User talk:PlanetPhillip

Doom 3
I will gladly explain. The guideline on spam and external links policy make it very clear that you should not add links with which you are personally affiliated. It is... very difficult to argue that you are not personally affiliated with PlanetPhillip. Furthermore, the link in question is not particularly well-renowned, particularly with respect to this game, as I have concluded to my satisfaction by performing searches vis-a-vis the relative popularity of the site, particularly with respect to Google rankings and Alexa rank. I have been in a constant process of reviewing and removing links which do not satisfy the two guidelines above, as well as trimming out the less-popular links. Captainktainer * Talk 16:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Please allow me to answer your points in the hope that you will reconsider. I apologize for the long response but I will answer each point in turn.

I have previously read the two pages you link. The first talks about three types of spam; advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). I believe it is clear that I am none of those. My link is not an article masquerading as advertisement, I am not a bot and I am not cross-linking within Wikipedia.

The second links discusses external links and does not make it very clear that you should not add links with which you are affiliated. It has a list of guidelines for links that normally should be avoided. It is also very clear on the reason for this: This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important and difficult objective at Wikipedia. My site does not contradict anything within the doom 3 article.

However I do accept that perhaps I should have added it to the talk page as suggested in the External Links page: If your page is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let unbiased Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link.

I have no reason to deny, and it would be stupid, my connection with the site.

You say that the site is not well-renowned and I have two points to make here. Are you suggesting that the popularity of a site decides whether it is useful? That seems unfair since a site may not be SEO optimized.

Secondly, you mention Google and Alexa. A search via Google found Wadstation on page 16 and I stopped looking for PlanetPhillip after page 20! Page 16 isn't exactly popular!

A search via Alex found neither site on the first ten pages. It’s difficult to see how the Wadstation could be considered well-known based on the above. (I do accept that Wadstation is a great site and should be on the list, I’m just trying to be objective).

Of course a different search string would produce different results. As you may know my site focuses on Single Player maps and mods and that should be taken into account.

The constant process of reviewing and removing links which do not satisfy the two guidelines above, as well as trimming out the less-popular links is obviously an excellent thing but being less-popular doesn’t mean less-useful.

I truely believe my site is a useful resource for readers of the Doom 3 Wikipedia article and I therefore respectfully request that you reconsider your editing decision. PlanetPhillip 09:18, 5 November 2006 (UTC)