Talk:Beech Fork River

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Louisville Portal
Beech Fork River is within the scope of WikiProject Louisville, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Louisville, Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
This article needs a photo or other appropriate image, or additional photos/images.
Kentucky Portal
Beech Fork River is within the scope of WikiProject Kentucky, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of Kentucky and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
This article needs a photo or other appropriate image, or additional photos/images.

[edit] Colloquial, subjective language

This article needs a minor rewrite to clean up the colloquial, subjective language in use. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertising Accusations

The prediscussion by apathy78: Stevietheman Deleted content that had been sourced as coming from the Bardstown boaters club. He claimed it was advertising for them. Apathy78 re wrote the same information in a much better light using the KY Standard as a source.(So that it could not be claimed as advertising) The Bardstown boaters club has a copy of the article used.Stevietheman Deleted the content again with out even looking at what it said or seeing if it was still advertising.

Apathy78: Dude what am I advertising? This is news. As cited, it was in the Bardstown local paper.

Apathy78: :If that's true, a citation from the Bardstown paper would there instead of links to your business. Please don't add it back unless you place a proper reference there. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sir, you have no right to remove this talk. Further, I decided to compromise and keep the content, assuming good faith about the claim, but without the advertising links. If they are restored, I'm calling in admins to deal with it that way. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Apathy78: I have every right to remove it. I am an editor like you. (Though, I am a newbie.) I got rid of this section because I thought we were done with this topic. And we should have been before this section came to be. The links are not advertising, they are a sources of info. I did not read all of Wikipedia:Citing sources but I did read that a person needs to site the source he or she uses.>> Say Where You Got It. I do remember reading the original articles in the KY Slandered, however when I went to the net to find a copy so every one else can read the same the Boats club site was all I could find(Mabey you should help with finding better references.) I am in no way related to the boaters club and I have no personal gain from using them as a source. I don't see what makes this an advertisement. I sense your claims may be such due to the fact that this section of the river has nothing to with Louisville but yet the river section discussed has ever thing to do with the river its self.(Btw, your slant does not have any thing to do with your editing ability, I just wanted to say that you could be biased about the nature of the "Bardstown" Boaters Club and this section of the river.)

No, you cannot remove a talk entry except under exceptional circumstances. It's here to stay, permanently. Further, a reference doesn't require a link to the source, although that would be beneficial to those checking up on the reference. The Bardstown Boaters have been linked to before from this article in a promotional manner, and that is why the links won't be allowed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Apathy78: But the context and content witch they are link to now is very different from the first time(I don't think you looked at the new material at all.). If this thing ever gets built(Which is questionable.) the btown boaters club will be the authority governing it. If it falls through, the Bardstown boaters will likely be the a source for finding why it failed.(Of course we can do an edit when things change.)

Advertising the Bardstown Boaters by linking to content that belongs to The Kentucky Standard, a copyright violation, is simply not going to be allowed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Its still not advertising however I will agree it could be copy write infringement. You should have stated that to begin with buddy. I am not an advertiser/spammer and never will be. I did not enjoy being claimed as such. Now a copyright infringer I tend to be, and I don't mind being called out on that one.

It is indeed advertising if a site is trying to grab views for itself using the original content of another source. It's a combo advert/copyvio. No question. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apathy78: Its no question because its not Advertising. The Btown Boaters club is trying to help people who come to their site by providing information about the river and the current stat about the project. They are not a company or business. I don't know what they as an organization(nonprofit or what ever.). I find other parts of their site informative to knowing more about how rapids and water parks are built. I do admit that the btown boaters will always have a slant to information because the are advocates of the project to put a water park their. But at the same time, I would like to point out that it I can not find any people or groups who oppose the project in its current state(an idea).


[edit] Vandlising Accusations

explain plz Apathy78 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

By all Wikipedia standards, early archiving is akin to removing talk, which is vandalism. I'm sorry you have said things in public you don't want others to see, but that's the breaks. Should I do a Request for Comment on your behavior, or will you stop it? This talk will not be archived until it is proper to do so. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And it is proper to do so. So lets move on.Apathy78 17:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Im reverting it back, before this was here.