User talk:Chimera00

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Thank you. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie: I do not see how any reasonably repeatable guidelines can be applied by individual admins in regards to External Links if the ones I added are not as appropriate as the existing ones. If any of them are allowed at all, how are they deemed to be acceptable? My site is a free word lookup resource to anyone playing word games that's done as a hobbyist who's into words on my side of the equation. It certainly is not worth it financially to pursue since the ads barely pay for all the expenses. So how is it decided in a fair manner as to why any of the other word lookup sites are allowed or not? The others have advertising on them or are in fact actually selling products, so what is the deciding factor please?

The links have been deleted per WP:EL and WP:COI. If you find other links that you feel violate those policies, feel free to delete them as well. If you continue to add links to your own site, you will be blocked from editing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:41, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alrighty, fair enough on deleting the other site's links. And btw, you didn't actually answer my question since your answer was just a threat. Do you actually have any personally repeatable guidelines on ever accepting ANY external links? Do they always have to be submitted only by 3rd parties? I could simply go ask one of our users to submit, thus that's not a reliable method of discrimination. So what is it besides some grey area standard blurb you must send out a lot? Why even allow external links at all? So you're saying my links were deleted not because they weren't applicable to the word games pages I placed them on, but rather just because I submitted them myself? So what does that indicate about the overall quality of the Wiki project by censoring inputs in such a manner? Did you actually visit the pages or not to see if they were applicable, or did you just follow my contributions page and delete them all?

The policies are explained in the links I previously sent you. There is occasional gray area; in such cases, multiple editors may weigh in. Generally speaking, links that tend to be allowed are (1) official links (i.e., a cities web page, or the chamber of commerce link, or if the subject is a biography, that individual's personal page or (2) .edu, .gov, or other non-advertising based links. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for responding Jamie since you didn't really need to respond to just a commercial site owner. The end of your reply pretty much verifies what I suspected about the type of sites that aren't discriminated against. The academic establishment's tendency and fervor in biting the hand that feeds them has always amazed me, but this is not the place to discuss that topic. In fact, it's not worth my time to argue this any further since the link being active yesterday on Wiki resulted in a whole 14 page views compared to the 1.4 million others we served while processing 80+ billion words for users playing commercial site word games. And yet our free site is not deemed to be a valid resource to be listed whereas the commercial games themselves are... hmmmm, simply amazing! I'll finish with two final questions for you: why are topics about commercial games and associated commercial sites even accepted in the first place if the commercial world is to be scorned and disdained? And then in a blatant discrepancy in the Wiki policy itself, why are applicable commercial links about the commercial topic itself then deemed inappropriate- whether submitted by their owners or not? Thanks.

The primary criteria for the inclusion of an article is verifiable notability (see those two links for thorough explanations and examples). Furthermore, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a vehicle for advertising, nor a link directory. Hundreds of links (and non-notable entries) are deleted every day; imagine what a mess it would be if anyone was allowed to promote their website/product/company here? Dmoz is an open directory project that you might want to check out. Thanks, OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I'm not so much irritated about my link being deleted since it's a pittance of traffic but rather that other purely commercial links adorn those same pages in the external links area. Please fairly enforce the policy uniformly, or not at all by taking a look at the previously existing links therein.

P.S., I'm sure your admin job would be much more enjoyable if you just had a simple "no commercial links allowed at all" policy for the external links. That way, you wouldn't have to deal with buttheads like me that are misled into thinking they're Ok based on previous ones already located there, lol. I'll be abandoning this profile, so good luck with things and thanks for trying to clarify the self-contradicting policies.

Well, when in doubt it's easier to delete; the most important thing here is good content with reliable sources. When we encounter gray areas, we usually discuss it at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam's talk page. Like yourself, I've found that people are able to find content on my own site without a link to Wikipedia. If you have a good site, people will find it (though I'm sure yours gets a lot more hits than mine...mine's just a misc hobbyist blog). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]