Talk:SAYNOTO0870.COM

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous users keep reverting the 0845 number and 0870 number pages and removing the link to SAYNOTO0870.COM. I feel that this link is legitimate as it is a informative site containing both alternatives to these numbers (which are usually geographic and therefore cheaper), as well as information and debate about the use of these numbers.

Instead of reverting this page and removing the link, please can you post here and inform me (as well as others) why you think this link should not be on the page. Also, post for the keeping of this link would be most appreciated.

If there is enough valid reason for removing the link, I will remove it. -- [Jam]^[talk] 12:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The link to the SAYNOTO0870.COM website is often removed from this page, usually citing removal of commercial links.

I would suggest this website should remain linked to since it is relevant to the article, and that it is not a commercial site as such, but cover costs of hosting.

95469 21:14, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd keep it, if it's done "tastefully", i.e. something like "There has been a campaign to request companies provide alternative numbers; saynoto870." As opposed to just spamming the link in there. (I had known about the website from newspaper coverage ages back) --Blowdart 14:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, the link should be present on both 0845 number and 0870 number at present, so take a look and see what you think. The general gist is that there is opposition to these numbers, and one source for alternatives (along with the discussion about the numbers in general) is SAYNOTO0870.COM. Any feedback on better wording of it (even you re-wording it yourself if you prefer) would be gratefully accepted :). -- [Jam]^[talk] 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I like it as is, it doesn't feel like it's just pushing that web site. However having said that, it's the only option. The newspaper references are great, but I dunno, I wish we could do internal wikipedia links as a reference so they are in the same style and it doesn't look so pushy. --Blowdart 15:50, 24 September 2007

(UTC)

Oh hey, I see the problem now. You're right. I'd remove that spammish paragraph and add a "See Also" section, linking to the sayno page, nothing more. The references in question aren't about the number codes but about the say no site and thus shouldn't be on the numbers about the pages. --Blowdart 16:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't see the problem. It is a factual reference to a campaign website that is directly relevant to the topic. To not include it would be a serious omission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.127.228 (talk) 20:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments so far. Following Blowdart's comments, I've removed the actual paragraph from both pages and added a "See also" link. Hopefully the "anonymous" user will stop removing the link now, but we'll find out soon enough. -- [Jam]^[talk] 21:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the link was removed last night by our "anonymous" user, citing "Removed commercial links - no further discussion needed". I have reverted the page with the explanation that discussion is required. -- [Jam]^[talk] 08:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The "anonymous" user was back again and I have reverted his changes.-- [Repton3]^[talk] 08:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Repton3. I take it that you agree with the links being there then? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:16, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that internal link to the SayNoTo0870 page should be included. The link is not advertising, nor is it commercial, and is most definitely a related, and useful link. I would also be in favour of an External link directly to the saynoto0870 forum too, which as far as I know is the main discussion forum for the benefits and disadvantages of 0870 numbers. If there were a significant user group in favour of 0870 numbers then that would also have to be included, to maintain neutrality. [Repton3]^[talk] 12:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "anonymous" user was back again and I have reverted his changes. If this user feels so strongly that a link to the saynoto0870 page is incorrect, why can he not add to this discussion and explain why? Anyone know how we can get this page protected from anonymous edits?-- [Repton3]^[talk] 13:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You can put in a request for protection at WP:RFPP. I've already tried several times, and at present their only response is for us to "keep trying to get them into the discussion". However, we've had several reverts today so I feel now is the time to ask again. I'll put in another request as I can cite everything we have been doing. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 18:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

0845 number and 0870 number have now been fully protected until the content dispute has been resolved. The sayno content is not currently on the page, but my notice about content being disputed is on the page. Hopefully that will direct people to this page for their input on it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 22:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jam. Hopefully this will encourage our user to contribute to this discussion, with valid and reasoned argument as to why an internal link to a useful discussion site about the usage of non-geographic numbers should or should not be included. I am strongly in favour fo such a link. [Repton3]^[talk] 07:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your support Repton3. At present, everyone who has contributed here is in favour of keeping the information. With getting the pages fully protected (even without the sayno content on, but with the dispute notice) should hopefully get people directed to it. If we don't get any response in favour of removing the sayno content, I'll request that we keep it protected but add the sayno content to the page. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 08:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unles the saynoto0870 link is put back the anonymous contributor has won without any justification. Most people just look at the main article, they don't go further. Logic says it goes back unless the anonymous contributor provides an argument. Otherwise pages can just be vandalised without consequences. From my point of view it is clearly not a commercial site but a campaigning site and completely relevant to the topic. I have no objection to counter arguments or links being shown. signed KJH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.127.228 (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The pages will have to remain as they are for the time being. I know that it is not the outcome we desired, but the hope is that the dispute tag I've got on the page will encourage people to follow the links to this discussion. If there has been no comment from the anonymous user(s) within the next few days, I'll ask an admin to add the link back to the page. I just want to give it a few days for the arguments to settle down. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This would seem a very one-sided arguement, has anyone voiced an objection to the link in this talk? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.127.25.130 (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is only one-sided because nobody has voiced any opposition to it. Instead, they kept reverting the page without any comment, hence now that the pages are fully protected. If anybody has any opposition to the link being included, they are very welcome to post their thoughts here. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 17:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I, like many others believe that non-neutral and anti 08xx sites should not be included in the article which is supposed to be informative. Addition of any impartial and informative link is welcome. JXX. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.40.137 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Many others? You are the first person to actually voice their opinion about it here. The only other people to show their opposition to it kept reverting the page but not actually contributing to the discussion, hence the pages being locked. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jam. I don't think I am the only one. There have been many, many users voicing their opinion at sayno forum in the past. As we (you, me and others) cannot control what Daniel is doing at least we can keep Wiki politically correct, informative and free of disguised business ventures, as it should be. I was only alerted to Wiki situation when I saw your post on sayno forum, otherwise I would have acted sooner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.194.182 (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

While I do not necessarily agree with the links on the site, and stuff to do with mobile contracts, I understand that Daniel has to run the site, and he cannot do that totally out of his own pocket. I believe that the link should be there so that people can see that there are alternative to these numbers available. I am totally against the consumers (like myself) being ripped off by companies with these numbers, and sayno provides the best way (and only way that I know of) to find these numbers. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:31, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, however, the question here is whether to include or exclude the link. I think link should not be included because it gives the unfair, unbalanced and impartial view of 08 numbers and it will only make more companies switch to 0871 numbers. Simple as that. p.s. Sorry I now have to go bed. Will add more comments tomorrow, if needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.194.182 (talk) 21:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand how you draw that conclusion. How will more people move to 0871 numbers if the link is kept? Yes, the site is obviously more tipped towards the getting rid of 084x/087x numbers, but I think the link is valid because it shows that there is opposition to these numbers. If the link wasn't included, people might think that it is OK for these numbers to be revenue sharing and that there is no alternative to them. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

wikipedia is not for promoting your opinions on a subject. --Neon white 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Hold on, what about "neutral point of view" - I have an idea. Why not also add that "Some people believe that because of sites like saynoto0870 we are all paying more for calls as many companies have switched from 0870 to a more expensive 0871." Actually I think this should be included in main sayno article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesJJR (talk • contribs) 14:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which people? If you can find a reliable source to show that that criticism has been made, by all means include it. however, if it's just your own opinion then it can't go in - see WP:NOR. Also take a look at WP:WEASEL, phrases like "some people say..." are very much frowned on, you need to be able to say "Joe Bloggs said..." instead. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I should say "Because of sites like saynoto0870 we are all paying more for calls as Companies like Going Places, First Choice, Traveline, Alpharooms, Tiscali, plus too many to mention, have all switched from cheaper 0870 to a more expensive 0871." —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesJJR (talk • contribs) 18:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It still needs sourcing though. What evidence is there that this is as a direct result of sites like this one, and not just because of a general desire to make more money on the part of the companies in question? Plus it's not a conclusion (encyclopaedia articles don't have them - essays do). Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 18:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

i am not sure why is this even being discussed? I think advertising links should be excluded as they have nothing to do with the informative and encyclopedic nature of the article, so i voted delete. ian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.111.155 (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral point of view does not require that organisations which take a stance on an issue cannot be referred to, it just requires that all major points of view be represented within the articles. As a notable player in the debate on 0870 numbers which is regularly mentioned in media articles on the subject, [1] it is appropriate that the SAYNOTO0870 website should be mentioned in the discussion of the controversies. If there are voices opposed to it (statements from BT, or companies which use these numbers), then they should be mentioned too. I won't be adding my name to the "vote" below though because Wikipedia doesn't work by voting (not least because there's nothing to stop the same person voting several times under different names or IP addresses), but by consensus. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

a commercial site does not belong, esepcially one which that much advertising. it comes under 'Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.' and 'Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.' If there is opposition or criticism to these numbers then sources need to be found. SAYNOTO0870.COM seems to be a self published site so it cannot be used to cite critcism of the numbers. --Neon white 01:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia is not a consumer advocate. Having said that, negative facts should not be whitewashed, but must be presented in a neutral manner. My personal opinion is that saynoto0870 is a good thing, it's an information resource that I've used personally. I don't believe that the inclusion of sites intended to provide consumer information is inherently bad, but some such sites contain excessive rhetoric and can be seen as attack sites, and those should not be linked to. If saynoto0870 were simply a list of alternative numbers, I would have no issues with including it, however it does also attempt to campaign against the use of non geographic numbers, and I don't believe WP is the place for soapboxes, even by linking to them. So when I remove my personal bias from the equation, I end up as a soft delete the links. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 04:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vote

Below is a table for casting your vote on whether or not the links to sayno and MoneySavingExpert should be kept on the pages. Please copy the last row and fill it in with your user name, view, and comment.

Edit 13:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC) - I should point out that this is a vote for the inclusion of links on the 0845 number and 0870 number pages, NOT the SAYNOTO0870.COM article.

[edit] Update

0845 number has now been unprotected. I've done a major overhaul of the page, mainly updating content and references. The only link to SAYNOTO0870.COM is in the form of a reference relating to alternative number searching (along with a reference to Martin's MoneySavingExpert.com). Unfortunately, an anonymous user has started reverting the (whole!) page again with the same excuse ("commercial links"). I know that a consensus has not been completely reached, but I felt that a reference was applicable. One or two people have mentioned a "see also" section with a link to the SAYNOTO0870.COM page - we've had that before and the page is still reverted by anonymous users. Any suggestions? ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you comprehensive update, and let's hope the anonymous user is now in the position to accept your well balanced article. The page is very well structured and informative, and should be used as a template for each of the 08xx UK Telephone number range. 0844 numbers are now becoming increasingly popular in the UK market as non-geo numbers and we should possibly consider renaming the article into 084x numbers and ensure all searches for 0845 and 0844 land at the 084x article. --Repton3 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Repton3, thank you for your reply. I also feel that the 0845 number article is now well balanced, and I'm considering re-writing the 0870 article in a similar style. I hope that the anonymous user will stop their reverting of the article, but I'm not holding my breath. I've been looking at a way of integrating 0844 numbers into the article, but without a major rewrite, I'm not entirely sure how to do it. Anyway, I'll look into it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 14:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi JGXenite, I believe you might be wrong here, perhaps unintentionally. I don’t think it is your true intention to vandalise 08xx pages (which you are doing), but please can you read the discussion and count the votes before you make any other edits. Semi protecting the page is not a good idea as it will get corrected again the moment the protection is off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snip1954 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Snip1954, how am I vandalising the pages? I have made many improvements on the original version. Plus, the link is presently only a reference to finding alternative numbers - how is that considered spam? I really don't understand why people think it is blatant advertising to include that link. It is a website that provides a view of one side of the coin - if a pro-08xx website came up, I wouldn't disagree to including it as it would provide the other side of the argument. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding your vote Snip, which bit of Nev's vote do you agree with? The "SAYNO" link used to be as a "See Also" - it got "removed". It used to be part of the body text - it got "removed". Now it is a reference and it is still causing controversy. And maybe I do have a blinkered view of the whole thing, but I am only trying to provide a view from the other side. I agree that that website is probably not the best one, but it is the only public view we have. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 09:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.