Forskel mellem versioner af "Brugerdiskussion:Billinghurst"

ingen redigeringsopsummering
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
{{unsigned[[Bruger:Miokatu|Miokatu}}]]
 
:{{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? {{unsigned[[Bruger:Miokatu|128.76.136.162}}Miokatu]]
 
::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]]
8

redigeringer