Alecmconroy (talk | contribs) |
Safety Cap (talk | contribs) →Suicide threat: for pointing the user to crisis centers |
||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Missed a section break, thought you were connecting one debate with another. sorry. |
Missed a section break, thought you were connecting one debate with another. sorry. |
||
Good work trying to outreach those feeling suicidal-- if you save one life, it's worth a million mistakes. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
Good work trying to outreach those feeling suicidal-- if you save one life, it's worth a million mistakes. --[[User:Alecmconroy|Alecmconroy]] ([[User talk:Alecmconroy|talk]]) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" |
|||
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|[[File:Compass Barnstar Hires.png|100px]]| [[Image:Compass barnstar.png|80px]]}} |
|||
|rowspan="2" | |
|||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Guidance Barnstar''' |
|||
|- |
|||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For [[User_talk:83.170.117.122|greatly assisting]] someone who was apparently |
|||
in crisis. [[User:Safety Cap|Safety Cap]] ([[User talk:Safety Cap|talk]]) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
|} |
Revision as of 03:30, 3 August 2011
Barek is tired of wikidrama, and has chosen to spend more time in the real world; but may still wander back online occasionally. During this time, replies to queries may be greatly delayed. |
My talk page archives | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Waterford Cathedral Choir
Why did you delete 'Waterford Cathedral Choir'?
It supplies information about the choir for Waterford Cathedral, Ireland and a history of the Organ and Organists - this information is allowed on other pages in this encyclopedia such as St. Finbarre's Cathedral Cork. It is not about a musical group of a commercial kind which your reason for deletion seems to be. They are of interest to tourists and to the people of Waterford city.
Why do you allow information to be included for one city and not for another? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckth (talk • contribs) 10:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:CSD#A7, which indicates the criteria under which the article was deleted, which states: "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization (e.g. band, club, company, etc., except schools), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant." Being commercial or non-commercial has no impact on this criteria. Simply existing does not indicate importance or significance.
- Note also that had it not been deleted under CDS#A7, it also did not meet the notability guideline defined at WP:BAND, which unless resolved would have also likely resulted in deletion following a community deletion discussion. If your goal is to provide a community guide, you may be better served by using a community website (presuming one exists) instead of using Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If I add this information to the age which already exists in Wikipedia for The Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, Waterford, will it be allowed there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckth (talk • contribs) 00:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
If I add this information to the page which already exists in Wikipedia for The Cathedral of the Most Holy Trinity, Waterford, will it be allowed there? July 24 Ckth (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
- For the most part, the more reliable sources you have for any material added to an article, the less likely it is to be disputed and/or removed by other editors who edit that page. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Guy Harvey page
Barek - you're killing me! You delete everything I add to the Guy Harvey page. Its all factual info that is relevant to who he is/what he does. I sourced the info as well. What am I still doing wrong? Thanks in advance for your advice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawsr123 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 July 2011
- I didn't delete everything, although it's trimmed considerably. The problem is that the article is about Guy Harvey, the person - not about the GHRI or GHOF. It's reasonable to give a general overview of the organizations he founded - but the level of detail was going needlessly off-subject. Perhaps if additional third-party reliable sources exist (if there's enough to meet the criteria of WP:ORG), the greater detail would be reasonable for creating articles about the organizations where greater detail would be appropriate. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
OK - makes sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Mexico City E-learning
Why did you remove the external link for the quiz on the Mexico City article? The quiz directly supports the material in the article by letting the reader complete the loop by assessing their understanding of the material in the article. This enhances the material greatly. The external links on there now, in contrast, do not do that, and you chose to leave them. Let's see, there is a broken link to http://www.viadf.com.mx/ a Free Online Route Planner for all public transport services in Mexico City, which doesn't support the material, and never did. A overtly commercial site, with no knowledge or understanding is Mexico City Tourism Ministry http://mexicocity.gob.mx/ which lets you book flights and hotels - not an especially educational pursuit. The external link for the quiz on the Mexico City article directly supported and enhanced the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 22:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- It's not Wikipedia's purpose to provide links to your website so that readers can "test" their understanding of the material. The fact that other links exist which need to be cleaned up is not a justification to add additional links which are not appropriate per WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:03, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not using the other external links as justification, I pointed them out because of the arbitrary nature of the edit/removal of the links I added, while poor links remain unedited. Either one tries to enhance the Mexico City article with clean up, or one is just removing one set of links en masse because of a lack of understanding of the benefit to the Wikipedia visitor who is reading the Mexico City article.
I read the criteria for external links, and I think the link is very appropriate. The criteria states: "External links in an article can be helpful to the reader (it is very helpful), but they should be kept minimal (one link is minimal), meritable (it has great merit since it extends the readers' brain in a direction that the original article [and any Wiki media] cannot take it), and directly relevant to the article (the link is directly relevant to Mexico City)." It meets the criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 23:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to develop traffic to your website. The site does not meet the criteria of WP:ELYES, nor WP:ELMAYBE. The site does not present new material that is not already in the article; instead, it restates material already presented within the article, simply in a different format (ie: a quiz). By it's very nature, it fails the criteria of WP:EL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The purpose of the link is to enhance the experience of the Wikipedia visitor. Whether it generates traffic or not is irrelevant to the discussion. Wikipedia doesn't have to have any external links whatsoever. But if a link is allowed there should be an expectation of a value-add to the Wikipedia visitor who is interested in continuing to explore that topic in ways that Wikipedia does not provide. Is that a consideration or not? From Wikipedia's linking page, "Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link." My question is whether you are applying your edit to either one of the ideals expressed in that sentence.
A quiz goes way beyond simple restatement of material. So does a translation, even though it is the same material in a different format (different language). A quiz is rooted and based on that material, if it was not, it might not be relevant. By that logic, a quiz on anything but the material in the article would be kosher. As Wikipedia's Five Pillars reminds us, "The principles and spirit of Wikipedia's rules matter more than their literal wording." The spirit of the rules is to make sure the experience of the Wikipedia visitor is the primary consideration. As it applies to links, it means "based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers", and it meets that criteria 100%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 00:32, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You clearly have no interest in improving Wikipedia, only in promoting your site. Attempts to shoe-horn in some concept of a quiz being of benefit is absurd, and your attempts to Wikilawyer to get around WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE are irrelevant. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:28, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Nothing could be more false. Wikipedia has to be enhanced by addition, not subtraction. By applying literal wording only in the context where it supports your opinion, there wouldn't be an external link on any page. You have not considered the Wikipedia visitor and what they would find to be of benefit relevant to the page or topic. Your comments about developing traffic are absurd, what link when clicked does not generate traffic? That applies to every single external link on Wikipedia not any one link in particular. You get traffic from Google, not Wikipedia. Who does that?
Take another look at the Mexico City article which you purport to be improving. Look at # Mexico City travel guide from Wikitravel, they get 'traffic' from every click, they get a sheckel from showing the ads, does a commercial travel site meet all the criteria on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL? You and I both know that it does not. Look at the two top links. They go to Spanish-language web sites. The Mexico City article is in English, not Spanish. They already have Wikipedia in Spanish to link to Spanish web sites. Tell me how any Spanish web site is "of immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers" who are reading an English article. Finally, look at # Mexico City at the Open Directory Project - it's a link farm! With the time you spent on this today, you have not enhanced the Mexico City page with your actions, you have diminished it, and it's quite a disappointment. Please consider the visitors to the page as a primary consideration, and what they might find useful. I don't even know what Wikilawyer means, but I have a feeling it's tossed out there when common sense has been set aside. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 01:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- You again bring up other links, as I pointed out before, the fact that other links exist is irrelevant - and your opinion on the appropriateness of the various links goes contrary to established community consensus.
- You continue to recycle the same false arguments - as such, I won't bother replying again. This discussion is pointless as your sole purpose is promotion of your site, not the betterment of Wikipedia - so the fundamental premise of your position is false.
- As I said before, if you want to hear from others, feel free to bring up the URL at WP:ELN. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:25, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
The premise that my sole purpose is promotion of the site is absolutely false, and there is no criteria on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL that could possibly lead you to that conclusion, it's the conclusion of based on one person's bias and not a community. You have not taken the visitors to the page as a primary consideration, that is clear. There is no established community consensus that prohibits the linking of a quiz based on the material in an article. There are no false arguments, just a desire to improve the content at Wikipedia by value-add. I don't see your value-add anywhere, in your edits, nor your comments. Please take a second look at this and consider what a real person using Wikipedia might want, keeping the spirit of Wikipedia alive and moving forward, not stuck in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 02:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- I suggested twice that you take this to WP:ELN. As you refuse to do so, I've gone ahead and started a thread there at WP:ELN#teachlearnrepeat.com.
- As to your latest post - the site fails WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, those are consensus driven guidelines. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TLRkahuna (talk • contribs) 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Suicide threat
Missed a section break, thought you were connecting one debate with another. sorry. Good work trying to outreach those feeling suicidal-- if you save one life, it's worth a million mistakes. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The Guidance Barnstar | ||
For greatly assisting someone who was apparently
in crisis. Safety Cap (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC) |