[WikiEN-l] Re: External links and self-linking to my site

[Josh Gerdes]

Well, the site does not really look like spam to me, and it certainly 
seems informational. Does it provide any information that it not in any 
of the other links, though? (I do not know, as I have not read the 
content of the other linked sites.)

Josh Gerdes
(User:JoshG)

NSK wrote:
> Hello.
> 
> Please check 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=0&oldid=9300527
> 
> It is about the removal of an external link to my site that I first inserted 
> in October. See: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=6952756&oldid=6952087
> 
> The link is this: http://portal.wikinerds.org/node/103
> 
> I insert only links that I truly believe are informational and I have no 
> interest to insert any bogus links. I truly believe that my report is 
> informational.
> 
> Please explain why it was considered inappropriate and give me a link to any  
> external links policies that you may have.
> 
> The link was removed by Adam Bishop. He contacted me through e-mail and I 
> answered promptly. I explained my concern that my link was removed because it 
> was pointing to a "competing" wikisite. He said that the link was spam 
> because it was pointing to my site.
> 
> Other links to my site removed by Adam Bishop have been featured on 
> Slashdot.org - check: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/11/28/1825218 and 
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/10/19/174240 - Links to wikinerds.org 
> that were featured on these Slashdot stories were added (and subsequently 
> removed by Adam Bishop) in this article: 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation_Europe - I have since 
> inserted links to the Slashdot stories because I believe that they are 
> informational.
> 
> All that happened the same day I decided to start contributing some of my 
> articles on Wikipedia (and thus relicensing some CC content under GFDL for 
> your use) - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zsync
> 
> I don't agree that I should not be allowed to post links to my site just 
> because it is mine. This isn't spam.
> 
> I post this message on the mailing list because I want a clear answer on 
> whether my link about Homo Floresiensis was spam or not. If the other admins 
> agree with me that self-linking is not spam then I would like Adam Bishop to 
> reconsider and post a public apology on his userpage stating that my link on 
> Homo Floresiensis was not spam. If you decide that the link was not 
> informational, I have no problem with this. But I truly believe that 
> describing it as spam was unfair. Adam Bishop stated in the History log of 
> the Homo Floresiensis article: "01:45, 12 Jan 2005 Adam Bishop (removing 
> spam)"
> 
> I also promise to not post any other external links without asking on the 
> mailing list or the village pump first.
>