Talk:Papaver somniferum: Difference between revisions
Explanation of revert for external link unexpungement |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
== External links and such == |
== External links and such == |
||
I have to critique the last revert. Stated reason for reversion is "Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links." The linked to website [http://forum.opiophile.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36 Opiophile's Papaver somniferum Forum] as far as I can tell is quite NON-commercial. As for calling it a private website, it looks to be a source of public information as far as I can see. As for 'mere collection of external links', I see that the wikipedia [[encyclopedia]] article has a external link to shopperpedia which is little more than a wiki with links to a commercial vendor (zebo.com). The shopperpedia link neither bothers me nor offends me and neither does the opiophile.org link. The article [[External_links]] in its guidance on what sites *should* be linked to states '6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.' which I would say applies to this site. Originally this external link might qualify relative to guidance on what sites *should not* be link to per "2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.'. As someone who has never visited and is not associated with this site, I hereby choose to add said site back. It appears to be a useful and informational site covering a topic (opium) which the world is in great need of more information about (I'd rather people know about it, whether for ill or benefit). Thank you for your time. [[User:Thane Eichenauer|Thane Eichenauer]] 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC) |
I have to critique the last revert. Stated reason for reversion is "Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links." The linked to website [http://forum.opiophile.org/forumdisplay.php?f=36 Opiophile's Papaver somniferum Forum] as far as I can tell is quite NON-commercial. As for calling it a private website, it looks to be a source of public information as far as I can see. As for 'mere collection of external links', I see that the wikipedia [[encyclopedia]] article has a external link to shopperpedia which is little more than a wiki with links to a commercial vendor (zebo.com). The shopperpedia link neither bothers me nor offends me and neither does the opiophile.org link. The article [[External_links]] in its guidance on what sites *should* be linked to states '6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.' which I would say applies to this site. Originally this external link might qualify relative to guidance on what sites *should not* be link to per "2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.'. As someone who has never visited and is not associated with this site, I hereby choose to add said site back. It appears to be a useful and informational site covering a topic (opium) which the world is in great need of more information about (I'd rather people know about it, whether for ill or benefit). Thank you for your time. [[User:Thane Eichenauer|Thane Eichenauer]] 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC) |
||
== Assent == |
|||
I posted the original edit adding the site to the article and many other opiate related articles. I personally have yet to find a better site where there is an ongoing, open exchange about opiates. I have found more than several bits of information on that site that I couldn't have found anywhere else. Also, the site has deterred myself and many other users from the more dangerous methods of administration of certain opiates(ingesting the gel in a fentanyl patch, for example). Overall, I challenge someone to find a site at least as informative before reverting. |
|||
Revision as of 07:16, 7 December 2005
External links and such
I have to critique the last revert. Stated reason for reversion is "Please do not add commercial links — or links to your own private websites — to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links." The linked to website Opiophile's Papaver somniferum Forum as far as I can tell is quite NON-commercial. As for calling it a private website, it looks to be a source of public information as far as I can see. As for 'mere collection of external links', I see that the wikipedia encyclopedia article has a external link to shopperpedia which is little more than a wiki with links to a commercial vendor (zebo.com). The shopperpedia link neither bothers me nor offends me and neither does the opiophile.org link. The article External_links in its guidance on what sites *should* be linked to states '6. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as textbooks or reviews.' which I would say applies to this site. Originally this external link might qualify relative to guidance on what sites *should not* be link to per "2. Links that are added to promote a site, by the site operator or its affiliates. See External link spamming.'. As someone who has never visited and is not associated with this site, I hereby choose to add said site back. It appears to be a useful and informational site covering a topic (opium) which the world is in great need of more information about (I'd rather people know about it, whether for ill or benefit). Thank you for your time. Thane Eichenauer 06:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Assent
I posted the original edit adding the site to the article and many other opiate related articles. I personally have yet to find a better site where there is an ongoing, open exchange about opiates. I have found more than several bits of information on that site that I couldn't have found anywhere else. Also, the site has deterred myself and many other users from the more dangerous methods of administration of certain opiates(ingesting the gel in a fentanyl patch, for example). Overall, I challenge someone to find a site at least as informative before reverting.