User talk:86.149.192.133

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Prisoner

You keep removing the link to the Prisoner Appreciation Society. This is a valid link and falls within policy. Please do not remove it again without justification, otherwise it just keep on being replaced. Any further removals without consensus will be considered as vandalism--Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 18:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to The Prisoner, you will be blocked from editing. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] December 9th 2007

There is a current discussion concerning the above here. You are invited to comment. Be seeing you! --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having trouble contributing there - I did try so will reply here.

The edits are for reasons discussed many times on wiki over the years (which I assume you missed or have not read). It was agreed upon that any links to Six of One would not be added to the artile without a second link to http://www.sixofone-info.co.uk underneath it to offer balance. It was decided a link to neither was more constructive than a link to both, and a link to only one would not provide the balance and accuracy expected from wiki given the complexities of this issue. This is not "vandalism" as you put it, but simply inkeeping with what was agreed upon (more accurately, by deciding yourself that the link should be included when it was agreed it wouldn't be, is not the vandalism yours?)

There are aditional points I would also like to make.

The webpage you keep adding the link for does not provide any information per se (surely the point of external links) but serves only as an entry/joining page (IE asking for money). It does not provide any information further to the wiki article. It is therefor a pointless link.

Your comments on the discussion page you mention are also false. By their own admission the fan club does not exist as a legal entity, therefore it has not created any analysis over the years. Any interesting analysis has been created by individuals who have since quit the club (along with, by their own admission, over 98% of people who were members), therefore their work is their own copyright and should be linked to individually if you so wish.

There has been no "split" which you refer to (have you actually seen the sries? Why people refer to "splits" when what is the case is that Six of One have only a few hundred members, and the millions of other Prisoner fans around the World prefer not to be part of the organisation as INDIVIDUALS, is beyond me).

The person who replied to you (Guy) is also incorrect. The Prisoner Shop in Portmeirion has been run by Portmeirion itself since 2001 when Six of One's Max Hora was asked to leave the premises.

As mentioned this has been discussed many times and an agreement was reached regarding Six of One related links. I don't particularly want to go through all the details again for the umpteenth time, but that's it in a nutshell. Either both links stand, or neither do. I'm happy to add the 2nd link, or would this also be "vandalism"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, although a fan of "The Prisoner" since it was first shown in 1967, I have only been here since August 2007. Hence, I have missed previous debates as to what should be included or excluded as links from this page. The reason I called the (to me) inexplicable deletion of what appeared to be an informative and valid link by an anon IP who did not explain this after three reversions "vandalism" was that is how it appeared to me. Simple as that. On the face of it the "Six of One" website looks like a valid resource, and I have all the publications listed there (and more)- one day I will dig out the notes I have of a Sociology course delivered in Canada on the programme- but my opinion is that BOTH "fan" sites should be linked for those who wish to read further, even if not as sources. We are not in the business of telling readers what to think, I believe, so it makes sense to be even-handed with the references. I believe that those who want to use this article as a springboard into further research should have the references to do so and would prefer to be Living in Harmony here than Hammer Into Anvil. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 23:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for replying :-). I sort of agree with you that all resources should linked (one can never have too much INFORMATION, to quote the show) but a couple of years ago the wiki page had changes every day with people removing one or other of the links, so to stop that it was sort of decided to include neither as the fairest way, if that makes sense. Sorry about the anon IP thing and not responding, I really do struggle finding my way round the editing system at wiki i'm afraid, my bad. I would like to avoid the situation we had a few years ago though, on balance now we have chatted do you think it would be better that both links are excluded rather than included? I agree with you totally on your points, I just don't want another "war" on wiki, it really was very silly and annoying at the time LOL!!


Sorry, this looks like generic disgruntled ex-member bullshit. we don't care about the dispute, we don't care about the degree of "officialness", all we care about is: does it offer accurate information of use to our readers and providing a level of detail beyond what would be offered by a great article. I'd have no objection to including any verifiably co-"official" sites, but linking to attack sites to "balance" the fact that we link to a site which is pretty widely discussed as a source for Prisoner information is frankly absurd. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is any need for bad language, firstly. Secondly, I am neither disgruntled or generic. I'm a person (you might want to watch The Prisoner some time, we are not all sheep). I agree that a link should be included if it offers "accurate information", and that's the point, it doesn't. Hence the need for the alternate view. I am suggesting, as was agreed on wiki some time ago, to avoid the sort of argument that this discussion is sadly descending into, from happening again by saying neither or both links should be included. As for your other points, if you do not care for any "dispute" why does it concern you at all, if you don't care for "officiality" why do you want something to be "verifiably co-official"? I want to avoid arguments on wiki, hence the removal of the link (once again as agreed by many who use and update the page) you seem to only want to start one.
You think I haven't watched The Prisoner? Bwuhahahaha! Anyone can tell you the registration mark of No. 6's Lotus Seven, but I can remember the registration mark of the hearse in the title sequence. That doesn't change the fact that your complaint looks like the complaints we get from disgruntled ex-members of all kinds of societies pretty much every day of the week. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
LOL sorry, but that's just childish (858 TLH btw, any fool can tell you that), it's not a competition to see who can name the most facts (how many official Prisoner books have you proof-read for errors pre-publication btw?) it's about understanding the ethos of the series, which you clearly don't. I'm glad my concerns have been backed up by you - printing that link leads to silly arguments, thanks for proving my point. I don't have a complaint, i'm complying with what was agreed by mods and users of wiki on this issue, it's someone else that's doing the complaining becuase I abided by the decision. You sound a lot more disgruntled than I, i'm just stating fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rickd2007 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't visited the Wiki page for The Prisoner for a long time but I've just noticed that something of mine has also been removed from the Prisoner entry. I'm a professional comic artist and around 1991 I wrote/drew a Prisoner spoof for my Combat Colin serial in The Transformers comic. A while back I added this info to The Prisoner Wikipedia page but I see it has now been removed. (Not sure when as I haven't looked at the page in months.) This is ridiculous as it didn't criticize Six of One and it was a professional job published by Marvel Comics UK! Yet reference to other Prisoner homages remains. So if accurate information is regarded so highly here why was my comment removed? Regarding "vandalism", perhaps people might reconsider who's disgruntled - the ex-members of Six of One or the people who are still determined to promote it here? As Six of One's link is now reinstated I see no reason why the link to sixofone-info.co.uk cannot also be reinstated for balance. LewStringer (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)