Jump to content

User talk:99.73.137.73

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 99.73.137.73 (talk) at 21:20, 12 August 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in, but many editors recommend that you create an account. Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (99.73.137.73) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page. Again, welcome! Epipelagic (talk) 05:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


August 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, please do not add promotional material to articles or other Wikipedia pages. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

Link information

See also WP:COI in case it might apply. --Ronz (talk) 23:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
It looks as if you object to links I provided from a food publication I read. Dining Chicago is a Chicago-based TV show, magazine and website that covers food and dining. Its principal writer, Leah Zeldes, is a respected journalist who also writes for other media, such as the Chicago Sun-Times. I follow her work, and thought it provided useful information and citations. So I added some. How is that advertising or a conflict of interest? 99.73.137.73 (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Chinook salmon. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Epipelagic (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Not at all clear why my citation in Chinook salmon was "inappropriate" or "spam." I don't care enough to argue about it, but I'm curious as to why you'd think a citation from a factual article by a respected food journalist in a would be inappropriate. It's not linking to anybody selling salmon or by anyone with a vested interest, so I don't see how it's spam, either. I'm interested in food and I follow this writer. I thought Wikipedia wanted citations. 99.73.137.73 (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right that Wikipedia wants citations, but you need to be clear on what are appropriate citations. A citation should be a reliable source. The citation you provided (twice) on the Chinook salmon article was from a bog, and does not qualify as a reliable source. You certainly cannot claim your citation didn't involve spam, since it was clearly promoting certain interests. You say you "don't care enough" (to argue about it). If you don't care then please don't waste my time. If you do care (for Wikipedia), then please read the links in the welcome I have added above, and persist with your contributions. There is a learning curve that can be disconcerting to begin with! --Epipelagic (talk) 05:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not somebody's personal or self-published blog. It's a media blog. A whole lot of publications put online articles in blog format because Wordpress is an easy thing to use. I see "blog" pieces from other publications cited in all kinds of other Wiki articles. Not trying to waste your time, but I don't get it.
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources says: "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both."
My citation appears to fit: It's from a respected food writer who is a credentialed member of the site's editorial staff. A quick Google shows the author writes for the Chicago Sun-Times and other media as well as Dining Chicago, and was an editor of Lerner Newspapers. Dining Chicago is a professionally published magazine that also has a has a TV show and a website, and they've been around for years. Did you check it out or do you just object to their web format? I'm a regular reader of the site, and I thought it had information that was relevant.
I don't understand how it's spam, and I'm trying not to resent being labeled a spammer, but really, "promoting certain interests"? Whose -- the magazine's? The writer's? Then how do you cite something without "promoting" it? I spent a bunch of time looking up the correct format for citations and put in the information that the form called for. 99.73.137.73 (talk) 07:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the links which Ronz gave you above. In particular, please read WP:COI carefully. Do you have some connection with the journalist you appear to be energetically promoting? If so, you should declare what that connection is before proceeding.
There are other problems, and even if no COI is involved, your contribution would still be inappropriate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should have a global perspective. You provided a link to a blog which promotes restaurant eating in the Chicago area. The article itself makes contestable statements (such as "...that gives salmon from Alaska’s Yukon River... the very best flavor of all") which are not supported by reliable sources (such as a peer reviewed scientific journal). The author is a journalist, and does not appear to be a noted expert on Chinook salmon, perhaps the chair of a university department with peer reviewed articles on the topic. Nor is Wikipedia a how-to manual, yet the article offers little more than a recipe. Then there is the heavy-handed placement of the addition. The lead sentence of the main article on Chinook salmon was changed. That's like saying, "What I have to say here is the most important thing, the very first thing, that needs to be said world-wide about Chinook salmon." Even if the addition was useful and reliably sourced, there would be more appropriate places for it, such as Salmon (food). --Epipelagic (talk) 12:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for responding.
Getting to the chase, the contributions in total from this ip appear to promote a single food blog, and if I'm not mistaken a single author (of course, that may be only because the blog has a single active author).
If you have a WP:COI you don't need to declare it.
The addition of recipes as external links is inappropriate, and I don't see anyone arguing different.
As for using the blog as a reliable source, yes it may meet WP:RS under certain circumstances - mostly, when editors just aren't able to easily find a better source. It's certainly not an authoritative source on food, food history, nutrition, or cooking. It should be a reasonable source to use for Chicago-area dining, but such sources have extremely limited application to Wikipedia given their promotional nature and focus on a limited geographic area. We might want to take the WP:RS issue to WP:RSN to see what others think about it's use and possible use.
Finally, I stopped removing the edits from this ip because the source might be reliable in some circumstances. I planned to remove all the recipes, but was hoping first that you'd respond to the concerns above. Thanks for discussing the matters, and I hope this can be settled easily. --Ronz (talk) 16:55, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no connection. I'm merely a reader. Wikipedia is full of citations to local publications, newspapers, magazines, etc., as sources, so I guess there are differences of opinion on whether a regional publication can be an authoritative source. Distribution or focus in a limited area is no reason why a source cannot be authoritative on subjects that are not based in that area. And I don't see anywhere that journalists are not considered reliable secondary sources.
Everyone has his own ways of working on Wikipedia. Mine is to take one source, go through it and add citations from it to various articles. I have done so before with other publications with no disagreement. I'm also not the only editor who has cited articles by this writer, both from this publication and elsewhere. I got there in the first place from a Wikipedia citation years ago.
Yes, I do consider that the most important thing about Chinook salmon is that it is a popular food fish, which is why I boldly changed the beginning of that article. I also believe that in articles about food-related subjects, links to related recipes are extremely helpful to understanding how the subject is used. Wikipedia is not a cookbook or a how-to manual, but it does steer readers to further information in cookbooks and how-to manuals. There are hundreds if not thousands of such links here; I disagree that they're inappropriate.
As is no doubt obvious, I'm a sporadic contributor to Wikipedia. I do what I do, and I'm not about to spend a lot of time reverting edits or disputing this in further forums, so you win. I can only say I'm extremely disappointed that good faith edits are being denounced as spam in what appear to be somewhat territorial edits. Now you are arguing about the merits of the source, but that is not what you said about my edits at first. 99.73.137.73 (talk) 21:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:99.73.137.73&oldid=507099543"