User talk:76.170.239.56

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Spam what am

Just dropped by to say that your maintenance work such as removing spam links is great appreciated. utcursch | talk 14:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure. It's long overdue.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)

How do you define "spam"? As previously noted, the OTR Network Library and many others are not commercial sites. What about "donations"? Is a site that requests donations engaging in spam? It's my impression that while some OTR outfits sell CDs, many in the OTR community are simply there for the love of it. I myself am not a part of that community in either fashion. Pepso 16:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
You know as well as I do what constitutes spam linking. And you know quite well the ongoing controversy over it. Do you simply wish to re-raise this issue to a moderator, or will you cease and desist on your own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] MBS Artwork

You identified a source for the graphic in the lede of Mutual Broadcasting System as the Digital Deli Online. The image page (Image:Mutua.jpg) however gives a different source: Radio Timeline. I'm happy to enter an appropriate credit in the image's caption area on the article page, but I need to know on what basis you identify the source as Digital Deli rather than the other website as the original source.—DCGeist 22:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
The "basis" is that I produced the graphic myself. Furthermore, my website is copyright protected. Even further, I possess the only original PhotoShop and Illustrator graphic files from which it was produced. You may have noticed the 'khaki' background employed in the graphic, which was derived from the matting I applied to the graphic for my own copyright protected website, The Digital Deli Online. How far do you wish to take this? I defy you to obtain the original basis for the graphic from the cited source. Your turn. . . .
Here's a unique idea. . . . How about asking the orginal submitter to provide his or her provenances for the graphic?? Interesting concept, no?
You'll find the orginal site graphic here.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 3 December 2006 (UTC).
Thanks. I noted the change. Case resolved, as far as I'm concerned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 19:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Oops, looks like it was reverted. Very well. Then simply remove it or we'll take it to dispute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Please register an account name

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.145.238.33). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk· 23skidoo 13:10, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please explain so-called OTR policy

As an anonymous editor, continued removal of links without explanation can be considered vandalism by some. Please explain IN DETAIL why you feel links to a page offering public domain recordings for free could possibly be considered spamming. In particular the deletion of links of Simon Templar and The Crime Club which I placed there as specific information sources for those articles need to be explained or else I will continue reverting them. 23skidoo 13:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I post explanations in each and every spam I remove. The policy is long standing and simple: self serving, self-promoting spam links are prohibited. Especially from clearly commercial sites. Wikipedia is not here to promote other websites. Continued abuse of link spam will be elevated to moderators for resolution. Read the policies. If you wish to propose a link that might violate the spam linking policy post your argument for discussion in the article's discussion page. "Listen To" links, in particular serve no purpose but to promote the site providing the link. Such self-promotion is prohibited. See the discussion threads on these topics in the Old Time Radio article.76.170.239.56 03:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crime Club

Please stop removing this non-spam link. I know you are trying to be helpful, but you are not. There are at least 3 of us who are certain that this is not spam and we will continue to revert any of your changes. Or, if you like, you could first open a Discussion of this on the Crime Club talk page and TELL us precisely why you consider it spam. We are open-minded and are ready to be converted. Hayford Peirce 16:46, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that. "Spam links" by definition are links added to Wikipedia in bad faith by editors wanting to promote a website or product. That is not the case here. I added the link in question to The Crime Club to act as a reference source for the statement in the article that Mutual Radio ran a Crime Club-sponsored radio programme. I am also prepared to revert your similar changes as listed here if you do not explain your reasoning in full. I have been unable to confirm any such "Old Time Radio" policy as the one you're claiming. Please provide a link to an official Wikipedia policy page. 23skidoo 21:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
You can second whatever you like--on a Discussion page before posting the link. The prohibitions are quite clear. And yes, by all means any number of posters post links in bad faith every single day (simply see below). You can revert whatever you wish, but if a link links to a commercial site I'll simply remove it once again, or I'll refer it to a moderator for repeated spam link abuse. It's your call. I would suggest you consult with the spam link forum moderators before reverting links en masse lest you lose your editing privileges. The Discussion pages are the place to raise these issues, obtain consensus for them, and proceed according to consensus. Period. Here's some guidance to get you started.
That's not the policy and you know it. If you wish to post a link which violates the spam and self-promotion prohibitions, then you post it to the Discussion page and open it to discussion--NOT the other way around. Do a Wikipedia search on "www.otrsite.com", "www.freeotrshows.com", or "libsyn.com" if you wish to see the most egregious examples.
And just how would you know that people posting links are doing them to drum up hits or business (spam and self-promotion) and are not just doing it as a sound based reference to let a curious person get a taste of the show in question? You just can't arbitrarily erase links based on assumption as not all of them fit under those criteria. Just as easily as you can erase these links without knowing the motivation behind the posting of them, we can just as easily put them back up with an explanation of why they are there.Neoyamaneko.
The policy is what it is. Wikipedia is not a link farm for self-serving self-promotion. Apparently you find it no coincidence that the over 400+ current link spam 'opportunities' you refer to, all emanate from only 3 or 4 sites, and that any other attempts by any and all other sites to include their own similar 'listen to' suggestions are routinely cited as link spam by the same folks posting the listen to link spam in the first place. Adding, removing, and repeatedly adding links over and over does no one a service, least of all, Wikipedia. The only ones that gain are those who continue to post them. They provide no assurance whatsover that the sources are not copyright protected--or not, they expose Wikipedia to any an all challenges to copyright violations, they aren't vetted by Wikipedia to ensure they don't contain any spurious or harmful tracking or keylogging code, etc., and above and beyond all of that, Wikipedia is already capable of storing such 'examples' on their own server, once the 'example' can be proven beyond any doubt that it's free of questionable embedded code, free of copyright protection, and accurate. That's just how it is. 76.170.239.56 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you looked at the IPs of the people posting those sites? Perhaps they're average joes that found their way to the same sites and want to inform others with no profit or ulterior motives other than to SHARE (people still have that virtue, y'know). Unless these alleged 400+ "spams" are coming from the same 2 or 3 IPs, I don't even see how you can make the claim that someone is spamming for hits. You are assuming for the Wikipedia mods when they are perfectly capable of policing themselves in this situation. If you are so sure of your stance, why not take it to them and see what they do with it?Neoyamaneko
In point of fact they are coming from 2 or 3 ips or UserNames. A point you conveniently chose to overlook. I don't have a 'pay site'. Indeed my Golden Age Radio history site has been on the internet for going on it's 5th year now, with one--repeat one--support generating page--out of the 1229 that Google crawls, requesting donations to support the Golden Age Radio Preservation effort. I've made my points, and you have yet to effectively make any of yours. My participation in this particular thread is at an end.76.170.239.56 15:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
About the IPs, either post proof or retract, as it is easy to do on here. You talk about ads without proof either, and the OTR sites I have been to that were linked from this page haven't shown any. I can go to otrsite.com now and only be assaulted by a 1st generation MS Frontpage do-up. I just criticized your rationale for blanket erasures. I suggest you click the link I gave you, as questioning someone's logic towards a subject is not a personal attack. You have, in no way, disproved the thesis that some of the people on here put up these links for benevolent purposes. Some are probably spam, but how can you tell the sinners from the saints without some 6th sense? Conspiracies must be proven with hard evidence and not assumed.Neoyamaneko
You have yet to make any points. Here's some links:
  1. *.libsyn.com (312 articles)
  2. *.otrsite.com (58 articles)
  3. *.freeotrshows.com (40 articles)
  4. From PrinceAl
  5. From User Pepso
Doesn't matter how many adages you use...reality doesn't bend to your will. You're either being delusional, have an ulterior motive, or a little of both. As for baseless, unsupported, and idiotic from the king of loose interpretation to fit his agenda....did you notice how black you are Mr. Kettle? If people are giving away for free what you want to sell, then that just too bad. Life sucks, buy a helmet. Neoyamaneko 16:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Let's keep this simple then. I give away hundreds of new Golden Age Radio Episodes every month for free. I have given away in excess of 2 terabytes of Golden Age Radio episodes for free in the course of the past 6 years. What concept of the word 'free' do you fail to understand? 76.170.239.56 20:55, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Dennis, I have never asked that you not defend yourself. I have, however, insisted that you abide by Wikipedia policies concerning civility. It would have been entirely inappropriate for me to point out breaches of policy by only one party and not the other. Also, if you check my talk page User talk:SWAdair#Old time radio related articles you'll see that when my attention was brought to "another page, I commented on how you had stopped making personal attacks. It was only later, when my attention was brought to this exchange, that I "sashayed" back here. I had stopped following this page because I thought you had agreed not to engage in disruptive dialogue. Defending yourself against real or perceived libel is perfectly acceptable. Doing so by violating Wikipedia's policies on user conduct is *not* acceptable. There are ways to get things accomplished, but violating policy is not one of those ways. Please note that I've never asked you not to defend yourself, nor have I ever asked you not to pursue the matter of OTR links. All I have ever asked is that you conduct yourself according to Wikipedia's policies concerning user conduct. SWAdair | Talk 10:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"User Conduct" huh? So naked libel is acceptable user conduct? Apparently so, judging by how little attention you pay to it. You honestly don't strike me as a dupe, and you do seem to give every appearance of being well intentioned, on paper anyway. But I never cease to be amazed at how much you conveniently overlook from the sleazy, cowardly tactics of the link-spamming cabal that 'alerts you' to issues on someone else's talk page, when it's demonstrably apparent that they've been one of the instigators; 23Skiddo is a case in point. You dont' sanction 23Skiddo for his continued libelous comments and allegations, nor do you do so with PrinceAl, or Neoyamaneko. One can be forgiven for questioning your motives, or your repeated pattern of placating or ignoring naked libel, while threatening sanctions against the libelee. You're pandering to their libelous, bad faith, boorish, disruptive, unhelpful behaviour, with all their utterly unsubstantiated, naysaying attacks. It's obvious that PrinceAl and 23Skiddo are cut from the same cloth, if not sockpuppets of each other. And please, enough with the "perceived libel". It's libel clear and simple. It's naked libel of the most scurrilous kind, because all one or more of these clowns have to do, is make the libelous statements unimpeded by you or any of the other super admins, safe in the knowledge that their libel will never be deleted or factored out of the page on which they libel someone, and the moment their libel is rebutted, they'll go running to you, or someone like you at no risk of censure to themselves for their naked, baseless, unsubstantiated libel in the first place. One can be forgiven seeing a pattern here, or forgiven for wondering if you yourself, have some monetary interest in one of the OTR Spamming sites you for which you seem to so steadfastly defend the spammers, and libelers when they attack others unabated, and unsanctioned either on the page or via their 'edit summaries'. This is a travesty of the highest order. And please, enough with the platitudes about pursuing 'justice' with the link spamming. You've never once taken any of these naked link spammers to task for either link spamming to begin with, for re-reverting deleted link spamming over and over, nor have you ever taken any of them to task for their naked libel, over and over and over again. The thing you seem to think I'm too much of a fool to notice, is that you have an uncanny knack for responding to these link spammers as if they've done a service in libeling others then running to tell you that their libel has been rebutted by the libelee, because they know full well from your record of responses that you'll never take them to task for their continued libel. All I can say is shame on all of you for encouraging libel after libel, while sanctioning the libelee. Those kind of cowards bank on exactly your kind of response to encourage them to libel others in the future. Meanwhile, I'm still libeled, they're not sanctioned, and their patterns of heinous behaviour continue unabated.76.170.239.56 13:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Dennis, I've made every effort to limit my focus here to one specific topic - the unabashed flame wars that for some reason seem to flare up on this page. If you would help me stop this flame war, then I might be able to focus on something else. Due to the nature of past incidents on Wikipedia, the community has made it very clear that any possible perceived conflict of interest can and will be held against a person. It is for that reason alone that I choose to limit my focus to one tight area where there is obviously no conflict of interest for me. I am not an interested party on either side of the debate. As for the rather blunt accusations that I have an interest in seeing the OTR links stay, you might want to check my talk page again. You'll see that I had already suggested that a spam investigation may be warranted. Dennis, I'm not against you. I am, however, against the manner in which you communicate - a manner that is prohibited by policy. If you would simply be civil then I would be happy to fade into the background. If you believe that someone is violating a policy then the proper response is not to flame them, but report them. If you will do things by the book you'll find you get more accomplished here. If you believe that someone has libeled you, then report them. Don't flame them; report them. By the book. I will confine my sphere of activity here to seeing that WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:EQ are followed. As long as I confine myself to that specific area then I don't expect anyone to be able to accuse me of a conflict of interest. And please, Dennis, try to assume good faith. Those accusations you made about me were completely unfounded. SWAdair | Talk 04:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
See your talk page. 76.170.239.56 07:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is your motive for Free OTR Shows removals?

The fact that you are only removing links to free audio samples of OTR shows makes one wonder what your motive is for having them removed. If you were true to your claim that you are simply trying to do a civic duty to society by removing "link spam" it would seem your interest would be above and beyond simply OTR shows removal.

If one was to think to a motive for wanting these free sites removed there is pretty much only one conclusion that comes to mind. That is that YOU run a commercial (read: pay) OTR site and feel that good-natured people who give OTR for free is damaging for your business.

Because it is obvious that you are not here with good intentions, there is little good that could come out of a civil debate with you. The fact is that you wish to rob Wikipedia visitors of a valuable resource simply because they can get it for free here rather than having to pay you at your website. No amount of discussion or reason will change your mind, so all we can do is simply revert your damage afterwards. PrinceAl 17:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Motives are immaterial when Wikipedia guidelines and prohibitions are being violated. As indicated several times above, I'm simply following Wikipedia guidelines on removing spam links which are either self-promoting, advertising, or commercial. Or do you contend that the removed spam links do not violate Wikipedia's prohibitions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC).
Not that facts have ever inhibited anyone involved with the multitude of naked OTR Spammers here, but here are the facts: The Digital Deli Online has offered in excess of 1 Gigabyte of free downloads changing several times each month from it's pioneering 'Jukebox' page here and has done so for over 5 years, month in, month out. In that time, The Digital Deli Online has delivered over 2.3 terabytes of free Golden Age Radio episodes and historical content. How about your street cred, Princess Al? Cite the terabytes of free Golden Age Radio shows you've delivered to the worldwide internet at large for free. Please. Enlighten us all.
Yes, you do offer various shows for free and I believe you when you say you have delivered over 2.3 terabytes of data. If your Jukebox page was static and the same shows were always available then links to it could be added on the related Wikipedia article.
In point of fact, I've offered another 50 - 60 episodes at static links for over 3 years now, but every proposal to include them here has been shot down, apparently in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Just a few more unimportant facts that are completely ignored by OTR spammers here such as yourself.
In point of fact, it's immaterial whether a site is commercial or not, and since one or more of you insist on repeatedly spamming for www.otrsite.com and libsyn.com, I can only conclude you're either self-serving, self-promoting hypocrites or simply liars. Wikipedia's Spam guidelines are very clear. Self-promotion of any kind, commercial or otherwise is prohibited. Period. But let's not confuse the hyperbole with facts by any means. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 17:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC).
Please see No personal attacks. SWAdair 08:50, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] No personal attacks

WP:NPA is an official policy of Wikipedia. It is not a suggestion, it is not a "pretty please" and it is not acceptable to violate it. Feel free to discuss edits and content, but do not insult or attack the person behind the edits. A quick review of this page shows unacceptable conduct by DCGeist, 76.170.239.56, 76.170.239.56, PrinceAl, 76.170.239.56, PrinceAl, 76.170.239.56, 76.170.239.56, all of whom seem to be aware of the policy but choose to casually disregard it. Editors have been, and I'm sure will continue to be, blocked and eventually banned for persistent disruptive behavior. This is not Usenet nor an unmoderated forum. WP:NPA is policy and it is enforced. If anyone finds it impossible to abide by this policy (i.e. to maintain a professional manner) then they should look for another outlet for their creative energy. Wikipedia is not the place for such conduct. There is no reason for such behavior. Personal attacks accomplish nothing of value, reflect poorly on the person who makes the attack, disrupt Wikipedia and, perhaps most importantly, can get the violator(s) blocked from editing. If you're blocked, guess who gets to edit. I'm not saying that everyone should hold hands and sing campfire songs, but I am pointing out that further personal attacks could have negative consequences. SWAdair 05:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I am not involving myself on either side of the issue of OTR links. My attention was brought here by an edit that was clearly a personal attack and it is the exchange of insults that I am concentrating on. Yes, exchange (meaning more than one person involved). "Shady" is not necessary and is a value judgement about the person. Leaving that adjective out does not change the intent of the message, but does change the nature of it. Calling someone "shady" is a personal attack. Dennis (the Menace) was not necessary and is clearly an insult/personal attack. Insults do not add anything constructive to a discussion and are a violation of WP:NPA. Please be more careful in your future edits. Thank you. SWAdair 11:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
As to the 'attacks' as PrinceAl incorrectly characterizes them, they were comments directed at spam linking practices, repeatedly reverted by the spammers themselves. The most egregious of which, went so far as to include a link to a popular Golden Age Radio book on Amazon.com, by including his own Amazon.com vendor link code in the 'hidden' URL, so as to obtain credit for any sales derived from following the link. His own links were eventually removed through intervention by Wikipedia third party, and he was threatened with being blocked from further link spam abuse. Each and every comment characterized as an 'attack' by PrinceAl was a spam link abuse citation, and only referred to spam link abuse. Again, those are the facts. It's understandable that such a vehement response should come from the repeated link spammers themselves, since they're engaging in a prohibited activity in the first place.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)
Reverting your malicious vandalism is not considered spamming. If you did remove a link to Amazon that included a vendor code then that is a valid removal, but your blanket removal of all links to FREE sites that offer OTR shows is nothing but a selfish act trying to get people to PAY for those free shows on YOUR commercial website. Try to get rich somewhere else. PrinceAl 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Lie. Fact: I was providing and promoting free, downloadable Golden Age Radio episodes and content long before any of the sites you're promoting.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)
Note PrinceAl's repeated use of my name, as if to further intimidate or inflame the discussion. It only shows cowardice on his (or her) part in not revealing himself or herself in the same manner. If that's not cowardice, I'd love to see any argument to the contrary. Throughout history, the most scurilous proponents of innuendo and hate speech have counted on others' civility or fear of reprisal to defend themselves against attacks, heresay, or vile innuendo. But history has also proven that once a lie goes unchallenged, it eventually becomes popular myth or accepted belief. I won't permit that. Ever.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)
I would have refactored that comment as well, but doing so would have it impossible to understand my response. First, let me point out that calling someone a coward is a personal attack, and you seem rational enough to know that without being told. Willful, deliberate violation of Wikipedia policy will get you blocked from editing. I'm trying to give you every opportunity to conduct yourself in accordance with WP policy, but if you show that you refuse to, then trust me, you will be blocked. Now, as for my response to your comment, above: Near the top of this page another editor urged you to register for an account and suggested that you would not be taken seriously until you did so. I disagree. We have quite a few editors who have edited anonymously (as an IP address and no other information) for years, always making constructive edits. Those IP addresses have become as familiar to regular Recent Changes Patrollers as if they were user names. They are accepted and welcomed members of the Wikipedia community, even without ever registering for an account. If you choose not to register, I would not judge you one way or the other for that. I will judge you based on your actions. The other side of that coin is that, paradoxically, a person can get more privacy by registering an account. The IP addresses of registered users are concealed and there is nothing requiring a person to list accurate private details of themselves on their user page. In today's world, a rational desire for online privacy is very understandable. Some Wikipedia users (such as myself) make it very easy to identify them and to locate them IRL if someone wants to. Others choose to maximize the amount of privacy their person is afforded. That is equally acceptable. Choosing privacy is not cowardice and any implication of the sort is a personal attack. If Wikimedia does not require users to publish personal information (they don't require even so much as an e-mail address to sign up), then no one may insult a person for exercising the option of privacy afforded them by Wikimedia. No one should be harrangued for not registering an account, and no one should be harrangued for not making their personal details public. It seems you have each latched onto this as simply another point to use to make personal attacks and accusations of bad character. Please confine your comments to edits, content and (if supported by evidence) patterns of behavior. Further personal attacks will be reported to WP:PAIN. SWAdair 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I can accept your logic, but not your conclusions. You're entitled to both. I will say once again, any libel addressed at me or to my site will be met with a response. I will continue to attempt to withhold attacks in kind. I can't help but notice though, that you selectively preserved every personal attack by PrinceAl while editing mine in response to them. You continue to concur with his or her right to publish my name and expose it to spammers while defending his or her hiding behind their own anonymity. Since you can't take a position one way or the other on adhering to any guidelines other than the ones you've addressed to us, I can't ask your view one way or the other, but I will not sit by idly watching a very public smear campaign addressed to me personally or my site without a response. Least of all when all I'm doing is following Wikipedia Guidelines on External link abuse. Or are public smearing campaigns supposed to simply be ignored, so that they may be misinterpreted as fact. Sorry. I won't let anything like that go unanswered.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)
I understand. I wouldn't ask you not to defend yourself, but I do ask that you defend yourself in accordance with standards of conduct prescribed by policy. Oh, and since you touched on the subject just now, I guess this is a good time to ask. May I call you by your given name? You have implicitly acknowledged your identity in the posts on this page, but you have yet to explicitly do so. If you do not explicitly identify yourself or give me permission to address you by name, then I will not do so. (Meaning I would have to refer to you by your IP address). Until you indicate a desire to be known, I will err on the side of good manners and not presume to call you by anything other than the "anonymous" IP address you have chosen to edit as. Thank you. SWAdair 08:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, certainly. I have no shame in either my name, my reputation online, and least of all for my site. All of which I will defend at every attack. Recognizing that responding in kind is unhelpful, I'd hope you'll have noticed such 'in kind' responses receding as the arguments developed. On my behalf, anyway. Thanks, again. 76.170.239.56 08:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Dennis. Yes, I have noticed and do appreciate the reduction of in-kind responses. SWAdair 15:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, register an account and we can call you by your account name.PrinceAl 22:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Please see my response to the previous comment (above). SWAdair 07:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The following comment has been refactored per WP:RPA. SWAdair 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

You know all too well, that www.otrsite.com and libsyn.com are commercial sites. <Snip> You, yourself, have repeatedly reverted deletions of commercial links to both www.otrsite.com and libsyn.com. Yet you inaccurately characterize my spam link deletions as directed to only 'free' otr sites, which in and of themselves are self-promoting, which is also a prohibition by Wikipedia Guidelines. I have nothing to either gain or lose by making such deletions, but one has to wonder what you have to gain from repeatedly reverting them. What say you? There are hundreds of other Golden Age Radio sites providing services, who don't feel compelled to abuse Wikipedia by spamming their links here. I myself have provided free Golden Age Radio shows for over four years before any of the 'free' sites you continue to promote with your link spamming. That's my record. What's yours? And for once and for all, I can assure you that I will never ever consider any 'OTR' site as competition in any way, shape or form. Indeed, I've tried, without success, to have my site removed from every search category of Old Time Radio in the various search engines. This <statement> you keep promoting about me feeling any competition whatsoever from any 'free otr show' site is both inaccurate and absurd. I'm completely neutral as to whether people who visit my site choose--or not--to help support my 1900 pages of Golden Age Radio articles, trivia and history by donating to my site. As it is, the donations for 5 years, have--most months--met the costs of keeping the site in operation. That's all I've ever hoped for. By contrast, two of the commercial sites you promote with your link-spamming, make thousands of dollars a month in their operations. But again, let's not confuse facts--nor clear Wikipedia Policies against commercial or self-promoting link spamming--with <Snip> hyperbole. How about for once answering your motives for repeatedly violating Wikipedia's prohibitions against link spamming, as opposed to repeatedly attacking the messenger?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.239.56 (talk • contribs)

The following comment has been refactored per WP:RPA. SWAdair 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and how do you know that several of those sites earn thousands of dollars a month? Do you have access to their financial statements? <Snip> PrinceAl 23:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC

The following comment has been refactored per WP:RPA. SWAdair 06:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Your response is absurd. Self promotion is self promotion, plain and simple. Wikipedia is not a link farm. If it was, there would be a hundred listen to links and external links under every Golden Age Radio Article on Wikipedia. I don't hate anyone or anything. Whatever displeasure I reserve for unscrupulous practices in any form are my own, and I would hope, intuitive. Your 'facts' are nonsense. You repeatedly attack the messenger without substantiating your rationale for abusing Wikipedia guidelines. And no, I don't have any financial statements. But I'm not an idiot either. Your record of 'contributions' <Snip> stands on it's own. The Wikipedia Guidelines are clear and irrefutable. How about just once responding to your rationale for abusing them? Just once would be enough. It's clear you have some axe to grind about either me personally, or my site. That's patently obvious. Time to disengage. It remains for others to decide the merits of your repeated commercial spam abuse.{{unsigned|76.170.239.56

As you both appear to be adults able to think clearly enough to engage in logical debate, I find it impossible to believe that you cannot understand a very simple, very clearly written policy such as Wikipedia:No personal attacks. The only thing that makes sense to me is that you willingly choose to violate it. Negative comments about edits, content, and sometimes even patterns of behavior are appropriate, but personal attacks against the person behind the edits are not acceptable. In my personal opinion, my comments above could not possibly be misunderstood by a rational adult and are explicit enough that they should qualify as warnings {{npa}}, {{npa2}} and {{npa3}} for both parties concerned. It is possible to discuss your differences without resorting to name calling and insults. Further personal attacks will be reported to WP:PAIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SWAdair (talk • contribs)

I guess that remains to be seen. While I appreciate your rationale and your refactoring, you'll forgive me for being skeptical about any hope that personal attacks in response to spam linking edits will cease. I thank you, nonetheless.
Thank you. It seems obvious to me that neither side is going to agree with the other and further discussions directly between the involved parties is pointless and counter-productive. I would like to see you enter into mediation or allow the issue to be decided by the Wikipedia community at large by means of an RfC. Of course, that is up to you. I really don't think further discussion directly between you two is going to solve anything. In fact, it might get emotional again and get one or both of you blocked or banned. Please consider involving neutral, third-party methods of resolving this dispute. SWAdair 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been begging for precisely that, to no avail, apparently. I can be as dispassionate as the next person--except for when I'm attacked both personally and professionally. Libelous smear campaigns in response to rational, justifiable edits supporting Wikipedia prohibitions against link farming and link spammming are simply intolerable.

[edit] Re: Apparently your enthusiasm...

Hi, many of the links you removed such as ntlworld.com, otrcat.com, tuxjunction.net, salon.com etc. are commercial, ad-sense driven sites. But, archive.org is not a self-promotional site. Similarly, .otr.net otrsite.com don't seem to be commercial sites -- there are no ads or charges. If you are sure that your edits are not in bad faith and the links that you've been removing are commercial sites, please go for mediation, instead of indulging in revert wars or personal attacks. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. utcursch | talk 10:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that. Archive.org is not self-promoting, but the source of the files there are. You need but check the source on the resulting page. How you can misconstrue otrsite.com as anything but a completely commercial site is beyond belief. It always has been a commercial site--and a rather famous commercial site at that. Indeed for over 5 years it was one of the only available commercial sources on the internet for high quality cassettes of Golden Age Radio episodes. Of all the sites I removed links from, all but otr.net were either commercial, or self-promoting. Otr.net is simply self-promoting. But that in itself is a prohibited practice. As is any practice of posting hundreds of 'Listen to' links all over Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a link farm, nor is it in a position to verify or substantiate the copyright status of hundreds of gratuitious links to unverified media. I'd respectfully suggest you verify your facts before making suggestions of bad faith. But good faith or not, all the spammers do is simply revert them. What's the point here? What's your point? What's the point of even adhering to Wikipedia's prohibitions? It's interesting to see you change your tune from your first posting on this page to now. If the weather can change that quickly on Wikipedia, how do you expect any of us to proceed in any rational, policy-based way? "Indulging" is an insult, intended or otherwise, though in the context you employed it's clearly intended to offend. Interesting that yet another editor 'conveniently' overlooks libsyn.com and it's 270 commercial spam links. One can be forgiven for finding that fascinating in itself. It's immaterial anyway. All of the edits have been reverted, none of the responding editors give a hoot about the violations, and all is well with the resulting protected spammers--yet again.76.170.239.56 11:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's make this simple for one and all. It's obvious that only some of the link spamming prohibitions are going to be adhered to here, and least of all if they're acted on by 'certain' editors. There's little else to conclude than that there's clearly something else at work here, judging simply from all efforts to protect libsyn.com in particular. Someone merely needs to add something to the Wikipedia External link prohibitions mentioning that it's all simply hit or miss here. Some sites can spam, some can't--it all depends on whoever's editing at the time. That's the long and short of it here. No other conclusion is possible, given the empirical evidence anyway. Y'all do what you think is responsible. I'll attempt to find an area of Wikipedia with a bit more integrity and clarity associated with it, to contribute to from now on.76.170.239.56 12:29, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Dennis, there is no such 'understanding' that I am aware of. So far it seems you've tried to be a one-man army, something that doesn't work too well in a global online community. You may seriously want to try getting neutral third-party input so that you can 1) explain your views to people who don't have a dog in the fight and 2) get an official ruling on the matter. If neither of you takes the official route you'll only end up relentlessly butting heads and feeling bitter. I seriously doubt that mediation would accomplish much more than getting you to understand each other's views without involving emotional language, but I think you both understand that already (ahem, no snide remarks from either, please).  ;-) A Request for comment, however, would allow more visibility for this issue, a location for each party to explain their views in a logical/civil manner, and likely could decide the issue once and for all. Rather than assume there is some conspiracy and throw in the towel, grumbling about Wikipedia's integrity, how about putting it before the community in an official manner? Please do read and consider the dispute resolution process that utcursch linked to. SWAdair 16:03, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Already submitted one. No responses, as predictable. I've requested third party intervention three times as well, to no avail. It's clear there are favored, protected, 'wired' parties within certain areas of Wikipedia for which the rules are simply suspended. Corruption is not new. Clearly not in the past 5 and a half years anyway. I can accept that any number of facets of society have patterned themselves from leadership at the top. It's just a bit disappointing to see it at the level of an effort like Wikipedia. There comes a time during some corrupt, abusive situations when a good fight simply isn't worth fighting. When you see that the proponents both welcome and embrace the corruption from the inside out, and not only tolerate it, but defend it, it's time to leave them to their own destinies. A lesson we might well learn in other parts of the world. I'll leave ya'll to your compromised little fiefdoms, thanks. There are better, more productive, more receptive areas to work on. Perhaps it'll all come down to something as simple as libsyn.com being owned by one of the directors of Wikipedia. Who knows. But I'll leave that to ya'll. You're welcome to it.76.170.239.56 19:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've attempted to find your original request for comment, but can find no indication that such a request was ever actually posted. Can you provide a link to where you posted your request? It occurs to me that the reason you haven't received any reply might be because it wasn't submitted properly. 23skidoo 16:06, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Ambassador Hotel

Please check the history of the page carefully. The last time I made any edits to that article was in September, back when I was involved in the removal of the link to digitaldeli, a website that, by WP definition, was spammed (because it was added "bare" across many articles by the owner/proprietor of the website).

However, as I have stated before, I am staying out of the echoes of this battle because I simply do not have the time nor patience to debate ad nauseam the reasoning for which the link is inappropriate. I leave this battle for others. Please do not try to drag me back into it. Thank you. --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

    • As you're well aware, the Ambassador link was not--repeat not--added to any other article but the Ambassador Hotel article. You're comment is simply a flat misrepresentation of the facts.76.170.239.56 20:48, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
I am referring to links to the entire domain itself. As far as I (and WP's spam guidelines) are concerned, adding www.domain.com/1.html to an article about 1, and adding www.domain.com/2.html to an article about 2 is essentially adding the same link. Net result: www.domain.com gets 2 links. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Noted, as I pointed out previously. Thanks again for the clarification.76.170.239.56 04:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that his site should forever be banned because of the OTR incident. I think the biggest item of interest on the page is the photograph collection and should be included if only for that reason. Sure it would have been better if he hadn't added it himself, but if someone removes it I will add it myself. Personally I found it interesting reading even though I never really had any interest in the Ambassador Hotel. I feel it adds value to the article. PrinceAl 12:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Repeated and Egregious Commercial and Self-Promoting Link Spam within Most Old Time Radio Articles"

Hi. You might take a look at the questions I left for you five days ago at:

You don't have to answer these, however it would be helpful for WikiProject Spam volunteers to know some of the answers in order to know how to respond to your request.

If you do wish to answer them, please do so at that section of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.
--A. B. (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I responded at the section you refer to. 76.170.239.56 06:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding comments, above, in The Crime Club section

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Give it a rest. No personal attacks? But personal and professional libel over and over and over and over again goes unsanctioned? Help me out here understanding the justice in any of this. Please. 76.170.239.56 13:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the civility policy if you would like to learn more about interacting with others. However, unconstructive accusations are considered not very nice and immediately disregarded. If you continue in this manner you may be ignored without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. SWAdair | Talk 05:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding Paul O. Miles section

You recently deleted an external link to a podcast from the Paul O. Miles page. Why? It was of the author reading a recent story of his. The reason give the the removal was "Removed commercial link spam IAW with Wikipedia Policy". How is this different than external links to other Miles' short stories? Thank you for your time. --Rick Klaw 15:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be unaware of the prohibition against linking to commercial sites from Wikipedia. This may give you some guidance. If after reading Wikipedia's guidance you still feel that link doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy, feel free to post your arguments on the Article's Discussion page for consensus. 76.170.239.56 21:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)