Getting links from Wikipedia

[Georgia Poker]

I don't get it. I realize you're dealing with PEOPLE here but this is BS.

I've tried a few times to get a link back on the Mike Matusow page on Wikipedia xxhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Matusow

It keeps getting removed and the editor tells me I have to many poker ads on the site. Here's my contention:

1. They are ALL text links, no banners.
2. Hendon Mob has more banners than me, as does Shirley's page at pokerbabes.com. PokerListings has a spot there too and we know how much advertising is there. They are ALL listed on Wiki.
3. My blog has 71 entries with FAR FAR more content than any other Mike Matusow resource on the PLANET.

I'm seriously starting to think I just need to offer the editor a friggin bribe...

Anyone else have similar experiences or any words of advice?

[Bryan]

You didn't already know that wikipedia is even more corrupt than DMOZ?

That whole operation is a scam! Just ask Mark Cuban.

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/08/...-is-your-wiki/

And this is simply one example. There have been numerous times for many different people.

Just like DMOZ. You're GOD if you become an editor.

Bryan

[hoursurfing]

I've noticed the same thing. I'll put a a much better page listed than what is currently there and it will get removed. Then I'll submit one to a different article that I think will probably get removed and it stays.

[mikebrad]

Just ask Mark Cuban

That was damn near libelous.

[PPP]

You keep trying to add something that is exactly against their rules: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to..."

There is no "corruption" in removing an inappropriate link repeatedly submitted. Maybe the "no blogs" rule is stupid, but it exists.

[Georgia Poker]

Originally Posted by PPP

You keep trying to add something that is exactly against their rules: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to..."

There is no "corruption" in removing an inappropriate link repeatedly submitted. Maybe the "no blogs" rule is stupid, but it exists.

Understood but the key word here is "generally". The bottom line is that it's an informational blog with more Matusow content than any other source. The fact that they link to lasvegasvegas and PokerListings (regardless of content) nullifies his argument that my site has too many poker ads. He never mentioned anything about it being a blog, he's using the "poker ad" argument and it simply doesn't fly.

Draw your own conclusion.

[PPP]

Your blog has been removed looks like a half dozen times because it is a blog and because you keep adding your own site. It is a blog AND a fansite AND you add it yourself. That's a trifecta of things against the rules. Ads obviously have nothing to do with it.

===

Again, the rule against blogs may be a bad one, but it is clear. If you were to want a Wikipedia listing for some reason, just spring for the $10 a month to host a website and call it "news" not a "blog".

[adioking]

In your defense Georgia, they've removed my links many times saying that its a "spam" link, when it truly does have content perfect for any of the articles there. I agree that there are problems with the Wiki.

[Kellermann]

Solution: lobbyism for $$$.