User talk:68.159.17.189

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions.

Currently, you are editing without a username. You can continue to do so, as you are not required to log in to Wikipedia to read and edit articles; however, logging in will result in a username being shown instead of your IP address (yours is 68.159.17.189). Logging in does not require any personal details, and there are many other benefits for logging in.

When you edit pages:

  • Please respect others' copyrights; do not copy and paste the contents from webpages directly.
  • Please use a neutral point of view when editing articles; this is possibly the most important Wikipedia policy.
  • If you are testing, please use the Sandbox to do so.
  • Do not add unreasonable contents into any articles, such as copyrighted text, advertisement messages, and text that is not related to an article's subject. Adding such content or editing articles maliciously is considered vandalism.

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. For now, if you are stuck, you can click the edit this page tab above, type {{helpme}} in the edit box, and then click Save Page; an experienced Wikipedian will be around shortly to answer any questions you may have. Also feel free to ask a question on my talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! Thank you again for contributing to Wikipedia. --Nlu (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Changing links from Ivan's Blog to MMAWeekly

Although I know you have nothing but good intentions in your changing of the links, please know that your accusations that the blog is a spam blog is off-base. That blog belongs to Ivan Trembow, who writes for MMAWeekly.com, and he duplicates his work found on that site on his blog along with other postings which he doesn't pass along to MMAWeekly.com. He has approached the MMA community on WP several times to tell us that MMAWeekly's articles expire or change URLs after a time and that his reprints should be cited instead, and has approval from the consensus. Please see Wikipedia Talk: WikiProject Mixed martial arts for details. hateless 08:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem that I'm seeing with the links is that most of the info is available on MMA Weekly with article URLs that seem to be archived and not likely to change or expire. If they did change, it would take a 10 second search on Yahoo or Google to find the new URL and replace it, or THEN to link to another source (MMA Weekly should always be the first link until the content is no longer available). So this really shouldn't have anything to do with expired links. But my main concern is that his additions to each page on here are in bad faith. Each page has a total of 18 Google Adsense text ads on it, completely surrounding the article, and he adds at least two different article links on each wikipedia page. It seems clear that the reason why his links are used aren't because of expiration issues, but because he's trying to generate revenue. Getting some money from his own writing is perfectly fine, but adding that type of link to wikipedia is spamming. I looked at the discussion page you listed, there doesn't seem to be any real consensus other than you and another member actually commenting that it was okay. I think we can agree that MMA Weekly doesn't spam wikipedia with their links, that their pages don't fit the profile of an MFA site (Made-For-Adsense) that his blog does, and that those links are more acceptable. We should change all links from his site to MMA Weekly, and only change the links to another source if the MMA weekly ones do actually expire (though archive.org could be used to reference any expired link as well). We shouldn't seek consensus for something naturally against wikipedia policy, I'm positive any wikipedia admin will agree with this, the links wouldn't appear to be in bad faith were it not for the massive use of ads. This isn't an expiration issue, otherwise we could delete every reference on wikipedia and claim "this article *might* expire several years from now". If I change a link and it expires, I'll go back and fix it myself.
I cannot find a relevant policy in this regard, and it seems silly to me that the amount of advertising on a web page would disqualify it from being a reliable source. Nor is it fair to judge a site as a "spam blog" just because it appears to be one, especially in the face of contrary evidence. Nevertheless, if you want to bring the issue to arbitration or a similar forum, I would welcome it, if anything to settle the matter one way or another. hateless 07:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
There's a clear cut distinction between a website that funds its operations and pays for hosting by displaying ads, and a site or blog that was created for the express purpose of generating ad revenue. Links to the former are welcome on Wikipedia, not the latter. The fact that his blog is an MFA site doesn't make his articles less reliable. The point that you're missing here is that the true source of the article (MMA Weekly which he himself is legally required to credit on his blog) is the original source, a reputable site, and thus is more appropriate as a reference. If you want to go through arbritation, that's fine, but you should see in advance that there's little chance an Admin will accept a second-hand source over the original one, especially when its impossible to prove that MMA Weekly will ever change or expire those particular links. By that logic, we could assume that he may shut his site down next week, so we should change all the links back in advance. So let's go through the arbritation motions if you feel like it, I think you already know what the outcome will be.
If there is policy behind your actions, please quote them now. I will give you the benefit of the doubt until your next response, or until you make clear you decline to. Until then, I'll let stand your changes, but I will revert the changes you've made where you just delete the source attribution and don't bother to replace them with another. hateless 01:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I've listed this discussion at Wikipedia:Third opinion. hateless 02:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Third opinion. A blog is not a reliable source. A blog that contains verbatim text ripped from somewhere else is a potential copyright violation, and not a source. Do not use either. The meat of the source is the reference itself - the publisher, the date of publication, the author, the title. A hyperlink is just a bonus. If the publication is print, a hyperlink isn't even necessary. If the hyperlink breaks, the reference is still supported by the publisher, the date of publication, the author, and the title. Reswobslc 03:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
From WP:RS: "...blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." There are exceptions to the no-blog rule, and ivansblog.com fits those exceptions. Also, remember that Ivan Trembow works for MMAWeekly, we should be able to assume he has permission to reprint. Although I'm fine with a linkless cite, I've seen instances where editors remove the cite and the statement in the article it supports because of a broken link, which naturally makes me nervous. hateless 18:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
It seems the new consensus is on citing the source without a link, or citing the original source of the article. If the link becomes invalid years from now (which there is absolutely no evidence to support that this will happen) then we will simply change the source. Keep in mind that he is primarily citing two things: 1. The total amount earned by fighters on a given night, and 2. How well that particular event performed from earnings. These aren't controversial points that scream for citations, I find it incredibly unlikely that anyone would remove a sentence about how much fighters earned that night because a link was no longer active. The main thing cited on UFC pages tend to be personal details about fighters, and quotes from them.
MMA Weekly is strictly a website and not a magazine, so a link would probably be good. But the fact of the matter is that links were never added to many of these pages to serve as references, but rather to promote the ad covered blog pages (otherwise we'd be seeing more references on those pages if it was only about citing sources). Ads or no ads, the bottom line is that we shouldn't be citing a blog when the original source is clearly available. The ads just tell me that he's adding the links in bad faith, when he could have just as easily cited the original source (which he ironically has to credit on his blog).

Frankly, you have yet to present any actual policy on the matter, and Reswobslc opinion is cursory and is based on a general case. Just as you were not satisfied with just two or so commenters on WP:MMA, I'm not satisfied here. I would still like to see an opinion based on the facts of this particular case first. I'm going to invite some comments from WP:MMA and see what others think, since the issue would impact them as well. Otherwise I'm going to give up on the debate and settle for linkless citations. hateless 00:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any more discussion on the matter, to be honest. It was your idea to get a third opinion in the first place to settle the matter once and for all, and the third opinion was contrary to yours. Only you're still not satisifed, it seems like you won't be unless someone sides with you, it shouldn't work that way. So remove the links altogether if you like, but I played this one out by your book to be fair and the consensus was on the blog links being removed.
What exactly is your hurry? Why do you not want as much daylight on this matter as possible? My mistake here was going to WP:3O, we got an opinion from someone who misquoted WP:RS, and like a good lawyer you've jumped all over this and are pounding me on "rules I've proposed". Frankly, I want to express this is starting to strain on my assumption of good faith. You're not negotiating in good faith, you've offered no compromises, offered no actual policy to back your claims. You yourself protested that a three-person discussion on WP:MMA doesn't count as a consensus, and here we have a three-person discussion that you call consensus, the only difference is it's going your way. I'm a reasonable person, and this argument is becoming unreasonable and I'm going to bail out of it. All I ask of you is to now seek out the community of editors, which includes more than me, and at least ask for their opinion. You are proposing a change to what appeared to be a settled matter which involved more than just me. You should propose this matter to everyone else. hateless 20:23, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

response from Ivan Trembow--Ivantrembow 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)--Ivantrembow 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC) This is Ivan Trembow adding to this debate, which I saw referenced on the WikiProjects MMA page. I appreciate the honest debate that is going on here and I understand how the person with the IP address 68.159.17.189 could have jumped to the conclusions that they have jumped to, but a lot of the statements that have been made here are false assumptions and some of them are downright insulting.

First of all, my blog is not a "built for AdSense" blog and I resent that assertion. I started a video game web site in 1997 before Google AdSense even existed and transitioned that site into being a multiple-topic blog in 2002 and in recent years the vast majority of the posts have been about MMA because that is what has captured most of my interest in recent years. I added Google AdSense to my site a couple years just to cover the cost of reliable web hosting, and even that is a minimal amount of money (last month was a typical month with AdSense having generated $4.84). My site existed long before Google AdSense existed, and contrary to your assertions, it is not a site that exists just for the sake of the AdSense code. It's meant as an archive of all my work not only so that family and friends can read it but anyone else who wants to access all of the topics that I've written about over the years. My work is not fully archived on MMAWeekly and you can see that if you try to find any article of any kind from before 2005, or newer articles if the "zoneid" part of the URL has changed.

Your claim that I'm adding links to info in bad faith is baseless. If I were adding links in bad faith or spamming, wouldn't I be doing it frequently and consistently? I only get on Wikipedia once every month or two (it's March 3rd right now and I just discovered this debate that you had on January 10 through 15), at which point I click on the latest UFC & Pride pages, if all of the relevant info and links for recent UFC and Pride events has not already been added, then I add it.

I'd also disagree with the assertion that my site has this huge, gigantic amount of ads. I specifically made sure when I added the AdSense code to not include four things that are common in Internet advertising and specifically in the advertising on some top MMA web sites, that is: 1) No pop-up ads of any kind, 2) No ads in the middle of a story's text (all stories are one continuous stream of text), 3) No links to gambling sites integrated into the content, and 4) No full-page ads where you have to view the ad for a second before you can click on the "Continue" link to move on to the actual story. There are plenty of MMA sites that have some or all of the aforementioned four kinds of intrusive ads.

It seems clear that the person who posted the third opinion did not read about the circumstances of this particular case on the WikiProjects page, as he cut and paste the text, "A blog that contains verbatim text ripped from somewhere else is a potential copyright violation, and not a source." If he/she had read even a few lines of the previous discussions, he/she would have known that I actually AM the copyright holder and I am the one putting my own articles up on my own site, so it's not a copyright issue at all.

As for the notion of referencing a source without linking to it, I have no problem with that if it's something that's very brief and can be properly explained within the context of a Wikipedia page that you don't want your article to take up the majority of. But for the vast majority of the things I write, there is more to it than there is room to print in the brief blurb in the event summary for a given event.

For example, in my TV ratings reports, it might say in the Wikipedia article for a particular UFC Fight Night event that the event drew a 1.7 overall rating, but the full article on my site contains tons more information such as the ratings trends, which fights drew the best and worst ratings, which fighters have shown the strongest ratings-drawing power, how the show's ratings compared to previous MMA ratings, etc. If is valuable info but if all of it were to be published on the Wikipedia page itself for that given event, it would take up the majority of the page.

That's just one example. It might also say in the Wikipedia article for a UFC PPV that the show drew X number of PPV buys, but the full article on my site would have a lot more information, putting the PPV buyrate into perspective, analyzing how it compares with previous UFC PPV buyrates, analyzing how it compares to the PPV buyrates of the UFC's chief competitors (boxing and pro wrestling), etc. Or it might say on a page for Pride: The Real Deal that so-and-so fighter tested positive for X banned substance at this event, but the full article would have a lot more info such as background information on the fighter and on the banned substance that they tested positive for, which fighters have tested positive for the same banned substance in the past, what kind of punishment those fighters got for their transgressions, very detailed descriptions of the fighters' disciplinary hearings when they eventually have them, etc.

Ultimately, whether the links are there or not isn't up to me, it's up to you guys and others who are on Wikipedia regularly and a consistent part of the Wikipedia community. My overriding point here is that many of the arguments against including the links are based on false assumptions. In fact, there are very valid reasons for the links to be there, it's not a copyright issue in any way, and I'm not "spamming" or adding links in bad faith to a "built for AdSense" web site, nor is my site "built for AdSense" at all, nor was it "built for AdSense" when I started my web site ten years ago. If people talk all of the facts into consideration then I'll support any decision that is ultimately made. --Ivantrembow 07:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of the 401k Link

Why do you keep removing the link to a 401k planning tool? I found the site a few months back for a finance class I was taking, and thought it would be a good resource to add. Can NOTHING with ads be posted as a link? All the excel downloads are free.....

Sites with Ads can be added to wikipedia, but that's a Made-For-Adsense site added only to wikipedia to generate ad revenue. But since you decide to come to my talk page, let's be honest here, we both know you didn't find that site. The guy that owns that site is a 24 year old Aquarius living in Salt Lake City, Utah. And the only person adding that link to multiple pages on wikipedia (which would be you) has a Salt Lake City IP address and makes edits to the Utah Jazz pages. Please don't piss on my head and try to tell me that its raining, thank you.