`  :pasting the following comments from:     Not really. I suspect the problem is that external links are generaly meant to go at the end of the article.  ::They were for example and use.   :::examples are better surved by links to articles. The use bit runs into some stuff a WP:NOT.  :Your edit to include direct links to external sites seems redundant given the List of web directories link already in the article.    I spend a fair bit of time doing this sort of ``cleanup``articles on software-related subjects in particular are magnets for spam or just gratuitous mentions for the purpose of raising pagerank. So some practical guidelines have emerged independently on a number of articles.  *External links should go in the external links section. *External links shouldn't multiply beyond necessity (i.e., beyond the point necessary to clarify or minimally exemplify the content of the articlesany more and you get into web directory territory, and then everybody with a site to push says ``well, if site X is there, my site has a right to be there as well.``) *Sites linked to should preferably pass general Wikipedia notability guidelinesthat means wikilinks are preferred so there is at least a quality control process in place (look at, say Comparison of content management systems for a place where that idea has broken down, however). So a lot of what I do is pruning external links and redlinks from articles, looking for spam, SEO, self-promotion, registration-only sites that turn into sales pitches, disguised google ad sites, etc., sometimes very deviously salted among large lists of legitimate sites. Figuring out which are the quality links and which aren't is a tedious process, and involves some personal judgment and inevitably some mistakes, no doubt. In this particular case, the judgment would have been easy, thoughlegit or not, those links were in the wrong place, and a couple wikilinks (maybe Google and Yahoo) would have done the trickbut oh, wait, those, and more were already in the article. As an aside, please go easy on accusations of vandalism. Vandalism doesn't mean ``an edit that makes me mad.`` Good faith edits are never vandalism.·· `