User talk:Paraponon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Becky Anderson

Hi. I have no doubt that you made a 'good faith' edit to Becky Anderson, in adding the external link to 'References' (which, incidentally, is reserved for linking external sources to cite content in the actual article). However, you appear to have accidentally deleted the complete section 'External links' in doing so, also some of the Category tags and formatting at the bottom! You have also changed the Category tag at the bottom, which should be 'CNN people' - there is currently no Category called 'Cable News Network people'. That is the real reason why it was reverted. The editor who reverted your 'good faith' was mistaken in calling it vandalism.

Check out your edit in the history of the page here. On the left, in yellow, is how it was. On the right in green is how it looked after your edit. You should go back and try adding your external link to 'External links' if you think it is notable enough - edit only that section, not the whole page!

Here to help. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 16:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I hope you haven't misunderstood the context of my post above.

I am merely saying that if you think your link is worthy enough to be included in 'External links', then be careful how you affect the rest of the article when you re-add it. However...

Celebratory fan sites and blogs (regardless of whether any biography of the subject is factually correct and maybe even brilliantly written) are never considered suitable to be included in External links, unless they are themselves notable. Referenced biographies in these cases need to be supplied from websites which are notable in their own right, such as the online version of a national newspaper or magazine, or other long-standing and broadly popular resource.

There is also the issue of "What Wikipedia is not". It is not a link directory, and as such there is pretty heavy culling of what are described as 'unnecessary or inappropriate external links' which may (or may not) be construed as attempts to link to personal projects.

I therefore have a feeling that you would once again be reverted if you tried to restore the link you previously posted. Good luck in any other things you do here though.

Best wishes Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I have moved your post on my talk page to the bottom, where it should be! Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 15:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, OK. I guess I just misread the bit where you wrote "You should go back and try adding your external link to 'External links' if you think it is notable enough." Of course I think it's notable enough! So, I'm still wondering, if I add that content to a special dedicated site, that is not on that fan site or a blog, will it be considered legitimate????? Paraponon 15:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey. I detected some heavy sarcasm in your post on Localzuk's talk page. Please don't do that, as it's something I don't use myself here, and I don't like.

My quote above: "if you think it is notable enough". As I've said elsewhere, you may think it is, someone else somewhere is bound to think it isn't. As it stands, Wiki guidelines and policy would back the other man at the moment - he's quoted them, I won't repeat things.

In your post there, you mentioned YouTube. I hope you aren't thinking of the kind of content linked in Becky's article: "Becky Anderson interviews Borat on CNN, YouTube, 2006-10-30". I tried to have a look at that - it just says "This video has been removed due to terms of use violation."

That's what makes me think that using YouTube links is probably not a good idea either. Too often stuff gets removed from there sue to violation.

Otherwise, I don't really know what to suggest. Please don't get bogged down in arguments on Wikipedia - I've seen so many editors give it all up because of hassle like that. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat)(eds) 16:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Becky Anderson...

Why are you still drawing this out? I have explained why I saw the edit as vandalism - this was based on the fact that it broke a bunch of things - seemingly at random. The style of the edit indicated to me that it was vandalism, based on my prior experience of such edits.

I am sorry that I called it vandalism, but if I saw the same edit again elsewhere I would assume it was vandalism.

On the issue of content, a mac.com site is not a reliable source and would not be a suitable citation.

Regarding my comments to Jimbo, this was based on the fact that information that was potentially libellous and as such I thought it important enough to ask someone in a position of authority.

My comments regarding your lack of knowledge of the site were not meant to be patronising, they were supposed to indicate that your arguments were unfounded and they themselves didn't assume good faith of me.

Finally, that site is simply not acceptable as an external link. It contains unsourced information and is on a fansite. Our guidelines are quite clear on this point.

I consider the matter of the use of 'vandalism' closed - it was simply my impression of the edit based on experience, nothing more nothing less.-Localzuk^(talk) 17:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)