Talk:Brighton/External Link Debate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] External link to "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

PLEASE NOTE: The link in question is a link to a personal website owned by User:Keith Parkins (www.heureka.clara.net/sunrise/keith.htm), who on http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/346947.html has revealed his interest in being linked to from the Brighton page. It is allegeded that sockpuppetry is at play here.

I've removed the link to ["www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm" www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm] which had reappeared. After reading the External links guidance, I think it does not provide a unique resource beyond Wikipedia and is not very verifiable.

The edits have appeared here:

I appeal to this user to join in and contribute to the article by editing content rather just adding links. It's fun! :) --Seaweed 16:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

He (perhaps the site author, Keith Parkins) keeps adding this link and a similar one to West Pier, Brighton and another to Hampshire. He's always anonymous, and never seems to read comments in the reversion summaries, nor rebut them with any justification. His pages appear to be almost copies of the article anyway. Grr.
As a frequent visitor to Brighton summer and winter, someone who has promoted and publicised events in Brighton, I have reinstated the link
  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"
as I have found this to be a page worth visiting. Better than anything else I have found on Brighton and certainly far better than the Wikipedia page.
It contains lots of useful information on Brighton, lots of good quality pictures.
The same is true of the page on the West Pier. Does the Wikipedia page, for example, contain information on the involvement of St Modwen?
  • www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/west-pier.htm West Pier
St Modwen, for those who don't know, has a good track record on destroying town centres, and would have done an equally good job on destroying the Brighton sea front.
The West Pier page discusses in some depth the damaging impact the St Modwen development would have had on the Brighton historic seafront. Yet another page I will have to reinstate when I find the time.
It would seem a couple of people are treating the Brighton page, and maybe others too (West Pier page) as their own personal property, and anything they don't like is deleted, then if it is restored, they scream 'spam'.
All very childish, and does little for the credibility of Wikipedia, which the more I investigate, the lower it sinks in my esteem. How many monkeys does it take to create an encyclopedia?
If these children wish to have their own personal pages, fine, go away and create them, but don't stake out your own personal space on Wikipedia.
Contrary to what has been claimed, the page linked contains information not on the Wikipedia page, and thus compliments the Wikipedia page.
Is it the intention of Wikipedia to merely duplicate everything to be found elsewhere on the web (too often I have found a straight copy of such material) rather than provide an overview and then provide a link?
Ultimately, it should be for the users of the Wikipedia page to decide if referenced page contains useful information, in which case they will use it or not as the case may be, not some Big Brother making arbitrary decisions on their behalf.
It seems to boil down to petty jealousy. Someone has done a better job elsewhere.
Should the link be removed, I will contact all the people I know who either live in Brighton or know Brighton, ask them to check out the referenced page, then add a link if they think it provides useful information on Brighton. I'll also ask them to contact their friends to do likewise.
I see no reason why the picture of a girl in a thong on the beach should have been removed. Strictly speaking it was a picture of the beach, that just happened to have a picture of a girl in a thong, who isn't even noticed until attention is drawn to her.
That is Brighton beach in the summer. It is not portraying a false picture of Brighton. The only grounds for removing the picture would be if the girl herself had objected on grounds of privacy.
The picture should be reinstated, and if I find the time, I will do so myself if others have not already done so.
Shock horror, I can find, if I look hard enough, near naked girls on the referenced page!
  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"
Nor can I see why SchNEWS should be removed. SchNEWS is part of the cultural and political history of Brighton, apart from being an important radical newsletter in its own right.
A link to SchNEWS should be reinstated, if it has not already been reinstated.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightonkid (talk • contribs).
I'd sincerely ask the writer of that lot, who has never contributed anything else to Wikipedia under that username, to read what he or she has written. It sounds like some of the things it's accusing other people of (including jealously), sounds like the person has a particular axe to grind, and sounds like a bit of a tantrum even. I'm not being uncivil, just honest; I'd ask the user to seriously consider this as a constructive reply, not an insult.
And back to Wikipedia itself, let's have a wee vote, shall we?
  • Support removing the link, as per the reasons given by Seaweed and Kierant above. Daview 18:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Support --Seaweed 18:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly support – and plan to add to Wikipedia:Current surveys if there is anything less than strong consensus. (Haven't bothered to do so yet, as per guidelines to seek consensus first.) Note: please refer to Wikipedia:External links and in particular point 1.3.2 (which says we shouldn't link to unverified original research). – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 19:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Strongly support – Gsd2000 22:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong (belated) Support for link removal. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
  • More Strong (belated) Support for link removal. It fails WP:RS. Wikipedia is not to be used to increase traffic to personal website. Wikipedia is not a link farm. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
    As an aside the sockpuppet accounts run by Keith Parkins seem to add very POV comments to town articles. For this reason I suspect that his own web pages are not objective.
I vote put back the link
  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"
and have done so.
A vote on this page is anyway meaningless.
How many people bother to look at this talk page, let alone read the drivel contained therein.
The link should remain to let readers of the Brighton page make up their own mind. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.21 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 2 August 2006.
What you've done is re-promoted the link to the top of the external links. It hadn't been removed, just placed at the end, after the more offical links. And you've deleted the note that it was a link to a personal site, and once again it's labelled just "Brighton" which is most uninformative.
On the subject of straw polls, a vote such as this, on a talk page, is an accepted way of determining consensus on Wikipedia. To avoid an edit war I'm not going to revert your change again myself, but seek support from a Wikipedia administrator.
To answer your specific point about letting people make up their own mind; normally I'd agree with you, but these things can be taken too far. Would you advocate filling Wikipedia with adverts and spam, so readers could make up their own mind about those? – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with comment, should not refer to adverts, promotions etc, but not the case here. I also agree with letting people make up their own minds.

We have a link to a very good page on Brighton. If it is removed, the case could equally be made for removing many other links.

Is there, for example, errors on the linked page? I can see nothing obvious, and it gives people a view of Brighton from different perspective, whilst at the same time, being as far as I can assertain, accurate.

I'm pleased to see the link has not been removed.

In terms of ranking, I don't have a view, other than surely links to Brighton should appear BEFORE links to something specific on Brighton, but maybe I'm wrong.

My vote is it should stay, but how many people visit te talk page to cast their vote, rather than simply use the page? Maybe the header will draw thenm in. As it has myself.


The discussion is descending into farce.

A criticism is made of the link to a page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

a page on Brighton that is called Brighton, for being labelled Brighton!!!

What would we have it called, Bognor!

Flipping through a guide to Sussex, I find, as I would expect, the chapter on Brighton is called, surprise, surprise, Brighton.

Looking at the Rough Guide to England, I find the section on Brighton is called, surprise, surprise, Brighton.

Critisicsm was made that the link to Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

was placed at the top of the list. This would appear to be the obvious place to put it.

Logically, a link to a page on Brighton should preceded any links to particular aspects of Brighton.

A carefully scrutiny of the arguments against the link

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

reveals many inconsistencies.

The impression is given that the bottom of the barrel is being scraped to justify removal of the link to

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

This begs the question why?

The obvious explanation seems to be that a couple of people appear to have staked out wiki Brighton as their own piece of personal real estate on the net. They didn't put the link there or approve of its existence, therefore it should be promptly removed.

This is even seen when it is allowed to remain (albeit under great protest), then demoted to the bottom of the list, with no rational reason for its demotion. And of course given the label, 'controversial'.

All very childish, all very petty.

The children who have staked out the page as their own, have no understanding, and I'd hazard a guess, experience, of carrying out historical research.

They complain of lack of verification of the contents of the linked page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

and yet previously had complained it merely reproduced what was on 'their' wiki page. And yet they have also complained that the page is original research.

Yes, as I have said, many inconsistencies in their arguments.

To verify a fact, I would expect a reference to original primary source documents and/or eyewitness accounts, and even then these have to be treated with caution and one has to be skilled at interpretation.

I find not a single example on the wiki page.

On the other hand, I can find such examples on the linked page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

The linked page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

is principally a contemporary account of Brighton. Many pictures of Brighton (or is it being claimed these are of elsewhere?), where there are historical accounts, there are plenty of embedded references (to books, paintings etc), also many links which expand particular points (and fortunately do not refer to Wikipedia, which apart from being a cyclic reference, would be a reference to a highly flawed source).

Is the linked page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

riddled with errors and falsehoods? If it is, then maybe we should be told.

A mediator has been appointed. Does this person know Brighton? Will this person be visiting Brighton to check out what has been said? Will this person be checking out all the referenced sources or claimed historical facts, and I trust citing all their sources, not only for the linked page on Brighton

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

but also for the wiki page on Brighton?

If not, then we are engaging in the same meaningless exercise, as the straw poll on the Talk page.

All carefully designed to give Wikipedia a veneer of legitimacy that it does not deserve.

How many monkeys does it take to produce an encyclopedia? How many of these monkeys realise that their childish scribblings for a not-for-profit organisation, placed in the public domain, are being mined and sold commercially?


Pleased to see seaweed has restored the link to

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

but no explanation why a link to a page on Brighton cannot be simply called 'Brighton', as for example is this Wikipedia page on Brighton, nor why it should be at the bottom of the list.

Me, I have no preference where it appears in the list, but logically, I'd expect pages on Brighton to preceede those on some specific aspects of Brighton.

I also note the mediation case has been closed and the mediator removed. No explanation given.

One can only assume his extreme prejudice.

I wait with baited breath for answers.

I would though expect the link to remain, and ideally called 'Brighton', as it is a page on Brighton, and as the Wikipedia page, it is entitled 'Brighton'.

That is I vote YES KEEP the link to

  • "www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

Hopefully these comments are of some use.

The mediator has been very honourable by resigning his rôle following an incident where he expressed a personal opinion. He was quick to realise his error, and strike it out from the discussion, but somebody (an anonymous user, like yourself, but perhaps not you?) commented unfavourably on this. So I suggested the most fair course might be to appoint another mediator; he (or she) graciously agreed. Far from there being "no explanation given", this was all explained in discussions on the various talk pages involved.
As for the link itself; it's customary (please read the guidelines and look at other examples) to have the most relevant official links first. And it's simple good web design, not to mention helpfulness, to give a clear description

of an external link, beyond just one word. On an article about Brighton, it's pretty obvious the links will be about Brighton (or they shouldn't be there at all) and so it's neccessary to go into a little more detail to help readers. And we're supposed to be doing all of this for the benefit of readers. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:59, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


I have just come across this debate. Even the briefest consideration of the External Links policy shows that this link should not be there. It is plainly not a unique, defintive resource.

--Bcnviajero 17:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


Looking through various associated pages, this little controversy over a link and how the controversy is being handled (and maybe resolved) can only be described as bizarre.

The controversy itself is scattered over many many pages, with no obvious links, which makes it very difficult to follow, maybe intentional.

The dispute procedure, for example, refers to the mediation cabal page, rather than the case page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02_Brighton_(external_link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-04_Brighton_(external_link)

Then there are the comments made by by the disgraced mediator, placed on the personal page of one of the participants, not, as one would expect, on the case page.

We have a link to a page on Brighton

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

which a tiny handful of people who appear to have staked out the Wikipedia Brighton page as their own personal real estate have objected to. Plus some minor objections, which, such as the name of the page, its ranking etc, are so trivial it is difficult to take seriously, but which I will try to address these also.

The link to the page on Brighton

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

goes to a very good page on Brighton.

I have yet to see a valid argument why the page should not be linked to.

The argument that it is not validated is spurious. Partly because it does contain references, even if not explicitly stated, but more importantly, no-one has yet shown that there is anything wrong with the page content.

The argument on validity, could equally be applied to not only the other linked pages, but equally, to the Wikipedia page itself.

Are statements within a local authority website valid? I doubt it, if it is like any other local authority, incompetent and corrupt to the core.

And if anyone doubts the veracity of this statement, then I suggest they take out a subscription to Private Eye, where the local authority is known as Skidrow-on-Sea, and its corrupt practices are regularly exposed. Indeed, Skidrow-on-Sea once again appears in this week's Rotten Boroughs column of Private Eye.

The latest scandal to hit Skidrow-on-Sea is plans to build a tower block on the marina which will exceed the height limit, break an Act of Parliament, and despoil views of the seafront and the elegant terrace housing of Kemptown. The local Member of Parliament Des Turner MP, at the behest of the developer, e-mailed the councillors urging them to push through the 40-storey block on behalf of the developer. The councillors duly pushed the proposal through on the nod, as is the wont of all corrupt councils.

Skidrow-on-Sea acted in a similar fashion to push through the plans put forward by St Modwen for the redevelopment of the West Pier, which would have destroyed the seafront. A scandal touched upon on this Talk page, but noticeably absent from the Wikipedia West Pier page.

The same issue of Private Eye reports that Brighton MP Des Turner (who is described as 'being a bit of a thicko') has been put before the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, Sir Philip Mawer, for describing a Skidrow-on-Sea housing official as 'a little fucking useless pen-pusher'.

As for the other sites linked, they are collections of individual submissions, no peer review or other checking.

Therefore, on the basis of the specious grounds for removing the link to the page on Brighton

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

all these links should go to.

Although I am not suggesting they should, only exposing the falseness of the argument for removing the link to the page on Brighton

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

The name and ranking ....

Logically, a link to a site on Brighton should be at the top of the list, and the name should be 'Brighton', if that is what the link is about, especially if that is what the linked page is called. This should precede any links to specific areas of Brighton, followed by wider areas which may encompass more than just Brighton.

The name of the link, should be the name of the linked page, in this case 'Brighton', unless some very good reasons are put forward for not doing so. So far, none have.

I have checked out a random sample of pages on Wikipedia, and I find they all follow the obvious logical structure I have argued above.

One of the participants has labelled the link 'Brighton on a Personal Page', or something very similar.

This is false, as it is not what it is. It is not a personal page, that contains information on Brighton.

It is a page on Brighton, that at the bottom, has a person's copyright attached to protect their intellectual property rights.

This is no different to a guidebook, that has an editor, and the book has a copyright on it.

I could suggest, 'A Guide to Brighton' would be more appropriate, as that is what it is, to keep everyone happy, but I see no real reason, and so far none has been put forward, why it should not simply be called 'Brighton', as it is a link to a page on Brighton.

I am appalled and disgusted by the behaviour of the self-styled mediator, Deon555, who has shown no understanding of mediation, and are pleased to see he/she has voluntarily stood down. Did they jump or was they pushed?

But would they have stood down, had they not been exposed?

The self-styled mediator has demonstrated themselves to be unfit to be a mediator, and I trust he/she will be removed from the list of mediators.

The case was closed, and the case immediately reopened, under the same mediator!

No reason has been put on the old case file for closing the case. And credit where credit is due, one of the participants, has put a link on the new case file pointing to the old case file. This was something the mediator should have done.

One of the participants seems to have 'inside' knowledge of why the discredited mediator resigned, but I have not been able to find this anywhere, I therefore assume another of these back door personal communications.

'The mediator has been very honourable by resigning his rôle following an incident where he expressed a personal opinion. He was quick to realise his error, and strike it out from the discussion, but somebody (an anonymous user, like yourself, but perhaps not you?) commented unfavourably on this. So I suggested the most fair course might be to appoint another mediator; he (or she) graciously agreed. Far from there being "no explanation given", this was all explained in discussions on the various talk pages involved.'

As already stated, this should all be upfront and the reasons for resignation published on the case file.

The mediator made comments on the case, comments that were placed on the personal page of one of the participants. Any comments by the mediator should be restricted to the case file, not personal comments addressed to one of the participants. Comments that showed extreme prejudice towards one of the parties.

'Hi Kieran, It looks like the other participant BrightonKid is either not interested in participating, or simply, the account was only made to vandalise the page. I've had a look at the link, and i would say myself that the link should be omittedSee below If he decides to come back within 7 days, we will mediate, otherwise: Case closed. Thanks --Deon555|talk|e 00:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)'

Shortly after the self-styled mediator was removed or removed his or herself from the case, the following message was posted on the personal web page of one of the participants

'Hi Kieran, okay firstly, i'm happy to assign this case to another MedCab member, but theres a huge backlog, and the wait is currently 2-14 days i think.. But that will work because Brightonkid is away until the 10th. Also, just to clear this up with you, after 1 week, if I do not get a Signed Participant Request (which you signed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-08-02_Brighton_(external_link)|here]]), I must assume, that it was in bad faith, and that the other editor is not interested in Mediation, and just wanted to vandalise. After consideration, I have now decided to close this request for Mediation. Thankyou for letting me work with you, and the new request is here. Thankyou for letting me mediate for you (for a short time!) :). Stay Safe, --Deon555|talk|e 00:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC) '

No such or similar comments were placed on the personal web page of the other participant.

Which again reinforces the view this person is unfit to be a mediator.

The only comments to be placed on the pages of the participants should be an invitation to participate, then the findings. All other comments should be placed on the case file.

The invitation to participate does not say how. Presumably one simply makes comments on this Talk page, or maybe on the case file, but this is not obvious as it is not explicitly stated what the procedures are.

The time frame is extremely short for a non-urgent matter, and assumes participants have nothing better to do than spend their life on-line glued to Wikipedia.

Some of us have a life.

I've no idea what this is about 'spam' and 'trolls'. The link has to be mentioned, or otherwise, how does anyone reading this for the first time, know what is being discussed, and have the opportunity, to check out the link for themselves?

It gives the impression of derogatory remarks being made, but cannot be sure until it is clarified.

The person who makes this complaint, makes similar links on his own personal page in order that the context of any discussion is apparent.

The discredited mediator Deon555 accuses brightonkid of 'vandalism' for adding to the core of knowledge by making a link to a valuable site on Brighton. A very strange definition of vandalism!

He also attacks the brightonkid for only having made this one change.

Well, we all have to start somewhere, and the brightonkid has provided a useful link. Or to be strictly correct, restored a link that others had made and others had deleted.

I would have far more confidence in someone who has made only one change or made a contribution on a subject they know, and that is all they ever do, than someone who makes hundreds of changes all over the place.

Never mind the quality, feel the width!

Take a look at the page for Deon555, the discredited mediator. He brags of the number of pages he has changed, numbering several hundred, and on the basis of this, he is applying for some important meaningless status.

Quantity obviously counts over quality.

Then see the silly little badges, 'New Page Patroller', 'Current Edit Patroller'.

Get enough brownie points and you are invited into the inner sanctum of the next level

This is the behaviour of children

It is this sort of behaviour which makes Wikipedia and the people who are regular contributers a laughing stock.

It is not the output that matters, but the process. The more you contribute, the higher your status.

Some people and pages are more important than others. Try changing the page of the co-founder of Wikipedia. I should emphasis co-founder, as he likes to portray himself as the founder, the other co-founder having been airbrushed out of history. That's why you can't change the page.

Orwellian Newsspeak writ large

Wikipedia has nothing to do with knowledge, it is anti-knowledge

What we have is entropy, ensuing chaos masquerading as structured knowledge.

Wikipedia is looking increasingly more like a cult than a genuine attempt to structure knowledge. Like all cults, it has its inner circles, badges of honour and other meaningless drivel. Why bother with the Masons when there is Wikipedia?

Unfortunately too may people are being duped, not only the innocent users, but also the monkeys who are beavering away to produce the chaos.

That is not to belittle the genuine people who know a subject, and believe they are contributing to a corpus of structured knowledge, but their best efforts can be laid waste within minutes.

Behind the scenes, laughing all the way to the bank, are those who are selling the produce of this not-for-profit, allegedly in the public domain, content for commercial gain.

If you so dislike Wikipedia, why are you writing so much? The link isn't providing anything referenced or anything substantial which is a unique resource (other than its opinions) but that's barely relevant any more. What this seems to be about is you "winning" in some way, and also plugging that link, and also grinding an axe against the council, property developers, and some of your fellow editors. Obviously the quickest way to solve this and get on with life and the project is to just let you have what you want, but what will you demand next? Daview 17:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
To Keith or whoever (this page is impossible to follow) is ranting about Deon, this was, I understand, his first mediation case. He made a mistake. He stood down immediately. Cut the guy some slack. And please cease making personal attacks on Deon. It is a breach of policy, WP:NPA and may lead to you being blocked. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Above is typical of the Wikipedia cult, when losing the argument, tell the oppsoing side to clear off.

I agree links should not go to commercial sites.

Looking at the page on Fleet in Hampshire, what do I find but a link to a commercial site.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleet%2C_Hampshire

Not wishing to be accused of vandalism, I left the link in place, but the Wikipedia thought police ought to be on the case case promptly and effect its immediate removal.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.23 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 8 August 2006.

I support retention of the link to Brighton page

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.188.97 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 August 2006.


I note this discussion is being spread over more and more pages which makes it extremely difficult to follow.

The latest page onto which it has spilled (they may well be more) is that of the latest mediator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Wikizach

a mediator I trust who will not show the extreme bias and prejudice of the previous mediator.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightonkid (talk • contribs) .


This is quite an astonishing debate, remarkable (even for Wikipedia) for its length, tediousness and, most of all, triviality. But here I go to add to it.

It is perfectly apparent that the link has no place on the page. External links are not appropriate for Wikipedia, except in some extreme cases. For example, if the article is about an organisation or person with their own page, it should be linked to. If there is a website that is an absolutely definitive resource for the subject, going into a depth that would never be possible on Wikipedia, and which can be considered almost unmissable in relation to the issue in question, it may well be appropriate to link to it. Otherwise not.

Having a few pictures and some pieces of general information definitely does not consitute the kind of site to which a link should be placed.

--Bcnviajero 13:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

One again comments made with no rational argument. The link goes to more than 'a few pictures and some pieces of general information'.

The same could be said of the Wikepedia page. Are we therefore to delete it and throw away all the hard work of Seaweed and KT?

The same could be said for the other links. Are we to delete them too?

The level of debate by these people is pathetic. We are right and everyone else is wrong.

Grow up!!!


Your choice of words is entirely inappropriate. And if you are going to criticse the comments of others, then at least have the decency to sign your messages.

In response to your question, yes, many links which are placed on tourist destinations should indeed be removed. I am fed up of people putting their commercial sites (spam) or their holiday snaps and blog musings (vanity publishing) as links.

Finally, I state again that the link goes to no more than a few pictures and some pieces of general information. It is well short of the definitive contribution it would need to be to be in order to be worth putting as a link.

--Bcnviajero 17:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I see the wikithugs are out and about again, trying to silence any alternative or dissenting view.

Their role in life is lost. They would have done well in Nazi Germany.

They are obviously failing to take heed of Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales.

One has to wonder why, to quote Jimo Wales, why an encyclopedia that 'aims to include the sum of all human knowledge' is omitting this link, useful additional information, contrary to Wikipedia policy.


Hey, maybe we should chant the magic incantation and bring on board Wikipedia co-founder Jimbo Wales as he seems to have a few thoughts on these matters ....

"Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That’s what we’re doing."

Or maybe not ...

"I think a fair number of people need to be kicked out of the project just for being lousy writers." --Jimmy Wales, May 16 2006

Or did did Dragonfly67 get it about right with ...

"Submitting garbage to Wikipedia is like masturbating - it feels good to you, but to no one else, and it results in a sudden spurt of totally useless information that needs to be cleaned up." --

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.23 (talk • contribs) .

Dear repeatedly unsigned. This is truly peculiar. I know that on Wikipedia people can get very het up about very little indeed, but I think this debate has to beat all records. For my part, I happened across this discussion, had an opinion, and voiced it. But quite frankly I don't actually give a toss either way; whether you realise it or not life will continue whatever happens. Why is this so important to you? Why the abuse? What is it about this particular site that leads to you invoke the memory of Nazism? The fact that you did so over something so trivial removes any last reason that there may once have been for engaging in what you apparently consider to be a conversation.

Farewell.

For anyone else who wants to see the great advances in Wikipedia for which this individual has been responsible, visit [1]. It includes such masterpieces as "jyjygjyjijy", "saraward is a chav" and "he was also one of the champions in the wankers finils and won it 200 times". Genius.

--Bcnviajero 12:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been watching this discussion with interest over the last few days. See you've lost your cool! I have put back the link to "A Guide to Brighton" page pending the mediators findings,as already previously agreed by both parties to the mediation!

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.29.126 (talk • contribs) .


Ignorance is bliss. Each time Bcnviajero makes a comment he/she simply demonstrates the level of their ignorance.

In his/her latest diatribe they draw attention to a large number of edits, all from the same IP address. And then go on to draw the (probably) false conclusion that is the same person.

A cursory glance at the list shows the diverse range of edits, from obvious vandalism to genuine contributions, over a wide range of seemingly unrelated pages.

Unless these are random edits over a random set of pages in an attempt to hide the tracks of the user of the IP address, it would be reasonable to conclude the edits are by more than one person.

Obviously Bcnviajero is not aware of randomly allocated IP addresses to public access terminals, terminals that in all likelihood are in use 24 hours a day, or at least a large proportion of any one day.

On the balance of probabilities, randomly allocated public access terminals is the most likely scenario. Thus a number of different users.

Would those who keep deleting this link, please note that it has been agreed by parties to the dispute, that the link to

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

shall remain in place during mediation.

KT has said he does not like the link being called 'Brighton' and changed it to a less than appropriate name. The name has been changed to 'A Guide to Brighton', which hopefully will meet with KT's approval.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brightonkid (talk • contribs) .

Brightonkid, your obsession with this link is frankly bizarre. But that aside, is it mere coincidence that both you and 213.166.17.21 add unsigned monologue rants to this talk page about this link, which you both always refer to on a separate line, thus:
"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"
Furthermore, is it another extraordinary coincidence that at [9:37am] 213.166.17.21 added the link back, then at [9:43am] Brightonkid added another rant on the subject to the talk page? Please read WP:SOCK - it is extremely easy to find out if you are the same user, and if found guilty you will be banned. Gsd2000 15:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


OK, well done, Brightonkid, you have successfully dragged me back to answer you one more time. It now seems apparent from your posting on another website (see [2] that you are in fact the owner of the site in question, Keith Parkins, and that this is the reason you want to inflict it on everyone else. Unless you are just pretending to be him in that post...what is clear is that it is you posting there. What you have posted on that site is false in almost its every word, and identical in its style to the postings here.

I am fully aware of how IP addresses work, but the edits I quoted are so in keeping with the general level of your contributions and methods of debating that it seems unimagineable that you are not in fact the author of them too.

You are entirely hypocriticial. Every one of your allegations applies to you and not to everyone else who is against you. This is the refusal to enter into debate, the belief that this is your personal space on the internet, the immediate descent into childish insults, the abuse levelled at all those who oppose you, the triviality of your comments, and your tediousness. Most amusingly, you criticse others for taking it all too seriously and not having a life....while writing enormous, rambling, nonsensical self-justifications accusing all and sundry of any number of supposed misdemeanours.

Of course, the possibility remains that you are in fact simply a troll, who knows that what he is writing is absurd, but who simply wants to provoke a reaction in order to provide some generally missing human interaction. If so, congratulations, it seems to have worked on us.

--Bcnviajero 15:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow - kudos to you Bcnviajero for finding that. All I can say is: how completely and utterly pathetic this is, and the lengths to which this individual will go to get his website linked to. WP:NOR and WP:SOCK should be enough to (a) get this link removed and (b) get this user banned, respectively. Gsd2000 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
BTW - this also explains the obsession with repeating the link on the talk page. Wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Keith Parkins is trying to bump up his search engine rankings. Hopefully the Google algorithm is not so stupid as to count more than once multiple links from one page. Gsd2000 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
And one further thing. On the website found above, Mr. Keith Parkins refers to similar "issues" he has been having on the Aldershot page. Sure enough, if one goes to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aldershot&action=history and looks at the edit history, we see the same IP addresses cropping up, and another sockpuppet, Clever dicky. It's worth reading another of this author's rants, here http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/11/327726.html in which he writes how he has been threatened with an ASBO by Rushmoor Council. Note that Aldershot and Rushmoor are next door neighbours: [3]. Gsd2000 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
So, Mr Parkins has been vandalising this article too, using numerous sockpuppets, as he did with Aldershot. Thanks, Gsd2000, for providing further evidence of this user's disruptive behaviour; if additional evidence is required, then Talk:Aldershot provides plenty. Oh, and incidentially, Aldershot is actually *in* Rushmoor Borough, rather than next to it. Mr Parkins has on numerous occasions added text ranting about the supposed evils of Rushmoor BC - well, now we know why! DWaterson 17:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note before you edit out again!

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

This comment appears at the top of the Wikipedia Brighton page.

There is currently a Mediation Cabal discussion taking place regarding this article. Please see the talk page for details, ideally before editing. Thank you.

The final decision must be left up to the mediator.

If you continue to remove this link, this must also amount to vandalism of the page by you, as it's not up to you to decide if it should go. By the way, I am not Keith Parkins, Brightonkid, Seaweed, KT. I am just an innocent bystander, who would like to see a fair outcome.


Would Gsd2000 follow their own advice and stop removing a link from an article in mediation. What right do you have to keep removing the link whilst it is in mediation and demanding that I refrain from adding it back, when it is not a decision to be made by either of us.

Also, what right do you have to threaten to ban me? You are the one who is causing the problem by removing the link, before a decision has been reached by the mediator.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.29.126 (talk • contribs) .

Mediation was suggested before Parkins and his various sockpuppets came to light. Mediation is supposed to be between two parties playing by the rules. Given what we know now, the right solution is for a WP ban, not mediation. By the way - along with the other remarkable coincidences mentioned above, is it mere coincidence that you too fail to sign your posts and are obsessed having a stupid link to someone's personal website included on this page? Gsd2000 21:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to keep out of this, but as the person who orginally removed the link I thought I'd better contribute to this debate. I orginally said that I consider that the external page does not provide a unique resource beyond Wikipedia and is not very verifiable. I think herein lies the problem with User:213.166.17.23. As far as I can tell he does believe that it is a unique resource and is verifiable. Clearly the external page is about Brighton and contains information about Brighton. I've read it several times, but I can't see how it provides a unique resource beyond Wikipedia. It's sort of more of the same. But the biggest problem I have with the page is its lack of references, therefore its lack of verifiability. Although User:213.166.17.23 asserts there are references, I can't see them. One of the areas I've tried to improve in the Brighton article (and its associated pages) is to add actual references to books, websites etc. (I've done a lot of that in History of Brighton). There is also a lot of POV on the external page (e.g. "The Brighton seafront must have one of the highest concentrations of fish n chip shops in the country. Cheap and yucky, rather than quality, is the watchword. The all-pervasive, stomach-churning stench of stale cooking oil is disgusting.") There are also factual errors on the external page. I'm almost certain there was no "Atlingworth Laine" in ancient Brighton (see here). Also Pride is in August not July (See here). The only direct thing I'd like to say to User:213.166.17.23 is that content in Wikipedia is developed through consensus achieved through following Wikipedia policies. If you disagree with those policies then that's unfortunate for Wikipedia as it may end up with one less contributor. --Seaweed 10:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Interesting comments by Seaweed.

I have looked at the page

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

asuming it is the page to which he is referring (it would help if people gave explicit references, not that one has to guess).

I was down in Brighton during the summer on a hot summer's day. I was with a friend and she drew to my attention the awful smell coming from the many fish n chip shops on the sea front which she attributed to re-use of stale oil. I had to agree she was correct. I noticed the large number of fish n chip shops. More than I had seen in any other seaside resort. We ate some fish n chips, and we both thought, it was pretty awful. I have had far better elsewhere.

Therefore I can not see what seaweed has a problem with. The statement is factually correct and easily verifiable. Maybe seeweed has no sense of smell, no taste, or maybe does not know Brighton.

Please be civil towards me. I don't appreciate assumptions about my sense of smell, taste or where I live. Thanks. --Seaweed 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is the above an example of what seeweed means by 'not very verifiable'. Either something is not verifiable or it is.

Maybe there are not references or footnotes at the bottom of the page, but there are references. Books and authors that mention Brighton are listed, to give but one example.

There is much information that is not on the Wikipedia page, thus compliments the Wikipedia page.

The main Parade in Brighton took place a week last Saturday, the festivities started end of July. The same was true last year. I have not checked back beyond 2005. Thus both authors are correct.

Seeweed may have checked out many references for the Brighton page, but most of these are to secondary not primary sources.

The Wikipedia policy on reliable sources allows the use of secondary sources. --Seaweed 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem people are arguing on how many angels dance on the head of a pin.

If the link is to go, then so should all the other links. Even the Wikipedia Brighton page should go, as it too fails the test being imposed on external links.


Wow, waterspoon has crawled out from whatever stone he was hiding under and seaweed has thrown a tantrum.

Waterspoon, for those who don't know, is the individual who repeatedly vandalised the Wikipedia Aldershot page. In doing so he simply demonstrated his ignorance of Aldershot. And in doing so illustrated the lack of credibility of Wikipedia. Any cretin can edit a page, no knowledge of the subject necessary.

Seaweed claimed he found an error on the linked page

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

relating to the seafront fish n chip shops.

An issue simply resolved by answers to the following questions: Is there a high concentration of fish n chip shops on the Brighton seafront? Is there a strong, unpleasant smell of rancid fat or cooking oil on hot days? What is the quality of the food being served? Simple enough questions to answer by anyone who knows Brighton. Or maybe the question to ask: Does seaweed know Brighton?

The linked page and the Wikipedia Brighton page may be much of a muchness. This is to be expected as both pages are on the same subject.

Sources should always be primary sources. Who decides the secondary sources are reliable? This could only be done with reference to primary sources. Yet another nail in the credibility of Wikipedia.

I could go in and edit the page on George W Bush and say he has a purple nose. That would very quickly be picked up and reverted. But what if I do something more subtle, and maybe do something completely stupid on a little known subject, would it then get picked up? Probably not.

Or, we could have as happened on the Aldershot page, a factual description of Aldershot, taken out, vandalised, by some jerk who does not know Aldershot.

Or do we rely on the infamous consensus which seaweed places so much store by. Ten arseholes who know nothing about a subject out-vote the one person who does.

Then there is verifying, as opposed to establishing the truth. I could write a page of gibberish on a topic. I then write the same gibberish on Wikipedia with a link to my original gibberish. It is still gibberish, but all the monkeys in the zoo are happy because it has been verified.

Verifying something is easy, establishing the truth is not. Hence the less stringent criteria accepted by wikipedia. And looking at the discussion on this page, most of the participants are incapable of understanding these concepts.

Some sort of check has apparently been made or is to be made of contributors. This should be done on all contributers. So far only Keith Parkins has put his name to a comment, assuming of course it was not an impostor claiming to be he.

These checks would be serious invasion of privacy, and a breach of the law. Namely a breach of the Data Protection Act, a breach of the Human Rights Act, and a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It looks like the lawyers will soon be called in. With a bit of luck, maybe like in Germany, Wikipedia will get shut down.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/20/wikipedia_shutdown/

Numerous mention of the linked page

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

on this page would make no difference to the Google ranking.

If it did, it would be sitting at No 1 when I enter Brighton on the Google search engine.

Another bit of nonsense knocked on the head.

How is the discussion to take place, without reference to what is being discussed, or are we to have a surreal discussion?

Wikipedia is great for wasting time, great for whiling away the time of juveniles who otherwise would be out on the streets making mischief. Beyond that it has very little use. It is not, as it falsely claims, an encyclopedia, the sum total of all human knowledge, available for free. The monkeys may work for free, but they give up the rights to their work, which is then sold to corporations like Answers.com.

Even Jimbo Wales has been forced to admit that wikipedia is not a credible source of information and has advised people not to use it as such. He gets at least ten e-mails every week from disgruntled schoolkids who have failed their exams because they were dumb enough to rely on wikipedia.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/06/15/wikipedia_can_damage_your_grades/

Is it not time wikipedia was given as many have suggested, a more appropriate name, such as Jimbo's Big Bag of Trivia, then at least everyone would know what to expect and would not be seduced into relying upon its flawed contents?

http://www.archive.org/details/20060408-jscott-wikipedia

The crticisms that are being raised on this talk page are not new, are not unique nor are they limited to Keith Parkins.

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/southcoast/2006/08/346947.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340273.html

Two highly recommended articles which only serve to reinforce what we are seeing here

A Criticism of the Wikipedia

-,-,-,- -,

You will need to search this article on Google as the Wikipedia censors prevent it appearing on this page

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=%22A+Criticism+of+the+Wikipedia%22&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

and

A Criticism of Wikipedia Now Exceeding a Scream

http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/000067.html

Also visit the following websites

http://wikipediareview.com/ http://www.wikitruth.info/

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.22 (talk • contribs).

Remarkable - another unsigned and incomprehensible (not to mention unread) rant from an anonymous IP address. Gsd2000 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


Welcome Sarah. Maybe though a little honesty, like for example your friendly relationship with Deon555.

Give the guy a break! He didn't just make a mistake. He abused his position as an arbitrator and demonstrated himself unfit to be an arbitrator.

And what do you my dear know about Brighton?

Contribute, has been a suggestion. Yes, a valid point, except applying a link is to contribute, why incorporate what is to be found elsewhere when a link will suffice. It also ignores that fact that one may be the leading expert on the subject, but moments later, some jerk who knows nothing about the subject will vandalism the page. As happened with the Aldershot page.

Another website worth visiting is Wikipedia Watch, you another website blocked by Wikipedia

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Wikipedia+Watch&meta=

Also check out the excellent Wikipedia FAQK

http://www.wired.com/news/columns/0,70670-0.html

Editing links so they are no longer live links at the click of a mouse is extremely childish, but once again serves to illustrate wikipedia is nothing but a collection of trivia, a children's playground.

Does anyone know why

www.kapitalism(dot)net/

is censored from Wikipedia?

Replace the (dot) with the usual dot.

More examples of Wikipedia censorship

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=Censored_articles

and yet abuse of Daniel Brandt, president of Wikipedia Watch, remains in place

Go to the Wikipedia Watch page and click on "Wikipedia is out of control"

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.166.17.23 (talk • contribs).

A spat over a link to a page on Brighton.

www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm

So far I have yet to see any legitimate reason why the link should be deleted. I have though seen a lot of hot air and throwing of childish tantrums.

There would only be two good grounds for deletion of the link either the linked page was garbage, or the linked page was not on Brighton.

Neither reason has been put forward as reasons for deletion as it would be difficult to substantiate, nor have any other good reasons been put forward, other than what appears to be a strong personal dislike to the page.

That deletion of the link is motivated by personal animosity is reinforced by the fact that the other links remain. Links to family snapshots, blogs, commercial links, photos of semi-naked children (Jimbo would approve of that one as he was involved in what he likes to call 'child glamour photography').

I have looked at the page and can see nothing wrong with it. It appears to have been written by someone who knows Brighton and they appear to have done a good job. Maybe that is the problem, it makes the Wikipedia page look bad.

Deletionists have been challenged to find fault with the page, is it for example riddled with errors. So far none have been found, other then some nonsense from one of the deletionists about fish and chip shops on the seafront. What is stated is easily validated by a visit to the seafront. When challenged to do so, the deletionist threw his rattle out of the pram and threw a tantrum. It was a legitimate question: does he know Brighton or live there, does he have a sense of smell or taste? Or is he just another fuckwit with nothing better to do?

Having lost the argument, and long ago lost the plot, the deletionists have launched a personal attack on Keith Parkins, the author of the linked Brighton page. The label of 'wikithugs' and 'fuckwits' has been well earned.

Not satisfied with disabling all the links to the page within this discussion, one or more of the wikithugs has gone and deleted all the links on Wikipedia to the website

http://www.heureka.clara.net/

This is extremely childish behaviour and constitutes vandalism.

Did this wikithug know anything about the subjects, and so was in an informed position to remove the links? For that matter, do those objecting to the link know anything about Brighton?

Sarah, for example, lives in Australia, as I believe does the discredited mediator who displayed an extremely partisan view, favouring one party over the other, but at least did have the good grace to resign once caught out.

Sarah is pally with the disgraced mediator, pally with at least one of the wikithugs.

A look at the pages of the wikithugs shows they have a a track record of deleting links they don't like. Do they stride out in their Nazi jackboot, as they behave like SS thugs?

Odd how everyone who defends the link and objects to its deletion, is called 'Keith Parkins'. But then it must be very difficult to comprehend and deeply embarrassing to be forced to admit that there can possibly be more than one heretic who has failed to see the light.

A complaint is made that all those who dare criticize the deletion of the link are in Hampshire. A complaint that is factually incorrect (but then facts have never been a hindrance to the wikithugs in their Crusade against heretics), one of the IP addresses was shown to be in Ewell. Ewell is in Surrey. Surrey is not in Hampshire. But only serves once again to show the level of ignorance of the wikithugs.

Could it be that Surrey and Hampshire border Sussex, Brighton is in Sussex, therefore these people know Brighton a little bit better than the wikithugs who probably don't know Brighton at all and are simply there to reinforce the Hive Mind.

I have come across many critical articles amounting to a scream, which refer to the monkeys, at the zoo, spotty teenagers producing Wikipedia. Therefore not unique to Keith Parkins, or are the wikithugs claiming all these articles too were written by Keith Parkins? Or maybe Keith Parkins is not a real person at all and these other people have been writing under the name of Keith Parkins just to piss off the wikifiddlers.

The wikifiddlers are not listening to their God King, Jimbo Wales. Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, likes to brag that 'Wikipedia is the availability of the sum of human knowledge to everyone on Earth for free'. He did not add as an afterthought, with the exception of anything written by Keith Parkins. He is not going to be best pleased when he learns his acolytes have been misbehaving.

Come on children, it's time to put your toys back in the box and have your bath and let Mummy and Daddy put you to bed. And no, don't throw another tantrum, else Daddy won't read you a bed time story.


Wendy-wu 15:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Keith Parkins responds

It is time for a little Wiki Truth.

Never did I think when I wrote for a friend a page on Brighton, and a link was made from a page on Wikipedia, that it would stir up so much resentment amongst the faithful.

But if nothing else, it has given me and many others endless hours fun watching a group of people running around like a bunch of headless chickens.

A definition of a wikipedia discussion that I found on the excellent Wiki Truth website seems most apt:

Wikipedia articles have attached discussion pages, on which the real business of wikifiddling is done. Throw six monkeys into a sack, beat it with sticks, and shake it up: transcribe the resulting yowling caterwaul and you have the talkpage of a controversial article

Some of the other definitions from Wiki Truth are also pretty cool ...

NPOV - An acronym for "neutral point of view". Articles on Wikipedia are supposed to maintain a neutral tone. Used by Wikinerds as an all-purpose excuse for deleting edits.

POV. A disease everyone else has but you'll never catch. "That's POV" is Wikinerd code for "I don't agree with that."

Troll. Someone a Wikipedian disagrees with. Or an ugly fairytale creature.

CheckUser. A tool with which empowered administrators can look at users' patterns of usage and compare them, allowing them to reveal sockpuppets with a greater or lesser degree of certainty. Used without transparency, some consider that it is a breach of users' privacy, although it should be noted that many websites routinely log IPs.

Edit war. I say potayto, you say potahto. You fucker!

Revert. You say potahto, I change it back to potayto. You fucker!

Probably best of all the is the definition of Wikipedia ...

Wikipedia. Looked at from one angle, a wonderfully ambitious project to create a free information resource. Looked at from another, a big bulging bag of bullshit, perpetually being polished by the dumber monkeys in the zoo.

Or, how many monkeys does it take to produce an encyclopedia.

Personally, I don't give a toss whether anyone on Wikipedia links to my Brighton page or not, but it ain't half fun watching people get so het up about it.

Looking through the discussion, I cannot see that anyone has yet put forward a single legitimate point why the link should be removed, or if it is to be removed, most of the links on most of the Wikipedia pages would have to be removed applying the same distorted wikilogic.

But then logic, credibility, has never been a Wikipedia strong point.

It is logically impossible to construct an encyclopedia when the contributers fail to defer to experts, take an anti-elitist attitude.

http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/12/30/142458/25

If I look up an article in an encyclopedia, I make the assumption that whoever wrote the article has more knowledge of the subject than myself, if not, then why am I wasting my time.

There may well be a few genuine people out there who make useful contributions based on their own knowledge, but their efforts are pointless, as a few moments later, some cretin comes along and changes or deletes their contribution, because in their 'opinion', it should not be there. A consensus of ignoramus then takes place to back what has been done.

I would have expected an entry on any subject in an encyclopedia that is supposed to be the sum of all human knowledge, suitably structured, would be inclusive, not exclusive, would link to other similar pages to widen the breadth and depth, unless of course those other pages had false or inaccurate information, but who is to make that decision?

Having lost the argument, some would say having completely lost the plot, the wikithugs emerge from their hiding places to reinforce the Wiki Group Think. They gang-up on those they disagree with, the ultimate sanction to maintain and reinforce the Wiki Group Think is a banning order.

Having seemingly exhausted themselves, got their knickers in a twist and soiled their nappies, it has now been decided to launch a personal attack on myself. I after all, had the audacity and effrontery to write an article highly critical not only of Wikipedia but also the wikiprocess. This is far worse than taking a dissident view within Wikipedia and the person has to be named and shamed and sentenced to death by a barrage of personal insults.

A critical article I wrote has been highlighted and linked to, only the wikithugs seem incapable of reading, let alone comprehending what has been written. Maybe its their limited attention span.

Maybe they should read very carefully what was written ....

''The Wikipedia page on Brighton has become embroiled in controversy following a link to a page on Brighton.

'As you should be aware, all editors are free to be bold in making changes to articles. Specialist knowledge of a subject is not essential, though obviously beneficial' comment found on Wikipedia

Little did I realise when I wrote a web page for a friend on Brighton that it would become embroiled in controversy.

A friend spent a very happy summer on the South Coast near Brighton. So that she had something to remind her of those happy days, I wrote for her a web page on Brighton and the surrounding areas. Little did I realise then that this web page on Brighton would become embroiled in a controversy on Wikipedia.

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

A link was made to my web page from the Wikipedia Brighton page, to be promptly removed, to be reinstated, to be removed, almost ad infinitum.

"www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/southcoast/2006/08/346947.html"

It does not say who made the link, it says 'a link was made'.

A look at the Wikipedia Brighton history page would show who has put the link in, who has taken it out. Only of course it doesn't. It merely shows IP adressess, which can be randomly allocated, may be public access terminals, in other words, anonymous users, equally anonymous are those who hide behind 'tags' for want of better name.

It would be a simple task to construct an entire tribe who bicker amongst themselves to illustrate what a nonsense Wikipedia has become.

I may not even be me! Anyone could have logged in under my name and written this piece!

There is no doubt a resemblance in my article to what is on the Wikipedia Brighton Talk page (I would not disagree), that is because I drew heavily upon what was written there, then adding my own thoughts. If one draws upon something else, unless one makes a conscious effort not to, one tends to follow what is written there. Unfortunately haste and unforgivable laziness on my part. But then an article critical of Wikipedia was not on my list of priorities, it was something whipped off in a spare moment.

Curiously, no-one has highlighted any mistakes or errors on my page. I was aware of some minor errors, which have been corrected or will be when I get around to it. Contary to the diatribe from the wikithugs, what is on my web page on Brighton has been carefully checked out, that it does not say so is my affair, but at least I put my name to what has been written, unlike the wikithugs who hide behind their 'tags'.

I am though aware of several errors on the Brighton Wikipedia page, some of which have recently been corrected, but some still remain.

No mention on the Wikipedia Brighton page of the serious problems experienced by the new library in Brighton, that the library in Hove to be closed to help reduce the deficit, fewer books to be bought. I thought a library service was about access to books, but then if Wikipedia is the sum total of all human knowledge (carefully structured, one must not forget that), then all we need is a few Internet terminals locked to Wikipedia, we can burn all the books.

Point noted by Seaweed, and yes I agree, Gay Pride Brighton is in August, well actually end of July and mainly in August. I was aware of this mistake and thanks to Seaweed for drawing attention to it. I have already made a correction, but not got around to uploading to my website.

What is important is not what can or cannot be verified, but what is true. Try arguing the contrary in a libel trial.

The entry for Wikipedia on Aldershot makes this point very clearly. The entry on shopping is false, the shopping mall destroyed jobs, not created them, there are now more empty shops not less. The latter was 'verified' with a statement from a local councillor. It was true, that is what he stated, and I know who said it, but what he said was not correct.

The local council has finally woken up to the fact the town centre is in meltdown and has appointed 'consultants' to come up with solutions.

Another example of the wikithugs failing to get their facts right. Rushmoor is not near Aldershot. Aldershot is a town, Rushmoor is a local authority. But then, as they said it, it must be true, they even give a link to 'verify' this 'fact'. No doubt any contrary view or correction will be edited out of existence with religious devotion.

What I and others see is a bunch of juveniles. Wikipedia seems to be a substitute for graffiti and scrawling on the back of toilet doors. Wikipedia gives a platform to a wider audience, at least until the next juvenile comes along and changes what was there.

On their personal pages they display their childish badges. One of the dumbest is the Recent Change Patroller.

'What do you do Mr Nerd?'

Why I'm a Recent Change Change Patroller, or an RC for short', says Mr Nerd holding is head up high.

http://www.wikitruth.info/index.php?title=RC_patrollers

The link to

"www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm"

is under mediation. But what heed do the wikithugs pay to that, anymore than they pay heed to any other wikipolicy, such as not trading insults. Wikipolicy is there to intimidate newcomers with, but otherwise best ignored. For example, direct personal insults made upon myself. Wikithugs who hide behind childish names, dare not put their real name to anything they write.

My observations are nothing new. They simply add to the criticism of Jimbo's Bag of Trivia, or Wikipedia, as it is sometimes known.

I suggest listening to the excellent talk by Jason Scott 'The Great Failure of Wikipedia' which he gave recently

http://www.archive.org/download/20060408-jscott-wikipedia/20060408-jscott-wikipedia_64kb.m3u http://www.archive.org/download/20060408-jscott-wikipedia/20060408-jscott-wikipedia_64kb_mp3.zip

and pay a visit to the website

http://www.wikitruth.info

And no, this does does not mean I'm being drawn into this childish debate, merely putting a few facts 'on the record'.

Keith Parkins 17:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Another tedious rant. Yet again the same hypocrisy in criticising others for being supposedly unwilling to engage in debate, while being unwilling to engage in debate. Yet again the criticism of others for being childish while simply resorting to insults. Yet again implying that others take it all seriously while writing seemingly endless monologues packed full of self-importance.
The "and others" fools no-one. There is no-one else. This latest piece is identical to those written under your other aliases, here and elsewhere. You have placed links to your own website on countless pages. The only remaining doubt is whether it was done to achieve a higher Google Page Rank in order to drive traffic to your site and further your consulting business, or through vanity; a desire to see your name in lights.
Either way, you are not the only one who has had a laugh. Since the lengths to which you have gone to promote your personal site became clear, I can assure you that a number of us have had quite a giggle, accompanied by a shake of the head.
I agree with you on one point and one point only. I am also not convinced that Wikipedia will work as a functioning encyclopedia, and indeed for the same reasons that you give. But are you so lacking in self-awareness that you can not see that the actions which lead this to be the case are those such as yours?
--Bcnviajero 18:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


Keith Parkins - instead of repeatedly linking to your website and writing paragraph upon paragraph of rants under various sockpuppet accounts on talk pages, why don't you spend the time updating the WP articles with the information you feel that is missing? And when the WP articles contain all relevant information, what purpose does your link then serve? Or is the motivation behind your WP contributions really to up your Google ranking? Gsd2000 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

You people really are comical. The argument is that the Brighton entry is too long, and yet there you all are, adding umpteen pages arguing over ONE LINE, the presence or not of which makes not one iota of difference to the mundane nature of the article anyway. "Mediation" over one line??? Truly pathetically self-important.

-- [Bystander] 13:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


A fair point in many ways. There is is one thing to which I would like to draw your attention, though. This does not in fact relate just to one line on one page. In fact, the owner of this site (the one leaving the endless monologues under various psuedonyms above) has placed links to his own site on a huge number of articles, and has been astonishingly aggressive and abusive when these have been removed. There is therefore more to this than it might at first glance appear (and I would certainly not blame you for not have gone through the whole tedious dialogue). --Bcnviajero 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

Given that the whole principle of Wikipedia is that anyone can edit any article, what exactly is wrong with someone adding links to their own sites? Secondly, how do you know he has added such links to "a huge number (how huge, exactly?) of articles", and why have you in particular taken it upon yourself to remove them? Are you claiming to be an expert in the subjects of each and every one of all these "huge numbers" of articles and therefore uniquely qualified to judge which links need to be removed from all of these? Looks rather more like deliberate vandalism to me, so it is hardly surprising that it causes trouble.

Lastly, what particular specialist subject knowledge of Brighton do you have that you feel makes your particular view of what its entry should contain more valuable than anyone else's?

-- [Bystander] 20:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


What is wrong? It is a total abuse of the system to attempt to improve your Google Page Rank for your own personal gain by plastering links to your own page all over Wikipedia. How huge? At the last count I

found a few dozen.  It is also, quite reasonabl

y and for very good reasons, against the explicit policy.

A quick perusal of your edits and personal bugbears, not to mention communication style, strongly suggests that you may well be one more alias of Keith Parkins. As such, it does not seem worth writing more.

--Bcnviajero 20:25, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

No, I'm not Mr Parkins, I have no interest in "page rankings" (whatever they are); however from your Parkins Paranoia it would appear that you have moved beyond having any interest at all in what he might or might not say or link to, it's the man himself who's become your obsession. Why? Why does this all matter to you so awfully much? And what's this "explicit policy" to which you so vaguely refer but don't appear to be able to make a link to?

I see that you carefully avoid answering the question as to what your particular special expertise is about Brighton, and that your idea of a "huge number" is "a few dozen". Says it all.

-- [Bystander] 00:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Point three. Happy now? Keith, you really are beyond pìty. Is it really so important to you to have your name and your website "up in lights"? Plastering links to your own website all over dozens of articles does indeed constitute significant abuse, especially when accompanied by such aggression. As for who has the knowledge to decide what links should be there, I was not avoiding the question, you were being deliberately and typically disingenuous. The point is, the information on your site is not unique, authoritative, definitative. Some of the information there might usefully be added to the page itself. So do so. Just not the ranting parts. Also, it has been placed there by you, the owner, for reasons unclear, but with none of the possiblities being particularly edifying. Your general point would appear to be "Wikipedia is useless because any idiot can come and mess it up at any point. Look, see how I demonstrated that fact?". Continuous, pointless, tedious hypocrisy. --Bcnviajero 16:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

" Keith, you really are beyond pìty "

' appen. However, if you're still jumping to the conclusion that I'm Mr Parkins, then you do really have a paranoia problem. As it is, I'm fairly neutral about his page: it told me some additional things I didn't know before, on the other hand thought it neither better or worse than many of the other external links added by other contributors.

As you say, some of the material could be incorporated into the main article, but seeing as how you and your friend would immediately edit it right out again, it's a bit hollow to suggest that avenue. Far as I can see, one line here or there is hardly going to be critical one way or another, so I'm puzzled why you and your friend have become so fixated on Parkins and his one-line link.

Whatever other links he's added elsewhere is also completely irrelevant: this is about the article on Brighton, remember? Your rather obsessive concentration on trying to hound this one individual just makes you come across as immature. Leave the line in there and that'll be the end of the whole issue. It's hardly as if it matters all that much in the scheme of things after all, but your silly bullying is just comical.

-- Bystander

Yes, this is clearly another Parkins incarnation. "What exactly is wrong with someone adding links to their own sites?" What is wrong is that there is nothing in your site that could not be integrated into the article, where it can undergo the scrutiny of other Wikipedia contributors. You are not an academic, media or commercial institution or an authority on the subject matter that deserves an external link - you are just a bloke that put up a homepage on the internet. Furthermore, simply adding an external link means that the information addition to Wikipeda is binary - it's in or it's out - and if it's in, control of its content remains with you. That is not how Wikipedia works. You should try to work with other contributors, rather than consistently against them, and then running off to indynews to write ridiculous tantrum articles like a child to mummy when you don't get your way ('www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/05/340273.html?c=on#c147846'). Incidentally, your use of sockpuppets just serves to undermine your position - you merely show that you cannot be trusted. Gsd2000 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

"Yes, this is clearly another Parkins incarnation"

Hardly. You're making fools of yourselves.

"You are not an academic, media or commercial institution or an authority on the subject matter that deserves an external link - you are just a bloke that put up a homepage on the internet."

Which appears to be neither more nor less than what you two blokes are. Again: tell us what special subject knowledge you have about Brighton that makes you reckon you're the ones to be the only ones allowed to edit the content?

-- [Bystander] 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Why don't you sign in, instead of placing the fake user name of "Bystander"? From your IP address it is obvious you are from the Hampshire region. As are another series of anonymous IP addresses belonging to Hampshire County Council curiously interested in defending Keith Parkins, e.g. 213.166.17.23. And Clever Dicky is interested in Aldershot in Hampshire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Clever_dicky) and so on for the other sock puppets ad nauseam. Are there really a collection of individuals based in Hampshire all equally as obsessed with Keith Parkins' website as Keith Parkins is himself? Yawn. Gsd2000 23:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I use the name to identify my comments and to distinguish them from those of others. This is a perfectly normal practice in the world at large. Wikipedia is "open to all to edit", so what's your problem with that?

Are you now contending that people from Hampshire can't comment on this discussion? It's a big place and borders on Sussex, so naturally people from Hampshire are going to have views on neighbouring towns -- and on Hampshire places as well. Rather more reason for doing so than people from Atlanta, Georgia, I'd say.

As I noted before, you guys have lost contact with the subject matter involved and seem to now be focusing entirely on one individual. I'm at a loss to understand why you're making such a big deal about something so utterly trivial. From your comments, what's coming across is that saying anything at all in support of the bloke has now been classified as some kind of hostile attack or something. That's not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, it's closer to bullying

-- [Bystander] 02:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is indeed "open to all to edit", and it is very notable that noone has come to this external link's defence apart from some users with extremely brief contribution histories and a handful of anonymous IP addresses (most of which have been active in adding links to Keith Parkins website before, your IP included - see User talk:Keith Parkins) - all curiously from the same geographical area. There is not one - not one - single non-anonymous user with a sustained Wikipedia contribution history, who is demonstrably not a sock puppet of Keith Parkins, arguing for retention of this link. Gsd2000 02:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is indeed "open to all to edit"

... except when it isn't. Or when they don't agree with us. "All" means "all", and not just "restricted to approved people who we happen to like", so what makes you the judge and jury over such things?

And I still have not seen anything from you to show that you have any knowledge at all of Brighton, nor even that you have ever even been there yourself -- have you?

Face it, you've made yourself obsessed over this guy, and for... what, exactly? It's ridiculous.

-- [Bystander] 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Expertise on Brighton is irrelevant to the discussion at hand - we are not arguing over a fact here. And even if we were, you don't have to have been somewhere to be knowledgeable about it (historians, astronomers, geologists, Star Trek and Harry Potter fans would be particularly impressive individuals otherwise). However, perhaps you might be able to tell me what the name of the burger shop is opposite St. Peter's Church, or the name of the round cafe in Preston Park, or where WH Smiths used to be prior to the redoing of Churchill Square, or what the bar on Ship Street closest to the sea front used to be called and what kind of establishment it has now become? Actually, don't bother - I couldn't care less whether you have been to Brighton or not. It bears no relation to your ability to contribute to the article. Gsd2000 23:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

So, you've never been to Brighton and know nothing about it, but still reckon articles about it are your personal patch. Says it all, really.

And if "Expertise on Brighton is irrelevant" to someone's "ability to contribute to the article" about it, that really is ridiculous. What possible reason would there be to write about a subject about which one doesn't know anything?

Seems to me you're showing yourself to be no more than a conceited bully, not interested at all in the subject involved, but merely in conducting some kind of ego war with Mr Parkins. That's not what Wikipedia is supposed to be about.

-- Bystander 10:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You have just completely misrepresented or misunderstood what I wrote, either through stupidity or malice, so it is quite clearly a pointless exercise trying to reason with you. Good night. Gsd2000 10:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I understood what you wrote perfectly well: you have developed a personal obsession about Mr Parkins, and are now in a state where your sole aim has become to try to hound and intimidate him, regardless of the merit or otherwise of his contributions. Indeed, you've long ago ceased to have any interest in any of the articles concerned, Parkins is now all that matters to you.

And your silly intimidation attempts of making such an ostentatius display of "tracking" the IP addresses of people who disagree with you don't impress either. All it does is to emphasise your obsession. It's amusing, sure, but do you really think you're adding to the sum total of anything with your antics?

-- Bystander


A spat over a link to a page on Brighton.

www.heureka.clara.net/sussex/brighton.htm

So far I have yet to see any legitimate reason why the link should be deleted. I have though seen a lot of hot air and throwing of childish tantrums.

There would only be two good grounds for deletion of the link either the linked page was garbage, or the linked page was not on Brighton.

Neither reason has been put forward as reasons for deletion as it would be difficult to substantiate, nor have any other good reasons been put forward, other than what appears to be a strong personal dislike to the page.

That deletion of the link is motivated by personal animosity is reinforced by the fact that the other links remain. Links to family snapshots, blogs, commercial links, photos of semi-naked children (Jimbo would approve of that one as he was involved in what he likes to call 'child glamour photography').

I have looked at the page and can see nothing wrong with it. It appears to have been written by someone who knows Brighton and they appear to have done a good job. Maybe that is the problem, it makes the Wikipedia page look bad.

Deletionists have been challenged to find fault with the page, is it for example riddled with errors. So far none have been found, other then some nonsense from one of the deletionists about fish and chip shops on the seafront. What is stated is easily validated by a visit to the seafront. When challenged to do so, the deletionist threw his rattle out of the pram and threw a tantrum. It was a legitimate question: does he know Brighton or live there, does he have a sense of smell or taste? Or is he just another fuckwit with nothing better to do?

Having lost the argument, and long ago lost the plot, the deletionists have launched a personal attack on Keith Parkins, the author of the linked Brighton page. The label of 'wikithugs' and 'fuckwits' has been well earned.

Not satisfied with disabling all the links to the page within this discussion, one or more of the wikithugs has gone and deleted all the links on Wikipedia to the website

www.heureka.clara.net

This is extremely childish behaviour and constitutes vandalism.

Did this wikithug know anything about the subjects, and so was in an informed position to remove the links? For that matter, do those objecting to the link know anything about Brighton?

Sarah, for example, lives in Australia, as I believe does the discredited mediator who displayed an extremely partisan view, favouring one party over the other, but at least did have the good grace to resign once caught out.

Sarah is pally with the disgraced mediator, pally with at least one of the wikithugs.

A look at the pages of the wikithugs shows they have a a track record of deleting links they don't like. Do they stride out in their Nazi jackboot, as they behave like SS thugs?

Odd how everyone who defends the link and objects to its deletion, is called 'Keith Parkins'. But then it must be very difficult to comprehend and deeply embarrassing to be forced to admit that there can possibly be more than one heretic who has failed to see the light.

A complaint is made that all those who dare criticize the deletion of the link are in Hampshire. A complaint that is factually incorrect (but then facts have never been a hindrance to the wikithugs in their Crusade against heretics), one of the IP addresses was shown to be in Ewell. Ewell is in Surrey. Surrey is not in Hampshire. But only serves once again to show the level of ignorance of the wikithugs.

Could it be that Surrey and Hampshire border Sussex, Brighton is in Sussex, therefore these people know Brighton a little bit better than the wikithugs who probably don't know Brighton at all and are simply there to reinforce the Hive Mind.

I have come across many critical articles amounting to a scream, which refer to the monkeys, at the zoo, spotty teenagers producing Wikipedia. Therefore not unique to Keith Parkins, or are the wikithugs claiming all these articles too were written by Keith Parkins? Or maybe Keith Parkins is not a real person at all and these other people have been writing under the name of Keith Parkins just to piss off the wikifiddlers.

The wikifiddlers are not listening to their God King, Jimbo Wales. Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, likes to brag that 'Wikipedia is the availability of the sum of human knowledge to everyone on Earth for free'. He did not add as an afterthought, with the exception of anything written by Keith Parkins. He is not going to be best pleased when he learns his acolytes have been misbehaving.

Come on children, it's time to put your toys back in the box and have your bath and let Mummy and Daddy put you to bed. And no, don't throw another tantrum, else Daddy won't read you a bed time story.

Wendy-wu 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


I find amazing one of the comments by one of the wikithugs, that knowledge of Brighton is irrelevent. Well you have certainly shown your lack of knowledge of Brighton.

What a crock of shit Wikipedia is proving to be. Garbage in, garbage out.

Who is placing the link is irrelevant. What is relevant is the quality and accuracy of the page linked to. A point the monkeys in the zoo seem to have completely overlooked.

It seems to me the underlying problem is that the linked page is well written, vastly superior to the Wikipedia page, thus shows yet again what a crock of shit is Wikipedia.

If the morons throwing their tantrums on this page are typical of Wikipedia, then it would be a surprise if it was not a crock of shit.

Small wonder then that Wikipedia is seen as one big joke.

No doubt the children will shit their nappies and throw a few more tantrums at yet more critical comments on their pathetic antics.

And yes, to save asking, I know Brighton!

Roll on the end of school holidays!

Wendy-wu 15:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/r/i/Talk%7EBrighton_External_Link_Debate_af75.html"