G'day Guy,
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 02:50:24 -0700, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
People with a legitimate reason for making such links would sleep peacefully; thoe who link with attitude would face the wrath of the whole community.
So you say. I wouldn't know, because I've never seen a legitimate reason for linking to WR.
You keep saying that phrase. I do not think it has the significance you think it has.
I'd wager that there are a great many websites on this wide brown land we call "the Internet" that Guy Chapman can't think of a good reason to link to. It wouldn't surprise me if there were millions of the buggers. Why don't we flat-out ban links to them?
Because we *don't* ban links to websites because we can't think of a legitimate reason to link to them. We *just don't do it*. We need a stronger argument than, "I can't think why you would want to link there in good faith."
You've claimed in the past to *have* such arguments. Personally, they don't strike me as particularly strong either, but they're better than the outright furphy you state above.
Wikipedians do not need your approval before linking to any website on the Internet. No, sir, we do not. Please desist from this argument, because, frankly, it makes you look an ass.