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&…
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=695275…
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.