User talk:Redambergreen

Hi Redambergreen; May I suggest that your review WP:SPAM and WP:EL, please? I've removed your addition of http://www.ukroadsignals.com UKRoadSignals.com to a number of articles since those edits may violate Wikipedia guidelines. Walter Siegmund (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 guideline 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, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. MickMacNee (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from all of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickMacNee (talk • contribs) 17:34, 2008 January 25

Hi Redambergreen; Thank you for your email. I did look at the site you linked to and there is a good deal of valuable information there. However, as you see above, it is not only me that find your edits questionable. Please try to conform more closely to the guidance of the links cited above. Don't add links indiscriminately to related articles. Link to the relevant subpage. Add inline footnotes, not external links. Unfortunately, you got off on the wrong foot with your initial edits. Wikipedia gets hit by a lot of link spam because anyone can edit it and it is high-traffic. Sometimes well-intentioned people are swept up with the bad. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Assessment of site in question
When I looked at the site in question it was quoted as under construction. Also, its actual purpose is hard to determine, between:


 * a trade body
 * a professional association
 * a mirror site for official government publications / academic papers / online news stories
 * a collection of private consultancy links
 * a commericial business (it is located in a business unit, how is it funded?)

Given the lack of details regarding legal status, contact or other entity details, it's hard not to see this site as anything other than self promotion or advertising, not applicable to Wikipedia under WP:NOT.

There also appears to be nothing in the primary site content (as opposed to the linked content) that could be used as a citeable source in any wikipedia artice, as per WP:CITE.

Please don't take any judgement of your site out of context, it looks like a good site, just not appropriate for Wikipedia MickMacNee (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)