Talk:Common ethanol fuel mixtures
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
E5, E7 or E10 has not been introduced nationwide in Denmark as the article says. Actually Denmark hasn't made any efforts in this area which has caused critisicm. Isfisk 21:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This article should have more comparison of usage between gasoline and gasohol, such as the calorific value, efficiency, octane rating, gas pollutant and effect on conventional engine using gasohol in long time period.
[edit] Request For Administrator Opinion on the Deletion of my link
My link was previously left on the page by other administrators when they were deleting some others that I had done (out of ignorance of the guidelines). "OhnoItsJamie" said to post my requests on the talk pages, so this is what I'm now doing. The only reason I'm asking now is because for a somewhat long time after my other links were deleted by an administrator, these two were left:
- http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/09/does_e10_ethano.html linked from Common ethanol fuel mixtures
- http://www.brokerblogger.com/brokerblogger/2006/09/does_e10_ethano.html linked from Ethanol fuel
I just assumed that these two links were acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Can you let me know if a non-administrator deleted them? I'll then look into the appropriate approach to deal with it. If it was an administrator, I will accept their decision. Thank you. Brokerblogger 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can delete links. You don't have to be an admin to do so. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Jamie. I'll go ahead and put them back in as long as no Administrator objects. Brokerblogger 20:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I came here to delete what appeared to be an obvious self-link, but after reviewing Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest, I've decided to let it stand, with minor formatting changes. This is primarily due to the addition of relevant text to the article, and the use of the link as a reference only. I am impressed with both the level of discourse in talk pages shown by Brokerblogger, and his willingness to abide by Wikipedia guidelines — both far above the norm for self-linkers, who typically spray a barely-relevant link in the "External Links" section. To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wikipedia. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wikipedians. However, if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wikipedia policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia. After you add content, it is only natural to cite it, and indeed, this is correct procedure. However, because it is a self-link (again, see WP:COI), I would suggest that the most proper course of action would be to open an entry on the article's talk page, discuss the content edit you just made, and post the citation link on the talk page only. If another editor believes the cite and text you added are relevant, they will cite your page in the main article. The idea here is to put the onus on other people to add your link to the article, as opposed to putting the onus on other people to remove your link. So, you see, with appropriate checks and balances, we can benefit each other. Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow. Thanks for your time, and I hope you have a rich and fulfilling experience with Wikipedia! —Trevyn 22:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
12/1/06 Brokerblogger response - First, Trevyn, thank you for taking the time to evaluate a unique situation in Wikipedia. I have come to the conclusion that Wikipedia, right now, is being overloaded with real spam that hurts vs. helps Wikipedia. That situation is very time consuming to deal with, so I've realized that the 1% to 5% (guess estimate) of substantive, "added value" content that understandably appears to be "self-promotion" (solely on the basis of the editor contributing his owned material; "self-link") may have to be a matter of a few "babies being thrown out with the bath water". Second, thank you for providing a link to the "Conflict of intrest" page which cuts right to the heart of this matter. I can't believe I had never researched, or been pointed to, that page before! I'm sure that is my fault, as I "skimmed and scanned" the "External Links" section, but omitted close scrutiny of "Advertising and conflicts of interest", because I have no advertising on my blog, so that kind of "COI" is not relevant to me. However, if I may make a humble, constructive suggestion, someone with authority to do so should add a link (in the #1 position, IMO) to that "WP:COI" page in the "Links normally to be avoided" section. That, and the four topic headings above that, are where I focused my attention. In fact, the more you make "WP:COI" conspicuous on any page that can relate to spam the better, IMO.
Here's what I like about "WP:COI". Besides being well done in 3 sections, it says right at the top "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.", and "conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is." ("notability" is subject to POV IMO, though). The best part, for me, is "There is no list of criteria to help editors determine what counts as a conflict of interest. In most cases, the intention of the writer can be deduced from the tone and content of the article." True "intent" is very difficult to determine. Just ask any search engine that wants to improve their search "one box" function by knowing the "intent" of every user for every keyword string, so as to provide the most relevant results, first.
This brings me to my "third" thank you for saying in a civil/diplomatic way "To avoid trouble in the future, I suggest that you consider your primary goal when performing an edit to be improving Wikipedia. You and I both know that your real goal is to add a link to your site, and it should be obvious how that can upset other Wikipedians." You are right about my primary goal (up until now with Wikipedia) not being to improve Wikipedia, as it really was to help ignorant consumers (believe it or not). You are right again in an indirect sort of way that my real goal was to add a link to my site/blog. In order to accomplish my "reason behind the reason" real goal of helping ignorant consumers, I had to add a link to my site/blog. But, I certainly can see how that could upset other Wikipedians, as it definitely provides the appearance of "self-promotion" vs. "help of others".
Fourth, thanks again, for having/using good common sense (and the implied compliment) of saying "..if you add actual content to articles, especially with the same high level of detail you apply to talk pages and following Wikipedia policy, it is clear you are also acting in a good faith effort to improve Wikipedia." I was always acting in good faith to help ignorant consumers, and I will now put Wikipedia first (and justifiably so) when contributing to it in the future by taking your good suggestion about how to add content. I wish I had the time, right now, to do that with my Verizon FiOS content, but other things have to take precedent for now.
So, for now, I just want to say that communication of any kind is an art, as is diplomacy, and you, Trevyn, have mastered both (at least in my situation - big smiley face). Your pointing out that "..Wikipedia:Administrators are not "final arbiters" of editing decisions, or even all that powerful. Administrators primarily keep order in specific circumstances, and editing decisions essentially come down to the views of individual editors and the community-driven Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines which most editors follow." really helps me and other new contributors avoid the possible mispercetion of Abuse of power, as the reality of that "negative side" of human nature can create "a potential for alienation of contributors". Cheers. Brokerblogger 14:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
