| Revision as of 18:59, 30 November 2006 editBrandon (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators22,368 edits HHS/Other articles← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:20, 30 November 2006 edit undo76.16.70.153 (talk) →HHS/Other articles: User may be paranoid, please do not contact me again directly as your post was that of someone behaving in a mentally unstable fashion.Next edit → | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
| Your edit summaries are getting slightly annoying, for example "Bjweeks did not remove term "was beastly" when he edited Chess team section. His oversight has been corrected.". Your were the one that added "was beastly" and all I did was revert the edit of some other user. Just because we have a disagreement on another article does not mean you need to go to all the pages I edit and revert my changes with accusatory edit summaries. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | Your edit summaries are getting slightly annoying, for example "Bjweeks did not remove term "was beastly" when he edited Chess team section. His oversight has been corrected.". Your were the one that added "was beastly" and all I did was revert the edit of some other user. Just because we have a disagreement on another article does not mean you need to go to all the pages I edit and revert my changes with accusatory edit summaries. ]<small><sup>]</sup></small> 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::My dear sir, I simply stated that you overlooked the removal of this term and was very careful to state my reason for making said change. It is important that we clarify our intent and motive before removing or changing content. You should not take my efforts personally other than in a positive light :-) Perhaps you are being paranoid. It is rather unusual for someone to take such offense to an edit, particularly when the edit was correctly made. Stating the reasons for an edit is appropriate and responsible. Lastly, you may be projecting your own motives in and through your interpretation of my contribution. Please do not contact me directly anymore. I am concerned that you may be mentally unstable after making such a rash and paranoid remark. | |||
Revision as of 20:20, 30 November 2006
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. BJ 00:32, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages 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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Misplaced Pages. Thank you. - Calltech 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is important that you follow your own advice and before removing relevant links, you should discuss said on the article's talke page. Your subjective view of what is relevant and what is not should be more thoroughly debated before your view is to serve as final. I do appreciate you attention to the matter.
- Relevance is not the sole criteria for adding or removing external links. Please review WP:EL. WP is not a directory of links. Calltech 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- It is important that you set an example by first discussing a link deletion as per your own instruction. Please do your best to respect content provided by other contributors. Subjective deletions are inappropriate.
- Relevance is not the sole criteria for adding or removing external links. Please review WP:EL. WP is not a directory of links. Calltech 17:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- As per WP:EL Links in question met the following criteria:
What to link to There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.
Is it accessible to the reader? Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Each link be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.
Links to be considered
For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
A web directory category, when deemed appropriate by those contributing to the article, with preference to open directories.
Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Misplaced Pages with a low-speed connection.
Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
HHS/Other articles
Your edit summaries are getting slightly annoying, for example "Bjweeks did not remove term "was beastly" when he edited Chess team section. His oversight has been corrected.". Your were the one that added "was beastly" and all I did was revert the edit of some other user. Just because we have a disagreement on another article does not mean you need to go to all the pages I edit and revert my changes with accusatory edit summaries. BJ 18:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- My dear sir, I simply stated that you overlooked the removal of this term and was very careful to state my reason for making said change. It is important that we clarify our intent and motive before removing or changing content. You should not take my efforts personally other than in a positive light :-) Perhaps you are being paranoid. It is rather unusual for someone to take such offense to an edit, particularly when the edit was correctly made. Stating the reasons for an edit is appropriate and responsible. Lastly, you may be projecting your own motives in and through your interpretation of my contribution. Please do not contact me directly anymore. I am concerned that you may be mentally unstable after making such a rash and paranoid remark.