User talk:Glen netherwood

Hello Glen,

Thanks for taking the time to begin a discussion regarding your link on the Six Sigma article's talk page. As my role on that article has strictly been as a "janitor" of sorts (keeping the External links section in line with consensus), I have no particular opinion on the link. At this point the best thing we can do is allow the other editors to "trickle in" and comment, and then act on the consensus.

Thanks again for following this process. While I am here, allow me to officially welcome you to Wikipedia:

Welcome!

Hello, Glen netherwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Sigma

Hi Glen - in response to your latest message on my talk page, I agree that in certain cases a link ovverides "links to normally avoid" because it overwhelmingly meets "What should be linked to." However, please refer to WP:SPAM, particularly the section "How not to be a spammer." It is by this criteria that I most often remove external links. The section lays out guidelines that essentially cover the situation where a particular editor is promoting one particular link as you are. Nowhere (that I am aware of) does it state that if the person who inserted the link comes back and argues in its behalf that the link then has any weight.

Wikipedia has no obligation to host any particular link, and links that don't have the weight of consensus are subject to removal at any point. If there are any existing undiscussed links that any editor (including yourself) feel are inappropriate, those are subject to removal too. The talk page of the particular article is the "final say" so to speak - if a consensus of regular editors to the article agree that the link is useful, only then would I have no grounds to remove it. Please allow the process to work before re-adding it to the article. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glen - as you are new I can understand how the policies and practices here may seem to indicate that your link additions were ok. However please understand that when a link is added to multiple articles, and the link is to a website that the editor who adds it runs/manages, the current community consensus is that it falls under WP:SPAM guidelines and is subject to removal. As I have mentioned before (once on this page before you blanked it), you're welcome to use the talk pages of an article in order to try to make a case for your link.

If your link were clearly and extremely useful, then perhaps it would be improper for me to remove it. However, though you are convinced of its usefulness, two editor thus far disagree: [1] [2]. As such, your link is not clearly fall under "what to link to", and should remain off the article until such time that a community consensus is reached.

Also, please see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, specifically the section about meatpuppetry. Using multiple accounts (this includes sending Ms. Netherwood in as your sidekick) to try to influence discussion or other decisions is highly inappropriate and in some cases can be deemed unacceptable. If you wish to continue the discussion regarding your link, please pick one account and use that account to contribute to the discussion. Thank you --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Talk page

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. If you continue to remove or vandalize warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]