User talk:Lexiblity

Addition of link to "Tao of Dirt" on the Stoicism article
This is mostly a recap of what I added yesterday to the Stoicism talk page, but proper protocol in instances such as this requires notification to your talk page, hence the following.

You have attempted to insert this link eight times, and seven times it has been reverted by a bot, by another editor, or by me. You need to discuss this issue on the talk page, and not just blindly revert.

The link is inappropriate for the following reasons:

1) The Tao of Dirt is a blog. As per WP:LINKSTOAVOID Wikipedia does not link to “Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. “ The author of this blog, Dmitri Mandaliev, does not appear to be a “recognized authority”. Note that “recognized authority” in this context requires that the individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria (see WP:NOTE). Mr Mandaliev does not appear to meet this criteria. The author of the blog has no apparent qualifications as an authority and has no notability.  Having a self-published 72 page paperback for sale at that blog does not lend notability or add reason for inclusion in the Stoicism article.

2) There is no basis for inclusion as per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. If a site includes information directly pertinent to the subject of the article, a link might be appropriate. "Tao of Dirt” does not seem to be about Stoicism per se, but only claims to be written by a Stoic. That is insufficient reason to include a link from the Stoicism article. There are thousands of stoics walking the earth today, but we don't link to their blogs here.

The link you added is in dispute. As per WP:ELBURDEN it is your responsibility to obtain concensus before re-adding disputed links.

I am going to revert it a ninth time. Seeing as your account is registered for only one purpose (for insertion of this link) I will not be surprised if you put it back. Escalating the situation through the appropriate channels in order to protect the Stoicism article's status as a "Good" article with solid and scholarly links is and will continue to be my only motive in this issue. Marteau (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Should any of this be unclear, feel free to discuss it on the Stoicism talk page or on my talk page. Marteau (talk) 11:30, 14 October 2014 (UTC)