Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rachel Bilson. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 16:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- Coolspotters.com is not an encyclopedic reference, nor is it considered anything but an advert for those products mentioned. Hence, it shouldn't be included in any Wikipedia articles. --Mhking (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- As far as I can determine, the site you mention (coolspotters.com), does not meet the standard set for verifiability (see WP:QS) established for sources on Wikipedia articles. In addition, just because there is a link to one site does not automatically permit inclusion of another site. What makes coolspotters anything more than an advert or blog site, and by extension, what makes it worth inclusion in Wikipedia (finally, what does it add to the Bilson article you're trying to link to)? --Mhking (talk) 22:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
- People Magazine is a well-known, established publication, and is recognized as a verifiable source. Coolspotters is not, it appears to be a fan-driven, user-created content site, without any sort of verifiability. In addition, it appears only to promote the products mentioned. As such, it is not a verifiable source for Wikipedia. --Mhking (talk) 22:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
External links
I would suggest you review the guidelines for external links regarding what is valid and what is not within an article. That being said, keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a repository for links. There should be a reason and a purpose behind a particular link appearing. As I said yesterday, Coolspotters is not one that would fall within that guideline. --Mhking (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)