Please stop vandalising wikipedia. We have repeatedly requested that this link be taken off and discussed before re-adding, but you continue to add it again and again. Please go to the talk page and state your specific reasons for adding it before you add it again. Ahudson 16:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The 5 external origami links shown on the Wikipedia website, all have commercial interests. They make money ! At this point in time, I do not make any money from my Einstein Origami website. I think I should be allowed to include my Einstein's Origami site as an external link on the Wikipedia site. - Rick Nordal January 19, 2007 5:49:25 PDT
- Their primary intrest is not in making money, but in supporting their organization. And besides, they are very useful and commonly accessed sites for official organizations; your site uses almost no standard terminology, is a personal website that provides very little information on origami as an art form, and is frankly rather unremarkable. Even still, posting your own website on an article is considered a conflict of intrest, something to be avoided. Ahudson 00:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
~
- Rick, it might help if you could explain what exactly it is that your site contributes to a better understanding of origami. I'm not being snide here, but asking for help in understanding what it has to offer to the article (and no, I don't want to take the time to go through your site to find out what it is that you feel is important). External links should materially contribute to a better understanding of the subject. Does the site explain something about origami that is not covered in the article in a way that you would normally expect to find in an encyclopedia article or is it something you think is really near but which is probably not central to understanding the topic? Simply stating that it has information not found elsewhere is insufficient jusification since the same claim could be made about many sites that are otherwise unremarkable. My feeling is that you could probably contribute greatly to the article on origami if you see it as something that exists for its own purposes, and not as a promotion for other resources.
- I have a similar conflict on an article I edit: one of the main sources is a work I am responsible for. Because of that reason I have refrained from fully expanding the references in the Wikipedia article and have specifically asked others to fill it in with sources for which I am not responsible so that I can't sway the article in a way that would benefit me personally in any way. --Fenevad 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)