User talk:Rickd2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 20:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You will see if you read the article's talk page which you have pointed me to that the link in question, and the other link entitled "Prisoner Appreciation Society", was discussed at length some time ago. It was agreed that either both links, or neither, should be added to the article rather than one or the other. As one link has been re-added recently, and I was threatened with action if I kept removing it (despite the earlier agreement on the talk page), I felt it fair to add the second one. I fail to see which of your guidelines means the link I added cannot be added, as it is just a balance for the first link. IE if one fails the guidelines, so must the other, as both just give 2 sides to a single story. I look forward to your reply.

I think you are leaving out the fact that you have been warned before that what you are adding is an attack site and not a valid reference. As that seems to be your only purpose here...this is your last warning. Add it again and you will be blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 09:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no need to be so threatening, i'm trying to avoid arguments not cause them. Have you read the talk page and are you now stating that the agreement previously reached not to include either link was invalid and that the page in question is under the juristiction of only yourself personally? And do I now take it in writing that what you have stated is Wikipedia policy? I also ask again which of your guidelines the link does not comply with as it is not an "attack site" as you state, but a site providing legally-checked information for fans of The Prisoner TV series. As you have seen, messing with the links only causes arguments on wiki, the very thing I am trying to avoid.

You are being less than completely honest: in 2004 two people discussed what to do about the two links and decided that keeping both would be the easiest solution. That isn't consensus. That is two people three years ago. You clearly have an agenda and that is your entire purpose here. IrishGuy ^talk 19:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

You should add "in my opinion" as you have no proof of such. My agenda is only to present accurate information to Prisoner fans. You are also being less than honest as the agreement was not to include either link, not to include both. You have not answered my questions so I shall consider taking the matter to a different mod as you are not being at all helpful. May I ask your qualifications in terms of knowing about The Prisoner series, its sources of information etc?

Also, is one person (IE you) more of a consensus than 2+ people in 2004?

I am being less than honest? How about ""Both" sounds like the way to go, to me." followed by "Done". That seems pretty clear. It isn't just me as you well know. It isn't just "my opinion" what your motives are. It was clear when you edited as 86.149.192.133 and it remains clear with this account. IrishGuy ^talk 20:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - you are right in that both was agreed upon. I will ask you again my questions which you seem to refuse to answer though: What guidelines does the 2nd link break? What qualifies you as a "Prisoner" expert? Why is your opinion more important than both mine and the previous discussion on the talk page? It seems that you have an agenda. My motive is to provide balance and the fullest of information for Prisoner fans, you only want 1 "side". Why is that I wonder? I look forward to your answers.

The article is about The Prisoner. The website isn't. It is about (attacking, really) a Prisoner society. Very different. The article isn't about the Prisoner appreciation society and therefore a link to a website attacking the society isn't relevant. IrishGuy ^talk 21:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

And you have seemlessly backed up my argument. The link to the Society you state must stand (on what authority?) isn't about The Prisoner, it is about the Society. Thus you have one link about a Society which contains very little information about The Prisoner (and asks people to send them money), and you have one which does the same but doesn't ask for money. How interesting you wish to have one link over the other. Thanks for not answering my other questions, to quote a line from The Prisoner "the fact that you can't explain, explains everything".

Except...not at all. The website you want to link to has no Prisoner information at all. None. It simply attacks the appreciation society. The website for the appreciation society, however, does have information about the program. Enough to warrant inclusion? Well, that is a topic for the article talk page. As for the rest, I didn't answer because I generally ignore baseless paranoid accusations. IrishGuy ^talk 22:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect in that case why have you not taken part in a discussion on the talk page about the link you will ban me for if I add it rather than just enforce your own personal opinion on the matter? You are being hypocritical - if you feel the 2nd link is not worthy of inclusion, you shouldn't remove it, you should discuss it with other people on the talk page, as you are saying I should do with the 1st.

Regarding the Prisoner content, if this is the whole nub of your argument i'm sure a huge amount of additional Prisoner information could be added thus meaning the link would be allowed? Thanks, that seems like a good idea to me aswell.

I haven't made any accusations, I asked some polite questions which are, incase you missed them; 'what qualifies you as an "expert" on The Prisoner so much so as to moderate that page without, it seems, any agreement from other "Prisoner peers"' (fair enough question to which the answer I assume is "none"), and 'why your opinion you deem to be more important than what was "agreed" (regardless of when and who by, everyone's opinion is valid on wiki as long as it has merit or accuracy) on the talk page?'

These aren't accusations, they are polite questions. I also do not appreciate the personal remarks you have made towards me personally, speaking of "agendas" and such like.

As you noted, you have the ability to alter the content of that website. That means you have a conflict of interest in adding it. Ergo, you have an agenda. IrishGuy ^talk 01:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Your website wasn't in the article until you began removing the other link with your IP and then adding in your own link with this account. That is a single purpose account which denotes you have a personal agenda. Please read WP:COI and stop attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your own agenda. IrishGuy ^talk 01:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You really need to do your research. There is a talk page for my IP address which I didn't know about at first so then set up an account so I wasn't speaking anonymously, or aren't people allowed to set up new accounts anymore to answer questions put to them? The SPA page states: "This can be perfectly innocent, or it can represent a user pushing an agenda". I don't know what problems you have had in the past, but it would be nice if you could treat users such as myself with some respect, as many of us invluding me fall into the first category of that quote. In future you may be advised to use the talk page to discuss links, other users are entitled to their opinion on what is a valid addition to the article, it is not down to 1 individual who clearly has some sort of axe to grind.

Can I also ask, to save me looking it up, where I should go if I have a complaint about unfair treatment regarding accusations from other wikipedians including the posting of libel within the encyclopedia (IE this page)? Thanks.

By the way, don't you think the PAS link which someone keeps adding falls under the following, a rule I believe you have quoted others in the past? Just wondering: Per WP:SPAM: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. IrishGuy ^talk 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. Thank you for pointing out that continually re-adding the PAS link people keep re-adding is against wikipedia policy. I shall be reporting these and your actions to the appropriate people in due course. Thanks again. Rickd2007 (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, you are the one who is spamming. Please stop. IrishGuy ^talk 03:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I am only working by wiki guidelines, I posted a link twice which was removed. That's it. Your obtuseness, posting of libel, and working against wiki guidelines by continually re-adding the PAS link has been noted and will be reported. Thanks for your time.Rickd2007 (talk) 14:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)