User talk:80.42.155.37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Links

Hello, I've seen that you've been busy with the links on the Rossendale and Rawtenstall article pages. Please do not replace them again, nor refer to their removal as vandalism, since they are clearly not. Wikipedia:External links explains what sort of links should be avoided. In two instances on the Rossendale pages, they link to sites that do not have anything to do the article. The other, and the one removed from the Rawtenstall page is to a forum, rarely used, except by one user, that adds no relevent material, and mainly is used to give one person's view on a wide variety of issues, again, only rarely used to discuss valley events. The links that are still there are to particular features that are discussed in the article, or add valid information not covered in the article. Benea 21:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, if you keep on at this, it will be considered disruptive editing, which may lead to you being blocked. This is a content dispute. If you can actually provide an argument about why it can be kept then I invite you to discuss it here or on my talkpage. Have you read Wikipedia:External links? If you have you'll notice that your website is violation of it for a number of reasons. I assume that the bit you're desperate to see added is your section on Rawtenstall. Most of it appears to actually have been copied from the Wikipedia article. You may also be in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest and Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry. Just because you like the link is no reason to keep adding it either. Benea 21:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I've noticed you've been busy removing selected links to one forum while not removing links to other forums which contain advertisements and require membership to view images. This is clearly done to favour one site and has happened before on Rossendale pages. It is clearly vandalism. The site you removed is more than a forum and does add valid information not covered in the article and also images. Your opinions on how often a forum is accessed by its members or contributed to by it's members and what is contributed should have no bearing over Wikipedia content. People are free to read all of relevant site the site without joining or contributing. Including the non forum pages of the site. Do not continually remove relevant links especially when leaving similar links intact. It is vandalism.

if you keep vandalising the links it will be considered disruptive editing, the links have been on the page for a considerable amount of time and the only person that has removed them is the person that has added the online link. I am well aware of the links policy and and it is not in any violation. I assume you are desperate to see it removed, as Ive stated it's not just been added it's been on the page for months, so why suddenly remove it now

I also suggest that you stop making accusations, using a site does not make a conflict of interest and because I'm using an ip does not make me a sock puppet. I'm going to look at the site now and I'm going to check if how much is copied from wikipedia or if it's just based on wikipedia and your making libellous comments. 80.42.155.37 22:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you're linking to a site without realising what its content is? But that is by the by. I don't really care about your forum per se, but rather if it should be included in wikipedia. I'm happy for the link to the other forum to go as well since you ask, and indeed for the reason it requires a form of log in to access some of its features. Regrettably, so does the forum you are trying to add, despite your claims that it does not. I also don't care how you access the forum or contribute, but your forum, despite its title, has an unquestionably larger scope than the subject of the article. The discussion of gay books for children being one such recent one. Another editor has made these links before, and they were removed. I see that editor has also been rebuked for further similar edits. Your edits, style of conversations, etc strongly link you to that editor. Hence, my suspicions of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest. Also the length of time the link is on the page has no bearing. Incorrect information can be removed even if it was months or years after it was added. The same goes for links. Also, finally be aware that implying legal threats is a definite no no on wikipedia, and is one of the fastest ways to get a block. Please refrain from this in future. Benea 22:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I know it's content, I'm referring to whether that content is an exact copy of the wiki article or not as in your claim and it is not, therefore your comments are libel, that is a fact so please refrain from twisting it to be a legal threat. Please refrain from saying it's my site, Please refrain from giving my identity away, I have the right to remain anon in my editing if I wish do so. Therefore please refrain from calling me a sockpuppet, it also does not create a conflict of interest. I added the link because it is relevant, I use the site and add to the sites forums. There is more to the site than the forum. So how a conflict of interest? .Please refrain from making out I'm trying to add a spam link, the link was already on the page , you removed that link because you appear to have a reason to do so other than improving the article, which removing the link does not do . I Have discussed Links greatly on wikipedia and I will not allow links to be removed just because they contain a forum or are based on a forum. It does not say in wiki links that if a site is linked to that the site has to be wholly about the subject of the article and nothing else just that it has to be relevant and add to the article. It adds to the article it has information not in the article and images not in the article. Keep vandalising by removing links just because you don't like them will also get you blocked. I note that yet again you have removed it while you have taken it to discussion instead of leaving it on the article until it has been discussed.

A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article. - from WP:EL. I removed the other link for this reason. I have removed yours. Please find some other way of attracting people to the forum. You are not being discriminated against in favour of another. --Benea 23:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The site does not require registration to view any pages relevant to the article. Registration, as with Wikipedia, is completely voluntary. So again irrelevant picking from the wiki guidelines to try to justify your vandalism. The other link is a business directory and forum with a gallery that requires registration. The fact that there are few members and few posts made proves that your comment that I'm trying to get members from wiki isn't true, Wiki does not get forums members. I added the link because it adds to the srticle and is a valid link, so stop removing it, removing it does not improve the article so therfore is going against Wiki.

The time an edit remains unchanged also does come into it, see Wikipedia:Consensus

And you should also look at this ||Wikipedia has a code of conduct: Respect your fellow Wikipedians even when you may not agree with them. Be civil. Avoid making personal attacks or sweeping generalizations. Find consensus; avoid edit wars; follow the three-revert rule; and remember that there are 2,409,060 articles on the English Wikipedia to work on and discuss. Act in good faith, never disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming.

Personal attacks accusations of sock puppetry, conflicts of interest, you're engaging in an edit war on a link that has up until recently remained on the page for months, you are not editing in good faith, you are trying desperately to find a reason for the link not to be on the article to prove a point. The link is relevant to the article and adds to the article with information and images and should be reinstated. Removing the link adds nothing to the article so therefore shouldn't be repeatedly removed when that fact has been pointed out, to do so, that is to repeatedly remove something that adds to an article on purpose is vandalism.80.42.155.37 00:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why perhaps the link should not be included:
  • A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article. (The site indeed requires registration for access to some content and features)
  • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. (The information can be added quite easily).
  • Links mainly intended to promote a website. (The link is to a forum. The part you are claiming is relevant is a small part not directly linked to.)
  • Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. (See above)
  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (The link is to a discussion forum)
For all these reasons, I thought, hey! A number of these sites shouldn't be on here. The site you refer to is one of them, and is in fact the only one you are fighting to save. You have declared also conflict of interest with your use of the site, that would make an editor question your motives. I'd question rather that you have a desperate desire to see it kept.
Other points - you were the first to suspend Wikipedia:Civilty and Wikipedia:Assume good faith by calling my edits vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In addition it takes two to war as well as tango. In addition consensus is NOT when something has been left for a long time. If I were to add some nonsense in a large, but rarely viewed article. I could not come back after a month and claim that because no one had noticed it in the meantime that the consensus was the erroneous information could be kept. In fact in this case, those links had been removed once before by other users for the same reason as here and here. The consensus appears to be against you. Also you seem to have an odd idea about what improves an article. Removing information or links are not necessarily bad things. They are in some cases in fact mandated as a way of improving articles. --Benea 00:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
There are a few more points that I'd like to make, just in general, based on the fact I don't really care enough about the crux of the argument. Breaking it down into its time periods,
  • your first concern was that the link was being removed whilst a similar one wasn't. They were both removed. You're right to say that it has happened before. It is NOT vandalism however, it is a content dispute. Your descriptions of those edits here, here, here, and here were suspensions of good faith and civility as well as an over reaction.
  • Your edits go against consensus, which is that link specifically does not belong on the articles, as at here, here, here, here and here. This link has a long history of attempting to be added and quickly taken off by a number of different editors.
  • Your edits are very similar to edits made a short while before you started editing, by User: 86.1.137.222 who edits in the same IP range as you, and whose descriptions of edits are very similar to yours. Compare this by the other ip, and this by you. There is also User: 80.42.185.11 who edits the same links. The content of the edits you have been trying to make have been made by others, including User:Madhatter1uk, who is also a contributor to the online forum. The number of people who have been making these edits suggests potentially sockpuppets or meatpuppets, whether you edit under an ip or not. Also your contributions so far have been single purpose, and despite a short history, you are well acquainted with policies and have admitted to editing under a different ip. All are potential indicators of sockpuppetry. I never accused you of being one, I stated my suspicions that you might be. To be fair i don't think you are all the same person, but you certainly all seem to be connected, if only through the forum.
  • You don't see how there might be a question of a conflict of interest. You admit to being a user of the forum. Not only that, you appear to be an administrator of the forum. Whichever, you could be said to be here representing the forum, which is to talk about and discuss issues related to an article. The benefit of having people link from wikipedia is to see the fruits of your posts and your take on the subject. I suspect that this is why you and your co-users are keen to keep adding that particular link, and don't see the need to campaign for the reinstatement of the other forum page I removed. If you really were up in arms about me taking links to forums off, you'd be shouting equally loudly to get that one back. Why only the one you actually contribute to if you have no vested interest?
  • I don't think I've made a personal attack on you. Feel free to point it out.
  • I've already pointed out why the fact its been there for a month is not proof of consensus.
  • The link should provide encyclopedic information that is not in the article. There really is nothing of that nature, even in the section you point to, that is not in the article. Linking it for a collection of images is not really good enough. Not all edits should be 'adding' something. A lot of it is taking things away. A person puts nonsense in, this would mean you can't just delete it because it isn't 'adding' to wikipedia.
  • I found this interesting: 'The fact that there are few members and few posts made proves that your comment that I'm trying to get members from wiki isn't true, Wiki does not get forums members.' That's specious reasoning. You could be trying to get members, it may not be working, but live in hope eh?
  • The Consensus so far has been that the downside of having the link (see listed policies above which makes it undesirable) outweighs what it adds to the site (some photographs).
  • When you were saying that I was libelling you (which can be construed as a legal threat whatever you say), I was pointing out that the information was not just already on wikipedia, it was from wikipedia. It really isn't an issue, you can copy the entire article, it's all under free license and nobody will care. However it is especially pointless to link from wikipedia to a wikipedia mirror page. If you still don't see it, this is the opening to your forum's section "Rawtenstall is a town of industrial origin located at the centre of the Rossendale Valley, Lancashire. It is the seat for the borough of Rossendale, in which it is located." And this is the opening of the wikipedia article "Rawtenstall is a town of industrial origin located at the centre of the Rossendale Valley, Lancashire. It is the seat for the borough of Rossendale, in which it is located." Again, I don't care, you can take it all if you want, nobody will litigate. But there's no point linking to it.

Hopefully you'll see from my edits to this article that my intention is not to knacker it but to improve it. We have a difference of opinion as to what will improve it however. Keep in touch, Benea 05:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reasons why perhaps the link should not be included:
  • A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article. (The site indeed DOES NOT requires registration for access to some content and features That are relevant to the article, registion is optional, as I've already pointed out)
  • Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. (The information can NOT be added quite easily, the Images are copyrighted).
  • Links mainly intended to promote a website. (The link is to a forum. The part I am claiming is relevant is a small part not directly linked to, but is nevertheless relevant and improves the article, as I've already pointed out)
  • Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep-linked. (The site is about Rawtenstall, includes information on Rawtenstall, images of Rawtenstall, Events around Rawtenstall, and has a general discussion section on the forum. Therefore the subject of the site is Rawtenstall, The Subject of the Wiki article is Rawtenstall, as I've already pointed out)
  • Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET. (The link is to a discussion forum, that contains non discussion forum pages, just because a site is based on discussion forum software does not make a site completely a forum, some excellent and useful sites are based on discussion forum software that has been adapted. There is an obsession to remove every site that happens to contain a forum facility on Wikipedia and its killing the site, alienating good editors that go on good sites that happen to have a forum. They link to the forum and find that their contributions have been left but links removed,they don't bother to contribute again. I've already pointed this out too, so yet again I'm repeating points that you keep repeating)
For all these reasons, I thought, hey! A number of these sites shouldn't be on here. The site you refer to is one of them, and is in fact the only one you are fighting to save. You have declared also conflict of interest with your use of the site, that would make an editor question your motives. I'd question rather that you have a desperate desire to see it kept.
You thought hey a forum, lets prune it. Joining a site or adding a site that your a member of is not a conflict of interest, Please quote as your so keen on quoting rules where it says member or users of sites should not add links to that site. I question why you have a desperate desire to remove a link to a relevant site.
Other points - you were the first to suspend Wikipedia:Civilty and Wikipedia:Assume good faith by calling my edits vandalism. Please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#What vandalism is not. In addition it takes two to war as well as tango. In addition consensus is NOT when something has been left for a long time. If I were to add some nonsense in a large, but rarely viewed article. I could not come back after a month and claim that because no one had noticed it in the meantime that the consensus was the erroneous information could be kept. In fact in this case, those links had been removed once before by other users for the same reason as here and here. The consensus appears to be against you. Also you seem to have an odd idea about what improves an article. Removing information or links are not necessarily bad things. They are in some cases in fact mandated as a way of improving articles.
You are vandalising the article, that is fact, and proven by the fact that you've removed it while it's being discussed. Those links were removed before and it's been discussed before and it was resolved that rather than edit war the link(s) would be left and have been left despite visits to edit by the same editor and others. Therefore the consensus is not against me. YOU seem to have an odd idea that additional information about a town which an article is about including images of that town does not improve an article, just because the site contains forum software and that removing the link will improve it. Removing rellevant links placed by people that have a knowledge about the subject of an article is a bad thing and repeated removal of that information for no apparent reason is vandalism.


There are a few more points that I'd like to make, just in general, based on the fact I don't really care enough about the crux of the argument. Breaking it down into its time periods,
  • your first concern was that the link was being removed whilst a similar one wasn't. They were both removed. You're right to say that it has happened before. It is NOT vandalism however, it is a content dispute. Your descriptions of those edits here, here, here, and here were suspensions of good faith and civility as well as an over reaction.
It is not an over reaction, they are vandalism by a rival site that has in the past been removed by other editors for the same reasons, It is a business run to make a profit, and requires registration to access the relevant information pages including images. The owner of that site removed the link that I added which doesn't require registration (yes owner) and re added his link, that is blatant vandalism and not a content dispute. I suspect that you may be a sockpuppet of that person.
  • Your edits go against consensus, which is that link specifically does not belong on the articles, as at here, here, here, here and here. This link has a long history of attempting to be added and quickly taken off by a number of different editors.
Yet again the link is relevant, it is to a Rawtenstall site and the articla is about Rawtenstall, The link has less Relevance to Rossendal I admit, but the site does cover Rossendale, Most of those edits are becuse of the removal of that link link by a vandal. I eventually decided that rather than edit war I'd agree to leave both links intact even though it is to a business directory.
  • Your edits are very similar to edits made a short while before you started editing, by User: 86.1.137.222 who edits in the same IP range as you, and whose descriptions of edits are very similar to yours. Compare this by the other ip, and this by you. There is also User: 80.42.185.11 who edits the same links. The content of the edits you have been trying to make have been made by others, including User:Madhatter1uk, who is also a contributor to the online forum. The number of people who have been making these edits suggests potentially sockpuppets or meatpuppets, whether you edit under an ip or not. Also your contributions so far have been single purpose, and despite a short history, you are well acquainted with policies and have admitted to editing under a different ip. All are potential indicators of sockpuppetry. I never accused you of being one, I stated my suspicions that you might be. To be fair i don't think you are all the same person, but you certainly all seem to be connected, if only through the forum.
Irrelevant, I've already said I use an IP on purpose to avoid edit wars, which I'm allowed to do, yet you have purposely stopped me from doing. Nothing I've done including adding links constitutes sockpuppetry. Try reading the sockpuppetry page and what constitutes sockpuppetry.
  • You don't see how there might be a question of a conflict of interest. You admit to being a user of the forum. Not only that, you appear to be an administrator of the forum. Whichever, you could be said to be here representing the forum, which is to talk about and discuss issues related to an article. The benefit of having people link from wikipedia is to see the fruits of your posts and your take on the subject. I suspect that this is why you and your co-users are keen to keep adding that particular link, and don't see the need to campaign for the reinstatement of the other forum page I removed. If you really were up in arms about me taking links to forums off, you'd be shouting equally loudly to get that one back. Why only the one you actually contribute to if you have no vested interest?
As I've already said Many users of a forum link to the site that the forum is on. Just because I join and contribute to discussions on a site that I'm interested on does not mean that I can not edit the Wiki page relevant to the that site and link to information on that site. How do I appear to be the administrator? . I am here representing a Wiki editor, I've made many edits and yes I am well aware of the rules, I'm also aware that editors twist the rules to get Links removed for no other reason than they are anti link section. I added the link because it adds to the article, removing the link does not add to the article. I did reinstate the other sites at first until I checked their content, and found nothing relevant to Rossendale. Therefore I haven't re added the Rossendale links including the site I added yet. The other link, the link that I've removed and you did not remove until I pointed it out is to a forum, and does require registration. Why did you not remove that link until I pointed it out. I suspect it is because you have a vested interest in that site.
  • I don't think I've made a personal attack on you. Feel free to point it out.
You've called me a sockpuppet, you've called me a meatpuppet, You've revealed my identity on purpose, You've accused me of having a conflict of interest, accused me of being the administrator of a site.
  • I've already pointed out why the fact its been there for a month is not proof of consensus.
Yet again consensus is that the link is relevant and the grounds for removal are personal opinion on how the Wiki rules read. If something might improve an article it should be left, the wiki rules should not prevent that, removal of the link definitely does nothing to improve the article as the majority of the sites content is Rawtenstall based.
  • The link should provide encyclopedic information that is not in the article. There really is nothing of that nature, even in the section you point to, that is not in the article. Linking it for a collection of images is not really good enough. Not all edits should be 'adding' something. A lot of it is taking things away. A person puts nonsense in, this would mean you can't just delete it because it isn't 'adding' to wikipedia.
Nonsense detracts from the article , it has no meaning, or alters the meaning of an article. Therefore removing it would be improving the article. The section I'm pointing to is the section that you say is based on Wikipedia, you are contradicting yourself again. If that content isn't encyclopaedic then non of the article on here is . Do you actually know anything about Rawtenstall to give that opinion? ,Linking it for a collection of images with text explaining those images is a good reason and is encyclopaedic .
  • I found this interesting: 'The fact that there are few members and few posts made proves that your comment that I'm trying to get members from wiki isn't true, Wiki does not get forums members.' That's specious reasoning. You could be trying to get members, it may not be working, but live in hope eh?
Erm, it obviously hasn't worked and won't work so why would I still be arguing my point for it to be re added, Wiki links also have no follow on them now so it won't improve Rankings either, your argument is floored and no amount of sarcastic put downs will change that. If I wanted to get that site members I'd go and get them in realistic ways.
  • The Consensus so far has been that the downside of having the link (see listed policies above which makes it undesirable) outweighs what it adds to the site (some photographs).
The consensus so far is that the link does not detract from the article by everyone else and and that it adds to the article by others (with extra information of the area, events, descriptions of places and images)
  • When you were saying that I was libelling you (which can be construed as a legal threat whatever you say), I was pointing out that the information was not just already on wikipedia, it was from wikipedia. It really isn't an issue, you can copy the entire article, it's all under free license and nobody will care. However it is especially pointless to link from wikipedia to a wikipedia mirror page. If you still don't see it, this is the opening to your forum's section "Rawtenstall is a town of industrial origin located at the centre of the Rossendale Valley, Lancashire. It is the seat for the borough of Rossendale, in which it is located." And this is the opening of the wikipedia article "Rawtenstall is a town of industrial origin located at the centre of the Rossendale Valley, Lancashire. It is the seat for the borough of Rossendale, in which it is located." Again, I don't care, you can take it all if you want, nobody will litigate. But there's no point linking to it.
No that is a point of fact,based on what you wrote, if i said you are libelling me and I'm going to take action, then it would be a legal threat. I am also aware of what you said which is obvios as I said I was going to check, It's also obvious that If you did make libellous comments it wouldn't be me they were libellous to it would be the site owner.
It isn't my forum,it's a forum I use. I have checked and yes some small sections are worded the same as Wikipedia, Maybe the site owner added them to wikipedia, I don't know, but small sections of text with great chunks of additional text do not constitute copying and can't be called a mirror, it would only be a mirror if most of the text was the same and all of the images.

Hopefully you'll see from my edits to this article that my intention is not to knacker it but to improve it. We have a difference of opinion as to what will improve it however. Keep in touch,

Removing relevant links is intentional vandalism , you have given no reason as to why it has been removed, only weak arguments by quoting Wiki rules that can be twisted to suit your removal of the link. Unless you come up with a good reason I'm re adding it. 80.42.155.37 22:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
I really don't care enough to go through what you've said and argue with you. I'm tired of being called a vandal. I don't care about you, the forum or the article. Enough ink has been spilt over this. Put the link in by all means, ultimately it doesn't bother me, I was just trying to remove spam. Keep watching it though, it appears that you'll be busy reinserting it and defending it for a while to come looking at its history. I won't be removing it again, but it seems others might. Benea 22:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)