if external links are so bad why even allow any links why not just remove them all no we should not be linking to every chinese astrology site from wikipedia we all knows the spam policies isn't this what all spam police and all user responsibility to weed thourgh the links use a little common sense when using the linkfarms suggestion when there new spam entries per day and the links are hugh linkfarm suggestion may make sense when there are only a few links year you made a mistake admit it then recover your mistake do not cover your back with commonly supported excuse also instead of wasting my time proving all the links to the article's talk page why don't you spend sometime instead proving to all of us that this site has such a high spam activity that it warrant you using the linkfarms method question about why you deleted my link i posted a link to a non profit site with valuable information about a man who was wrongfully convicted of rape you deleted my edit saying i was a spammer i respectfully disagree this website would have saved kevin's life if he had had the information it contains and the makers of the site are dedicated to preventing this tragedy from happening to anyone else it should be available for wikipedia readers interested in these lagal issues so how do i go about putting it back up and maybe getting you to come down off of your high horse the preceding unsigned comment was added by see special contributions first off don't add the same link to over pages in minutes that looks really bad second wikipedia is not a collection of external links while he may have been subject to megan's law there are many such people and a link to every 'save so and so' page would dwarf the article finally stay civil insulting people is likely to make them more hostile to you talk to me ok that's all well and good but it's still within the wikipedia rules what does it matter how fast they were added or that if everyone did it what would happen i never insulted anyone but you sure seem to have taken this all to your head with deciding who should be included in these articles and who shouldn't and if you are sensitive about people being rude to you why delete their contributions are you doing it out of your hostile anger or is it an actual appreciation for the rules seems like the former based on your response again this link is a perfectly acceptable addition to the sites it was posted on both because of subject matter and pursuant to wikipedia rules i am going to repost them and if they get deleted again because of your opinion then i'll report it to wikipedia myself the preceding unsigned comment was added by talk contribs 'get off your high horse' seems like an insult to me and i'm not sensitive at all i've been called far worse things without batting an eye i just don't like it is all and people have easily been blocked for doing similar things before besides i'm being anything but hostile right now i'm trying to work this out with you and if you repost i will block you again if you want to complain about me you can do it at the administrator's noticeboard or request a rd opinion or go to the mediation cabal or bring it up on the talk page for the wikipedia counterspam effort this is probably the closest thing to 'reporting it to wikipedia' and the external link guidelines say that links whose subject is not directly related there are many people who other people believe were wrongfully convicted of rape why is this man and not john doe special talk to me oooh so that's what it's about i have to prove to you that something is special and get you to approve it first this is a public website and you're being way too controlling with this the external link i added conformed to the subject matter and to every wikipedia rule but you seem to not get that i'm within wikipedia