User talk:Pschrey

External links

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 exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Khoi khoi 01:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi, what do you mean exactly? I and numberous other users can't see that there is anything wrong with that links. It is an additional (non-commercial) ressource of information covering aspects that may be interesting for skippers. --Pschrey 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pschrey. While you are encouraged to contribute to Wikipedia, adding links to your website is not allowed. The reason is because that's not how Wikipedia grows, it grows when content (rather than external links) is added to articles. Secondly, we don't want Wikipedia to turn into some directory external links, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore, if you see any spam-like links, please be bold and remove them. Regards, Khoi khoi 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi, you are right with the content. But this here is slightly different: SkipperGuide concentrates on the nautical aspects. It would not be useful to add these aspects to wikipedia, because it is still an encyclopedia, and not a cruising or travel guide. However, the informations provided on SkipperGuide may be interesting for some of the readers (and more interesting, than some of the other links). Because the links are there for some time and no other user complained them (in difference to other links), I assume it is also the opinion of the majority of users.

Asked the other way: which paragraph of the "external links guideline" do you have in mind?

BTW: it is not my website, it is public domain. --Pschrey 08:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. My concern however is that you're using Wikipedia as a platform to promote this website. I was actually referring to Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, #12:

Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.

Khoi khoi 02:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems, another user also agree to my opinion ;) (see [1]). So let leave us the general discussion. I suggest following: I add the links and in case of doubt we can discuss the relevance of each link separately. Maybe some of them are not too useful at the moment, but some of them are more useful than many of the other existing links (e.g. take a look at Stavanger) --Pschrey 19:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try contributing instead of advertising? We're here to write an encyclopedia. Khoi khoi 06:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the point: An generall encyclopedia would become overcrowded, if we add informations about marinas, the availability of infrastructure, dangers for boats etc. I think, you can agree with that, that these aspects are OT for WP. --Pschrey 10:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion of the template is that it is deletable because it consists only of a single external link; my opinion of the external link has been the same as Khoikhoi's. Kimchi.sg 11:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a template to link specific articles within another website which are considered useful, not to promote a website. --Pschrey 12:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks. Khoi khoi 23:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please see User_talk:Khoikhoi#inappropriate_external_links.3F and please, let discuss it! --Pschrey 07:15, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your links

You asked why your links were innappropriate. Read WP:SPAM and WP:EL for the reasons, if you cant see why you fit the definition of a {{spa}} and your links spam then we can't really help you beyond what's written there.

As for your statement: "I'm not linking a wiki, I'm linking specific articles within the wiki (that's a difference! I'm not saying: hey, take a look at this cool wiki, but I'm linking to a page with additional informations)" Haha. You are linking to a template containing an external link. Ridiculous attempt at a justification.

I'm somewhat perplexed you arent blocked already, as I certainly would not have been so patient. But, I would not attempt to push the limits of your good-fortune. Glen 07:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glen, what is wrong with a link like that: http://www.skipperguide.com/wiki/Smögen ?

To clarify: the template earlier contained a parameter to link to a specific article within the wiki. (Was something like that: www.skipperguide.com/wiki/{{{1}}} where the {{{1}}} was replaced dynamically by a specific article.

Or did I missunderstood you completely? Which template did you mean? --Pschrey 07:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesnt matter what is on the template it contained an external link so it must comply with WP:EL. That is, unless the article is about your company/website/group specifically (ie; if you were John Kerry and we were discussing you linking to http://www.johnkerry.com ) then its unlikely we can add it, at least with your discussing it on the article's talk page with other editors. You cannot imagine howmany wikis there are in the world, how many info sites, how many organizations there are, all crying they they arent commercial links, and all arguing they have some info that may be helpful to our readers. Now, imagine if we added them all... chaos. Glen 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glen. Thank you for your answer! I agree with you, that not every link can be added. I also deliberate about adding a link. Of course I consider WP:EL. However, I haven't found a conflict with it, but I'm still open to discuss it.

But something different is happening here at the moment: I was blamed for spamming, maybe because of an misunderstanding at the beginning. And now it seems, I'm evil, and also everything I'm doing. It also seems, that it is not neccessary to take a look on the content of my doings, the "fact" that I'm evil is just enough to jugde my contributions. This is really not fair and - I think you can agree with me - annoying for me. --Pschrey 13:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Yes, see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, #12. Khoi khoi 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Khoikhoi, the difference between my links and the rule #12 is, that I never tried to link the wiki itself (e.g. to place a link at the article Sailing or Cruising). This would be spam and I agree completely to this.

But I've added links to content within the wiki. This content is useful, because there are additional informations. I can't see, that information is less worth because it is hosted on a wiki. Do you can follow this argumentation? What do you think? --Pschrey 19:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not sure what the big difference is between adding the link to the main page of the website and adding the link to the specific article in the website. It's still pretty clear advertising. If the content is useful, why can't you add it to Wikipedia? Khoi khoi 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A direct link to content is a link to additional information. A link to a wiki in general is unspecific and can be understood as advertising, because there is no befit for the reader. The history of different articles proves, that at least a few users consider the linked informations as useful.

To your point adding content: I can't just copy information editied by different users to WP. Further, the focus of this informations is beyond the scope of a general encyclopedia. --Pschrey 15:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Pschrey. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Pschrey~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

02:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC)