Billinghurst
Medlem siden 7. februar 2010
Content deleted Content added
→Tilbagerulning af Au Pair dansk side: by you, none of them |
Miokatu (diskussion | bidrag) No edit summary |
||
Linje 14:
Hvis hvis nedenstående links er tilladt, selvom de ikke er opdaterede, så kan jeg ikke se grunden hvorfor min side med opdateret info må ikke være oplyst!
www.aupair.com, greataupair.com, aupairworld.com
:{{ping|Miokatu}} It is never better to have spam / unreliable commercial links and what appears to be an undeclared conflict of interest or paid editing. Please read the local direction about fixing [[Wikipedia:Artikler med døde eksterne henvisninger|dead links]], it is NOT how you are undertaking your edits. If you need assistance, then please ask at [[Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden]]. [[Bruger:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Billinghurst|diskussion]]) 11. jul 2020, 09:57 (CEST)
:{{ping|Billinghurst}} Who decides what type of link it is? Are these: aupair.com, greataupair.com, aupairworld.com - reliable to be listed on wiki? Why no one removes them?
::I would have said that none of them are reliable, especially in the hands of someone with a conflict of interest; read [[Hjælp:Kilder/Pålidelige kilder]]. Talk to the community at [[Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden]] [[Bruger:Billinghurst|Billinghurst]] ([[Brugerdiskussion:Billinghurst|diskussion]]) 14. jul 2020, 00:16 (CEST)
:::{{ping|Billinghurst}} Yet still you don't remove those for some reason! In the [[Hjælp:Kilder/Pålidelige kilder]] it says: ''Eksempler på kilder som ikke er egnede: Ugeblade, Private hjemmesider, blogs, osv, hvor forfatteren og vedkommendes faglige baggrund er ukendt.'' So I was right when I deleted 404 link to a newspaper article, but you revert my changes (specifying that I may not delete the links I deleted), on what purpose? Please explain your decision of making choice of what unreliable sources may be published (even they are dead) and what may not! [[Bruger:Miokatu|Miokatu]]
| |||