Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:36, 31 July 2006

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (March to July 2005) / Archive 2 (August to November 2005) / Archive 3 (November 2005 to January 2006) / Archive 4 (February 2006 to April 2006) / Archive 5 (April 2006 to July 2006)

Re link removals

Looking at your comments below - I was hoping you would hear my opinion as well. It took many years and 1000s of people's contributions to create such an amazing repository of images on underwater.com.au - a community website - and yes it does have commercial aspects as well, but how could a website like that run any other way.

We have a community of people that spend a lot of their time at not charge to put photos into our galleries, to catalogue the underwater world of australia and to encourage visiting these amazing destinations.

I agree with not creating links to purely commercial sites and links that add no further content to wikipedia, but honestly believe these collections (which are constantly growing as the community keep submitting images) are a value add to the articles on wikipedia - most people don't even realise the amount of underwater life and beauty Australia has to offer. We don't need the 10s of click a week we would be getting from wiki links but honestly believed them to be an enrichment of the site.

Also the links are not merely to a collection of pictures - they also crosslink to articles by the community if they are related.

Of course i will respect the decisions of the wiki family and will not post a collection of external links again.

I would like hearing from you.

Copied from WP:AWNB

seeking an opinion on external links

Could people please offer opinions on external links added in these edits. The pictures are very pretty and possibly encyclopedic, but I think it skates a fine line it terms of being a commercial website. - What do you think? -- Adz|talk 15:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding links from one website to a bunch of otherwise unrelated articles with no other content-adding edits? Looks like linkspam to me! pfctdayelise (translate?) 15:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* I feel that they fall within the scope for removal under Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Misplaced Pages. The link is merely to a collection of pictures. Interested readers, if they were looking for pictures, could find them in other ways, eg Google. I agree with Pfctdayelise, looks like Linkspam.--A Y Arktos\talk 20:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

They seem clearly commercial to me. The front page (at least from the link in the Broome article) contains items for sale. I would remove them all, along with any other commercial links already there. Kevin 21:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

* I am removing and will leave a message on talk page of IP--A Y Arktos\talk 22:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

just checking if you got my comments re the link removals

Response copied from IPs talk page: *Hi I got your message and was mulling it over. I think the problem is also the addition of links about underwater photography to city pages. If the link been dealing with a reef or other predominantly underwater topic, then perhaps would stay. The increasing preference is that external links are really only references to the content, not additional tangential material. Hope this makes sense - if not feel free to queryRegards--A Y Arktos\ 08:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

the thing is that most people forget the underwater life the cities have to offer - appreciation should go underwater as well - which is what we are all about and why we have such an active community of contributors. It is not about the photography, it is about what is to see especially at that location - which is why we have made our gallery based on localities.

But who is the judge of all this - maybe I should write a short article addition on each locality and reference underwater and the gallery - would that be something wikipedia is more happy with ?

Wikiproject:Architecure Peer Review proposal

I'm trying to build a consensus for a Wikiproject Peer review process. I've opened a discussion page here. Would you like to comment? Would you be prepared to take part in the peer review process? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

IG Farben Building FAC

Also, I posted the IG Farben Building on the FAC on the 17th July. It currently has a support consensus, but only from 4 people. I'd be more comfortable with a stronger consensus and was wondering if you might be prepared to comment on the article? Many thanks. --Mcginnly | Chinwag 12:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Anon

I had another bout with your anon friend last night, still behaving as vile as ever. -- Longhair 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

He's been told how to sign posts, and still refuses to do so. It's hardly rocket science. I'm going to block him on that behaviour alone if he persists in ignoring reasonable requests. Nobody needs to go along behind him and clean up - that's not why we're here. The rest of his anti-social behaviour only brings a block even closer. I used to work for his ISP. Contacting them isn't going to be easy, as most technical support staff are outsourced nowadays and any chance of reaching anyone able to do anything about this user are very remote. I think the best course of action if and when they return is simply to block the entire range. Affected customers can then determine if it's worth sticking with an ISP that doesn't act on disruptive users. Any help you need with this character, let me know. -- Longhair 22:32, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I was about to archive my talk page, but noted you'd linked to it in your evidence. I'll leave it be for now. I only archive for the convenience of others anyway. It can wait ;) -- Longhair 00:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine for now. If I decide to archive I'll let you know prior. Edit away. We always need more content, and less politics :) I'll ask around some friends of mine who still work for the Big T. Maybe we can show this guy he's not as invisible as he thinks. -- Longhair 00:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The offender is online now if you'd like to add to your evidence. Didn't take them long to begin and be blocked accordingly. -- Longhair 02:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just dropped by to congratulate tou and Longhair on your patience dealing with the anon user on Gundagai. I would have run screaming from the computer if I'd had to put up with what you have. --Roisterer 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

They have been attacking again! Mount Kosciuszko History (1 & 2) -- RobertM 13:42, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

They have returned under another IP User:203.54.9.154. -- RobertM 01:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverted more under there new IP User:203.54.9.87. -- RobertM 09:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• • They have made a return on another IP User:203.54.186.138 -- RobertM 02:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • And yet again they have returned. User:203.54.9.1 Battle of the Hindenburg Line History. This is starting to get very frustrating! -- RobertM 12:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Narooma Pics

pretty, thank you for making my town look nice :) WookMuff 21:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems that a wiki search for Mount Dromedary redirects to Mount Gulaga which seems to actually be in NSW (I'm no native!) Apparently, Dromedary was renamed Gulaga at some point in history, but...

In several places on the web, there are references to a "Mount Dromedary" on Tasmania http://www.pabha.dhamma.org/

Also, it's listed as a protected "forest reserve" on http://www.answers.com/topic/protected-areas-of-tasmania

Perhaps there needs to be a disambiguation?

Mike 12:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR violation

I do not htink I can be accused of being involved in your current dispute over the Lance Armstrong article. I regard your recent edits as violating the 3RR--A Y Arktos\ 01:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Undoing vandalism does not break 3RR. Removing POV-tags and requests for citations without consensus is vandalism.

Would you be so kind to look into the actions of both parties? As I lined out at the administrator's noticeboard, JzG violated several important rules. Socafan 01:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My fourth edit was solely restoring a POV-tag and requests for citations of unsourced quotes, that is no content, it is undoing vandalism and thus not breaking 3RR. Socafan 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Our comments on respective talk pages overlapped. My comments about the 3RR apply to all editors. I am somewhat interested in Armstrong, also Landis and enjoy watching the TdF. I don't have a strong view though whether or not the section is POV or otherwise - thus in the case of the Armstrong article I am not interested in the content - only the behaviour. The other user presently involved seems well aware of the 3RR. If you want tags restored, please use the talk page to state and another editor can make the edit for you if they agree with your request and rationale.--A Y Arktos\ 01:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

No, sorry, removing POV-tags without consensus is vandalism, and it can be undone by anyone. I ask you again to please take a look at the actions of both sides. I have lined out at the administrator's noticeboard that your fellow admin JzG violated several rules. He also deleted the article David Walsh (sports reporter) and its history without discussion in spite of two others having found a consensual wording. Socafan 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please just think about it: What is the sense of a POV-tag if it can just be removed by someone without any discussion, claiming there is nothing controversial? The very fact that there is someone who reinserts the tag shows there is a dispute. Of course this someone can be a nerd who sees a dispute where no one else does. This is not the case here, as can be easily seen at the talk page where Calton did not even bother to participate in the discussion. Removing a POV-tag without consensus is vandalism, as is removing requests for citations of unsourced quotes, there is nothing controversial about the fact that a quote in a quote section needs to be sourced. Socafan 02:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry, I was wrong. WP:Vandalism explains that dispute tags should not be removed twice during a 24 h period. However, it does not count as "simple vandalism", and apparently "complicated vandalism" is not exempt from the 3RR:

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that the dispute is settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

I apologize and will not do it again. However, I ask you to restore the tag, as there is a content dispute. Furthermore, I ask you to think over your question. Can a POV-tag be placed consensually? If there was consensus, no POV-tag would be needed.

I ask you for a third time to review the actions of both sides. JzG clearly violated several rules, even after having been warned by another administrator. Will you take care of that, too? Socafan 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for helping to resolve the conflict. I however find it sad that apparently there's honour among thieves admins. Normal editors easily get blocked by discretion of them, but if an admin breaks several rules rarely do the other ones do anything about it. This undermines the credibility of adminship and thus undermines the whole project. Socafan 02:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no recent behaviour by JzG to complain about. I have taken on one fellow thief today .. now for those dishes.--A Y Arktos\ 02:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

JzG did violate several rules as can be clearly seen from what I explained at the administrator's noticeboard. If you disagree please open my eyes, but do not just make a claim that in my eyes shows a lack of respect. Socafan 02:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)