User talk:Ownlyanangel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're mostly right about the Adoption in the United States article - it was hived off from the main adoption article by someone in a rather arbitrary manner while the latter was getting some serious work done on it. Nonetheless, many of the external links you removed from there and the main adoption article are very valid and useful resources for anyone researching the subject. I've restored them to both. Bastun 15:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Removing links on talk pages 2 Western Sahara links 3 Removing external links 4 List of PDF software 5 Hey there angel! 6 Keep up the good work 7 Why oh why did you remove informative links?

[edit] Removing links on talk pages

May I suggest that you do not modify other people's comments on talk pages [by removing external links]? Talk pages are not indexed by search engines and misrepresenting other people by editing their good-faith comments is not appropriate IMHO. Of course, it is a good thing to keep an eye on linkspam on article pages. Han-Kwang 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Some further information. The wikimedia software now tags external links in all namespaces (with the exception of the main article namespace) with rel= tags. So even if the talk pages are indexed by search engines, the sites get no page rank benefit from it. If the sites are particularly spammy, you could consider removing the brackets from around them to turn them into text. Other than that, removing parts of other comments should not be done unless you are removing personal attacks and you should leave a comment documenting those changes.

I'm rabidly anti-spam myself and spend much of my time trimming links and warning/blocking spammers, so I do understand your motivations. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so sure anymore about the indexing. Google does not show any article talk pages, but Yahoo does. There are no robots.txt entries nor meta robots tags that indicate that prevent indexing, so I'm not sure why. Anyway, the argument is valid and supported by Google, Yahoo, and MSN search. Han-Kwang 15:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara links

===>Spam Many of these links are not spam, and I see no good reason why they should be removed. For instance, two of the links are official sites of the Moroccan and Sahrawi governments. In point of fact, I don't see any links that were added to promote a website, product, or service. How are any of these spam? -Justin (koavf), talk, mail 16:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removing external links

Before removing anymore external links from articles, be sure to read through WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks.--Andeh 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Some of the links you removed from Spyware are not really considered to be spam according to WP:EL. Which is why I reverted your edit. Also removing large sums of links which isn't blatant spam should be mentioned on the talk page of the article.--Andeh 09:30, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, nobody is attacking anyone here. Articles don't 'belong' to anyone, see WP:OWN for more information on this. Yes Wikipedia isn't a Web Directory but this doesn't mean you can't link to web directories from it. I assume your referring to the Spyware article, as this subject is very large and is internet related, many users may seek additional information, the external links have been carefully chosen to give them more info. Don't forget to stay cool. :)--Andeh 07:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

If really feel you must remove the two web directories then I don't mind. Because they don't offer any additional information regarding the subject, just more links to 'other' good sites.--Andeh 08:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of PDF software

Hi. Regarding your recent removal of the external links section in the article List of PDF software. Of all the links on that page you decided to remove the link to the Open Directory Project (Dmoz). I think this shows a serious misunderstanding about the external links guidelines. I have read elsewhere that you say that Wikipedia is not a link directory. This is absolutely true, and no article should consist solely or predominantly of external links, however that does not prevent linking to a directory. In many cases linking to Dmoz is absolutely the most efficient way of getting external information to the reader, and at the same time preventing spam. Dmoz in particular falls well within the external links guidelines. Please consider your edits more carefully. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey there angel!

Just wondering, would you like to guess what I stuck up my butt today? 172.165.129.65 15:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

apparently not 129.15.127.254 21:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keep up the good work

Good work on the spam fighting-- it's exhausting, and often unappreciated, but it really has to be done. After all, if "Wikipedia makes the internet not suck", it's largely because it is ad-free.

One suggestion I would make, though, is to use Edit summaries. If you do, I would suggest avoiding descriptions such as "remove spam", at least until you've found a for-sure spammer-- people may take less offense if you say "remove comm link", "remove unneeded link", etc., and it can help to add "see WP:EL".

If you find yourself getting into arguments with people defending the links you're removing, you could borrow some text from the top of User:Mwanner/Useful_Stuff. And drop me a note if you need a second editor to back you up (except for the next 2-3 weeks: I'll be away).

Anyway, good luck, and happy spam fighting! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why oh why did you remove informative links?

for example, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=XML_editor&diff=61349794&oldid=61332423 this is not spam. it is relevant examples of what the article is talking about.