User talk:82.17.191.242

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Shanes 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your Blog

I understand that it can be confusing to se your edit removed without any explanation. I should have given you one earlyer, but the united page (and some others) was being edited very frequently by various people more out to vandalise it than edit constructively, so I was busy and didn't get around to give you an explanation.

About your blog: The thing is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not meant to be a place to look up links to blogs and whatnot. The general guideline about what external links to include is that they should either be for references, i.e. to cite sources for information given in the article, or to offer additional information about the topic not covered in the article or in other links. In general blogs don't qualify as either except when it's the personal blog of the article topic or some such. I don't think your is, it looks like (don't mean to be insulting here) just one of many fan blogs. There must be hundreds of them. For more about the Wikipedia policy on external links, see my previous note above. Shanes 23:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue spamming you will be blocked from editing. -- GraemeL (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)16:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)~~==WP:EL== Hi. I was interested in what you wrote at Talk:Manchester United: "Because I have questioned this policy, another editor has threatened to ban me...". That doesn't seem very fair to GraemeL; he has threatened to block you if you choose to continue to break our policy, not for questioning it! If you want to debate a policy change, the policy discussion page is the place, in this case it would be Wikipedia talk:External links. Good luck. --Guinnog 16:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Here again you talk about blocking people without addressing the central theme of my argument that fans should be allowed to submit links to blogs. Blocking is another term for banning surely?

I'd also question the term spamming which was used by your colleague. I haven't spammed the site. As I clearly pointed out, at the time of submitting my blog link there was another blog link on the page. How was I to know about your inconsistent rules?

As for addressing this issue eslewhere, I have brought this matter up on the United talk page, but each time I do, I get the same response: 'See our rules'. That might be your idea of a discussion it isn't mine. IF you want someone who knows what he's talking about to review the United page and the links and you'd be willing to allow fan blogs, then I'd do the job for you.

Some United blogs are very good, they are the same as fanzines because the content has been written by fans. I have been following United for over 30 years so I know what I'm writing about. I ask you to again reconsider this issue. James Ryddel.

[edit] Questions on United talk page

Replying here since its not Manchester United related. One thing I should probably have pointed out a fair while ago, you can sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~). About inconsistencies, to be honest the reason you've had the {{unsigned}} template put by your comments but some others haven't is because it was trivial for me to do it when your comment was the most recent one, but older ones involve digging in the history to find who it was. I've done it for the one you mentioned; I could do it for all of the comments on the page if you want, but it'd take me a fair while. Comments on talk pages aren't usually removed unless they're abusive. You'll find a very similar example on Talk:City of Manchester Stadium regarding derogatory names, of course they should not be used in either article.

Regarding the travel search article, it looks like a mess of an article, and currently has two banners at the top indicating it as such. What ought to happen, policy wise, is that additions to the text should be carefully referenced, citing reliable sources in footnotes. The body of the text should then explain the subject adequately, with the referenced publications providing further details for anyone who wants to know more. If this is done then external links become less of an issue, as the article will have already given the necessary information. As you are aware, unfortunately all too often this does not happen, in retrospect the breadth of coverage has expanded too quickly for standardisation to keep up.

Adding a site in which you have a personal or commercial interest does indeed meet the Wikipedia description of spam, though you were most likely misled by the presence of other commercial links. My opinion on external links is that the situation would greatly improve if Wikipedia introduced rel=nofollow on all external links, so that they do not contribute to Google Pagerank, thus removing one of the incentives for people to add them. This would IMO decrease the number of long link lists and help to prevent situations people such as yourself end up in, contravening the spam policy unknowingly while acting in good faith. The sort of link a page such like travel search should have is that of, say, a travel supplement from a major newspaper reviewing or giving an overview of such sites, I'll look for one next time I'm online. Not that hearing this will be of much use to you. Sadly, as things stand at the moment, articles about business areas and niches are typically one of the more unreliable parts of the site, as less editors take an interest in them. (I know I prefer writing about things like the World Cup than online travel information...) Apologies if you've been getting the impression that Wikipedia is a Kafka-esque bureaucracy, you haven't had the most straightforward of introductions to say the least. Oldelpaso 23:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

OE. Thanks for taking the time for that explanation and you are right about my perceptions of the situation I wasn't aware that I was breaking any house rules. IT is rather confusing when the site displays links to some commercial organisations and not others, but you've covered that I guess. As for the United page. I still think Wiki should think about displaying links to a selection of fan blogs, but as stated previously that would take a policy change.

Regarding allowing rubbish like calling Old Trafford 'The Swamp' and petty arguments about the clubs address on Wiki, it adds nothing to the debate, all it does is create arguing among posters and if it were up to me I'd be deleting/blocking both sides on this one, by that I mean on the City page too.

Out of interest are you based in England? I'm from Stockport and have been following United since 1969/70, it's a long family tradition. Obviously I know a lot of blues and we get along fine as you have to. I actually used to work with Simon Hattenstone who's a big blue and writes for the Guardian Newspaper.

Yes, I live in Withington, and I too have family to thank/curse for my allegiance. Of course banter is just that, to let it cloud one's judgement outside the stadium/pub etc is plain foolish.
Taking a hard line on talk comments might be feasible for relatively uncontroversial subjects, but if extended to middle-east politics or the like, for any given viewpoint there will always be someone dead against it. If people edit war using the actual article itself, then they will be censured, and temporary blocks may well be issued if the case is of sufficient severity, but if it is solely on the talk page then it causes little harm. A combination of two rules, assume good faith and no personal attacks works suprisingly well on the whole. Oldelpaso 18:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, cheers and thanks again!