User talk:Fokker10

Fokker10, welcome to Wikipedia. I hope that you enjoy yourself editing and have a productive career. I have reviewed some of your edits, consisting of the addition of an external link to EdwardGibbon.com, with some adulatory words about it ("Edward Gibbon Studies/J.G.A. Pocock: the Web's Leading Center for Edward Gibbon Studies."). In some cases I have simply removed the adulatory words; in others, where it seemed of marginal relevance to the article, I have removed it completely. I would be happy to discuss this further, either here, on my talk page, or on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! Richard Keatinge 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

well look, what's to discuss? you rolled over my edits like a bull in a china shop, and you apparently are not an admin., and i noticed you're involved in some kind of arbitration, so i guess you're used to doing this kind of thing. i compromised on the edits, but your intervention was completely, rudely unnecessary. don't do it again. it's of no help whatsoever. Fokker10 (talk) 03:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC) "
 * Thank you for the compromise. I have left your new wording, though I thought the domain name alone quite adequate. It may help to avoid future accusations of vandalism if I recommend Avoid peacock terms to you. To describe the site in an encyclopedia as "the Web's Leading Center for" anything is unequivocally inappropriate unless you can present  reliable sources that say so.

Could I also confirm that you are closely associated with EdwardGibbon.com? Would you be its author by any chance? If so, again, welcome, it is good to have a genuine expert around. My interest in Gibbon is purely amateur. Richard Keatinge 07:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Edmund Burke
I have reverted your addition of the EL as it does not meet the criteria at [WP:EL, specifically those at EL. I note also that you seem to be adding these links to a number of articles without any rationale or sensible purpose. If {http://www.edwardgibbonstudies.com} contains any additional information about Edmund Burke which might be considered useful then please consider linking directly to the relevant page, rather than the site's home page, which contains no information about Edmund Burke. Cheers. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:57, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, that can be done. Fokker10 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Suzanne Curchod
Per Jezhotwells' rationale above I have checked that EdwardGibbon.com contains no further significant information about this lady, and have removed the link from her page. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * that's wrong, i forget what page it is, but there is mention of Gibbon on the same page which mentions Burke. Gibbon was engaged to her (for crying out loud), and if you're not aware of the Burke/Gibbon connection, that's your faults. Fokker10 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Spam EL links
I have reverted some of your other additions. I note also that the site {http://www.edwardgibbonstudies.com/} hosts mirrors of Wikipedia material without proper attribution. If you are connected with this site please read and apply Copyrights. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * please put those back. just because you are not aware of their relevance doesnt mean you have to go off like a bull in a china shop.
 * your other questions should probably go to the guy who runs the site. he has email which is mentioned there.  i do not want to be difficult or unpleasant, but you two are doing what you're doing without adequate knowledge of the subject matter.  kindly revert those. Fokker10 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's useful to have links in that have further significant information about the subject of the page. Not to pages that only mention the subject in passing. For example, Google tells me that there are three pages on edwardgibbonstudies.com that include Edmund Burke. Their mention of him is slight. I do notice that Burke and Gibbon had contact, but "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." edwardgibbonstudies.com simply doesn't provide enough new information about the subject of the article. To reinforce the point, I copy and paste all of it:
 * "downplaying his connection with Edmund Burke's eschatological interpretation"
 * "1790 reads Edmund Burke's Reflections on the Revolution in France, immediately endorses its view."
 * "Williamson, Arthur. "Edward Gibbon, Edmund Burke, and John Pocock: the Appeals of Whigs Old and New," Canadian Journal of History 36,3(Dec. 2001), 517." Richard Keatinge (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that research Richard. So there is no justification for adding these links. Fokker, please read WP:EL, this web site does not meet the criteria there. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

well, i looked over everything and all in all, i think i understand where you're coming from, but one's person's "common sense" will almost always be different from another person's. we can leave things as they are at this time. Fokker10 (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Fokker, we aren't talking just about common sense. We are talking about Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which give us clear directions for a better encyclopedia. The link to edwardgibbonstudies.com is of no use in most of the places where you have inserted it. It would be much better if you would consider matters and remove it from articles where it offers no help to the encyclopedic project. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

March 2010
Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Patricia Craddock. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because 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. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At least six editors have removed your spam links which contain no useful information about Lymington, Lausanne, Liskeard or other similar subjects. The web site appears to contain material which has been lifted from copyrighted sources without attribution or licensing. The continued addition of spam links will certainly get you blocked. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)