Dear Billinghurst, I am sorry but your last update in this site is faulty, because link to dmoz alternative is not useful, mostly website from this category are non-updated years and also some of the sites have closed. I think my update with link to translator.eu is right and useful and is not a spam. I appeal you take back my previously update.
Have a nice day
- You should see my actions as separate actions. DMOZ links generally should remain; they are what they are. Where a link is no longer relevant, then it should just be removed. Wikipedias are not link directories, that is the task of something like DMOZ. So why do you think that a link to a translation website belongs on an encyclopaedic article about dictionaries? To note that your previous linking at de:Wörterbuch der Banater deutschen Mundarten has also been removed. The linking to the site does not make sense. Billinghurst (diskuse) 14. 11. 2017, 23:42 (CET)
Wikipedia basically should help with information, and also with direct navigation to sites which are useful for the thema. I agree with you that my update on BANATER was wrong, indeed, I am sorry. But I dont agree with you that dmoz is useful link. I again repeat that these links are bad, old, not working and I ask you why link to anything what is bad ?? Link to translator.eu is direct link for service which help everyone, without many next clicks than your example alternative dmoz. I appreciate your work for wikipedia, I known that you manage many content, but in this case you dont have true.
- As I said above. If you think that DMOZ link is no longer useful and is problematic, then it is okay to remove it. Re translator.eu, I simply do not agree that adding a translation site is useful, and is not relevant to an article about dictionaries. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a link directory, nor a finding service. People can use bing or google, or ... to find those sites. Billinghurst (diskuse) 15. 11. 2017, 11:14 (CET)
- MaZec what quality and authoritative information is at that site? This is an encyclopaedia for quality links that enhance the article and brings greater understanding and knowledge. The site that you linked multiple times has no clear authority nor value, they are just directory type links. What makes that site reliable, or those links any better or worse than others, or someone running a search at Google. Billinghurst (diskuse) 23. 9. 2020, 13:22 (CEST)
Hi i am working on one of the most trusted publisher in Czech republic - Mlada fronta https://www.mf.cz/ . These links are to Movie reviews created by our redactors. You can verify my words. If you give me your email i will send you my Linked IN link. And also It is not directory type links they are direct to the articles/movie reviews. Please just please be fair and check those changes again.. I did review links in the past also and some links were broken so i repaired them. So i added after new links. I will respect your decision. Thank you
But the movie reviews section is allowed. Do you understand that links are not in section Links but in section Reviews? I do not understand if I fill that information correctly why is that wrong. And i am not paid editor. I do not actually work with redactors i am backend PHP developer :). So i am not paid for that. I just love movies and i know where to find reviews. And one more thing i added reviews to movies even before i was in MF.cz so i believe you will be fair and you will check that is true. So it is really not what you said. And i can prove it 1) the past changes i did and i you can check my linked in profile. -- Tento nepodepsaný komentář přidal(a) uživatel(ka) MaZec (diskuse)