas, TX in 1991 as Hotel Reservations Network (HRN) by Dave Litman and Bob Diener as a toll-free telephone service, offering consumers a one-stop source for discounted hotel rooms in major cities. In 2002 HRN introduced Hotels.com and the brand 1-800-2-Hotels. Again there is an External Links section with a link to their website... looks like it's been there a while (since April 2007). And they even included their toll-free number... how convenient! The article is obviously an advertisement, nothing at all to compare with what I was trying to convey in my addition to the Travel Agency article. There's almost nothing in this article of any worth to humankind. They could have just put a link to their ABOUT US page and saved the extra keystrokes.

Should I have added my article addition minus the external links in the Career section and then added an External Links section and added the links? Is that legal? If not, explain to me why others are not following policy and getting away with it?

Wikipedia needs to be a bit more attentive to consistency and to not just target contributors at random (esp. new contributors, and you even threatened to block over my minor, so-called infractions, while allowing even more major violations to take place unabated). Maybe you give preferential treatment to some and not others... that's the way it looks from my perspective.

I'm interested to hear your rebuttal and justification for your inconsistent policy enforcement.

Df68lk 13:28, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * First, about Expedia.com, I removed the external link to their site. Generally, it is not necessary to have that sort of thing as their website is already in the Infobox at the top of that page.


 * As far as Hotels.com, it is a notable website, which is already tagged as a stub, which means people are aware that the article needs to be expanded. Given it has been tagged since April, people haven't gotten around to it.


 * As far as why links were removed from Travel agency, well, they were spam. The Travel agency article isn't about one particular agency, and added were external links to three companies.  Those are considered spam links, and were removed, as they should have been.  Your other edits must have been considered spam as well.  I didn't check each of them.


 * Hopefully I explained this well. If not, re-add  with more specific questions. - Rjd0060 15:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

So what about Travelocity's article, there are tons of external links? Why did you not address that one? I still can't understand why you left the link on Hotels.com. So if I follow the same protocol as hotels.com for say acme.com, it's okay to leave a link out there?

Per your stub guidelines, it states: When you write a stub, bear in mind that it should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it. The key is to provide adequate context — articles with little or no context usually end up being speedily deleted.

My opinion is that hotels.com is a stretch... it bears little fruit in the way of adequate context, other than being a placeholder for its own version of what I would, by your own definition, consider to be spam. Why would you need a toll-free number and a link to their website. Any dim-wit who surfs the net should be able to figure out from the name of the article "Hotels.com" where to go to take a look, right?


 * Out of all of the articles I have mentioned, I believe that Expedia.com is the best one as far as adhering to guidelines and policies set by the consensus of Wikipedia editors. If you have a problem with articles, use the talk pages. Thats what they are for. - Rjd0060 18:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Help
By the way, thanks for not answering my question... I was talking about Travelocity and Hotels.com, not Expedia.com per my last request for answers/help.
 * Hello, what's your question? Martial BACQUET 12:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)