User talk:Vachton

Bullfight article
You can stop adding your link to Bulletpoint Bullfight. That document is already referenced in footnote #9 of the article. If a source is referenced and footnoted in an article it is not necessary to have another See Also or External Link to it. Thanks Bob98133 (talk) 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, AM,


 * Yes, leaving message on my user talk page is the best way for contact. I reply on your user page, so you’ll get a notification of new mail.


 * I’m not an administrator on Wiki, just an editor like you, so I might not know the exact reason why Bulletpoint Bullfighting has been removed. I removed it a couple of times because you were just throwing it into articles as an external link. When an editor sees that someone is adding the same external link to a number of articles, the link will almost always be reverted as link spam. (see this link for external link policies WP:EL).


 * Another possible problem is that your book is self-published, so it may not have gone through the more rigorous fact-checking process that a commercially published book may have, so in a way, citing your book is similar to citing a personal web site, which is discouraged.


 * Another thing, after I removed your link in the Bullfighting article, I used some info from your “Not for the Squeamish” in the Bullfighting article, so Bulletpoint Bullfighting is among the references for the article. When a source is referenced from within the article, it is not necessary to also have an external link.


 * There is also some conflict-of-interest rule that you’re not supposed to promote your own work, or work on your own web page, on Wiki. I’m not sure about this one, but you can check the rules by going through the help pages.


 * I think that you can also add some sort of *help me* message on your user talk page and an administrator will answer any questions you have. Hope this helps. Sorry if any reverts I made to your link seemed heavy handed but there is so much vandalism and link spam that sometimes things get reverted too quickly.Bob98133 (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I just remembered something. When I was editing another article, Wiki rejectred lulu.com as a spam site. You might want to check that out too.Bob98133 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)