User talk:Leuko/Archive December 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 kurri kurri external link 2 Nightlife in Stockholm 3 Concerning deletion of content from 'ATM' 4 EMT article/NREMT 5 Drayton Manor Theme Park

kurri kurri external link

Hi

I dont understand why the kurri kurri wikipedia entry can't have an external reference to it's official website, there are any number of other towns/regions entries in Wikipedia that have an external link to official websites??? Why is it ok for some and not for others?

thanks

Brendan Brooks - brendan@hyperweb.com.au

Hi. Sorry but when I looked at the website it did not seem to be an official government website - It seemed that it was a commercial website complete with ads, etc, which would be in violation of the WP:SPAM and WP:EL guidelines. Is this not the case? Leuko 03:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Nightlife in Stockholm

Hey, you suggested transwikiing to WikiTravel. I just wanted to point out that WikiTravel is pretty much the one place we can't transwiki to because of differences in licensing. --Wafulz 06:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I actually just saw that on the transwiki page, but per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents, this type of information belongs there, not in WP. Leuko 06:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Concerning deletion of content from 'ATM'

In looking through the history of the subject page, the entry you removed has been previously removed by anonymous editors several times and subsequently re-instated. It is a correctly included entry on the ATM disambiguation page and it should remain on that page.

diff in question --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, being added randomly to the end like that made it appear as vandalism. But after looking at the page in more detail, I realize it's generally a mess and in no order whatsoever. In reference to the term itself, it appears to be a non-notable neogolism that doesn't have any WP:RS to support its inclusion in WP. Leuko 06:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the ATM page a bit; there was an order ... most things were in 'proper' order already. Be a little slower on the delete trigger next time, please. If you are convinced that the 'ass to mouth' article is inappropriate for Wikipedia, it doesn't take much effort to nominate it for deletion (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess it must be in "most common" order? Because I was looking at it alphabetically. In any case, I'll look at the article more closely before deciding to take it to AfD. Leuko 03:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

EMT article/NREMT

Please do not completely remove sections of pertinent information of articles. If you have a concern that something might not be neutral then enter into discussion how it can be improved, but simply eliminating entire sections is not proper editorship. I'll take my response either here or on my talk page. Bstone 19:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither is adding a section whose only purpose is to attack with unreferenced libelous statements. I've continued the discussion on the article's talk page. Leuko 19:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I kindly ask that before or after making edits to this section you notice it in the article's talk page. Twice now you haven't and it's becoming confusing. Thank you kindly for all your assistance. Bstone 20:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Umm, I am confused now... I am not aware of any policy or convention that states one must announce each edit on the article talk page. That would just become cumbersome. The whole purpose of a Wiki is to be WP:BOLD and edit it yourself. Leuko 21:54, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

poking my nose in where it might not be welcome ... A general comment: The wiki is a means to an end; not all wiki-mind philosophy works when building an encyclopedia. The point of WP:BOLD is to facilitate non-controversial revisions; the second an edit is contested, it becomes controversial; edits to some articles and article topics are almost always controversial, unfortunately, so WP:BOLD is a good guiding principle but must be set aside in the face of differences of opinion lest things devolve into edit warring. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, the edit in question was unreferenced defamatory POV material. I took my cue from WP:BLP and removed such information without a discussion. That is what I meant by referencing WP:BOLD. I am definitely not interested in starting an edit war. Leuko 03:19, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am glad we were able to discuss and work together on improving the EMT article. I added some comments and would like to hear your opinion. Bstone 14:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Drayton Manor Theme Park

Hi i do not see why my external link : www.draytonmanorplus.co.uk, can not be added to the external link page on the Drayton Manor Theme Park site. It is in the content of Drayton Manor and provides a huge resource to is.

Adam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adz1991 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Please see: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided and WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest. Since the link is made to a commercial site with advertising, and the link exists to promote the site, and you own the site, it should not be added by you. I would suggest discussing the link on the article talk page to see if a consensus of neutral WP editors feel that the benefit of adding the link outweighs the guidelines to the contrary. Leuko 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)