User talk:Pyroseed13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Violation of Wikipedia Policy

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 with which you are affiliated, 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. 156.34.221.91 03:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] digitaldreamdoor.com

Hi, I saw your comment on the Buddy Rich Talk page about digitaldreamdoor. I'm not a Wikipedia expert but I don't think you need to ask "permission" from anyone to include particular references in articles. On the other hand any edits to wikipedia articles should follow the basic rules/guidelines of wikipedia concerning references, links and content (see Wikipedia:About#Wikipedia_content_criteria, etc.)

The person who removed the digitaldreamdoor.com reference from the Buddy Rich article, made the comment "(removed because it is) non-notable amateur fanspam". I was curious about this as well so went to the digitaldreamdoor.com website and clicked on "about this site". Here is what the digitaldreamdoor.com web site's owner / author writes,

"...My name is Lew and this website is my hobby... ...DigitalDreamDoor.com is a privately owned, personal website..."

"...Disclaimer: There is nothing 'Official' about these lists. They are compiled by the 'editor' using the stated criteria, and revised considering the competent suggestions of visitors to this website only..."

Given these notes and disclaimers, the lists are probably not considered "authoritative" as I'm sure if 100 different people had similar web sites, you would get 100 different lists - and who would determine which list was "significant" or more authoritative? Referencing any or all of these lists in a wikipedia article would not be very informative nor "encyclopedic" and this is probably why the reference was removed. Of course if digitaldreamdoor.com was considered by the general public to be on the same level as a Rolling Stone magazine or Down Beat magazine, then perhaps those lists would be considered "notable".

You also mention that other wikipedia articles include a digitaldreamdoor.com reference as well but that is probably not relevant to the question about whether or not the reference should be used in this Buddy Rich article. Based on the above, I presume these digitaldreamdoor references may eventually be removed from those other articles as well by other wikipedia editors.

I have occasionally seen "100 greatest xyz" lists referenced in wikipedia articles, but these are usually lists compiled by established, recognized "sources" / experts (trade magazines, entertainment organizations, etc.) with some generally accepted "authority" or expertise in the subject area and are referenced as such.

Obviously the determination of who is an expert in this case is a bit subjective but that's how wikipedia works. If someone (anyone) objects to a specific edit or reference, they can remove it or challenge it.

Slightly off topic but - for a good example of the kind of debate that surrounds any "world's greatest..." listing in wikipedia, see the wikipedia article Films considered the greatest ever and especially the archived talk pages for that article. It appears the folks that worked on that article over the years had to wrestle with this problem and eventually came up with a consensus of how to proceed that satisfied the principles of wikipedia.

Regards Pugetbill 01:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)