User talk:Temperaturelane

Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Thermowell. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you. Bdc101 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Thermowell, you may be blocked from editing. Please see WP:ELNO for a guide to what external links are acceptable.Bdc101 (talk) 20:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why the reference was not objective prose. I linked to a free thermowell software that applies the pertinent standard that is the only of its kind of which I am aware. You linked to a website that posts ads for manufacturers of the product called temperatures.com -- what gives?

Nobody comes to the Wikipedia thermowell page to learn how to design thermowells. They visit the page to learn what a thermowell is. The free app you are offering is from a site that exists primarily to sell products, thus the link falls under WP:ELNO "normally to be avoided" #5. I did not add temperatures.com, but I did not remove it because its primary purpose is education. If you're really that broken up about it, remove it. Bdc101 (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Bdc101,

Thank you for the opportunity to engage in a dialog about my posted links and your deletions of same.

I do respectfully disagree with your conclusion and would like to explain my reasoning in reaching a different one. There are two considerations in particular that I would like to make that I hope you will consider before responding. After you have had a chance to consider my point of view I would appreciate hearing your thoughts as to how we can best reach a mutually acceptable accommodation.

First, the wikipedia rule you reference as a basis for deletion of the links says that one should normally avoid "webpages that exist primarily to sell products or services", not "websites". Your post expressing your reasoning emphasized "site" content while the rule you cited expressly limited itself to "page" content. I believe this distinction makes a difference.

For example, while the temperatures.com website currently linked exists solely to promote manufacturers and sellers of thermowells and related products, that is not the focus of the temperatures.com page linked. That page is dedicated to describing thermowells and so it is acceptable.

Similarly, the pages I linked were not primarily devoted to promoting a service or product, although other portions of that website are so inclined. One page described common thermowell characteristics at length. The other provided additional detail on a thermowell design standard and a free (i.e. not for sale) software application applying that product.

In a nutshell, my reasoning on this point is that we should be looking at page content, not site content. Since the pages themselves that I linked did not "exist primarily to sell products or services" but rather to provide a cost free source of information they pass muster under rule 5 and should be permitted to stand undeleted.

Second, I believe that the link to the free software provides a unique resource. There is no other place on the web that I am aware of where a person can find a software application applying the ASME PTC 19.3 TW (2010) standard. In my experience that is not a "normal" situation. If you can find a site providing a similar offering that does not maintain a commercial purpose linked to the sale of thermowells, then I would be more likely inclined to agree that this is in fact a "normal" situation.

But if you search and can't find such a link, I respectfully ask that you consider that the linked information adds significant content that is very relevant to a tyro I&C engineer trying to learn about a product they might have spent 30 minutes on 5 years ago, 10 yrs ago or more in school or anyone else with a sincere interest in learning about this product.

You expressed the opinion that nobody comes to wikipedia to learn about thermowell design. I respectfully disagree. I know that on numerous occasions I myself have learned quite a lot about the design of numerous subjects by reviewing wikipedia articles, especially where the subject matter is in an area where I have little familiarity. The HRSG wikipedia article springs immediately to mind as one that I used for this purpose.

If you have gotten this far, thank you very much for reading my thoughts on the subject. I look forward to hearing your response and hope you have a good weekend.

I understand your point of view. I also visit WP to learn about technologies and devices that I don't use but am exposed too.

If you read the next header under WP:ELNO, under "advertising and conflicts of interest," "...you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." Since you are a new user and haven't edited any articles except to add this tool to the Thermowell, it certainly appears that you have something to do with the tool and/or the company that distributes it. This is a common occurrence on WP and I'm fairly quick to remove links like this.

Under WP:ELYES, links are "to be considered" if they "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject." I can understand how your tool would be useful, but WP is an encyclopedia, and your tool is a very specific tool that, while it has use, doesn't help you understand what a Thermowell is. I left temperatures.com in because it might be considered a "well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations" which is also acceptable under WP:ELMAYBE

If you are not involved with the company that distributes the tool, you should start a discussion on the talk page and look for a consensus among editors. That would be my first step. Thanks for starting a discussion instead of just continuing to add the link back. From our discussion it's clear that this link could possibly be acceptable, but I believe more consensus is required before it's re-added. Bdc101 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Thermowell has been reverted.
Your edit here to Thermowell was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx6PohilM3g&feature=channel_video_title) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file, or consider linking to the original.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2012 (UTC)