User talk:Interbang

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] The Golddiggers

Why did you revert my edits to The Golddiggers page? The text you're adding is not appropriate and smacks of POV. I left the official external link itself which is quite sufficient. The other link appears to be a blog of some sort which is not allowed by Wikipedia's external links policies. If it's not a blog, I have no problem with it being there. However, Wikipedia is not to be used to promote personal websites or any websites for that matter. There's no need to include all that text in the description. If you take a look at other articles, that is not standard practice for external links and I see no reason why an exception is to be made in this case. If you have a huge issue with this, I suggest you contact an administrator before you revert again. Pinkadelica 21:08, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and start applying it to your responses to other editors ASAP. Personal attacks aren't going to fly and if you can't be civil and comment on content instead of an editor, do not respond. Your assumptions of other people's knowledge have no place here and your snide remarks won't be tolerated. Second of all, this isn't a "one person attack". The article is fairly obscure which is why no one else has recently changed what you insist on keeping in. That doesn't mean it's right, that just means no one else has seen it lately. Looking through the relatively short history of the article, I see that I'm not the only one who has removed this. At least two other editors have changed your unneeded descriptions in the external links. You are fully aware of that because you added it right back on more than one occasion. That should be some indication that what you're doing is not within the parameters of Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. I have no objections to the links themselves and I didn't even question the validity of them, but there's no need to write a long description about an external link. State what it is and move on. Since you obviously think you're correct and no one else can tell you about Wikipedia policy, I'm going to let an administrator take a look at this situation. Since you've already reverted the page twice in a 24 hour period, you are one revert away from violating 3RR. If you want to go ahead and violate that policy and risk a ban just because you want to push your POV, have at it. Pinkadelica 02:09, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Since another editor has intervened and notified you that your behavior is in fact uncivil and your version of the page does not meet Wikipedia's standards and has since been changed back, I suggest any other issues you have with the page be taken up with an administrator as I initially suggested. Pinkadelica 04:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about or have websites related to The Golddiggers, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
  2. adding external links to pages in which you are involved in a promotional tone or manner;
  3. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors;
  4. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  5. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest. Because you have made it clear that one of these external links is your website, it is inappropriate and in violation of WP:EL and WP:CoI for you to promote it in this way, which is stated in WP:EL#ADV to includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. Further, one of the sites in question appears to be a self-published blog page, which may violate WP:EL completely. The manner of presentation of the external links is not in keeping with Manual of Style, and thus, should only consist of the link and title. It is up to the reader to determine which to go to. Anything else appears as promotional spam. If you wish for the link to remain, please stop reverting the article to include promotional wording. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your comments on User talk:Pinkadelica: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response

What admonitions are given to another editor isn't something that I would discuss with someone else, nor would I discuss an admonition I give you with another editor. I will simply say that everyone is supposed to abide by Wikipedia guidelines.

Regarding article contributions, if you will note at the bottom of each page, when it is opened for editing, there is a sentence which reads: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." In essence, if you disagree with something another editor changes, the first step should be to post a note on the article talk page and also good etiquette would say that a brief note be posted on the user's talk page directing them to the talk page discussion opened. At that point, a civil and hopefully productive dialogue can occur regarding the changes. Having said that, there is no policy that dictates that a person be an expert, or for that matter even well-versed, to edit a page. There are specific policies in place that govern nearly everything that might come up in editing.

In this particular situation, no one need be an authority on the Golddiggers to question the appropriateness of links under the External links title. The detailed promotional sounding descriptions are not in keeping with WP guidelines for external links and no expertise is required to determine that. The proper format for external links is the link itself with the name or title of the page. The reader who chooses to visit the external site will assess it on its merits and weaknesses. For myself, I have a small concern that the wordpress.com link may not meet external link guidelines at all, as that site appears to be a personal blog-type of site, which doesn't require objective third party checking. In any case, the promotional tone of the link descriptions for both pages was inappropriate by guidelines.

Finally, one of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is to assume good faith when confronted with changes made by others. When I read your page, the other editor said she had no objection to the links themselves and didn't question their validity. She did question the manner in which they were presented, i.e., the detailed descriptions that were given. That is a qualitative difference from denying that material was removed arbitrarily. She also commented in the first post that there was a question regarding whether the one link (the wordpress) was allowable, which would have been the reason it was removed at first. As I noted, I still have a small concern regarding that, but I'm willing to let it stay as a stand alone link with no promotion.

I hope I've addressed your concerns. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)