This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby union, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of rugby union on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Rugby unionWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby unionTemplate:WikiProject Rugby unionrugby union articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related articles
I've cleaned up the external links throughout the article. There was one old reference which I formatted as such and updated the link to the proper information. I removed the rest per WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 20:03, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've absolutely no idea why anyone would remove links to rugby clubs as being somehow "irrelevant" to an article on rugby. Let's face facts here. Websites have an average shelflife of several years, so to leave just two is stupid and overly bureaucratic.
I can't tell you how many times I've had someone remove a weblink removed as "spam", and then someone else comes along and complains that the material is unreferenced. This is completely unnecessary. People come to this article looking for material on rugby union in Israel, and what do you do? Remove it! --MacRusgail (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you certainly did. You removed the links from the clubs which are mentioned. I have to try and prove what I write on Wikipedia is real, and it doesn't help if the evidence is removed.--MacRusgail (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for the confusion. I thought you were referring specifically to WP:SPAM when you clearly are not. I never used the word spam, nor did I refer to WP:SPAM in any way. I'm simply applying WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]