Talk:Pasiphaë

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Comments

Links to Cleomenes and Agis in this article lead to disambiguation pages. Does anyone have a reference for the stories of these dream oracles and/or happen to know which Cleomenes and which Agis are meant? - Pasiphae 22:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of external link pasiphae.poems.googlepages.com/pasiphae.htm Pasiphae Poem

You have deleted an external link I added to the Pasiphae page pasiphae.poems.googlepages.com/pasiphae.htm. In view of the fact that included within the page is a Classical representation of the Pasiphae myth, it is surely permissible to include a 21st century representation? Clearly, visitors to the page have appreciated the inclusion of pasiphae.poems.googlepages.com/pasiphae.htm, as 500 visitors have visited the site since it was first included as an external link on the English and French Wikipedia pages in March 2007. As a result of these visits, the poem is now being set to music by the composer in residence at the St Petersburg Symphony Orchestra and has been posted by others on websites. These include classica.blogspot and Representations of Bestiality. I hope, in light of this, you will reconsider your decision and replace the link on the Wikipedia page.--Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has been excessive placement of this link across a number of wikis. Because of this it is being considered for blacklisting generally. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that there has been, as you say "excessive placement": it has been placed where it is relevant (i.e. on various language pages of the Pasiphae page) and the purpose in doing so has been to contribute to the article for the benefit of visitors. As already stated above, there have been a number of visitors to the poem from the Wikipedia site, so clearly they have welcomed its inclusion. I reassert the benefit to viewers of having this link included. --Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 10:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
For your information this page is monitoring the addition of this link. Bear in mind if you have any connection with the site concerned there would be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia is not a project that should be used to promote links nor does it require them in general. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no suggestion that Wikipedia is in this instance being used to promote a link. The request to reinstate the link is solely to promote the understanding, pleasure and interest of visitors to the page. You also explain that Wikipedia does not in general require links (and I notice on your profile your aversion to external links in general). However, an external link has a very real and valid purpose when it is there to offer the visitor further information that is relevant to the page and to enhance their experience of the subject in question. The number of visitors who have clicked on this link before it was removed is testament to the validity of this pasiphae.poems.googlepages.com/pasiphae.htm link.--Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 11:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I do have an aversion to the misuse of Foundation sites by some people. The fact that you are so satisfied with the number of clicks you are getting does suggest a conflict of interest to me. I'll leave it for others to comment further, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Those looking here might be interested in this as well where I see a possible conflict of interest, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles, our editorial standards are quite clear. Please do not link to to your own sites. Please do not link to self-published sites. There has been no consensus to add your links; in fact, multiple editors have removed them as you've added them using your Charlesmarshal65 and various anonymous IPs. I'll start an entry at WikiProject Spam in a few hours and you can continue the discussion there if you still have questions. We will be reviewing whether to blacklist some of your links on the English Wikipedia or across all Wikimedia projects. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What a bleak view these editorial standards represent! Someone makes something, adds it to a Wiki page because they hope that it will be of interest to others, and these standards can only see this as 'self-promotion' and a 'conflict of interest'. That's a real pity. If you are going to blacklist all sites I have created, can you talk to the relevant editors as I have been in discussion with them regarding the inclusion of sites on pages for which they are responsible, and have obtained their consent? Herby - why did you feel the need to make an unkind comment in what until now has been a civilised discussion? ('so satisfied with the number of clicks...') The point I was making was only that people seem to have appreciated the inclusion of this external link. --Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 13:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
The comment was not unkind it was a statement of about your views expressed here. As I see it you are in clear breach of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy & that I am very concerned about. You appear to be connected with some sites & have placed links to them - put simply that is not permitted. I'm sure it will be looked into. --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Charles, our conflict of interest standard has evolved out of several years of discussion by hundreds of editors and is the product of many revisions and refinements. It reflects a wide consensus within the Wikipedia about an important aspect of encyclopaedic integrity. I'm sorry you feel otherwise but this is not the right venue for for you to add your own links.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org.
When I get out of a meeting in an hour or two, I open the spam report for discussion as I promised earlier and leave a link here for you. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

What a great pity for the us all that Wikipedia is sliding this way.--Charlesmarshall65 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That's a very good, insightful article, Charles. I'd say we're poorer for the loss of Nicholson Baker's contributions but the world is probably a better place for his spending his time instead on projects like his new book, Human Smoke. His criticisms are quite valid, although I'm not sure they're especially relevant to your links; unlike Mr. Baker, I don't see that you've added any content to Wikipedia other than links promoting your web sites.
Here is the report and discussion that I promised; I apologize for the delay:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
See:
--A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)