Spirit of Kirith

Cease and Decist (and remove)

As per discussion at Wowpedia talk:Village pump#Commercial_external_links_in_Wiki_articles?, I am formally asking you to remove every link to http://www.multiplayerstrategies.com/wow/index.cfm?acode=2028 you have posted in wiki pages. If you don't do this in a timely manner (before another admin gets pissed off and steps in), you will be banned from the wiki. User:Tekkub/Sig 06:42, 27 December 2006 (EST)

I have removed several additions of yours that were either exploiting info, commercial linking, useless information or inappropriate for the article. Please try and stay within the guidelines of the wiki. -- Kirkburn (talk) 11:29, 27 December 2006 (EST)

If the wiki staff want me to remove links to my source, I will indeed do so. I have no intentions on pissing anyone off. I do need to get an answer on a few things though.

If my source was a online newspaper or any other source form the net , that requires a signup fee to use, Will that also being seen as an act of vandalism.

I am seriously trying to post information regarding different articles on this page, and it is by no means my intention to post spam. According to all known rules, its good behaviour to post your source of your information.

All my contributions will be removed within 48 hours.

- sqren

Don't worry about removing stuff, I've already taken a look at it all :) Don't feel put off by this, the main point we want to put across is that the links were not specific to the pages. For the tactics, they contributions must be higher quality, and not written in such a 'chatty' style - but the contribution of strats themselves is appreciated. -- Kirkburn (talk) 14:29, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Linking a source is fine, but if you don't provide a direct link to the article it should just link to the base page. The main concern was that 1) Pay sites for game info usually contain content that the wiki would consider exploits and do not post, or even content ripped off from free sites like the wiki here without pointing back to the source, and 2) all the link provided were linking through their affiliate system, potentially earning someone (not pointing fingers) money just from the clicks to check out your source. Intentional or not, farming advertising links from source citations on a free site isn't nice. Had you linked to http://www.multiplayerstrategies.com/wow directly, it might not have ever been pointed out.

Anywho, that's the whole reason I posted here and didn't just revert your stuff, I wanted to give you a chance to defend yourself. User:Tekkub/Sig 17:49, 27 December 2006 (EST)

Sorry about my late responds, but work work.

What do you want me to do now then? Do you want me to stop posting completely, or just change the way I make sources –::::like http://www.multiplayerstrategies.com/wow as an exampel? --Sqren 14:11, 28 December 2006 (EST)/Sqren

Don't worry about your previous edits. Do continue to post, but the tactics should really be higher quality (less chatty and neutral perspective), and source links should link directly to the source, not to a website (which can be construed as an attempt to get hits, rather than being helpful). -- Kirkburn (talk) 14:16, 28 December 2006 (EST)

Links

[1] Please do not link to exploit websites, I hope I don't have to remind you of your policies. User:Kirkburn/Sig3 21:12, 17 April 2007 (EDT)