Misplaced Pages

:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:External links Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:02, 19 March 2011 editBittergrey (talk | contribs)2,596 edits →Paraphilic infantilism: reposting comment deleted without permission← Previous edit Latest revision as of 06:40, 24 December 2024 edit undoMusikBot II (talk | contribs)Bots, Interface administrators, Administrators102,794 editsm Removing protection templates from unprotected page (more info) 
Line 1: Line 1:
] ]
] ]
] ]
{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}}
{{/Header}} {{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 7 |counter = 23
|algo = old(10d) |algo = old(6d)
|minthreadsleft=8
|archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->
}}


== Bot? Sock? Farm? ==
__TOC__ __NEWSECTIONLINK__
<!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->


As I've said over at ]...
== Paraphilic infantilism ==
{{divhide|Closed, as all issues related to external links have been resolved}}
At ] I two links on the basis of ] points 2, 4, 10, 11. The two links were to a personal website about (so ELNO 2, 4 and 11) and an (ELNO 10). In the talk page archives there is a discussion involving three editors which seemed to support my removal (]). Currently the edits are being discussed on the talk page (]), but since there are only 2 editors I thought I'd bring it up here for further input. I also removed some books from the further reading section and that edit is also being discussed in the same talk page section, obviously that material is not relevant to this page. The editor advocating for the inclusion of a link has stated that he also operates the site . ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.
:Actually, three editors are involved, the third being WhatamIdoing. The deletions follow about an hour after that last round in an exchange. A summary of how that started is I had hoped that they could let it go, instead of spreading the issue to other forums. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding. ] (]) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{tl|cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.
::I honestly don't see how removing your latest comment on my user talk page could possibly have anything to do with a dispute over external links at an article that I've never read, much less edited. ] (]) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:::The archive section I linked to does not have WhatamIdoing as a contributor. I didn't mention or link to the issues on the talk pages for WAID and the COI essay because I see them as completely unrelated to the removal of an external link on a mainspace page. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. ] (]) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::(This weekend) I was mentioned by name when WLU re-raised the Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) issue on WhatamIdoing's talk page, after "nuking" all discussions on the essay talk page. ] is an article that I've contributed text and references to, and I maintain http://understanding.infantilism.org/ . As a result, it was unsurprising when WLU suddenly turned his attentions to that article, starting with the external links. Next came the removal of text and obfuscation of the references . WhatamIdoing was directly involved in the issue at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) and, not suprisingly, its continuation on her talk page. (She is correct in that she hasn't been directly involved in the effects of this issue on paraphilic infantilism yet.) ] (]) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
::::(2009) Since WLU included the two-year-old discussion, I'll explain the context for that too: It actually follows the second of three waves of deletions. There was a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology about multiple external links that James cantor was adding under a conflict of interest. On 17 July 2009, he similarly started deleting , even violating 3RR.
:I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @], ], ], any thoughts on how to detect this? ] (]) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


*{{spamlink|poolremovalorlando.com}}
::::That editor's conflicts eventually did catch up with him. WhatamIdoing advocated for him, and in the end was his sole supporter. The claim that "James Cantor, a world-class expert ... chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors" was included in the post by WhatamIdoing that became Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine). This essay included some pro-doctor, anti-activist, anti-patient bias that I objected to. This gave rise to the recent conflict at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) which, which WLU moved to WhatamIdoing's talk page, where it continued until shortly (under two hours) before WLU started raising issues with the paraphilic_infantilism article. This clearly isn't coincidental.
*{{spamlink|fittingdeals.com}}
*{{spamlink|agencja-celna.co.uk}}


Found one more account.
::::(For clarity, it should be noted that while WhatamIdoing's advocacy of James Cantor was involved the conflict that caused this weekend's wave of deletions, James Cantor himself has not.)
*{{UserSummary|Dutsono}}


The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.
::::That editor wasn't disciplined for his 2009 deletions. However, that history became part of a documented pattern of incivility. The same will probably happen regarding this round, although it might take a year or two. ] (]) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


See also ]. ] 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::BitterGrey, the ] is not an appropriate place to be ]. If you believe that removing a personal website and an Internet chat room from a Misplaced Pages article constitutes harassment, then please take your complaint to ANI.
:::::In the meantime, perhaps you would stop posting your allegations of a conspiracy against you until the editors here have had a day or two to review the disputed websites and offer their opinions. ] (]) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


:Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw by {{user links|Drutohishab}} which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? ] (]) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
So this link http://understanding.infantilism.org/ is contested based on three ] criteria. Lets discuss these one at the time and see if the complaint is valid:
* ELNO 2 is about sites that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Looking through to that website I see numerous citations and nothing which seems obviously inaccurate. Can you please provide specific examples of how the site meets this criteria, because I do not see it.
* ELNO 4 is about "Links mainly intended to promote a website". This particular links has been in that article for years and is used only a few related pages within the topic area. The fact that one of the users in this debate has admitted to have a COI with regards to this link does not mean it should automatically be removed as linkspam.
* ELNO 11 is about "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" This criteria is written very restrictive, but this page does indeed seem to fall under "personal webpage". Then again, I doubt any recognized authorities exist who are publically affiliated with this fetish.
So to sum up, I don't see ELNO 2, ELNO 4 accusation is ridiculous and ELNO 11 applies. However, a case can be made for inclusion on ] 4. What it all comes down to in the end are is the following: Is this link an improvement to the article? I am slightly leaning towards yes. The forum link should be removed, that one is quite straightforward. '''Yoenit''' (]) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
:(To interject, I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link.) ] (]) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
::It's a personal webpage and not by a scholar on the topic as I know it, ergo its reliability is untrustworthy and I am uncomfortable with deciding on personal webpages based on the ability of editors to decide whether or not it accurately represents the sources. In my opinion this argues against ELYES since the knowledgability of the material essentially comes down to "trust me, I'm a member". The page on also makes it clear that this is very much an advocacy site. Essentially by including it, wikipedia gives it's "stamp of approval" to whatever the website maintainer considers an appropriate bit of information. I have no problem with paraphilic infantilism, people can do what they want, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the standards for ELs should be high.
::The link was added by ] in . Before that, I'm not sure it was ever actually incorporated (I looked a bit and couldn't find a previous inclusion but I may simply have missed it and if someone can demonstrate it was added earlier and stayed on the page for a long time then great). In addition, in my experience longevity is rarely a reason to keep a link, an edit or an inappropriate source - particularly on a page that isn't likely to be high traffic.
::Note that I'm not advocating for the link to be removed based on COI and as BG says it's never been added by him, it's just context for the discussion. I didn't even initially include the information in my posting. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Bittergrey, note that you are permitted to make your case for inclusion of the link per ] or ]. Having a COI means that other editors take your case with a grain of salt, not that you can't argue it. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Actually, I was more hoping they would visit it for themselves. If they did so, they might see the extensive list of references on the article. Almost all of the references in the Misplaced Pages article came from there. They would also see that is a question, not a statement as you (WLU) assert. (The statement form is "infantilism is OK," while the question form is "is infantilism OK?") It includes tools for evaluating appropriateness on an individual basis, such as a of various reasons why it might not be OK. Useful tools, but too extensive to include in Misplaced Pages. They would also see the which includes a great wealth of information. Much of it can't be included within Misplaced Pages because the parts that aren't secondary or tertiary sources are primary research. Overall, it is the best resource on paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetishism, and the AB/DL community that I know of. But I'd prefer that people go and see for themselves instead of being swayed by what someone wrote.


*{{spamlink|xoompay.com}}
::::Given the breadth of resources there, I'd include it under ] #3 ("Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to ... amount of detail") However, I see Yoenit's point about ] #4. (I'd also like to see an answer from WLU to Yoenit's question about ELNO#2. WLU is effectively accusing me of misleading readers. This is something I take seriously, and this accusation should be supported or retracted. )
*{{UserSummary|Eshohor}}
*{{UserSummary|Eidakihesa}}


They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. ] 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Overall, I have mixed feelings about the EL's inclusion. Yes, having an EL to it would provide Misplaced Pages readers access to all of those additional resources. However, it also means that in one or two years, we'll be back here because some other editor has a bone to pick and sees the EL as a way to get at me. ] (]) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


:Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- ]] 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::As a sidenote, the initial inclusion was some time prior to Jan 2006, when the old article was stubbed and the history lost. (One regret that I'll bring up before someone else does: In my first few days on Misplaced Pages, while rebuilding the article just after the stubbing, I restored the previous set of external links in two edits when I should have done it in one.) ] (]) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in ]'s header. –] (]]) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::I still don't see "breadth of resources" as a valid point. Any reliable, secondary sources (i.e. books or journal articles) found in one of the essays written by Bittergrey can, and should be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself. What remains are primary sources, which can only be used for ], and the synthesis occurring within the page (i.e. the UI page itself being used as a ''de facto'' secondary source). The page wouldn't be considered reliable for use on the PI page proper, I don't see it being valid as an EL under that circumstance. Reviewing specifics, much of the site is written by BitterGrey, reflecting his experiences with paraphilic infantilism:
::@], @], @], it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? ] (]) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::# "" is an advocacy piece - a section essentially about how BitterGrey came to accept his paraphilia, which I still read as "yes, it is OK"
:::You can see ] activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- ]] 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::# An essay where he
:::: What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been to use instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. <b>] ]</b> 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
::::::#His in my mind comes down to a "how to come out as a paraphilic infantilist"
::::::#An essay on what seems to be
::::::#A section on and .
::::::#. Note that from what I've seen, there's not really a review article on the subject itself meaning this page runs ahead of the research.
::::::#A about PI, which I don't believe have been published anywhere considered reliable. Thus it is possible that linking to these surveys would actually give readers ''misinformation'' because the level of expertise and oversight that normal academic channels provide are missing (writing and getting adequate responses to surveys is itself a very difficult task with a specific methodology and expertise). This survey wouldn't be acceptable even as a primary source because it hasn't been published in the appropriate venue - it's a set of responses gathered by an individual of uncertain expertise, with no oversight, published on a website controlled by a single person.
::::::#A copy of a (<s>question - it says it has been licensed under the ] 3.0 license, would linking to a copyright be involved?</s> <small>Per Bittergrey's comment , this is not an issue, but a ] e-mail may be required; not that familiar with copyright but it's something to keep in mind. - WLU</small>)
::::::#A listing of which to my mind is essentially a "how to" manual.
::::::I see this site as a very, very personal web page - it summarizes one person's thought on the subject. It contains ''his tools'', written by ''him'', tools ''he'' considers "useful" (for someone considering adopting or coming out as a paraphilic infantilist). Note that these aren't tools that would be "useful", they are tools that would be ''barred'' from inclusion per ]. I do not see ELYES as applicable because it's not neutral (again, I read it as a fairly transparent and uniquely personal advocacy site) and it's accuracy can not be determined. It is akin to me writing an essay or blog on my experience with wikipedia, then ''linking to it'' as a source or EL.
::::::If anyone wants a reply to ELNO#2, the prime example would be the surveys - how is it verifiable that they are accurate? How do we know they weren't simply written by a single person, be it Bittergrey himself, or a single person submitting multiple responses? There was no thesis advisor, no peer review, no publisher to assert editorial control or fact checking. The secondary example would be the sixth point, Bittergrey's analysis of what causes PI - again, no peer review, no editorial control, no reputable publisher. Just one person's website. A tertiary example can be found with extensive narratives of 1-5 and 9. These are all personal essays. I have never said that Bittergrey is deliberately misleading readers, but I see no reason to believe that this is the kind of accurate or at least vetted information one would get from a scholarly publication. This isn't raw, neutral information on paraphilic infantilism - this is ''Bittergrey'''s interpretation of paraphilic infantilism, primarily in the form of his, and his alone, thoughts and experiences. There are a multitude of ]es that exist, and are responsible for most ]. ] alone ensures that it is extremely unlikely a single person, particularly one heavily invested in a specific identity, could report without colouring the material extensively. That's the reason we have thesis advisors, peer review, editors of collections of essays, fact checkers and editors at newspapers and publishers, and so forth. I'm not saying it has happened, or Bittegrey deliberately skewed any of the material but without oversight it's too easy to have happened, and there is nothing to support the neutrality, independence, accuracy or integrity of any of the information and it's very easy to unconsciously skew virtually anything.
::::::As to Bittergrey's assertion that this EL is a way to "get at him", I really just think that the link is inappropriate and don't really care who owns the link, who put it in the page, or who Bittergrey is for that matter. I'm not persecuting anyone, I admit this is a bit of a borderline case (I see it as pretty obviously inappropriate, but certainly not as cut and dry as the forum). I also think it should be removed, based on my original statement of EL 2 (the factual accuracy of the information essentially can't be verified except through a single contributor's word - any editor who thinks otherwise should ask themselves if they would be comfortable seeing this site in a footnote), 4 (the link promotes the UI site itself) and particularly 11 (this is very, very much a personal website). ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
{{out}}
The only substantial addition I see in WLU's new 900-word rant over the previous one is "Any reliable, secondary sources can, and should, be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself..." If he sees no value in my work, why is he suggesting plagiarizing it? To WLU, I'll state this simply: '''Do not steal my intellectual property.'''


== Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page ==
Notably missing is any support for WLU's accusation that I'm misleading readers (elno #2).


I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?
WLU, I thought we were here to get input from uninvolved editors, not listen to your conclusions over and over. ] (]) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::If an editor makes a point and I consider it to be invalid, questionable, or missing part of my rationale, I will post a reply to note this. If I am convincing in doing so, it means my original rationale was lacking. I see the above post as expanding on, not repeating, my original post. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:I've not really been following this debate, and I don't claim to know anything about the subject. I will however point out that sources cited in a document aren't the 'intellectual property' of anyone but the authors of the sources cited, and where the reliability of a particular source is questioned, reference to the sources cited therein is not only not plagiarism, it is a necessary part of the process required to determine reliability, and a legitimate way to investigate alternate sourcing for controversial statements. ] (]) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::I've no problem with the references being checked. However, extracting all the references in mass from understanding.infantilism.org, for the purpose of denying any mention of understanding.infantilism.org, takes the results of the person who worked to gather those references, and gives him no credit. ] (]) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::As I understand it, the object of looking at the references is to improve the article. Though collating references is a necessary part of research, it isn't something that one should normally expect explicit recognition for - if this were the case, one would rapidly find oneself snowed under with acknowledgements of prior sources for prior sources for prior... If the sources you've found support the position you've taken, you've achieved your goal. ] (]) 07:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::AndyTheGrump, let's say you produced a literature survey for college with a large number of references. Someone took it, removed your name, reworded the text (since the content would be driven by the references, he or she couldn't change the content, just the wording), and presented the outcome as his own, would you consider that plagiarism? ] (]) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::: Please stay on topic. We are here to discuss an external link, not the definition of plagiarism. Whether such an action would constitute plagiarism is irrelevant since it is not gonna happen anyway. Edit: I am referring here to the " mass extraction of references from the website", although it applies to the hypothetical example above as well. '''Yoenit''' (]) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't consider Bittergrey's site to meet the definition of a reliable source and do not think it should be cited or linked to, ever. If a journal article or book is cited on that site, then any reader can look that ''source'' up and integrate it into the wikipedia page. All the secondary material, the synthesis that Bittergrey performs across multiple sources to produce an essay or article, should ''not'' be cited because it is not a reliable source. I have no interest in Bittergrey's intellectual property and would argue strongly against using it. I'm not saying "check the references to see if they verify the body", I'm saying ignore the body, skip straight the references and use them in the wikipedia page.
::::::Also note that I explicitly didn't say Bittergrey's work was deliberately misleading, I'm saying it's a personal webpage comprised primarily of a single person's view of a paraphilia they themselves practice, with no editorial oversight, peer review, reputation for fact checking or expertise - all the criteria of a reliable source. A personal website will, of necessity, be a single person's viewpoint with no editorial control to ensure accuracy. Thus, in my opinion, it meets the second half of ELNO #2, the "unverifiable research" part.
::::::Note that I am attempting to do exactly what Bittergrey asked - review the site in detail and see if it is appropriate. I do tend to write long posts, but I am attempting to be explicit in my reasoning and examples. I do not consider this a rant, I consider it a reasoned argument.
::::::Regarding Bittergrey's final point, that would be plagiarism and unacceptable. If I printed out an article, ignored the text, read every single reference and wrote my own article, that's not plagiarism (though it would be bad research) ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 11:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::WLU, I asked UNINVOLVED editors to look at it. You are involved in a conflict that has, thanks to you, spread over multiple articles, essays, and talk pages. New discoveries such as the the Creative Commons 3.0 license demonstrate that you didn't explore the website before making your conclusion and deleting the EL. (By the way, the academically-reviewed Masters thesis and Doctoral dissertation were posted with the author's written consent. I made sure to get that before putting in the work to OCR them.) Perhaps you should let unbiased editors explore for themselves. If you have some time, I'd suggest <s>fixing those several references on ] that have read "Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes" since your disruptive edits yesterday. (Sunday, they all had titles, authors, and appropriate page numbers.) Or, more relevant to this discussion,</s> actually reading ELNO #2. The important part is the first half - that is why it is first. If you can't support the accusation that I'm misleading readers, stop bringing up ELNO #2. ] (]) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
{{od}}Can you point to an area where I haven't substantiated my assertion with reference to the appropriate policy, or clearly identified it as my opinion? You suggested editors conduct a substantive review, and I did that. I am an editor with an opinion, and am making the best case I can to substantiate that opinion based on my understanding and interpretation of WP:EL. Your claim that it's solely based on some sort of personal grudge is unfounded, I've removed many, many external links in my history and edited many, many pages. I've made an extra effort to not bring in past history and let the EL stand or fall on its own merits. Please stop claiming I'm doing this all out of pique.


] (]) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
The {{tl|cite pmid}} templates have been fixed, apparently the bot only runs by hand now, good to know.


:@] Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention ], so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, ] likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog ''as a source''. ] (]) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
ELNO#2 has two halves, and both are relevant. I think the second half is more relevant since the website is the work of a single person with no oversight. I'm not suggesting you are deliberately lying to readers on your site - I'm suggesting there is no oversight, thus the potential for bias is present. We insist on peer reviewed sources or reliable news agencies with reputations for fact checking and reliability for a reason - humans are flawed and it helps maintain the quality of information. Even if the first half was more important because "it's first", that doesn't mean the second half doesn't exist. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university ] (]) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:]#2 is constructed of a root phrase "Any site that misleads the reader," followed by two narrowing conditions, and then one exclusion. While you have gone on and on about one of the narrowing condition, you haven't addressed the root phrase. It is interesting to note that you didn't consider the as ELNO#2. Now, if a lack of verifiability were the real issue, why would it only affect the website with all the references? ] (]) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::@], you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at ].
:::This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of ]?"
:::] is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a ] for Korea in the article?" ] (]) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== Elton John videography ==
I'm an uninvolved editor, and I just reviewed the site. It is clearly a personal site, so it falls under ELNO # 11 and should not be linked. - ] (]) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in ]. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per ]. -- ] (]) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:(ec)I too am uninvolved but after looking at all of this and going through the website I have to say that it fails per ELNO #'s 2, 4, 10 and 11. #2, there is no peer review done for accuracy of items (ie: the surveys for example); #4, there are links to promote this website also I think external link spamming may also be a problem; #10, there is a social networking club available on the site for people to get together, and finally #11, which I think is maybe the strongest reason this site should not be allowed as a ] is it is pretty much a testimonial of the writer of this personal website. We have to have accurate reliable sources and usually that is in the form of peer reviewed journals or books. This site is more of the owner's testimonial in a lot of the areas, no disrepect intended. Anyways, this is what I got notes from looking at everything I saw. I hope this helps, --]] 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::CrohnieGal, I know you trust WLU given the span of your contact with him but do you personally believe is both a forum (ELNO#10) and a personal web page (ELNO#11)? When WLU listed those four ELNOs, he was referring to two websites. Or by "it", were you referring to http://abdlplay.com/forum/ (the forum) as well?] (]) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


:@], there is no ==External links== section in that article. ] (]) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::To your first comment, yes I do have a lot of respect for WLU. He makes his debates backed in policies and guidelines and tries to clarify what he means when he says it. As for the forum, you have a page that has a forum to set up contact with people, which is what I was talking about. #11, it is your personal website with your POV throughout. I found a lot of what you had to say as sounding like a testimonial in some ways. I did my research on this and did take notes on what I found. I didn't click everything there but I clicked a lot of what you have on the site. I hope that clarifies my comments, --]] 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against ] unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. ] ] 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Perhaps it would help if you provided the URL or title for this forum page? ] (]) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- ] (]) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::Crohnie never said "forum", she said "social networking club". ELNO 10 is about more than just web fora. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Crohnie wrote "page." Pages have URLs. If one of you two would share this URL, we'd have a clearer picture of what is being discussed. ] (]) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC) :::They're not banned per ], but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. ] (]) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Computational chemistry ==
::::There's no ambiguity regarding the web forum as it is clearly excluded by ELNO#10 as I said in my initial post. Web fora are inherently unreliable but that's not the point - they're web fora, they're not encyclopedic. Also, any single reason from ELNO can be enough to exclude a link. Finally, Crohnie appears to be referring to the "social networking site" part of ELNO#10 (Crohnie, I can't see a link to the social club you refer to, would you be able to link to it?) I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to link as UI.org is not ''primarily'' or ''solely'' for social networking. But I very much do agree with MrOllie and Crohnie that ELNO#11 is probably the strongest reason not to link, as it's clearly a personal webpage. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::I have little doubt that the web forum is a forum. My point relates to ]. ] (]) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


@] and I are having a discussion ] on whether the external links on ], specifically under the section ] and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under ]. We would love to have more input. ] (]) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)
::Also, CrohnieGal, we are discussing and EL, not an RS. They are different noticeboards. On the talk page where all this started, WLU mentioned "a long history of corresponding on wiki and off about wiki-related" matters. Perhaps in the email exchange, some wires got crossed. At that original location, I noted how your sudden involvement coincided with a message from WLU. Now here you are again, claiming to be uninvolved. ] (]) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::None of those posts had anything to do with this ELN discussion. Are you accusing us of colluduing off-site through e-mail to get a biased set of editors on this noticeboard? That discounts essentially all references that anyone here has made to policies, guidelines and overall thoughts in favour of a personal conspiracy against you. I see no evidence of this, but I do see a lot of (in my opinion) well-reasoned discussions and ELNO-based arguments against including UI.org. Those are the issues that should be focussed on.
:::Also note that ELNO#2 does have implications regarding the reliability of an external link. And note that #11 is about it being a personal website and thus excluded - which Crohnie thought the most compelling reason to remove it and leave it removed. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::WLU, feel free to explain the diffs if you believe you are being quoted out of context. On the subject of accusations, I'm still waiting for response regarding the accusation that I'm misleading readers (ELNO#2). Please support it or retract it, preferably with links or diffs others can check for themselves. ] (]) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::Sure. A week before this section was created, I sent Crohnie an e-mail asking how she was doing because I know and like her, and also mentioning that she was mentioned by name at ]. Crohnie is an editor whose opinion I respect who also self-identifies as an editor with a health issue. I thought she might have some insights related to an essay about possible conflicts of interest that are related to having a diagnosis. It seems rather self-evident she might have something of value to contribute. It is part of the normal process of gathering input for a new page. Beyond a brief reference to MEDCOI, there wasn't anything relevant to editing wikipedia. The posts were completely unrelated to this ELN posting, particularly as I can't travel backwards or forwards in time. The e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with this page or paraphilic infantilism.
:::::I've repeatedly explained why I think your work on the UI.org is unreliable and may mislead readers and it essentially comes down to being a personal webpage and therefore an unreliable source. That's pretty much it. Please review ], ] and ] for more information on that. I've never accused you of deliberately misleading readers, I have repeatedly stated that in all cases of unreviewed work the issue is not one of deliberate deception. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Your message was sent to her 13:03, 23 February 2011 and her first post was 17:52, 23 February 2011. The diffs don't support your claim. Regarding ELNO#2, note the absence of weasel words like "might," "maybe," or "may." Any site might be deceptive. ELNO#2 is directed at sites that ARE deceptive. Please support or retract this accusation. ] (]) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


:As a comment, I am cross-posting to both ] and ] since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. ] (]) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Okay, guys, let's run through the facts of life again:
::@], while this could be argued as a type of ], it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at ] might have some advice for you about how to go about that. ] (]) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:Sniping at each other about perceived insults makes uninvolved editors ''less'' likely to respond. If '''you''' want responses from uninvolved editors, then '''you''' need to restrain '''your''' comments. If you expect uninvolved editors to disagree with you, then sure, go ahead: keep discouraging their involvement with your endless arguing. Just keep in mind that most of the regulars are going to assume that petty sniping means your case is weak.
:::For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were ]. I do think that a problem with the ], like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. ] (]) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would ''very much'' appreciate it if WLU and BitterGrey would each voluntarily limit himself to a single, ideally short, comment per day for the rest of this week. ] (]) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. ] (]) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::At 5,700 words, this discussion is already too large for the faint of heart. ] (]) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate ]. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, ]). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. ] (]) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Besides, this way we can watch the rampage unfold in real time. For example, within two hours of my catching CrohnieGal's puppetlike foible (16:28) WLU removed a ref to http://understanding.infantilism.org/ from ] (17:55, 1 March 2011). ] (]) 20:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
::::Just for the record for editors here, I have had ELN on my watchlist for awhile now. I brought a question here and ever since this page has remained on my list. I have not acted as a puppet for anyone and want to make that clear to all. Thanks, --]] 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::In the particular instance, ] says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. ] (]) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::Crohnie, some of us are still waiting for you to share the URL of that forum page, the reason you believe understanding.infantilism.org should be excluded based on ELNO #10.. Knowing the URL would give us a clearer picture of your position. Otherwise, it will continue to look like you didn't understand someone else's position before claiming it as your own (at best).] (]) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:From my understanding of ] and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. '']<sup>]</sup><sub>]</sub>'' 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


New to this argument and i have a question about this as self published researcher. !!! In the "" its say "This is an academic site." Which academic site are they claiming to be connected to. Secondly who are this "academics" involed in the site. Thirdly is the site used as a source by institutions or general publication? ] (]) 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:'Academic' in that it attempts to compose and convey information, and as a way to write that it wasn't a website dedicated to stories or pictures. Search engines would neglect the not, and cause disappointment among those looking for stories or pictures. As previously discussed, the website does include a related thesis and dissertation. ] (]) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


While I did not bother reading any of the recent ranting above I did have another look at the site based on some early comments. It seems my initial assesment was wrong and the site is not an "neutral information site about the phenomena" but rather a "personal website about the webmasters experiences with the phenomena". I support removal of the site based on ]. '''Yoenit''' (]) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


This '''again'''? We have been through this 2 years ago and these links are still ''not '' acceptable per ]. They should be removed, as they were back in 2009. They are heavily biased and do not represent a neutral and encyclopedic assessment of the article topic. For history (where I was involved), see . ''']]]''' 08:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:Thanks for not claiming to be uninvolved. You first expressed your position a month prior to that discussion, in March 2009. This is good because it separates it from the July 2009 events. In march, your position was "I looked at that link and while it wasn't ugly spam like the rest of them, it violates WP:NPOV as being overly supportive of the condition." I noted the irony that the example you cited (when discussing this at one of four locations) as a proper set of ELs included an EL to www.onearchives.org: "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives honors the past, celebrates the present, and enriches the future of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We foster acceptance of sexual and gender diversity by supporting education and research about our heritage and experience worldwide. ONE is dedicated to collecting, preserving, documenting, studying, and communicating our history, our challenges, and our aspirations." I couldn't figure out why you considered a site spreading information about infantilism, but not a site celebrating homosexuality, overly supportive. Anyway, your removal of all of the English ELs caused an instability. During this instability, you and James Cantor left an EL to understanding.infantilism.org in place multiple times(eg. ). He then removed the entire external links section in apparent but understandable frustration. Then came July and things changed dramatically. James Cantor, displeased with my part in a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology about multiple external links that he was adding under a conflict of interest, went on to delete large sections paraphilic infantilism on the 17th, violating 3RR. That is the context for the discussion you and WLU have linked to. ] (]) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


Regarding http://understanding.infantilism.org/ -- this superficially looks like a relatively sane self-help site by an individual with the condition. While no doubt a useful resource for some, perhaps many, people, this is not the kind of thing we allow in external links. If we did allow such links in general, I could imagine an editorial decision to include this particular link. However, that would require more research than it's worth, and the question is moot anyway. Regarding http://abdlplay.com/forum/ -- that's a very clear case of ELNO 10.

I note that when an editor with a conflict of interest shows themselves immune to rational arguments based on policy and our general practices, and unable to refrain from fighting against a wide consensus, they may easily find themselves sanctioned. ] ] 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
:Please note I'm not the one who added the EL. I'm just providing information about the website and the full context for this discussion.] (]) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:I agree with Hans. I didn't read this whole discussion because it jumped from one issue to another, some not dealing with this noticeboard. I did look at both of the aforementioned links though. One question, is http://understanding.infantilism.org/ a copy of http://www.infantilisme.info/ (French and CC-licensed)? --] <small>]</small> 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
::www.infantilisme.info is a French translation of some of the articles on understanding.infantilism.org. It was translated and posted with my permission. Understanding.infantilism.or has also been partially translated into Dutch (e.g. http://www.ageplay.eu/04-badkamer/01-shybladder.html ). Regarding the complexity of the discussion, this would be a much simpler discussion if the removal was done by a neutral editor without clear motives. Time will tell whether WLU's efforts (now including a and ) stabilize or continue. If they continue to become broader and more disruptive, charges including wikihounding might need to be pursued. (This, by the way, is why I'd like to get an answer from Crohnie, even though she is no longer the swing vote.) ] (]) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Hans Adler and others have listed the forums that fail #10. Your attacks need to stop now as I am not answering you anymore about this. --]] 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Quite the contrary, I don't disagree with Hans Adler and others that ELNO 10 applies to abdlplay.com/forum/. It is clearly a forum. I was hoping for some clarification on why you believed understanding.infantilism.org is a case of ELNO 10. ] (]) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

* Are we all agreed that is an inappropriate external link? Does ''anyone'' believe this link should be included? ] (]) 03:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' Still think all should go. ] (]) 03:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
::It looks like everyone agrees that this internet chat room is not a desirable link for an encyclopedia article. While ], I doubt that they will. ] indicates that it is linked only on this page at the moment, so let's consider that one settled. ] (]) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

===Understanding Infantilism===

The more complicated case is BitterGrey's website. Obviously, BitterGrey believes it to be a valuable resource (else he wouldn't have spent so much time creating it). Other editors have raised a variety of objections to it. BitterGrey says that he has been careful and transparent about the conflict of interest issues, and he deserves appropriate credit for that.

However, I'm not seeing anyone except BitterGrey who thinks that this is a desirable link for this article. Does anyone except the site's creator think it should be linked? (Only messages of support are really needed here; if you objected above, and still stand by that, then you need not repeat yourself.) ] (]) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:This should specifically apply to ELNO #11 to separate it from the still-open questions regarding ELNO #10, the personal accusations of ELNO #2, etc. ] (]) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

::Actually, my goal is to determine whether anyone except you believes the website should be kept for ''any'' reason at all, even if the keep rationale is as flimsy as "I like it". I'm in no rush, so we can leave this open for a few days. ] (]) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Fair enough. If there is a sudden upsurge of ELYESes and ELMAYBEs raised, that would be fine. However, given the drama bellow, new input here of any kind is unexpected. I'm concerned that this silence and the discussion before it will be used to justify something they to do not. ] (]) 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's time to close this. There have been no comments except the site owner's in support of linking to his website. There are (evidenced above) many editors opposed to it. I think the obvious conclusion from this discussion is that there is a consensus to exclude this link from Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

:Let's stick with facts. Yoenit and MrOllie agree regarding the application of ELNO #11. Based on this, I'll not add, and avoid modifying, ELs to infantilism.org in article space. Of course, this has already long been the case.

:Hans Adler considered the discussion moot, AndyTheGump commented about IP removal, and NortyNort asked about the French translation; but didn't specify inclusion or exclusion criteria.

:WLU and whatamidoing were involved in this conflict from before the EL, or even the article it is on, became an issue. Moxy and Themfromspace were personally invited by whatamidoing. (By the way, WLU was also personally invited by whatamidoing back before this conflict spread to multiple pages.) CrohnieGal withdrew from the discussion after being asked repeatedly to explain her puppetlike foible.

:To those few who waded through all this for the good of Misplaced Pages, not in support of a friend as a personal favor, I extend my sympathies and gratitude. ] (]) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
::There are no more links to this page in mainspace, once this is archived we should add a note to ] pointing to another place where consensus was established so it can be removed without controversy or issue if added in the future. Otherwise, I consider the issue settled. Misza would normally have archived it tomorrow, I am fine with it being archived today, tomorrow, or simply leaving it and letting Misza take care of it in another 10 days. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

:::WLU, per Misplaced Pages policy: ] (Were this not the case, we would need to defer to the several-year-old consensus to _include_ the EL, since it had priority). Consensus changes, but histories of votestacking and using Misplaced Pages as a battleground become longer and more clear. As for the link already present at that talk page to this discussion, feel free to update it once this discussion is archived. (Please do not "nuke" any ongoing discussions again.) As for Misza, that assumes no one else is dense enough to edit war with a bot.] (]) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

::::I did not withdraw from this discussion. I withdrew from talking to you directly, ]. I did not ever act as a puppet of any kind and if you continue with ] against editors I will bring all of this to the attentions of an administrator. Enough is enough! --]] 14:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::Best we simply close this talk - clear the community does not find the site relevant for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::Well, at least two apparently uninvolved editors think ELNO #11 relevant, which should be enough to close this. Since many here were personally invited by one side of this debate (...), we shouldn't extrapolate about what position the Misplaced Pages community holds. If anything, it shows that most don't care enough either way to wade into this.
:::::::@Crohnie, accusing others of making accusations is pointless, and I suspect any neutral admin will ask the questions already asked, and left unanswered(...). ] (]) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::You seem to have the interpretation that some have come to this talk with a preset notion and intent - We were asked to comment because we are experienced with the topic of references and External links with regard to there relevants and notability. It has been some time now that we have been waiting to hear "ANY" positive comments from other editors about the sites credibility and worthiness of inclusion into this encyclopedia in this section. None are forth-with - so we should move on. I understand your frustrated but would be best to assume good faith on the part of the editors that have commented here.] (]) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::Moxy, we can stick to the facts and close this, or we can continue to debate. Which would you prefer? If you don't wish to continue this debate, don't raise new issues based on your interpretations about my interpretations, or reword well-diff'd comments into assumptions. Stick to the facts and we can close this. ] (]) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

{{od}}@ Bittergrey; your smoke screen doesn't work. An administrator will comment on your rude and attacking comments to multiple editors. Now please stop attacking and follow the policies that are required from all of us. No one has to answer any questions, even though I did answer yours, you chose not to hear it. Like I said before, I am not responding to you any further as we are getting no where. If others have a comment or question please feel free to make them. I will answer the best I can. Thank you, --]] 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
:Smokescreen? Again, let's stick to the facts. After Crohnie wrote "there is a social networking club available on the site for people to get together" I asked Crohnie for the URL of this club. WLU responded about what Crohnie meant, but didn't provide a URL. A unique property of non-puppets is independent thought. Crohnie, explain your independent thought process and you'll show that you aren't a puppet. Since real people make mistakes, it doesn't even have to be right, just independent. ] (]) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
::It is quite clear that the consensus is neither link was appropriate. There's nothing else to discuss that is relevant to the external links noticeboard, and as such I'm closing the section. If anyone wants to simply archive it, that's fine with me at least. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
{{divhide|end}}
@Crohnie: Do not delete the comments of others. This is a violation of Misplaced Pages guidelines and remarkably uncivil, especially given that you are accusing me of being "rude and uncivil". Per Misplaced Pages guidelines: ]

(Reposting after deletion) Given the number of new comments from a plurality of editors (edit: e.g: ...), I think it safe to consider this discussion still ongoing. However, to keep things concise, I'd ask all who disagree with my attempt at a factual closure to provide diffs. Diffs show that points have substance, are worth substantiating, and are not new issues. ] (]) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== outsaurus.com ==

I'd like input on http://www.outsaurus.com/outsourced-directory/ , added to the external links section of ] by {{user links|69.113.199.238}}. I removed it as inappropriate as I believe it is a website that exists only to promote a particular POV. The IP editor questioned my removal of the link, on my talk page, and while they are not at all being uncivil they hinted that I may be biased in my view. I obviously don't think so (at least, I believe I'm biased in favour of neutrality) but would like some input on the issue.

I'll copy parts of my reasoning about the link from my discussion with the IP editor on my talk page (], to get the whole discussion including their responses):
<blockquote>Have a look at the "About us" page of the website . That is not simply a site indicated to be a directory of companies (and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company") - it is a site intended to promote a particular point of view concerning outsourcing from one specific country. In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material (I make no judgment concerning whether the information is accurate), so that inclusion criterion is not met. Rather, inclusion of the link would promote the website rather than provide information (per point 2 in ]).
<br />
<br />
What they call the "directory" (actually just a list of company names) is headed by the website's logo which features their tagline, promoting their POV. The right-hand frame on that page also clarifies the POV very unambiguously. A few of the company names in the list are linked to blog posts which are anything but neutral. Yes, obviously the people behind the list are the people behind the website, but the site includes no information about who they are and there is no indication that they are authorities on the subject, so it is unclear where this list comes from and why the information is credible (even disregarding the biased slant). It was you who claimed, above, that the page was a "directory of every company in the United States that Outsources", so my use of "every company" was a direct quote.
<br />
<br />
The list of names without any of the surrounding text on the past is neutral information to some extent, but the rest of the page is not neutral. Not referring to the rest of the site here, but the linked page. It becomes eminently clear from the page that their reason for compiling the information is also in order to promote the POV, but that's rather beside the point.</blockquote>

The thing about ] is that it doesn't really say very much about linking to partisan sites, and the IP has requested references to Misplaced Pages policy. If we are to link "ites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", the ''neutral'' sort of precludes sites presenting biased information, or at least that's my take on it. Let me know if I'm interpreting policy badly, here (or if I'm misjudging the site - which would surprise me very much indeed, I confess). Thanks! --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
:In practice, NPOV is sometimes applied to the EL list as a whole, not the individual ELs. The EL you mentioned is clearly anti-offshoring, while another EL on the list is clearly pro-offshoring: "Free Trade Bulletin no. 10. Why We Have Nothing to Fear from Foreign Outsourcing." While both have clear POVs, the two together might be neutral. A different application of NPOV would call for the removal of both, since neither is individually neutral. I'll leave it to others to comment on whether individual or collective NPOV is closer to the current EL policy. However, I think it clear that removing one POV while leaving the other is not a route to a NPOV set of ELs. There are, of course, many other reasons for keeping and rejecting ELs other than POV. These too should be applied equally to all ELs on the list. ] (]) 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
::(Addendum: Bonadea, please ask 69.113.199.238 if he/she is OK with the discussion being moved from your talk page to the article's talk page. If not, please add a link to the discussion to the article's talk page. Ideally, a consensus should be sought on the article's talk page first. Mentioning this discussion on the article's talk page is also a reasonable courtesy.) ] (]) 00:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

:Most EL lists take the approach of a balanced set, since the combination of "pro" and "anti" is often more valuable than "wishy-washy". See ] for the most relevant section of the guideline (if you haven't found it already). ] (]) 07:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was definitely impressed by Bittergrey's POV on this. I also agree with WhatIdoing. I believe in the virtues of the end reader to be able to absorb the information and analyze for themselves. The best way to do this is to present that reader with all the information available. Also, feel free to move the conversation from Bonadea's talk page. I'd do it myself if I was confident enough to do it successfully. Thanks again to everyone for their input in this matter.--] (]) 00:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::Note that ] in general discourages pages having a lot of links (] #3). ] #5 discourages pages with advertising, which this page has. The list is also of uncertain reliability, I couldn't find any information on the authors on their about or contact page (] #2). The outsourcing article in general has a lot of external links (11 including 3 videos) and may be better served by one of the presented by the ]. might be the best, as the other 99 appear to be lists and directories of companies that will do outsourcing work for you. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 03:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::WLU, you might want to review before suggesting it. At first glance it appears to include 5 ELs; four anti-outsourcing links (e.g. ) and one on immigration. Also regarding your interpretation of ELNO#2, note that ] applies to RS's, not EL's (and not the other way around e.g.). ] (]) 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU already made the change to DMOZ. I thought the agreement and spirit of Misplaced Pages was to have a general consensus when it comes to disputes? In addition, I do not like WLU's suggestion of DMOZ job migration as I believe those links are extremely below par. Even if the total accumulation of the DMOZ links presented a balanced POV (which it does not.) The quality of the website can be seen in the quality of the build. One site looks like it was put together in the mid-1990's. I normally have a great deal of respect for DMOZ but in this category they have failed (IMO). I respectfully ask that WLU changes it back until an agreed upon consensus is built. Which from my POV it seems like most of the above agree a balanced of both POV is the best way to go. --] (]) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:Feel free to remove it, as I said on the talk page it's possible there are no good ELs for that article and it's fine in my opinion to remove all ELs. There's no reason to have ELs if there are none that are good to choose from. It's very borderline. ] <small>] ] Misplaced Pages's rules:</small>]/] 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::WLU does not speak for Misplaced Pages or any secret consensus of the folks here at EL/N. His quality as an editor is concisely demonstrated by the fact that he . (This might be one for the record books.) I've recently had to spend far too much of my time cleaning up after him in multiple articles, with him fighting every step of the way. 69.113.199.238, the next thing I'd do would be to revert back to the EL set being discussed, and then discuss them. Hopefully, that would be the end of the reverting. Hopefully, WLU will get the message that disruptive edits aren't welcome here. ] (]) 06:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
:::I don't think that failing to memorize ] is a sign of a poor editor, and I think your disparagement of WLU on this wholly unrelated point is completely inappropriate.
:::This noticeboard deals with many inexperienced and unregistered editors, and I have been pleased at the number of editors who make a determined effort to remain civil here. If you can't follow their example of participating without insulting people, then I personally would prefer that you did not post here at all. ] (]) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::::"WLU already made the change to DMOZ. I thought the agreement and spirit of Misplaced Pages was to have a general consensus when it comes to disputes? ... I respectfully ask that WLU changes it back until an agreed upon consensus is built." As I see it, there were a number of editors involved in civil discussion, before WLU made himself the issue by ignoring that discussion. As for the edit war with a bot, it was a violation of ]. A civil editor should have either accepted the edit based on AGF, or checked wp:layout before edit warring. WLU did neither. Now a new editor is faced with the decision of continuing to respect Misplaced Pages policy, or emulating those who (at least in the case of ]) get their way. ] (]) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

{{Resolved|Template in question was deleted ] (]) 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)}}
] has been nominated for deletion - Pls see ].......that is basically about ] that we will need to revert lots from. ] (]) 10:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

An IP editor placed this on the page of the young British motorcycle racer. As it links to merchandise and such, shouldn't this be removed from such external links section? <font face="Zemestro">]]</font> 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:You are correct. It is very rare for ''two'' "official" sites to be justified (I've never seen it). I reverted the link and am watching. ] (]) 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
::Many thanks for doing that earlier, but it appears to have been re-reverted. <font face="Zemestro">]]</font> 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Reverted back - since there is more than one IP doing the reverts, it may be a case on IP hopping (to avoid ], or a meatpuppet - whatever, I've given it a short semi - if the link is that important, then they will now '''have''' to discuss it at the talk page. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
::::Quick IP check - both IPs evaluate to "BT-CENTRAL-PLUS", so IP hopping. ''']'''<sup>]</sup> 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

== Film links ==

The template {{tl|FilmLinks}} was recently created and is a shell that lists various film websites' parameters. The template was posted at TFD as seen ]. The concerns involve redundancy and/or unnecessary combining (as its aim is to phase out the individual link templates) and ]. Are there any similar shell-style templates that have been accepted or rejected in the past? Please weigh in at the template's discussion. Thanks, ] (] &#124; ]) 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

== Official Lyrics ==

Hi! I have a question about external links. If an artist's official site has a page for a specific song, would this page be an acceptable link in the official links section? It seems to meet all of the criteria (it's an official source, it serves as a reference for the lyrics that can't be included in the article without being a copyvio), and it's certainly a relevant reference, so I don't see why not. Thanks!--] ] 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

:It depends on the subject of the article. For an article about a song, it might be ELOFFICIAL, and it would almost certainly be ] #2. For an article about the artist, it's probably neither. ] (]) 19:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::It's for a specific song.--] ] 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

:::Then, assuming that this song is tightly associated with that artist, I would think that a link to such a page would typically be desirable. Whether it should be classified as an "official" link or an "ELYES" link is really unimportant: It's probably a good idea to include it, and that's all that really matters.
:::(There isn't usually an "official links section". All external links should be together under the same ==External links== section heading.) ] (]) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

This is regarding the ELs in footnotes 31 and 42. The first improper EL to be added was to the Manning Support Network. Information about the network was already properly sourced. Accordingly, its' inclusion does not follow the guidance stated in ], footnote 5. That is, since the Support Network is documented by a secondary ], the link directing readers to the site should be deleted. The additional ELs were added by me. It was an attempt to point out how the Support Network link was improper by adding in more improper links. (Alas, other editors seem happy to let the offending footnote ELs remain.) Accordingly, I ask that ''all'' of the ELNO links (4, 11, 19 types) in footnotes 31 (Amnesty International petition) and 42 (multiple) be deleted.--] (]) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
:I second that, the link directing readers to the site should be deleted. Indeed, the article has become a tribute page and it should have been nipped in the bud months ago. ] (]) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

::It looks like they're using ] on very long, very citation-dense paragraphs. I wish they weren't. (Statistically, "they" probably means SlimVirgin, but she's not the only person to use this approach; if she's involved, though, she'll be able to help us understand the rationale behind the other issues you've raised.)
::It's sometimes useful to deal with the biggest problems first. Would you characterize the half-dozen petitions and fundraising pages under footnote 42, "For other support groups/webpages, see..." as the biggest problem? ] (]) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I have no problem with CITEBUNDLE -- indeed, SlimVirgin is an awesome Wikipedian! But there is no single "biggest problem" (I'm the one who added a lot of links in fns 42 and 31). They are all a problem. (My gosh, anyone who wants to support Manning should have no difficulty Googling up support websites without using WP.) Misplaced Pages should not be listing any of these sites.--] (]) 20:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

::::S Rich, it was a bit POINTy to add another seven links you felt were inappropriate, in order to force the removal of a link to the Bradley Manning Support Network. There's consensus on talk that it's okay to include it, because the section is about that support group, and we have a section on it because reliable sources have written about it as a result of the celebrity membership. It would be odd to write about it, but then not tell readers how to contact it. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 08:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I don't think it was at all POINTy to add the links. That is, they were not disruptive in the least. Indeed, they were accepted and modified here and here . At each stage I pointed out (in the edit summary) that the edit was an EL camel was poking more and more of its body under the EL tent. In fact here: I pointed out how the spam link added was similar to the others already added. "Highly disruptive"? No. (And I did not add 47 ELs.)
:::::In any event, we do not have justification for including the Support Network support site EL in the footnotes or anywhere else. That is, it violates the ELNO guidelines. (Which is why I've posted this Noticeboard request.) There is no justification in WP policy or guidelines to include it.
:::::So, if it (the Support Network link) remains because of the rationale which says "it would be odd to write about it, but not tell readers how to contact it" then ''all'' of the other ELs should be included for ''each'' of the other support/petition/donation groups. All we have to do is simply mention them in the article.
:::::The EL guidelines (while a bit vague) makes sense. They say don't include ELs to the organization itself unless the ''Article'' (the ]) has an EL to itself. Since we do not have a Bradley Manning Support Network article, links to the network are not proper. --] (]) 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::You acknowledged adding the extra links ], not to improve the article. :) You wrote (emphasis added):

::::::<blockquote>'''The additional ELs were added by me. It was an attempt to point out how the Support Network link was improper by adding in more improper links'''. (Alas, other editors seem happy to let the offending footnote ELs remain.)... -- S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) </blockquote>

::::::<font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
{{od}} To illustrate further -- this newsarticle shows activists from ] demonstrating in support of Manning. Should we mention them as a supporting organization and then add an EL to their IOT tell readers how to contact them? How about if their is mentioned? These are all the same vis-a-vis the Support Network EL. --] (]) 17:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:Srich, if you've got a whole section on an organization, it's not unreasonable to list the org's website as an external link. And I'm inclined to agree with SV that adding links you personally think are inappropriate is POINTy.
:SV, can you help me understand why the link to the support network is listed as a ] rather than under ==External links==? ] (]) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:::I originally added (to a page on the Bradley Manning Support Network's site) as an inline citation to listing the Support Network's advisory board. S Rich objected to using it as a source. So I removed it and added a secondary source, but I retained a link in the footnote to the Support Network's , because the subsection is about that group (). But he objects to that too, and I think will also object to it in EL. He wants the link removed from the page entirely. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Quite correct (regarding my objection as it being used as a source and as to my objection as a simple EL). Again, it is an EL that ''Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.'' I cannot find how or why it qualifies as something that "should be linked or considered." The only reason it is still there, as far as I can see, is that people ''want'' it there for whatever POV they support. (Indeed, I simply wish the link was deleted so that this discussion would end. But if it won't be deleted, then someone should please justify its' existence in the article.)--] (]) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

::The ] guidance says its okay to have a link to an organization website when and where there is an ''article'' about the organization. For example, ] (mentioned above) has an official link in the External links section. But there is no Manning Support Network ''article'', so the link to it is ]#19. --] (]) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Sure, but I'd estimate that >90% of the external links on Misplaced Pages aren't ] links. The fact that it's not an official link doesn't mean that it's not an acceptable link. The main target of ] is the passing mention, not organizations that are significantly described in an article. ] (]) 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
::::No. I think you mis-read what I'm trying to say about the official links. The "manning.org" EL is an official link to the support network, so if the ] article existed, then including the link would be acceptable in that article. But your logic (and SL's logic) says "If you create a ''section'' (about an organization) in an article, then it is okay to add a link to that organization."
::::This is another rationalization to avoid the ELNO restriction. The first rationalization was that the EL was in a footnote, so ELNO did not apply (but clearly it does as per footnote 5 of ELNO). The second rationalization was that "It would be odd to write about it, but then not tell readers how to contact it."
::::Again, ELNO#19 covers: ''Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.'' Since manning.org is not the source for the info in the article, and since the article is not about manning.org, it is violating ELNO#19. Please note the offending EL in footnote 40 says: "For the support group, see 'Bradley Manning Support Network', accessed March 4, 2011." Because this EL clearly serves ''to direct readers to the organization's website'' (which ELNOfootnote 5 says is ''not'' okay) it should be removed.--] (]) 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

::::Let me add that bending the guidance by saying it "normally" or "generally" applies can only support claims of unbalance in the article. The support network is documented by independent reliable sources and providing the link to it is --- well? The Bradley Manning article is fine with the separate section ''about'' the network. It does not need a link ''to'' the network. If someone will please delete it, we can mark this Noticeboard topic {Resolved} --] (]) 01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::I think this discussion should take place on the article's talk page, so the other editors can comment. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::(Note: Both SlimVirgin and I added a notice on the talkpage regarding this discussion.--] (]) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC))
{{od}}Surely not ELNOfootnote 5 and there are no camels around. It is perfectly fine to have it as a ref and it should. I personally wouldn't even have a problem to have it as an external link. ] (]) 07:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:''So'', ELNOfootnote 5 actually says:
::"Links to websites ''are'' permitted when the website has been used as a ], but ''not'' to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.<br />'''Yes''': ' issued a press release that said...' <br />'''Yes''': 'The ] issued a press release that said...'"
:''or is it'':
::"Links to websites ''are'' permitted when the website has been used as a ], but ''not'' to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.<br />'''No''': ' issued a press release that said...' <br />'''Yes''': 'The ] issued a press release that said...'<br />'''Except''': 'For the support group see because we like Bradley Manning and want to direct readers to his Support Network.'"
:--] (]) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

:::No. However, the reason I asked this question is essentially an issue of standing: If it is intended to support article content, then you're in the wrong place. External links are defined as those URLs that ''do not'' support article content.
:::SV, would you currently characterize this as an external link, or object to it being listed in the usual way, under ==External links==? ] (]) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

::::I have no objection to it being listed in EL, though I think S. Rich would, because that would make it more prominent. I've now restored it as a source in the footnote, which is how I'd originally used it; see . I think S. Rich should try to gain consensus for his position on the talk page, then consider an article RfC. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::::This edit , which ''less'' "clearly serves ''to direct readers to the organization's website''" is fine in that it complies with the guidance given in ELNO. The website is SPS, but the listing of the advisory board members is not unduly self-serving in and of itself. Presumably, now, if we find a secondary source (such as this one: ) we can use it to describe the advisory board. However, including a link to the support network itself as an ==External links listing would be objectionable in that the Manning article in not about the BMSN. This said, I think we can conclude the discussion. (Most interesting! I thank all who participated and contributed.) --] (]) 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

::::::Well, this is becoming even more puzzling. You're now saying that the first edit I made over 10 days ago, in which I used the Support Network as a source for its own advisory board, is okay; whereas before you said it wasn't, which was the only reason I changed it (bold added; see ):

:::::<blockquote>Not unsurprisingly a link to manning.org has resurfaced. It is, this time, '''disguised as information about the board of advisors'''. The info is entirely primary source and I have tagged it as such. As I read WP:ELNO, the link clearly violates nos. 4 & 19. The fact that they are in a footnote and not a separate EL section does not work as WP:EL pertains to entire articles. I do not see a footnote exception to the guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)</blockquote>

::::::But I'm glad it's resolved anyway. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::: After hashing and hashing on the subject, here and on the Manning talk page, I've run out of steam. The link is a back door link to manning.org, but I've also found (and provided) a secondary source re the board. Let's use that source.--] (]) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:::::::There are already secondary sources in the footnote, but please discuss this on the article's talk page. Having a discussion going on in two places doesn't work well. <font color="black">]</font> <small><sup><font color="gold">]</font><font color="lime">]</font></sup></small> 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

:Srich, the bit about "the Manning article in not about the BMSN":
:Unless someone is trying to claim extra rights for the link as an ELOFFICIAL link, then the rule you're relying on is completely irrelevant. If the link is being put forward as a ''normal'' external link, then the article does '''not''' have to be about BMSN.
:Additionally, ''all'' external links have the effect of "promoting a website"; ELNO #4 is only applied to cases in which ]s ''intend'' that as the effect. ] (]) 17:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

== Notice ==

This is to inform those that frequent this noticeboard that ] is up for deletion. Pls see ] to leave comments.] (]) 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

== ] ==

2 accounts created today have been creating a number of ELs to JCPA (an advocacy group) see . I am reverting their EL additions, though they can be re-added on a case by case basis if someone wants to take ownership of the edits, obviously. <i style="text-shadow:grey 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">]]]</i> 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

== Groupon ==

The article for ], as far as I can tell, is listing every single official site in the external links section. I understand ''why'' they're doing it, but, to me, it just looks cluttered. The only thought I had would be to remove all but the English sites, as this is the English Misplaced Pages, but since Groupon is country-based, not language-based, I'm not really sure that would even work. I just figured I'd ask for some help or suggestions here before I did anything with it. ] 18:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
:I've always gathered that you put only the English official links (and country of origin, if different). I did that for this, and I agree it's completely silly to have them all. ] (])

::Thanks! An anon already went and added two more (which I reverted). An invisi-warning might help with this, but I'm not sure how I would word it. ] 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::You could consider a generic note, e.g., {{tls|No more links}}. Alternatively, a hidden note that says something like, "Misplaced Pages is not a directory of every website run by this company. Please do not add links to country-specific websites" would probably work. ] (]) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

== Amazon Affiliate Spam ==

I noticed an Amazon Affiliate link in an article . I suspected that the user who contributed is a spammer, and sure enough, they have a pattern of using the exact same link to promote this one book about films on Amazon (]). What is the easiest way to 1) automatically remove these links 2) censure/ban this user, and 3) add amazon affiliates to the spam blacklist? The last part is nontrivial because it's not clear what regex would capture all Affiliate links but not legitimate links to Amazon. The URL pattern used in this particular case seems obsolete (i.e., there are other newer ways of forming an Amazon Affiliate link). Also, are plain Amazon links (non-Affiliate) automatically considered spam? -Anonymous 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) </span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Non-affiliate links are not ''automatically'' considered spam, but they are discouraged, because you ought to be using the ISBN ] instead (whenever possible). ] (]) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::Er, why would we ''ever'' link to a vendor site in an article wrapped in an affiliate link? I can understand that we may link to Amazon from ] to talk about the site, but any other amazon link should never be appropriate, affiliate or not. --] (]) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
::::''Affiliate'' links violate ] #17. '''Non'''-affiliate links are merely the least desirable option. As an example, I suggested that an editor visit Amazon.com just the other day, because the specific cited pages are visible there, and they're not visible at Google Books. In the article, however, the citation links to neither. ] (]) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

::I concur wholeheartedly; in fact, if I had such l33t skillz, I'd program a bot to purge Amazon links from Misplaced Pages almost entirely. (The only thing worse is the folks who link to reviews on Amazon's website, which are often written by the authors, their PR people, their families, and/or their most bitter opponents, and are never ].) --] &#x007C; ] 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
:::They do have their uses though, we do have hundreds and hundreds of lifted fair use book covers, album covers and and suchlike files from there. ] (]) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

== japanearthquake-2011.com ==

I saw this . Is this spamming?--v/r - ]] 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
: No, or at least not according to our definition. Spammers usually add the same link to several page, this link was only added once. I see no reason why that link should be in that article (or anywhere else on wikipedia), so I have removed it. '''Yoenit''' (]) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::I should have said advertising instead of spamming. Thanks for taking care of it.--v/r - ]] 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

== Official Links contaminated ==

What can we do when we find that an official link used in an article has some kind of virus? I just got two warnings from part of the in Port Jefferson, New York, and have been know to run into my share of library and local history pages in Florida that turned out to have viruses nearly several months ago. ----] (]) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

:Please remove the links per ] #3.
:Malware sites should normally be reported for ]ing, either at the main page or through ]. ] (]) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::I checked it with the following;
::*http://www.UnmaskParasites.com/security-report/?page=portjeffguide.com/aboutus.cfm
::*http://www.siteadvisor.com/sites/portjeffguide.com/aboutus.cfm
::*http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=portjeffguide.com/aboutus.cfm
::*http://linkscanner.explabs.com/linkscanner/checksite.aspx?NS=ChkOnly&SRC=apps.explabs.com&CS=http://www.portjeffguide.com/aboutus.cfm
::*http://www.avgthreatlabs.com/sitereports/domain/portjeffguide.com
::All seem to check out...--] (]) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the webchecking sites, but I found it again. It's in the "services" chapter of the page, and it gave me a bunch of tracking cookies, some of which were "healed" and others that were transferred to the virus vault. Maybe you should've checked more than one part of the page. However, I just checked that section with the first link myself, and it claimed to be clean.----] (]) 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
::::I checked the specific page you've reported above. I've now run a check on <code>portjeffguide.com/services.cfm</code>, same results as the other. FYI tracking cookies are NOT harmful, just intrusive, because they track your surfing to build a profile on you for advertising purposes. --] (]) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== Are debategraph discussions okay? ==

I'll copy the question here from ]

:Hi

:I would like to propose the addition (e.g. under Further Reading) of links to Global Warming Argument Maps, which summarise key issues, responses and arguments in a visual way (i.e. mindmapping, but tuned for showing multiple viewpoints on a topic).

:For example here is an interactive, embeddable , and this one takes you to the top level of .

:1. Do you think these are useful?

:2. If so, can the page be unlocked so that these can be added?

:Regards,

:Dr Simon Buckingham Shum

It's a new editor, I've explained about the four days and ten edits.

Anyway what do you think, are debategraph discussions a reasonable external link? ] (]) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
:Nice websites but I'd say no. They both appear to be user-generated websites and not published by a recognized authority.--] <small>]</small> 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

== Links to Google Books ==

What's the attitude to these? Is it appropriate for an external link to be to a book? Is there a problem with the fact that this is not possible for those books which don't have preview? And my experience is that preview isn't available in every country. There's a discussion of a specific issue at ]. ] (]) 06:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
:] - Normal links to books are in a "Further reading" or "Bibliography" section like at ] - they must adhere to all the normal guidelines at ]. If there happens to be a preview all the better for our readers but its not a requirement. As for some countries that are not able to see them - this should not discouraged links for those that can see them (not Wikipedias fault some countries/people cant see them).] (]) 07:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

::The extensive use of redirection URLs (handle.net) needs to be fixed. ] (]) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

== BlueLetterBible.org and other outside Bible sites ==

This one is frustrating me to no end and seems to be violating multiple policies in several different ways in various articles, but I thought mentioning it here would make the most sense.

I just re-removed a huge long list of external links to BlueLetterBible.org embedded into the body of the ] article. Apparently somebody thought it was important to link a string of individual words to this off site Bible reference site to do immediate searches on each separately, as if they were Wiktionary links but all over. This site also seems to have an article about itself largely submitted by a COI account and using very flimsy rationale to establish notability.

In the past I have also seen other editors link to different Bible sites individually for various words to go direct to whatever Bible dictionary they personally supported.

I do not think that individual words should be linked like that, and if we were to decide it is helpful then we should find a source that we can agree upon to use that way (perhaps a WikiBible or WikiSource Bible or something?) and not promote individual sites hosted by various special interest groups within Christianity.

Any thoughts, suggested steps to take, etc. are welcome. ] (]) 18:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

:The mass of EL's to Strong's KJV via BlueLetterBible.org in a section on Hebrew text is excessive. That much is clear. There are a list of . (Unless I'm mistaken, as interwiki links, these could appear in the article body.) However, these are specific translations, not a dynamic wikiBible. I wasn't able to find Strong's topical index (the resource being linked to) there. It might be absent due to copyrights. ] would be better equipped to discuss whether Strong's topical index via some website that has addressed the copyrights is sufficiently reliable for use as an RS and/or EL. ] (]) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:40, 24 December 2024

Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12
Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15
Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18
Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21
Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24
Archive 25Archive 26

This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 8 sections are present.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the external links noticeboard
    This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
    • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Misplaced Pages's guidelines for external links.
    • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
    • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
    		 Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Misplaced Pages:Purge)
    		 Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

    Indicators
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to WPSPAM
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter

    Bot? Sock? Farm?

    As I've said over at SPI...

    I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.

    The edits – – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.

    It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
    I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @Beetstra, MER-C, LaundryPizza03, any thoughts on how to detect this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Found one more account.

    The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.

    See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali. MER-C 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

    Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw this by Drutohishab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

    They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. MER-C 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

    Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- GreenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in WP:AN's header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
    @GreenC, @LaundryPizza03, @MER-C, it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    You can see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- GreenC 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
    What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been actively updating it in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been encouraged to use this list instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. OhNoitsJamie 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

    Add a blog from a verified institution to a Misplaced Pages page

    I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Misplaced Pages page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?

    Global Cyber University Fanmadehenecia (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    @Fanmadehenecia Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention Hwang Hyun-jin, so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, WP:BLPSPS likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university Fanmadehenecia (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Fanmadehenecia, you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
    This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of Hwang Hyun-jin?"
    Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a goodwill ambassador for Korea in the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

    Elton John videography

    I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in Elton John videography. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

    @Marchjuly, there is no ==External links== section in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against WP:EL unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
    They're not banned per Misplaced Pages:External links#Links in lists, but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    Computational chemistry

    @Ldm1954 and I are having a discussion here on whether the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. We would love to have more input. Dajasj (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

    As a comment, I am cross-posting to both WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ldm1954, while this could be argued as a type of Misplaced Pages:Further reading, it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Academic Journals might have some advice for you about how to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were WP:RS. I do think that a problem with the External Links Remover, like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate WP:EL. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, WP:BRD). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
    In the particular instance, WP:ELBURDEN says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
    From my understanding of WP:EL and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. Choucas Bleucontribs 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
    Categories: