| Revision as of 23:34, 4 February 2008 editGuyinblack25 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers19,287 edits →February 2008: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 23:42, 4 February 2008 edit undoCWii (talk | contribs)19,938 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| For crying out loud, we HAVE. And each time we've been referred to it, we have cited that we are well within the WP rules to link to fansites. There is NO blanket ban. And the links, bar OddChat, provide a plethora of MORE information. MORE than the Oddworld WP page could possibly dream to encompass. By removing the links, you deny the right for visitors to the Oddworld WP page access to further information. You are limiting knowledge, and therefore going against the very reason behind Misplaced Pages - building upon knowledge. The actions of the users who are removing the external links can be described as limiting and self-serving. Is it your ultimate goal to make the Oddworld WP page the final say on Oddworld? Because your actions appear that way. Furthermore, as I've already highlighted, I will be delighted to continue this volleying - we either reach an agreement on an acceptable method of displaying the rightfully valid links, or we go the way of so many other 'edit wars'. | For crying out loud, we HAVE. And each time we've been referred to it, we have cited that we are well within the WP rules to link to fansites. There is NO blanket ban. And the links, bar OddChat, provide a plethora of MORE information. MORE than the Oddworld WP page could possibly dream to encompass. By removing the links, you deny the right for visitors to the Oddworld WP page access to further information. You are limiting knowledge, and therefore going against the very reason behind Misplaced Pages - building upon knowledge. The actions of the users who are removing the external links can be described as limiting and self-serving. Is it your ultimate goal to make the Oddworld WP page the final say on Oddworld? Because your actions appear that way. Furthermore, as I've already highlighted, I will be delighted to continue this volleying - we either reach an agreement on an acceptable method of displaying the rightfully valid links, or we go the way of so many other 'edit wars'. | ||
| :Perhaps this should be taken to ]. A discuss has been started there regarding the validity of the external links. (] <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)) | :Perhaps this should be taken to ]. A discuss has been started there regarding the validity of the external links. (] <sup>]</sup> 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)) | ||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, you may be ] from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <font style="color:Blue;">'' ''']'''<sup>(])</sup><sub>(])</sub> ''</font> 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :''If this is a shared ], and you didn't make the edit, consider ] for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.'' | |||
Revision as of 23:42, 4 February 2008
Welcome!
Hi 82.5.133.228! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Misplaced Pages community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Happy editing! --Iceglass (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
February 2008
Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Your contributions are welcomed, however, one or more of the external links you added in this edit to Oddworld do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Misplaced Pages is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Misplaced Pages uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thanks. Compwhiz II(Contribs) 23:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
We realise nofollow is used, this is not to boost site rankings. The listed sites are already high enough. Perhaps if you'd care to actually view the links, you'd see that there is a plethora of further information related to Oddworld.
Please read WP:EL Compwhiz II(Contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
For crying out loud, we HAVE. And each time we've been referred to it, we have cited that we are well within the WP rules to link to fansites. There is NO blanket ban. And the links, bar OddChat, provide a plethora of MORE information. MORE than the Oddworld WP page could possibly dream to encompass. By removing the links, you deny the right for visitors to the Oddworld WP page access to further information. You are limiting knowledge, and therefore going against the very reason behind Misplaced Pages - building upon knowledge. The actions of the users who are removing the external links can be described as limiting and self-serving. Is it your ultimate goal to make the Oddworld WP page the final say on Oddworld? Because your actions appear that way. Furthermore, as I've already highlighted, I will be delighted to continue this volleying - we either reach an agreement on an acceptable method of displaying the rightfully valid links, or we go the way of so many other 'edit wars'.
- Perhaps this should be taken to Talk:Oddworld#External links. A discuss has been started there regarding the validity of the external links. (Guyinblack25 23:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC))
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Compwhiz II(Contribs) 23:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.