User talk:Debaterx

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • deleted contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Contents

[edit] Links to http://wiki.idebate.org

Hi Debaterx, welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for taking the time to edit Wikipedia. Editors are always welcome. Please note however that the links to idebate.org that you have been adding do not meet our guideline for external links. Wikis that do not have a reputation within the subject area of the article they are linked to, and especially new wikis with few editors, are not considered appropriate. To find out more about contributing to Wikipedia, check out our welcome page and core policies. Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 02:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The links that I provided to debatepedia fit very well the usefulness and reliability criteria of Wikipedia. The Same sex marriage debate page and Gun control debate page are incredibly useful pages on the topics, and reliably site their sources. While Debatepedia.org is a relatively new wiki (one year old), the utility of these pages should outweigh these concerns. It is the utility of the individual articles that is most important, not the overall credentials of Debatepedia.org at this point. Furthermore, the only criteria that Debatepedia.org does not abide by perfectly yet is that it is a new wiki, but should this be made an absolute block against linking to particular articles on the site with very high merit, source reliability, and utility to users? The Wikipedia criteria is flexible citing new wikis as links to "normally be avoided" but it is not an absolute block. A more comprehensive look at these Debatepedia.org articles is warranted I think.Debaterx 20:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
There isn't an absolute bar on wikis because there are some huge, well known wikis, especially in the popular culture arena that it would be absurd not to link to. But the restriction is there to stop the addition of exactly this sort of wiki. With only a few editors, none of whom appear to be notable scholars in the field, it is effectively a self-published site by a non-notable group - which is not the sort of thing we should be linking to. Until your wiki has a reputation such that other editors have already heard of it independently and can trust that its content will be and continue to be suitable, I do not think it is appropriate for Wikipedia.
As well as the external links guidelines that suggest the site should not be added, I personally find the US centric nature of the articles you linked to to be less appropriate for an international encyclopedia, and I would be reluctant to see them added to articles where the debate in the US has a very different bias than in other parts of the world - such as the gun control in the UK article.
Note that we also ask editors not to add links to sites they are connected with directly to article pages. Promotion of external sites, no matter how good, is not appropriate here. -- SiobhanHansa 23:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure the wiki's provenance will help it build a good reputation. And once it gets that reputation other editors will be more likely to add it if they consider it appropriate for a particular article. -- SiobhanHansa 13:14, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know the continued promotion of the wiki.idebate.org site has been reported at WikiProject Spam. The posting will be available for a few days for comments before being archived. If it continues to be promoted I will request black listing. -- SiobhanHansa 03:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Speedy deletion of Debatepedia

A tag has been placed on Debatepedia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Debate

I'd be glad to talk. I have a current flexible part-time project, so I would be able to arrange to meet pretty much whenever.

You don't provide your real name, and you've chosen not to accept email through Wikipedia, so I've had to respond this way. If you want to continue discussion, look me up by name of give me a way to get hold of you; I'm easily Googled, and I'm in the phone book. - Jmabel | Talk 01:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

You have been blocked for abuse of the Wikipedia email tool as a method to promote your spam of the debatepedia website. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 08:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This judgment should be reversed. I live in DC, and was planning on attending the DC Meetup on December 9th to speak with Wikipedians about the Debatepedia project. The meetup says very clearly that other open-source projects are welcome as a point of discussion. I only emailed a handful of these Wikipedians that will be attending this meetup (no others) for these purposes. This is appropriate, given that the meetup page on Wikipedia solicits such open-source topics. Separately, it was a false accusation that I linked to any debate articles that were not highly developed pro/con resources and highly useful and relevant to the pages that they were linked on (all within Wikipedia's policies). You can check any of the links that I made and you will find this. -- Debaterx (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Spam Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)