User talk:Sintoo

Please stop. If you continue to add defamatory content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —C.Fred (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Read! Have replied on your page, but defamatory in my understanding would apply to alleged, this is not a case of alleged, rather actual public, unsuppressed conviction of mawson for paedophile activities. Please advise otherwise if I have this understanding wrong - ie it isn't defamatory if it is irrefutable fact, which in this case it is. * a link to a carefully maintained PUBLIC database and he is an ex Napier resident - and his first conviction was in Napier, which surely qualifies as a notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sintoo (talk • contribs) —C.Fred (talk) 05:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The underlying problem is that you've added the same link to multiple articles with varying explanations. The linkspam alone is a warnable offence. Coupled with a labelling of paedophile outside of context, the link appeared inflammatory enough that I tagged it as defamatory. Technically, you're right: if they vet their info as well as they say they do, it's a reliable fact that the specified individual is a sexual offender. However, the link without context in an article that doesn't otherwise mention him is inappropriate and not in compliance with external link guidelines.


 * Accordingly, the warning above is replaced with the following, referencing the last edit made before the warning was given:
 * Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory 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 policy 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, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it.
 * —C.Fred (talk) 05:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OK Fair enough

I accept I didn't put enough explanatory notes in etc etc etc (and i do understand the no follow thing)

Thanks