User talk:Wolf3587

Piped links
There is no need to use piped links as you are doing in many of your edits, such as you did in Now That's What I Call Music! 47 (UK series). Instead of this: Walk of Life ; just do this: Walk of Life. Thanks and happy editing. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, rather, in this case, it should be Walk of Life ; you don't need to use underscores. --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I realise that in many cases the simple use of Walk of Life would often be enough to ensure the link to the correct page, but in some cases, this one in particular, there are several pages that "Walk of Life" could refer to (for example, in this case it could have been to the track in question (a Billie Piper Song), or to a different track by Dire Straits Walk of Life) and so the added extra of ensuring that the link goes to the correct page was, I felt, to be necessary to prevent linking to a wrong page. I felt that as this site was helping me so much in my attempt to catalogue and find the correct details for my music collection, the least that I could do was to ensure that any broken, missing, or incorrect links were corrected by myself while I was looking at those pages anyway. I have run into a few (not too many, but a few) instances where the links pointed to the incorrect page, so I wanted to ensure completely that any links that I made pointed to the exact page that I wished them to. Where underscores, etc, appear in the links, these do so because I have simply copied the link directly from the page it should link to (to ensure no typos or mispelling on my part). --Wolf3587 (talk)


 * Your point is understood. The use of piped links is necessary when there is disambiguation. I copy and paste myself when creating or adding links, but I usually copy the title of the article at the top of the page, rather than directly from the URL.  That way, when there is no disambiguation like Walk of Life, you don't have to use a piped link at all, because there won't be any underscores to worry about. For example, link to Another One Bites the Dust instead of the piped,  [[Another_One_Bites_the_Dust|Another One Bites the Dust ]]. Sure, clicking on them takes you to the exact same page, but it's just a bit redundant.  Thanks again. --Wolfer68 (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will freely admit that I am not the best of edtors here, and I just do what I can in the only way that I know how to do it. I may get it wrong in the way, or format, that I do it, and may not follow all the exact rules and regulations on how to post links, but at least I am trying to do it. Most people use this site without making any attempt to try to improve the site and links on it. I am really sorry if my edits and added links are not as good as they should be, but, in my defence, I am at least trying to do something to try and help as much as I can. I am not an expert in this site or in editing this site, I am only able to do what I can learn how to do from seeing how others have done it before me and try my best to copy it in the best way that I can. If my editing and linking is causing problems or is considered wrong, or creating more work for others in correcting them, then please let me know and I will happily stop trying to help as best that I can at present. As time goes by, I may well learn better ways of doing these things and realise that how I was originally doing it was either wrong, or there were better, faster or easier ways of doing them. But for the present, I am just doing the best that I can with the skills (such as they are, from picking things up from what I can see others have done before me) that I have at present. As I said, if my contributions, such as they are, are either not welcome, or cause more work for other editors, then I will happily go back to doing what most other people do when using this site - just ignoring any errors or broken links and leaving things as they were without trying to do anything about them. Please just let me know if this is preferred and I will abide by that decision. I am only attempting to make this site better (by correcting any errors that I may find, or fixing any broken links, as best thta I know how to) because it has helped me a lot in finding information to help me in cataloguing and updating my music collection. I just thought that I would try to show my gratitude for the hep that this site has given to me in this matter by fixing things where I can see that there are minor errors. I am not, and do not claim to be, a programmer, of any kind, I am merely a crippled ex-accountant with too much time on my hands nowadays and am trying to fill some of that time by returning some of the help that this site has given to me in my research. --Wolf3587 (talk) 01:25 GMT, 09 August 2009.
 * I didn't mean to offend you, just offering some advice. We all are new at this at some point but we learn as we go as well as from help from others. I appreciate the effort you are putting into making the pages on wikipedia better.  For the most part, I believe the errors you refer to are not being ignored, there are just so many, that are just not always found.  --Wolfer68 (talk) 01:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Far from being offended (I have a skin that is slightly thicker than my head), I was just trying to explain that I accept that if / where I am doing wrong or making even more work for the normal editors of this site, then if they just let me know that this is so and I will gladly refrain from making any edits that cause problems. I also recognise that, far from being ignored by the editors (I actually meant that the general users would ignore them, rather than try to fix them), that with a site of this size it is impossible to keep a check on all pages, links, edits, etc (I have a reasonably small site of my own writing cooking recipes and hints and tips, and I have more than enough difficulty in keeping track of any errors that may be found on that, and that is only a few thousand recipes / pages, so a site of this size would be completely impossible to keep a check on completely without a LOT of help). I was just trying to point out that all I am doing is trying to learn from copying what I can see others have done before me, and that I am in no way any kind of computer programer, and so accept that I know a lot less about these things than most others on this site. --Wolf3587 (talk) 03:30 GMT, 09 August 2009.

September 2009
When adding links to material on an external site, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.  Sandstein  16:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reminding me. I have found this link to be non-allowable and have removed the links where I was able to do so, however on the page that you mention here, I am unable to access the editing page for it and so cannot remove it myself. I would be grateful if you could do so if you have acccess to that page.

I have removed all the external links that I am able to, as I am unable to check the validity of the other pages either, so have removed them all for safety's sake to avoid any further breach. --Wolf3587 (talk)