User talk:DannyMasonKeener

July 2010

I have noticed that you are repeatedly adding an external link on the Coconut Creek, Florida page, a link to what appears to be a personal website. (Not necessarily yours, but something that is maintained by a few people, or possibly even one person). Wikipedia has a content guideline for external links (appropriately enough, it's entitled Wikipedia:External links), and one of the sections lists links to be avoided. Number 11 on that list is Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.) This website does not qualify; please stop re-adding this link. It has been removed by at least three editors, which should suggest to you that there is a problem with the link. If you continue to re-insert the link, you may blocked for disruption, and the URL for the website can be added to the Wikipedia SPAM blacklist, which will prevent the addition of the URL to any article on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 23:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This link is the authority site on the subject and has been a part of this page and the history of Coconut Creek since 2005. It does not surprise me three different editors have removed it at various times in passing without a second thought or taking more then five seconds to review something they didn't understand. In 2004-2006 a unique event happened in the City of Coconut Creek where the city commission who worked for the citizens turned on the people of a manufactured home community called Coral Lake and committed proven acts of code enforcement fraud with resulting fines of a quarter of a million dollars to extort the park owner into selling out to a developer who in turn mass evicted the residents with the city's assistance. This site documents the events. It is the only archive of newspaper articles freely accessable (without having to pay to access archives) and history of the event, public comments, etc. It is the only published authority on the subject and recognized as such within the mobile home population of Florida and by the past President of the FMO Don Hazelton. Danny Mason Keener. DannyMasonKeener (talk) 08:26, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I will note that Don Hazelton does not meet our requirements for recognized authorities (he doesn't have a wikipedia article), and that site is simply not an appropriate link. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your cause (that is a policy), and exercising editorial control by eliminating your vendetta is not something that a lawsuit can restore in any case. Horologium (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so how do I make you understand the site serves two purposes, one as you pointed out, is the cause/plight of mobile home owners in Florida to whom there are real world recognized authorities for a population group such as the million and a half manufactured home owners in Florida, who may not have a wikipedia article and the portion of the site that chronicles a portion of Coconut Creek's actual history affecting manufactured home owners in that city and is not a vendetta/cause having concluded and is now simply part of this city's history we don't intend to allow to be swept under the carpet. Any history of Coconut Creek that fails to include what happened at Coral Lake is simply fraudulent.

I will repeat what I said previously: Wikipedia is not a place to promote your cause. I understand that you feel strongly about what happened at Coral Lake, but in an article about Coconut Creek, it's simply not a significant event in the city's history. Wikipedia's guidelines on external links explain why it's not an appropriate link, but Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View may help you understand, especially the section on due and undue weight. While that policy applies to the article itself, by extension it applies to external links, which is why the link you have been adding is not appropriate. It's polemic by its very nature, and doesn't add significantly to an understanding of Coconut Creek, which is the intended purpose of external links. (This is noted in the external links guideline, in the section "Avoid undue weight on particular points of view".) Additionally, your website has copies of articles from newspapers such as the Sun-Sentinel, the Los Angeles Times. and the Miami Herald. These articles are copyrighted by the papers, and Wikipedia cannot include external links to sites which violate copyright. (That is in the External Links guideline, in the section "Restrictions on linking".) Horologium (talk) 23:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The site main page has been adjusted to address your concerns. http://www.corallakemhp.com We do not consider it a violation of copyright to republish articles about us when we are the content, the subject of the article! Besides linking directly to the articles which now charge an archive viewing fee unquestionably violates the non-free content policy. While I am surprised you don't think it signifiant when a city turns on its citizens and commits code enforcement fraud to mass evict them, there are also those who secretly harbor ill will toward mobile home owners or who may in fact be associated with the city of Coconut Creek and may also be an editor(s) on Wikipedia tasked with the job of removing this external link. DannyMasonKeener (talk) 00:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the redesigned page. It's still not an appropriate link. Four separate editors (including two administrators) have removed this link, because it's not appropriate for Wikipedia. There is not a way to rework the site to make it work, because of the purpose of the site. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs.

You may not consider hosting copyrighted articles to be a copyright violation, but that is not how copyright law works. If the newspaper reserves all rights (and I know for a fact that those three newspapers do), then you must obtain written permission to display full copies of their articles on your website. The fact that the original articles are behind a pay firewall confirms that the newspapers consider the content theirs. The non-free content policy applies to subscription websites, not newspapers or magazines protecting their copyrighted material. Wikipedia will not contribute to copyright infringement. This is non-negotiable.

As to your implication that I am working for the city of Coconut Creek, nope. Never lived there, never worked there, and never conducted any business with the city. (I think I have shopped there, though.) I am just a volunteer here, a retired sailor who found a hobby he enjoys. Also note that I am not the only editor who has removed the link, and the couple of removals (two of the seven edits I have made to the article) are just a blip in the 15,000 edits I have amassed over the past four years). Three of my seven edits were in September 2007, when I added the infobox (the box in the upper right corner with all of the information about the city) and fixed a couple of references; another in October 2007 restored the flags in the infobox, which were nuked by a bot, and three were this month (reverting your linking). That's it. And the other person who reverted your link more than once appears to be a Canadian, judging by his editing patterns; are you accusing him of working for the city? That link was also removed by another admin (User:Doczilla), who has over 35,000 edits in Wikipedia, only one of which is to the Coconut Creek page. Sorry, but your paranoia is not justified. Horologium (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

December 2013

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Rome Against Rome. 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 websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website 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 page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Jevansen (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

March 2018

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Zombie apocalypse, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)