Revision as of 16:25, 3 May 2006

Re-add

I've readded info on cavity greg that was removed. Since its removal was not justified.--Matt D 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pembroke sucks.com

I am from the pembroke area and I found the link to pembroke sucks usefull and interesting. It is as far as I know the only forum dedicated to pembroke and the pembroke area. I say: as far as policy is concerned, coming on here everyday to remove a link that walks the line between usefull and not usefull is imho a little excesive. I understand that the people who run pembroke sucks also don't seem to know when enough is enough (I myself have removed large adds for their site from the pembroke article) and they should get the hint (like.. you don't own this site, and technically your link shouldn't be here. So why do you think it is somehow your right to post it?)but really.... its a link... its not even in the main body of the article. This is not a gateway to some larger problem. Let it go. stop being a link nazi. and stop posting your link where its not welcome. This is not one of the articles where links are used to support points of view (like on, i don't know, white power sites) so whats the big deal? --Matt D 17:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments moved from article page

“This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize a page, as you did to Oak Ridges Moraine, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Mindmatrix 14:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)”

Fair enough, will use another IP then. This then is your last warning;. stop editing the local links to Pembroke Websites. These are legitimate venues for freedom of speech for the Pembroke and surrounding area. And, as such, visitors would find them just as informative as Pembroke City Hall’s non interactive site. Ottawa Valley Online as a matter of fact, reports locaI news that is often later picked up by the Observer.

You seem to have taken editing out the links on this page as your pet project, even bringing in a higher admin to help. While not adverse to having people such as yourself coming by from time to time to cull garbage out, I find nothing wrong with the sites listed, as they certainly provide a ‘look and feel’ to the town of Pembroke that cannot be found on any information page. If you feel the need to continue revising back to your standard, get used to having your work being revised to ours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.223.62.253 (talk • contribs)

I'll put the links up for discussion, but I'd like to point out several things. First, there is a policy about external links that we try to follow; it's designed to prevent the addition of useless links, especially spam and vanity links. Second, vandalizing other articles to get your point across (see Special:Contributions/69.223.62.253) isn't going to help your cause one bit. Third, nobody owns an article, so telling someone else to stop editing it (unless they are vandalizing it) is unacceptable. Fourth, what do you mean "bringing in a higher admin to help"? I mentioned the vandalism on the Canadian notice board, but didn't recruit "higher admins" (there's no such thing; there are beaurocrats and stewards, though). Fifth, using other IPs or open proxies is irrelevant - we can block 'em all if need be, and such actions will only serve to alert us to those open proxies. Sixth, this is not my "pet project"; I edit articles to be encyclopedic, and have removed many spam links from many articles - this is no different, and I otherwise don't have an interest in this article. As you've said, I tend to "cull garbage out", so our perception of "garbage" seems to be different. Let's discuss the links in the separate section I've created. Mindmatrix 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links

Since a few people seem to believe my actions to remove three external links are wrong, I'd like to open a discussion about it. Please note that Wikipedia has a policy about external links. Your discussion about the inclusion of these links should be made with consideration to that policy.

The links in question are:

Do we keep any of these; if so, which ones, and why. This is not a vote; inclusion will be based on merit and consensus only. Mindmatrix 15:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and link discussion continued

"I'll put the links up for discussion"

About time. Who said democracy is dead?

"Second, vandalizing other articles to get your point across (see Special:Contributions/69.223.62.253) isn't going to help your cause one bit."

Strange observation, this discussion wasn't tabled until it occured.

"Third, nobody owns an article, so telling someone else to stop editing it (unless they are vandalizing it) is unacceptable."

Physician, 'heal thyself.'

"Fourth, what do you mean "bringing in a higher admin to help"? I mentioned the vandalism on the Canadian notice board, but didn't recruit "higher admins" (there's no such thing; there are beaurocrats and stewards, though"

Banno? He certainly appears to be fairly high up on the food chain. What with all the awards and admin staffing memoranda he's writing.

"Fifth, using other IPs or open proxies is irrelevant - we can block 'em all if need be, and such actions will only serve to alert us to those open proxies."

Cool. Block the entire world from contributing to Wilkpedia. I would love to see that one happen over a simple web page of a small city in Canada.

- from Banno's page (in ref to a vandalizing character known as 'Dot six'): ""We cannot block AOL IPs for more than 15 minutes. Since he is not doing any rapid-fire editing, any block would be futile (it would already have expired by the time of his next edit)."

"Sixth, this is not my "pet project"; I edit articles to be encyclopedic, and have removed many spam links from many articles - this is no different, and I otherwise don't have an interest in this article. As you've said, I tend to "cull garbage out", so our perception of "garbage" seems to be different. Let's discuss the links in the separate section I've created."

Yes, let's.

As per your ref:

'Occasionally acceptable links'

"2 Web directories: When deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article on Wikipedia, a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories (if two are comparable and only one is open). If deemed unnecessary, or if no good directory listing exists, one should not be included."

One of the functions of 'the Ottawa Valley' is to be a cirectory for the entire region. As such, with Pembroke being the hub of this area, it is fitting that it be included.

     "3. Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)"

It seems that this is the closest to what two of the links can be considered. In light of the two diverging audiences, they should be listed separate and, a fan club of sorts of the region and city. The third, 'Ottawa Valley Online' is more of a media than an external link as it generates it's own news which is picked up by not only local hard print but across the internet spectrum as well. In any case, none of them are spam or 'vanity sites.'

Thanks, will check back in later.