Jlockard

Dear Jlockard,

On nearly any notable topic one could find a wealth of other websites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article; however we much endeavor to keep the articles' external links section down to a bare minimum. To this effect, myself and other volunteers must regularly traverse many articles and prune links.

One the primary methods used to determine whether a link should stay or go is the method in which it was added to the article(s). In this case (as I mentioned above) the links to the Antislavery Literature Project were added "bare" (with no additional content added to the article) across a multitude of pages. This raises a major red flag; had it not been me that reverted the changes, someone else likely would have.

Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external website into an article is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. You may also wish to consider adding the link to a smaller number of articles - preferrably one main article on the topic.

I hope this helps to explain the reason these links were removed. In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links:

• WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 2 in this guideline)
• WP:EL External Links guidelines
• WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines

--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:53, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I have checked the history of the John Pierpont article, and you're right, in that case I did overlook your previous edit in which you contributed much of the article's text. However I do stand by the remainder of my removals, as only the bare links were contributed (Special:Contributions/129.219.46.76).

One of the major goals of Wikipedia is to compile a print version, for which more content and citations is much needed. If you are adding a link that serves as a reference for text that is in the Wikipedia article, then great (and thanks!) - but I implore you to focus on adding more content to the articles as you did with the John Pierpont article. If your website can be used a a source for the content you add, then by all means include it as a citation. Thanks! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:56, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!

JLockard:

Thanks for the edits to Underground Railroad and William Still. It was so nice to see an edit that wasn't vandalism on those pages. Keep up the good work! wrp103 (Bill Pringle) 00:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Courtesy messages

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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. 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. Thank you. [1] (Requestion 04:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC))

Please ignore User:Requestion, who appears not to have read the guideline he's referencing. The links you have added are to valuable source material that people like myself who view the Wikipedia articles for reasons of research are glad to find there. -Moorlock 00:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear User:Requestion -- This question of whether and under what circumstances external links constitute link-spamming was discussed at some length a year ago, with another admin. The linked source is a well-recognized scholarly and educational resource, located at two major universities. We link to Wikipedia as public scholarship that seeks to make available high-quality educational and research resources via the Internet. We link only to articles relating to the literature of slavery, and contribute to those articles where appropriate. We have no commercial purposes and no interest other than in providing public scholarship. It is rather discouraging to explain this annually, let alone contemplate restoring now-missing links. There really are better things to do with a work-day. As User:Moorlock points out, you have misconstrued Wikipedia policy, and in a manner that defeats educational purposes. Indeed, you have misconstrued it in a manner that would lead to elimination of all legitimate standard reference source links. Thanks for not doing this again.--Jlockard 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of small points (and I agree with your comment above, as you can see from User talk:Requestion): You're in the right about Requestion's repeated link deletion, but I'd just point out that many Wikipedians are likely to assess a link's usefulness to Wikipedia as much as to readers' education. As I see it, the reason that these original-text and scholarly-article links are worth keeping is first and foremost that many/most/all of them serve as good references for further reading on the articles' topics that wouldn't fit in the Wikipedia articles themselves, but second and perhaps nearly as importantly, that they serve as references for contributors interested in improving Wikipedia to draw on in writing better articles. This is what the comments above by AbsolutDan are suggesting, I think; and he's right that you'll be taken much more seriously in this discussion if you contribute more text to our encyclopedia articles as well as adding links.

Also, User:Requestion is definitely not a Wikipedia:Administrator (your comment about "another admin" above suggests possible confusion about this); and anyway, Wikipedia administrators are not entitled to any kind of automatic deference in article content disputes like this one. Best wishes in your continued work, and I hope you'll stick around and contribute some expert knowledge to our articles (which is always sorely needed). -- Rbellin|Talk 19:56, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, User:Rbellin. User:AbsolutDan seemed to have a reasonable point concerning addition of text to improve an article as well as a link. While it did not appear to be a necessary criterion according to Wikipedia link policy, willing helpfulness is always appreciated and a good community value. Where appropriate, new text portions -- and occasionally, an entire new article -- have been added to slavery-related articles along with links. These links were originally contributed in response to a perceived synergy of idealisms towards creating and making accessible educational and research resources. However, involvement in an edit battle over User:Requestion's links removal contradicts precisely that same idealism. It would be preferable to remove all links to Project primary source documents before engaging in such behavior.--Jlockard 20:37, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Edit warring is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia as a shared endeavor, and reaching consensus on things like this is exactly why Talk pages exist. But in this specific situation, I can sympathize with Moorlock's frustration and repeated reverting of the deletion, as Requestion seemed quite recalcitrant in refusing to respond substantively on User talk:Requestion. Still, I personally make a point of refraining from repeated reverts under any circumstances besides patent vandalism. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)