Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio

Please Let Us Know

Who would place the newton falls leader site as an external link?

I ask you this because there has been disputes as to whether or not allow this site from being placed as an external link but a representative of the site itself cannot place said link, so i ask that wikipedians vote on whether or not they would place newton falls leader as an external link based on their on research.

Please place your signature and your reason(s) under 'allow' or 'not allow'

Allow

Blah0401 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Blah0401 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

If you could provide some reasoning for the inclusion of the link, I'm sure everybody would be very grateful. You do realise that if something fails a policy, no amount of voting can overrule existing policy. -- Heligoland 13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that but as i see it, and i could be wrong, this article^[*] doesn't violate policy. I think its useful as a primary source of information as it talks about political affairs going on and events that will/have happened there.Blah0401 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I think if you read the specific objections as stated on the article talk page and on the AMA page you will see that (1) "a primary source" etc. does not apply and (2) it is unclear whether the site has permission to reprint the little news it does have. Small portions of the page resemble blogs. Much larger portions are simply commercial advertisements. — Athænara ✉ 07:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

(Postscript: Did you mean "website" rather than "article"^[*] as you said above?) — Æ. ✉ 07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara The first step to being credible is to state facts, not opinions. What articles are you referring to when you state, "it is unclear whether the site has permission to reprint the little news it does have."? FYI: Your statement is an insult to the Newton Falls Leaderwhich places you in violation of Wikipedia rules - see above! Furthermore, where did you go to school? Did they not teach you the difference between commercial ads and articles? - even my 10 year-old knows the difference. Not only is your statement false, but it is another insult ... to Newton Falls Leader and any intelligent life form that reads what you've written. Your words discredit you, and place you in violation of Wikipedia rules, and since you feel that the Newton Falls Leader should not be cited because you think it violates Wikipedia rules, you must agree that you should delete your account and remove all links to your account immediately because you are in violation of Wikipedia rules!

NewtonFallsLeader 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Newton Falls Leader - Blah0401 when are you going to read/respond to the emails I've sent you? Before I engage in any of this (online) I want to hear your response. NewtonFallsLeader 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not allow

Not Allow Ruhrfisch 11:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Fails WP:EL, especially Links normally to be avoided, #13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."

I do believe that the link does have a very direct relationship with the article. After all, the article is about Newton Falls, Ohio and the website gives readers and people researching Newton Falls on wikipedia extra information straight from the source. The website talks about events and other happenings in the town. I dont see how it is indirectly related. Also, Ruhrfisch; if you have not noticed i am providing advocacy on the dispute you are currently engaged in regarding this article. I have left you a message on your talk page.Blah0401 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, which I had seen. I know you are an advocate for User:NewtonFallsLeader, but he has not weighed in yet (nor made an edit since February 11th). If you read his Talk page, you'll see he and I were communicating about this and I believe we had at least partly resolved this issue.

As for your question, I do not see how the NFL website is both directly and symmetrically related to the city of Newton Falls. I agree it is about Newton Falls, but I do not see the symmetry of the relationship. To me it is like the fan website in the example. The official city website would meet this test and others might, but not this one. I also think it fails to meet criterion #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I fail to see what the NFL site provides that meets this (see also WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a web directory). Please let me know what I am missing that you see.

Finally, I guess I am unclear - are you a mediator (neutral third party) or an advocate just for NewtonFallsLeader (and thus on his side - if so who's on my side?) or are you something else entirely? This is my first enounter with WP:AMA, so pardon my ignorance. In any cae, thanks for your help with all this. Ruhrfisch 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I definitely see your point and i am in fact swaying to not use the link. And i am not on anyones side actually, i am mediator and i am waiting to hear from NewtonFallsLeader, and as an AMA advocate i would like to be thought of as a mutual friend between you and NewtonFallsLeader and i am merely giving my opinion. I am just here to help you resolve the content dispute and thought that when the three of us (yourself, nfl, and I) had our discussion i could use this 'poll' to introduce the thoughts of fellow wikipedians on the matter. If i don't hear from NFL soon i will ask that the AMA case be closed as i will assume that he has accepted not having the link on the article. If you'd like to know more about advocacy just ask me on my page; also if you need help resolving a dispute the AMA can help, since i am part of a dispute now involving you i personally will not be able to handle the case but there are many other AMA members available to help.Blah0401 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Allow. The article is currently weak on references for its factual statements. I'd be willing to consider the link to the Newton Falls Leader if it could be used as a reliable source (WP:RS) to back up anything with no current citation. However our rules for a reliable source are quite stringent, and I doubt that the Leader would qualify under our current rules. There is also some logic in linking from a town's article to the website of a local newspaper. For example Baltimore, Maryland has a link to the Baltimore Sun and even mentions it in the text. However the Baltimore Sun is a notable newspaper whose significance can be documented by many third-party sources, and it's certainly deserving of its own article. None of this applies to the Newton Falls Leader. EdJohnston 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Allow. With specific exceptions, such as one example noted in another discussion:

"specific subpages of the website he runs could probably be used as references—for example the website lists the winners of the 2006 Old Car Show, which is mentioned in the article."

the website is inappropriate as an external link. — Athænara ✉ 07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation appears to have failed

I think it is clear from emails sent to me by User:NewtonFallsLeader that he is not interested in mediation. He and I both believe we are correct, and neither of us have changed our minds, so I intend to file an RFC (content dispute about the inclusion of his website as an External Link) and assume he will join it. I have sent copies of his and my emails to User:Blah0401 to help illustrate this. I have never filed or been involved in an RFC before, so I will take a few days to familiarize myself with the process before filing. Any advice or ideas are welcome.

Because I want everything to be transparent, I will only discuss this via Wikipedia talk pages and will not reply to emails about this (as I have already told NewtonFallsLeader) Thanks to everyone who tried to resolve this so far, sorry it has come to this, Ruhrfisch 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Ruhrfisch for once, let's be honest. You are the one who is closed minded. You are the one who has changed the reason for deleting a link to the Newton Falls Leader each time I've disputed your previous reason. Most importantly, take all of the reasons that you have for not allowing a link to the Newton Falls Leader and you refuse to apply those same reasons unbiasedly across Wikipedia. You've deleted a link to the Newton Falls Leader violating numerous codes of conduct and ethics on Wikipedia and refuse to accept the logic behind those codes. So, please, do not violate any more codes by writing more lies about the Newton Falls Leader on any Wikipedia pages - simply, I am the only one who is interested in mediation. Futhermore, it isn't the Newton Falls Leader who is the one whose argument is so weak that he needs to go around Wikipedia posting/searching for people to support him, no - that would be you Ruhrfisch. If you truly want everything to be tansparent, then tell the truth - it is you, Ruhrfisch who refuses mediation. And it is the Newton Falls Leader who has been asking for Wikipedia to make its ruling so that you can see up front - transparent - that you were wrong for deleting the link, that you should be sanctioned for the way in which you did it, and that Wikipedia will in fact sacntion a link to the Newton Falls Leader as it is deserving of being here! Let's also be transparent - the only thing you're sorry about is that you can't convince me that all the excuses you've managed to compile are valid - keep in mind, you started with one (1)excuse - but the list keeps growing and growing and growing. Each time I dispute the last a new one pops-up - that's mediation? I don't think, I know it's not. Let's truly be transparent - you don't want mediation - you only want it your way. NewtonFallsLeader 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NewtonFallsLeader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly misrepresented the situation in lengthy personal attack diatribes - Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara ✉ 22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said I have never filed or been involved in an RFC (content or user), but if that is the best way to address the situation with him, then so be it. I'll read up on that too. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Again, Athænara your words are mere deceptions - where are your facts? Oh, that's right, you don't have any! You obviously are friends with Ruhrfisch, probably his wife, as you both want people to believe your opinions, regardless of the facts. Where have I done what you say? No where, and that is a fact! NewtonFallsLeader 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

"A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." — Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption.

"Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." — Wikipedia:Username policy#Inappropriate usernames. — Æ. ✉ 23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I know, that's why you should be blocked...I've already pointed out in above comment's how you have no regard for Wikipedia codes of conduct by insulting the Newton Falls Leader. Please keep in mind that when a comment, such as those I've made in this dispute, are fact - they match Wikipedia's codes - but the opinions that you and Ruhrfisch state, which you have no evidence to support, do violate Wikipedia codes of ethical conduct. I suggest you read the codes you post! NewtonFallsLeader 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara - FYI - when I say that you insult the Newton Falls Leader, I'm not referring to me personally - but you insult the website. Me personally, I simply laugh at the feable attempts being made to justifying people's actions. Really, all of this back-and-forth for what? If the Baltimore Sun, the Youngstown Vindicator, the Business Journal, the Youngstown Source, Defend Youngstown, Downtown Youngstown, the list is too large for this page...however, if they are allowed on Wikipedia then there is absolutely no reason why a link to the Newton Falls Leader should not be allowed! Though I've stated this to Ruhrfisch, he disagrees - yet these websites violate his excuses more so than the Newton Falls Leader ever will...and that's another fact! So, please don't take any pride in thinking that this upsets me, the only thing about this dispute that upsets me is how badly it looks on Newton Falls, Ohio NewtonFallsLeader 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

---

There is one issue here - should the link be included or not? Only one person thinks it should be included: NewtonFallLeader. Mediation is aimed at getting two parties to agree to a solution. NewtownFallsLeader and I do not agree, so I do not see how mediation can help here. The next step is an RFC on the content. NFL, if you truly care about Newton Falls, Ohio, then please add meaningful content to it. Please don't disparage others. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Ruhrfisch disparage others? I state facts. If their words incriminate them - am I to blame? There isn't one issue here...there are several. The first issue is the manner in which you deleted the link to the Newton Falls Leader. You insist that your edit summary informed me - however, read the Problem section under Civility, it reads,

Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted.

Secondly, you then state a single reason for deleting the link. When you couldn't support that reason, you came up with another, and another...only the Wikipedia rules you cite agree with me. To get them to agree with you, you disparaged the Newton Falls Leader website by saying things like it contains commercial ads, it's this and that - all of which are lies, perpetrated by you to support your biased actions. Then, when I point out what you've started and Wikipedia's code of Civility which states,

One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing" over the "enemy".

you refuse to admit that you are the one causing all of this. You are bent on "triumphing over me" and not concerned with what is best for the Newton Falls, Ohio page. The Newton Falls Leader website is all about Newton Falls, Ohio - nothing else. It contains articles, pictures and more about Newton Falls, Ohio which make it a reliable resource. Again, if you aren't biased then either delete all of the links throughout Wikipedia - like the ones I've mentioned above - or restore the link to the Newton Falls Leader...you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, quit posting your blatant lies and misunderstandings of Wikipedia rules and quit trying to denigrate me by insisting that I'm the one with the attitude! - it is against Wikipedia's code of civility! And really, who in thier right mind gets excited about two little dots over a letter in a name, oh, oh in the right place, too! NewtonFallsLeader 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

---

Yes advocacy was unsuccessful. Since it was NewtonFallsLeader who asked for advocacy and he doesn't like the way it has gone and wants to take it up with a higher authority I suggested RFC and the case has been closed All information can be found at the AMA case page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah0401 (talk • contribs) 00:36, March 17, 2007 (UTC)

I've read just about all of the discussion regarding the link, and though I'd rather not get involved, I have a few words of wisdom for NewtonFallsLeader. As WP:CABAL states, "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you." When you make accusations that other users who disagree with you are biased or are banding together because they know each other, it's very likely that they will get upset and...band against you (though not because they know each other). ShadowHalo 09:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Username

I have opened an RFC on User:NewtonFallsLeader's apparently inappropriate username, if anyone would like to comment. Ruhrfisch 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NewtonFallsLeader Reply

Thanks Ruhrfisch! You've just proven my earlier statements ... this isn't about posting an external link to the Newton Falls Leader website, it is about you being triumphant. Seriously, you are letting your alter ego get the best of you!

Allow me to explain, I hope I can do this simply enough, I'm not married to the Wikipedia username NewtonFallsLeader. In fact, I do not use that name anywhere else. I used that name here because upon registering the name I attempted to use was taken.

Not to disappoint you even more, when I read Athaenara's comment about it being discouraged, I tried to see if I could change it. However, I wasn't successful and since you insist on being triumphant I am waiting until all of this is settled; I will then delete my account and re-register under a different name ... maybe I'll pick a name with cutsie little dots over one of the letters - like you. No, I don't think people will get them over the right letter, and besides, I don't think Wikipedia provides usage of those characters anyway! Simply, it has enough characters ... it doesn't need any more.

So Ruhrfisch, what has come of your statements you've made on NewtonFallsLeader's talk page? There you state, "So I look forward to a friendly discussion..."? Further, you state, "If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it. If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help" You certainly have a short temper if waiting a day for me to respond isn't good enough for you...no, I know, it's that triumphant thing again, isn't it? Or, did you write that just to make people think you are professional? Lying isn't very professional.

I must say though, what you've written on [NewtonFallsLeader]'s talk page does make you sound like you are some official Wikipedia executive. Isn't that what Wikipedia defines as deception? FYI: Ruhrfisch you are nothing more to Wikipedia than any other user!

But again, thanks for proving yourself. It makes my case against you that much stronger.

PS: the url to the Newton Falls Leader's website isn't www.NewtonFallsLeader.tc it is www.nfl.tc - a faint resemblance at best. And, I don't think posting an external link constitutes spamming! Have a great day Rührfisch.

NewtonFallsLeader 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't read to much into the comments left in this diff. Those comments were transcluded from the generic template regarding username concerns (see Template:UsernameConcern). Though the URL may be http://www.nfl.tc/, the title is very plainly "Newton Falls Leader". ShadowHalo 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment

This is a dispute about whether the website http://www.nfl.tc meets WP:EL criteria for the Newton Falls, Ohio article or not. 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

• The website www.nfl.tc has been added to the article's external links section three times by one editor (as an IP address and as User:NewtonFallsLeader) and removed three time by two different editors (User:Nick and myself, diffs 1, 2, 3). The edit summaries noted reverting linkspam for the first two removals, the third was reverted with popups allowing no comment.

  The website fails to meet the criteria established in WP:EL, especially Links normally to be avoided points #1 (Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.) and #13 (Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.), as well as a strong probability of violating points #3 (Links mainly intended to promote a website.) and #5 (Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.).

  I have tried to work this out with the other editor (see above, User talk:NewtonFallsLeader, my talk page and its Archive 4, and the archive for this talk page). I also requested a Third Opinion, which was not accepted as the other editor in question did not agree to that process (see here). The other editor (now know as User:DaVoice) requested help from WP:AMA, see above and here. Unfortuantely none of these actions led to a resolution of the dispute.

  Finally, please note that while I have been accused of bias against the website in question, I have removed a number of other linkspam websites more times from this article's external links section (diffs 4, 5, 6 and 7) as well as removing non-notable persons and questionable links in the article itself. Ruhrfisch 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• As you will see, Newton Falls Leader website was added as an external link to the Newton Falls, Ohio page as it has documentation of pictures and articles pertaining to events stated in the articles; ie: Newton Falls Events - Fourth of July events - Car Show; Bike Show; Carnival; pictures of Newton Falls Halloween Cake Walk; Newton Falls Sportsmen's Club Youth Fishing Derby; and Newton Falls Area Commerce Association's Home 44444 the Holidays Charity Event held at NF high school. Like the link to the tornado, these pictures support the Newton Falls, Ohio page. A lot of allegations have been made against the link, but none have been proven. Fact is, the Newton Falls Leader is a community based website that is in its infancy - so it is not as well known as the Youngstown Vindicator, the Youngstown Business Journal, the Baltimore Sun, but it doesn't charge a fee as these others do, and it doesn't sell advertising like these others. Wikipedia has rules, and the I respect that, but to be credible it must apply these rules equally, and that is not being done.

  To comment on Ruhrfisch's remarks about being accused of bias, he has. The reasons he has is that his first reason for deleting the link is because it has a .tc - and not a .com. When I explained this to him, he then changed his story to the website had a lot of advertisements, again false. He then changed to it had nothing new, and it was then that I pointed out to him the other links on the Newton Falls, Ohio page that hadn't had anything new published in over a year, and that is when he deleted the other links. Had I not said anything, he would have continued to allow those links to remain, while refusing to allow the link to the Newton Falls Leader. I've since pointed out to him other links, such as I mentioned above, and he hasn't deleted them.

  I've asked how to take this to the next step...I see that Ruhrfisch has more time to read up on how to do that than do I. However, that doesn't make his actions correct. I do not have a problem with not allowing a link if, that is, all other similar links are also removed from Wikipedia pages. All I ask is that a ruling on what is and is not permitted be made - then that ruling be applied faily and equally across Wikipedia.

  In my defense, I must say that those who know their way around Wikipedia seem to expect those of us who don't to simply know what is going on. That is why you will see that I didn't realize at the time there are editing summaries; further, Wikipedia rules speak against simply relying upon those summaries as a means of informing authors of changes. Because I wasn't aware of these, I had added the links back. It wasn't until I engaged in communication with Ruhrfisch did I become aware of Wikipedia's guidelines...such as posting a link, and user name. I question why Wikipedia doesn't inform users of these things before they are allowed to create a user name and or edit any pages. Regardless, all of this could have been avoided had Ruhrfisch simply notified me about the deletion.

  DaVoice 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is an RFC solely about the suitability of including www.nfl.tc as an external link in the Newton Falls, Ohio article, not on what User:DaVoice was told and when. Nevertheless, I would like to correct several errors in DaVoice's statement. 1) First communication As I noted above, the first two reverts of the link insertion identified it as "linkspam" in the edit summaries (diffs 1 by User:Nick, and 2 by me). Ignorance of edit summaries does not mean no communication was made or that no reason was given. I am unaware of any official policy that reverts must be communicated to the editor who made them. If such a policy exists, please provide a wikilink to it. Otherwise please stop citing nonexistent policies. 2) Second communication After the third removal of the link, User:NewtonFallsLeader left me a message on my talk page (diff 3), then deleted it, then sent me the same as an email. I put the {{welcomeg}} template on his talk to help him learn about Wikipedia and replied to his email there and on the article's talk page (they are essentially the same posts, so only one diff: 4). I cited no original content relating to Newton Falls that is current... lots of advertisements, [and] links and said I fail to see how this meets the criteria for a valid external link (see WP:EL for the policy). I welcome you and hope you can improve the article on Newton Falls (or anything else), but if all you want is to insert what many might call "link spam" then you will be reverted every time (and not just by me). Wikipedia is not a web directory or collection of links (see WP:NOT). 3) Further communications My third communication was on talk pages (as above) and I attempted to explain Watch Lists and how I noticed the change (diff 5). I originally added the Trumbull County nav box to the Newton Falls, Ohio article, which is why it was on my watch list. My fourth communciation was my attempt to explain in more detail why I reverted and is where I finally noted (in the third paragraph of my post) I initially though[t] a webapge [sic] for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever). When I read it I believed it did not meet the Wikipedia external links guidleleines. (diff 6). I have wasted enough time on this, but wanted to set the record straight. Funny how he's the one who calls me a liar (diff 7), but diffs don't lie. Ruhrfisch 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• • Tirelessly I've tried to see that the truth here be known...In (diff[1]) Ruhrfisch states, "...here is why I deleted your link in all the detail I intend to give. I initially though a webapge for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever)." Need I say more. Although dates and times in my response may need a little chronological adjustment, facts are facts and I so hope they will be considered here. DaVoice 18:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Very clearly doesn't meet WP:EL. Not a close question. -- TedFrank 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly not reasonable under WP:EL. Note all the answers contributed on this very question above. Ruhrfisch, please tell us if the participants in that earlier discussion need to re-enter their comments here. EdJohnston 03:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to re-enter previous comments, and am fine counting them as part of this RFC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Came via RfC (neutral party) The site doesn't meet WP:EL, specifically the bit about "if it were to become a featured article." Not to mention the COI for the user adding the link in the first place. It also looks like it is a personal site, judging by the fact that it is mostly a forum based site, also one that has no posts, which leads me to believe the link was added solely to promote the website, a clear violation of WP:EL. IvoShandor 12:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is amazing how some people want to destroy what little credibility that Wikipedia may have by writing such absurd comments...especially when these opinions are easily proven false by the facts. If you folks are going to voice your opinions when you aren't involved in this issue, then at least be intelligent enough to state fact not opinion, and give examples? People have tried to defend thier actions by stating all sorts of opinions, but when it comes to proving them they can't! That's the truth, the fact, not opinion! Really, you folks must think people are that stupid that they will believe you? How pompous! DaVoice 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

PLease refrain from personal attacks about editor's intelligence. Read WP:EL. Websites that should not be added include those added simply to promote a website. Your forum has no members, thus new, thus your inclusion of the link is for promoting your unread website only. Do not insult me again. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor I apoligize, was I talking about you? Are you admitting to stating opinions that are false? I made a general statement about people who post untrue comments. If you fit that general statement then I suggest you stop posting untrue comments. NO INSULT IS INTENDED or IMPLIED and this author is not responsible for how others may interpret the facts. DaVoice 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

What the are you talking about? Your link fails the criteria above, please read my comments and discuss the issue at hand using Wikipedia policy instead of trying to divert attention from the matter at hand to your accusations of statements of falsehoods, thanks. IvoShandor 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor again, I apologize...did you not read all of the valid reasons I have listed in my prior posts? It would be quite redundant to list them again. Furthermore, why accuse me of diverting attention...have I listed lies or falsehoods? No, I haven't. The fact: the link is as valid as the Tornado link is, and if it is going to be allowed because it has photographs of the tornado, then any website that has pictures of events that are relevant to items pertaining to Newton Falls, Ohio are allowed, including a link to the Newton Falls Leader. Why do I have to argue anything beyond that fact? To do so is stupid and redundant...and a disgrace to Wikipedia, not to mention my intelligence. Oh, by the way ... your statement, "Your link fails the criteria..." is your opinion, not a fact. DaVoice 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not good enough justification. If you want to get all technical about facts and opinions, your assertion that this link does not fail the criteria is nothing more than your opinion, not fact. Yes, it is my opinion that your link fails [{WP:EL]] and if other editors feel the same then we have consensus and your link isn't included, that's how it works and it doesn't look like you have consensus. Sorry, and thanks for apologizing, I wasn't hurt too bad. : ) IvoShandor 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

IvoShandor you've obviously misconstrued my apologies. However, am I correctly understanding what you wrote? Are you equating articles, or information therein, to links? Mmmm! Interesting. So this is why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation of not being a reliable source? It allows OTHER CRAP based on the opinions of people who make those opinions based on what - facts - not? Wow...unbelievable. Why, then, have rules if all that the decisions to uphold those rules are going to be based on is someone's opinion? What authenticity does that bring to anything that is being published here? At least Wikipedia has the title correct...Other Crap! Decide what you will...this isn't the final word in the process anyway, or is it? Good thing you folks don't run the US government, here we at least have a law that protects civil liberties - we don't force one to live by a rule while others don't have to. FYI: Since February 2006 www.nfl.tc has had 71,314 page views - it's still young, but it surely doesn't need Wikipedia to promote it...talk about assumptions. DaVoice 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This link definitely does not belong here. --NE2 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

NE2 - just curious - you failed to give a reason? Is it because others say it doesn't? You realize they have failed to cite one Wiki-rule that disallows the link. Even IvoShandor's use of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fails to disqualify the link as it speaks to content and not to links that substantiate content. Unless we take his claim to mean that all of the content on the Newton Falls, Ohio page is "Crap". So, what reasons do you have? DaVoice 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My reason is that it's a random blog and should not be linked. --NE2 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

NE2 What? Do you even know what a blog is? The Newton Falls Leader certainly does not fit the definition of a blog...although it does have Forums, however, Forums differ from Blogs. This is what I love about the Wikipedians that have jumped on this bandwagon...everyone has an opinion, but no one can back it up with fact. Please allow me to reverse the usage of Wikipedia's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rule and say that just because others have posted their CRAP opinions on this link doesn't make yours acceptable. DaVoice 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The most salient feature of this page, its archive, and the mediation page is this: while Wikipedians posted clearly and dispassionately about policies and guidelines which have meaning to them, one user, who is indifferent to Wikipedia:Civility (official policy) and Wikipedia:No personal attacks (official policy), and whose primary aim is to get his link accepted, has persistently maligned the character and intelligence of nearly every other editor who has expressed an opinion. — Athænara ✉ 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Athaenara you write words that have no meaning...that isn't an insult it is fact. The fact is that your "clearly and dispassionately" just doesn't exist. Instead, what you folks have written are your opinions and then you simply place a link to a Wikipedia policy that you expect (because you think others are stupid) that everyone is going to believe your opinion. I've asked before, and I'll ask again, show me word for word how any of the Wiki rules that are cited speak against the link! Posting policy exempted. Don't just write something to state your opinion - back it up! I too can write how great I am to have to take the attacks of you folks...but when I do I'm "maligning" your character...when you do it it's ok - just because it's you! My, My am I eternally greatful to have had the opportunity to walk on the same earth as you...do you see how pompous that sounds? And that is no opinion - it is fact! Another fact, Ruhrfisch was wrong for deleting the link because it is a .tc and should have checked it out. According to the Wiki rules I've cited his "Editing Summary" isn't a sufficient notification...but it's ok for Ruhrfisch to violate Wiki rules - guess I should use two dots over my name, then it would be ok for me, too.

I've stated before, I've been accused of a lot of things - none of which are valid, as no one has any facts to back their accusations. On the other hand, you folks have destroyed the Newton Falls, Ohio page with your pettiness, biased actions. In your attempts to try to justify Ruhrfisch's actions you've denigraded yourselves, Wikipedia, and the Newton Falls, Ohio page. Yet, for pointing that out - as I've had nothing to do with your actions - I'm accused of attacking you. Only it is you folks who have attacked DaVoice and the Newton Falls Leader with you overstated opinions - destroying Wikipedia's credibility in the process. I will continue to fight your actions to bring respect back to Newton Falls, Ohio - and that's a fact.