Talk:Web template/Archive 1

message: Thanks to GraemeL english fast revision. krauss 11 Apr 2006.
=== Not link spam? ===
I find the recent edits by GraemeL to be somewhat troubling.  I have added the link "Free Layouts.com (http://www.freelayouts.com) to "open source templates" section of this article a number of times.  However, each time, GraemeL reverts this edit.  My website, Free Layouts.com, offers over 700 web templates free for download (with no catch whatsoever).  The website does not have popups (it never has), and it has two spots, clearled labeled for advertisements.  These advertisements pay for the close to terabyte bandwidth fees my site pays each month to offer these free layouts.  I do not, under any circumstances, sell templates from this website.  
The other websites listed in this section use the same exact advertising platform (Google Ads) more specifically:
http://www.oswd.org/ - Also uses Google Ads
http://openwebdesign.org/ - Also uses Google Ads
Furthermore, a recent website has been added to this page, whose edit GraemeL has not reverted.  I added my website again after this website, but my edit was reverted and his was not.  The website is:
Freeprotemplates.com
Now, freeprotemplates.com forwards to TemplateMonster.com (at least in this article link), which offers absolutely no free web templates.  All of their templates are for a fee, and therefore it should not be included in this section whatsoever.  Yet it appears as though GraemeL did not pay any attention to this website, and simply saw my free website and removed it.
I do not know what standards GraemeL considers for 'free and "open-source" source', but removing links from a free template provider and not bothering to remove what is clearly an advertisement for a pay-for-template service is, as I said, somewhat troubling.  I applaud him, though, in ignoring what is clearly link spam, and going straight for the free resources in his reversions.  I guess that's why his "This user is a novice spam fighter." is still at level 1. --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I congratulate GraemeL by removing the entire link section to deal with the "link spam" of free, resourceful websites.  Maybe if we can do this for every article, the issue of link spam will have been solved.  Oh wait... --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etc. comments 

message: I find the recent edits by GraemeL to be somewhat troubling.  I have added the link "Free Layouts.com (http://www.freelayouts.com) to "open source templates" section of this article a number of times.  However, each time, GraemeL reverts this edit.  My website, Free Layouts.com, offers over 700 web templates free for download (with no catch whatsoever).  The website does not have popups (it never has), and it has two spots, clearled labeled for advertisements.  These advertisements pay for the close to terabyte bandwidth fees my site pays each month to offer these free layouts.  I do not, under any circumstances, sell templates from this website.  
The other websites listed in this section use the same exact advertising platform (Google Ads) more specifically:
http://www.oswd.org/ - Also uses Google Ads
http://openwebdesign.org/ - Also uses Google Ads
Furthermore, a recent website has been added to this page, whose edit GraemeL has not reverted.  I added my website again after this website, but my edit was reverted and his was not.  The website is:
Freeprotemplates.com
Now, freeprotemplates.com forwards to TemplateMonster.com (at least in this article link), which offers absolutely no free web templates.  All of their templates are for a fee, and therefore it should not be included in this section whatsoever.  Yet it appears as though GraemeL did not pay any attention to this website, and simply saw my free website and removed it.
I do not know what standards GraemeL considers for 'free and "open-source" source', but removing links from a free template provider and not bothering to remove what is clearly an advertisement for a pay-for-template service is, as I said, somewhat troubling.  I applaud him, though, in ignoring what is clearly link spam, and going straight for the free resources in his reversions.  I guess that's why his "This user is a novice spam fighter." is still at level 1. --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I congratulate GraemeL by removing the entire link section to deal with the "link spam" of free, resourceful websites.  Maybe if we can do this for every article, the issue of link spam will have been solved.  Oh wait... --68.192.129.81 00:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not link spam? 

message: Someone added in the "open source template" links again and I reverted again, and wanted to explain why. This wasn't a judgment on the links--though I tend to be on GraemeL's side on these things, I was just fixing the formatting. I reverted because that edit introduced a backslash in front of every apostrophe and quote mark. It looked like some text editor or script was trying to escape everything, which totally murdered the page formatting. Rather than pick through the whole article I just reverted, without prejudice if the editor wants to try again. Please watch the backslashes, thogh. No guarantee that it won't be reverted again as spam, of course. · rodii · 01:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted again