User talk:Shuim

Rich Dad, Poor Dad

I am not going to add the links deemed linkspam for the time being. (Reed's link and Kiyosaki's rebuttal), but I disagree with their categorization as linkspam. I understand that there are links for advertisement on these pages, but I still think it is useful information. If you notice, many users agree, trying to add this information.

It is permissable to use sites with advertisements, such as cnn, as sources, so why not a site that has links to products to make?

The primary purpose of Reed's site is Kiyosaki and Rich Dad, Poor Dad, and not selling products.

Indeed, wikipedia currently has a donation icon when you access the site. Isn't this a link to raise money for the site, and thus linkspam in the same way reed has links that potentially give him money? Should wikipedia be banned as linkspam?

I understand that you didn't create the rule on linkspam, but as you are a linkspam fighter according to your profile page and you delete most of the "linkspam" on rich dad, poor dad, I am addressing my concerns to you. OneWorld22 22:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one more thing. The Rich Dad, Poor Dad site has links to "Reviews" at sites like Barnes and Noble and Woopidoo, which are booksellers. If this isn't an attempt to sell the book, I don't know what is...... Again, I feel the deletion of Reed because of classification as "linkspam" is arbitrary, as wikipedia sites could be defined as linkspam as well.OneWorld22 22:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

non-bias

I understand the concern about non-bias. I also think that Kiyosaki's rebuttal should be posted as well, so that readers can see both sides of the issue, but I believe the rebuttal is also considered linkspam as well.

I would be curious to find out what you think about the issues I raised above as well, if you would. OneWorld22 02:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm non bias to those points. I'm only interested in adding relevant information. not using wikipedia for personal attacks against people who are my competitors. That website is clearly a competitor of yours (or your friend). Since you are adamant about getting that link, you are clearly related to the website.

"since you are so adamant about getting that link, you are clearly related to the website". Hmm. This sounds kind of wrong. Since you are so adamant about removing that link, you are clearly related to the website. Cheers! Almkglor 12:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other websites that you could add but since you have added that website on a few different pages in wikipedia, you are clearly trying to get it anywhere within wikipedia in order to improve its search engine results. Shuim 12:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a student, I have nothing to do with Rich Dad, Poor Dad or its competitors. I looked for alternative sites that had similar criticisms of Kiyosaki, and found none that were as extensive. I am not the only one that feels it is relevant- many other users have tried to add the information as they too feel it is valid. However, I recognize the ruling about linkspam, so I will not attempt to add the link as long as it is considered linkspam. My only motive is to allow people to educate themselves about a major figure of controversial competance. OneWorld22 22:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capone and the BBB

Response at Talk:Better Business Bureau. --CliffC 16:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]