User talk:Silkaats

Multiple addition of links
Welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry, but I've had to undo all your edits, for several reasons: your multiple additions of links to the same site suggests you may have a connection to the site (see WP:COI and WP:SPA); also, the site is advertising-funded (see WP:PROMO) and may not constitute a reliable source (WP:RS). I hope you decide to continue contrributing to Wikipedia, but adding multiple links to one website is not the best way to go about it. Dave.Dunford (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Dave,
 * I'm in no way linked to that site. I am however someone who lives, and regularly cycles in the Dales. I was told about that site by someone in the Cycling UK forums, and found it absolutely great *for those three cycle routes*.
 * I followed the links in your message, and read the following: "here is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
 * I think we can agree that adding THREE content-relevant links to three different route guides are not excessive.
 * I also read this: "
 * Questionable sources
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions"
 * I'm probably about to come across as a fanboy here (I really do rate those three route guides) but I'd like you to find a more comprehensive route guide for any of those three routes. Also, the edits I made simply added external links, and in no way suggested it was the primary source of information.
 * I cannot speak for that site's other route guides, as I'm not familiar with most of the other routes. However, given the great accuracy of the three guides I linked to, I'm inclined to think the other guides will be equally accurate.
 * I wasn't away the site has ads, as I use an ad-blocker, but I also am not aware of any Wikipedia rule stating you may not link to sites running ads.
 * In view of all the above, I think you were wrong in removing my edits, and you're doing the greater Wikipedia community a disservice. I don't think any of your quoted reasons are valid, and I don't think I'm interested in editing Wikipedia anymore.
 * I genuinely believed that I was making the site a very tiny bit better for everyone, but frankly, after being treated like a child, and given spurious reasons for you doing so, I don't think I'll ever edit anything on here again.
 * Well done! You won. You can continue to allow other external links to exist without any issue, while patting yourself on the back in a vain attempt at pretending that you achieved something useful.
 * Kind regards,
 * James. Silkaats (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way, and I hope you'll continue to edit Wikipedia. However, it's very common to see the owner of a website add multiple links to their site in an attempt to boost traffic, and I thought that was happening here (and wanted to nip it in the bud). Apologies for jumping to conclusions: by all means revert my changes, though I still think the links are questionable (see also WP:LINKFARM). Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Per, I didn't "change my mind", I merely accepted your assurances that you are not associated with the willcycle.com site, which means my suggestion of a conflict of interest did not apply. I won't revert your latest edit, though I still think the addition of this site is questionable, as per the other policies I quoted (WP:SPA, WP:RS). Please don't take this personally. Dave.Dunford (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2024 (UTC)