The subject is the edit summary from the edit that removed NSK's link. Independent of the particulars of NSK's site, this summary is not a valid excuse, wikipedia articles can grow to a level of completeness that most external sites cannot match, yet a lot of our information comes from external sites, and it can be important to cite those sites even though their information has been included in the article and a subsequent editor unfamiliar with the history may now consider them redundant.. -- Silverback
-------------- Original message --------------
Hello.
Please check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homo_floresiensis&diff=0&o...
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... 952087
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.
-- NSK Come to see the new wikiprojects at http://portal.wikinerds.org _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l