Talk:Gina Marks

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Gina Marks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100603213539/http://www.seminolesheriff.org:80/en-us/advisories/transient_offenders/reports/trav550.html to http://www.seminolesheriff.org/en-us/advisories/transient_offenders/reports/trav550.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Numerous wikilinks seem to have been copy-and-pasted to the "See also" sections of various pages despite not having any particular relevance. I have removed several links from the "See also" section that did not have any direct relevance to the article subject other than to implicitly disparage the article subject, which would be a violation of the WP:BLP policy against unsourced content. Some were also redundant with wikilinks already in the article. I believe that that the remaining links should be removed if they are not relevant either. WP:SEEALSO says that "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number." I do not think that lists of other mediums are relevant enough without some actual connection, or else any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: @Wallyfromdilbert: You are going way overboard on the medium articles you are removing material. The MOS states: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics..." I maintain that the bios of other mediums and articles covering the general topic are, for certain, tangentially related. RobP (talk) 03:06, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop restoring unsourced BLP violations. Regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:26, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Claiming See also links are "unsourced BLP violations" is nonsense. What is unsourced? Be specific. I am following the guideline as I stated. Seems pretty clear. Let me repeat it from the  MOS on See also: "One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. That's what these are. If any are not tangentially related, explain. RobP (talk) 03:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: How are you claiming the links in the "see also" section are not unsourced? Also, regarding wikilinks to other mediums, under your interpretation, any biography could have dozens of "see also" entries based purely on their profession. Can you explain how that would make sense as a guideline? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 03:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links in "See also" section