User talk:Xaman79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

COIBot report[edit]

Please see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/ --Jorunn (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

External links: and[edit]

Hi Xaman79. Please stop adding these links to Wikipedia. They do not meet our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia's articles are supposed to be encyclopedia articles for English speakers not a general portal to links on a subject or tourist information. Though a few official links are commonly kept on most geographic articles general links to portals and bulletin boards and tourist guides are not appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to eave me a message at the bottom of my talk page. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 11:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The link you added ( links to a non-English language site - since we have English language official sites it is not an appropriate addition (and since we have official sites already an additional one would probably be inappropriate even in English - might be a god replacement for one oor both of the current ones depending on the actual content).
The link ( is (as you mention) a news link. News feeds are not generally considered particularly encyclopedic. For instance the main story when I clicked on it was about Naturists complaining of persecution - while an interesting story it's not really encyclopedic. Stories change all the time so you can't be sure what the reader will see and while most of it is related to the Algarve it's not actually about the Algarve itself.
The two links that are already there are not great ones - being fairly bland current information promoting the country in a fairly general way - but we do tend to make exceptions to one or two "official" links. Better external links for an article like this would be for instance a university site focused on the history or economics of the country.
Wikipedia's mission is to create an open encyclopedia. Links to external sites do little to further this aim so encyclopedic content added to the article is a much better way to improve Wikipedia. Hope this helps. -- SiobhanHansa 19:00, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
You have the wrong link, it's (no "_"), the site is in English. And I would agree with the other as it's a news site, but this one is an official site, but at the same time different from the other two, which are related to tourism, this one is related to the region itself and it should be included. I have readded the Algarve Digital website, leaving the news one out this time. No matter how you put it this is a very important site related to this region, Algarve, and it should be included in this article. Please don't remove it this time. --Xaman79 (talk) 13:06, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
When I click on the link here and where you've added it back into the article it takes ne to a non-English language site. It sounds from your description like it would be a more appropriate link than the current "official" links we have, if it were in English. Is there another way to get to the English language version? -- SiobhanHansa 15:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you sure you're seeing it right? There's some news in Portuguese, but the rest of the site is in English on the link I gave you. Otherwise just click on "English Version" on the top-right corner. If you don't see that, it means you're already on the English version of the site. --Xaman79 (talk) 21:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Information.svg Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. 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. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. 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.--Herby talk thyme 10:29, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Those links are not inappropriate and maybe you should take a look to those guidelines yourself, as it seems you don't know what you are doing. Stop removing perfectly legitimate links from this article. These links are OFFICIAL links, therefore should be included as stated in thethe external links guideline. If you don't know what you are doing please refrain from making changes. --Xaman79 (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Two editors now object to these links. They are not within policy & your behaviour is that of someone whose only real contribution is to place external links. If you continue this behaviour you will be blocked from editing. --Herby talk thyme 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Wrong, the other editor has agreed with me on this, we decided to remove one of the links, but these ones are more than legitimate. Please read the policy, they are WITHIN it and your behavior is from someone who completely ignores policies and just removes links to show work. It's you who should be blocked from editing unless you cease this behavior, those links were included in this article for years now, at least two of them were, so before removing them take it to the discussion page. --Xaman79 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Additionally you have now contravened the 3rr rule. You are blockable at this point in time. You have been warned --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


This account has been blocked for 72 hours for edit warring and adding unsuitable external links. --BozMo talk 18:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Why am I blocked? The links are perfectly legitimate and have been in this article for years, it's the other editor who should be blocked for his behavior, not I. He keeps removing the links without providing valid arguments, while I did. Thank you. --Xaman79 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your email. It is better to keep conversation here and I am watching this page whenever I am logged on for the duration of the block. I am sure you know the procedure for appealing blocks as you have been around for "years". You can do that by only editing this page. On those links two well established editors and various IPs have removed them and they persisted mainly because you kept adding them back. I agree with the others that the links do not meet WP:EL and anyway rather than aggressively asserting them against several editors you should have tried to understand the rules better. You have been blocked for spamming external links before. You have I think made some sort of contribution to an AfD on the astro game. I looked at what you said there and there was some evidence of good faith. However on the Agarve article just sitting and re-adding links again and aagin is not a positive contribution. --BozMo talk 20:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I had no idea of the procedure of appeals, I haven't been here for "years", the links have. And they were initially included by Wikipedia admins, so your assessment that they don't meet WP:EL clashes with the opinion of all the editors and admins who have passed through this article all this time. Maybe you should ask them why they added it in the first place and was never removed until now? Exactly HOW does those links don't meet the policies? They are official websites from official government entities, one responsible for the tourism with reliable and official data from the Portuguese Tourism Board that can be used to verify the information on the article itself and the other for the Algarve municipalities technology and internet with a portal to that region, including a very useful interactive map system for the Algarve provided by the Geographic Institute of the Portuguese Army (not Google Maps). Please explain exactly why those two sites don't meet the WP:EL instead of wasting time arguing about myself.
On the other hand it seems you and the other editor are too much concerned with who I am instead of listening to the facts. I could be a mass murderer, but if the facts and arguments are valid and true, that's what counts, not that someone else has no life and spends his time editing in Wikipedia. I don't have that time or interest, but I do want the Algarve article well written and with good information and made other contributions in the Portuguese and Spanish Wikipedias. Do you need dozens or hundreds of examples of other articles regarding regions or states or countries with links to their tourism site? I'm sure you won't have trouble finding hundreds. However you are picking on this one for some unexplained reason and all you can say is "you had warnings for spamming links before". Who cares? Keep me banned for all you want, just get those legitimate links back before another admin is forced to do so for you. That is all I ask and anyone with common sense will agree with me on this or at least present valid arguments not to, not exploit my contributions to the Wikipedia which are irrelevant.
I remind that Wikipedia is open to anyone to edit, as long as it complies with rules and policies and its legitimate anyone can add information. Please explain why is me adding the links more problematic than the other editor removing them even though they were there for years and were added by other veteran editors and admins and when doing so he wouldn't present any real arguments. Do I need to buddy with an admin to get him blocked instead of me? Because I see no other reason here, at most you would warn us both and join the discussion to see whether the links should be added or removed, you just blocked me and immediately said you agreed with the other part. --Xaman79 (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Appealing_a_block for how to appeal, another admin will look at the block and if they disagree with me they will overturn it. I have once had a block overturned and would be entirely happy if another admin took a different view. You get one good bite at this so right to this so try to get the unblock reason correct. Incidentally, there was nothing immediate about it. I looked at the page first when you left a not on SiobhanHansa's talk page, but saw another experienced editor was dealing with it. When you were reported, I thought about it but did not have time to look at the links properly straight away and it was a few hours before I reacted. On the other arguments you present some comes under WP:OTHERSTUFF. The rest is mainly about whether these are good, useful and relevant links. We do not include all good and relevant links, that's for a link directory, we only include ones appropriate to an encyclopaedia. As for their history they have been reverted in and out so many times I cannot easily find the original contributor. Other than a bunch of IPs and you, can you tell me who else you think has contributed them? Anyway, the links being inappropriate is secondary to the block. The primary problem is we cannot have editors whose role is to sit on one article and aggressively try to control the link list every time someone drops by. Sorry but that's needed for the good of the community. --BozMo talk 06:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I don't care about the block, it could be permanent for all I care. What I do care is for the links to be restored. You say this is not a link directory, but any article still needs a few good links to official websites, which is what I am asking. Just check Andalusia, Madeira or Hawaii to give a few examples out of many, all include a link to their official tourism website among others, Hawaii has 10 links and you aren't allowing Algarve to have two?? The is the site for the Tourism Board, and has been included in this article for years, it makes no sense that one editor decides to arrive after a long period of inactivity and just removes it without any explanation. And then I get blocked because I undo his unjustified removals. The only issue I have of being blocked now is that I can't continue to discuss this on the Algarve discussion page, I'm sure many others will agree that those links need to be included in the article. --Xaman79 (talk) 10:55, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
We can also discuss here, Xaman79. I have given my view on the Algarve page. Three points in response to this: 'any article still needs a few good links to officialwebsites', no, see WP:EL: "A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.". Second, you are giving many examples, that is not an argument (per 'what about article X'). Maybe also there pruning would be necessary. And third, consensus can change, it may be that they are there for years, but that does have to mean that they should still be included (also, maybe they were not noticed yet).
As I see it, you got blocked for repeatedly reinserting the links, and that is certainly not the way forward. As you say, if there are many that agree that the links should be included (I, for one, think that tourism sites should not be on pages of area's, the link is not direct enough. The tourism website should be on the page of the tourism office, if that tourism office is worth an own article), then consensus can be (re-)established on the talkpage. Inclusion should be justifyable, not the removal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
That is still not a valid argument not to keep those links. The Algarve is a highly tourist area and it should include the link to the official tourism website, as it has data that verifies the tourist information on the Algarve article. What it makes no sense is that is not added. And you are wrong, the fact that many other articles all include a link to the tourism website is proof that most editors agree that this should be included, especially for tourist locations such as the ones I mentioned. I think it's common sense that the official tourism website should be included in articles related to tourism, such as the Algarve, which has great bearings to tourism. I know, I'm Portuguese and native from that specific region, I'm better qualified than you or most here to say this. You should use the links you gave me such as 'what about article X' as guides to yourself, not throw them at a discussion to justify your arguments. They are guidelines for yourself, not arguments.
And for your reasoning, then the other editor should have gotten blocked instead of me, for repeatedly removing links which were there for ages, without giving a proper justification or discussing it with other editors first, I was only keeping it the way it was, if he wants to change something he should discuss it first, not assume authority over something many other veteran editors considered to be legitimate. Consensus may change, but he can't make the decision for himself, he's no more than me or you. --Xaman79 (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Still according to the WP:EL, links that should be included or considered are:
  • Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any. The official site should typically be listed first. // is the most official site for the Algarve you'll get. As a tourist location, such as Hawaii, Andalucia, etc, it's relevant to have a link to the official tourism site of that location.
  • A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the Xaman79 at DMOZ template. // is a portal with a directory to all public and non-profitable organizations in the Algarve, being itself a site ran by a public/state organization. It's highly relevant for this article.
  • Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources. // is run by the Portuguese Government, namely the Tourism Board for the Algarve, so all information there is reliable and from knowledgeable sources. This can also be said regarding
  • Neither these sites are included in the Links normally to be avoided list, thus they should be included.
Lastly, I understand I should have done things differently and not so aggressively, but see things from my point of view. These links have been in this article for years, namely the and out of nowhere an editor decides to remove them without discussing it first. I got blocked for undoing his work, while he was the one doing the changes without consulting anyone. He reports me and you look at my record and his and consider me for a spammer and him for a well intended veteran editor. The fact is despite the contribution differences between me and him we are both editors on our own right with the same authority, and reason should be given to the one who presents the best arguments, not the one who has better history. If I was a spammer I wouldn't be wasting time trying to discuss this, I would use anonymous accounts to add the links back. So please put my history aside for a moment and consider only the arguments and facts presented. Thank you. --Xaman79 (talk) 16:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I am assuming good faith, and have unblocked your account. Please choose the form of discussion from now. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
In my view, I would say that the site does not belong on Algarve (as it is not directly linked, though very close), but could be included on Tourism in Algarve (as there it is directly linked). I have started a discussion on Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Tourism_boards, and invite you to join there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for that, I'll be sure not to abuse your vote of confidence, although I still can't edit, maybe it takes a while to update? Once I can I'll join the discussion on that page, seems a good place to discuss this, some agree with my view, others with yours and some may have their own view on this. And you are motivating me to start the Tourism in Algarve article, although it will be something independent from the current discussions about external links in the Algarve article. --Xaman79 (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I am glad this is moving forward. The system is showing you are unblocked, by Beetstra. Perhaps you just need to refresh the pages? --BozMo talk 18:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Maybe there is an IP block left behind? Try to edit a page, it should say that your IP is still blocked, and what the IP is. I think it also gives a message on how to handle it then. Otherwise, try to log out and edit then. I think that is the problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems it's an IP blocked. It does give instructions on how to fix it.
{{unblock-auto|1=|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Xaman79". The reason given for Xaman79's block is: "Edit warring: also 3RR and external link adding ".|3=BozMo|4=1563785}}
Artículo bueno.svg

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Autoblock #1563785 lifted or expired, following unblocking of your account.

Request handled by:  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.