User talk:Specialfriedrice

External Links

Please stop removing all of the external links in the various articles. These links are not spam, but rather links that contribute to the article. If you continue to do this, it will be considered vandalism, and you could possibly be banned from editing the Wikipedia. If you have any questions, please respond on my talk page. Thank you. Bratsche ^(talk) 05:54, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

After reviewing the guidelines for external links, I believe most of the links fall under the acceptable categories. They provide factual content and information, and are not overtly selling any products. Also, Wikipedia is not censored or protected for the use of minors. Please see What Wikipedia is not for more information. For adult users of the wikipedia, common sense dictates that if you click on a link located in an article entitled Pornography, odds are there might be objectable content. So, your edits have been reverted. One more note: when you are signing your name on talk pages, votes, etc. just use four tildas (~~~~) to automatically enter your username and time. To just add your name, type ~~~. It helps keep track of things here. I hope you continue to stay here and edit usefully. Thanks. Bratsche ^(talk) 06:09, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) --- Source of reply

No problem. I do agree with you that sometimes the links can get a little out of hand, with 10-15 links filling up the bottom of a two paragraph article. And don't worry about editing something like these links. We've got a little motto here: Be Bold!. Someone else can always change your edits if they're not right, or something. Oh, and may I suggest making a user page? It always looks nice, you can put some of your own personal, favorite stuff on it, and doesn't make your signature stand out red. Hope you stay around for a while ;> Cheers, Bratsche ^(talk) 06:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC) --- Source of reply

I also agree that most of the links you removed should stay in the articles. You should probably re-read the external link policy and see that it doesn't prohibit relevant external links. Sometimes links do need to be trimmed but deleting every link in an article is almost never the proper approach. Rhobite 06:40, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Those links are clear spam. Most do not even relate to the content of the page they are on and are full of ads. Exactly which external links that I removed do you think adds value to the end user? Specialfriedrice 06:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I removed a few redundant links from List of sex positions, but I think the rest are relevant to the topic. They have illustrative value which our article is unable to provide. There is no policy against linking to sites with ads on them. Rhobite 06:51, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

In this edit, you removed two US Patent links and a link to a newscientist.com story, but kept one showing false consequences of masturbation from 1844. I'd say there's something wrong with your logic. —Markaci 2005-03-18 T 06:52 Z

My logic was twofold. First, the link was bad (File not found). Second, it was almost totally unrelated to the content of the page. There millions of patents. What is the logic in including those? Specialfriedrice 07:01, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Full text is not available for this patent. Click on "Images" button above to view full patent. Did you click on the images button? The logic is that they are "Anti-Masturbation Patents," and the article is on Masturbation. Unless you want to start an article only on the false consequences of masturbation at Anti-masturbation, I think the US Patents should stay. They're very interesting contraptions. —Markaci 2005-03-18 T 07:15 Z

Regarding the newscientist link, IT IS A COMMERCIAL SITE AND THE ARTICLE IS FROM 2003. There are probably MILLIONS of similar articles that appeared in the news at one time or another. What is the logic in including this particular article? Clear spam. Wikipedia is not a repository of external links!! Specialfriedrice 07:04, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Again, there is no policy against linking to commercial sites, especially articles in respected magazines. Please don't make up Wikipedia rules. The masturbation/prostate cancer connection was covered heavily in the news at the time. I really can't see how any of your reasons justifies removing the link - Do you want to remove other news articles about things that happened two years ago? Hey the space shuttle Columbia disaster was over two years ago, let's just drop that out of Wikipedia. Rhobite 07:12, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

At this point there is one more rule you need to familiarize yourself with: the Wikipedia:Three revert rule. You are not allowed to revert an article more than three times in 24 hours. Please don't break this rule. Rhobite 07:17, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)