Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 14

message: Removing a cross-post that better stands at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Angela_spamming_list_hosted_by_Wikimedia_Foundation.  Apologies, all. --JossBuckle Swami 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal attack or unwarranted censorship? 

message: I would add  that produces 
:Don't.  That page is a copyvio of this one. ---J.S  (T/C) 19:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it was a direct copy/paste from this page for a little while untill someone reverted it. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta 

message: Since posting my blog link on Wikipedia I have received hundreds of emails thanking me and commenting on my site. Here’s the deal, people access Wikipedia to find the most accurate well rounded information regarding a specific topic. My blog is in reference to Pararescue as well as other topics but the main theme is Pararescue. When someone searches for Pararescue on Wikipedia they find a lot of quality information… Some of the information on the Wikipedia page is outdated though.. What I offer is access to the real world of Pararescue. Nowhere else on the web can someone actually contact a Pararscueman and ask any question under the sun… I propose that blog links such as pjcountry.blogspot.com, be authorized to exist on Wikipedia pages… Furthermore links such as mine should have a special section that identifies them as what they are… External links would be appropriate as you already have on the site…Call it what ever you want but allow the Wikipedia viewers to have access to all  information possible… In a way, removing my link is censorship, as my blog is merely access to more information. Your removal of that access denies the viewers the information…. Yes I realize that there is a lot of information on my site that is not directly related to “Pararescue” but that is the whole point. My site exists to allow people to enter the world of a Pararscueman. We at pjcountry speak for the majority of Pararscueman. Our thoughts and expressions in many ways mimic all PJ’s… People want to know what we are like and how we think.. so they come to my site and find out… It’s even better that they can enter “the world” of an actual research topic through Wikipedia… Please reconsider and allow the link to exist on the page
Regards
Checky —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.143.22 (talk) 
pjcountry@gmail.com
:You've added your blog repeatedly and multiple times to the same page.  If that's not spamming, I don't know what is.  If you really think your page should be added, suggest it on the talk page.  Wikipedia has no obligation to allow everyone to link to their own site, being discriminating isn't "censorship" by any stretch of the imagination.  --Milo H Minderbinder 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make the request on the talk page of the article you want the link to be on (in this case I believe Talk:Air Force Pararescue).  The editors of that article are in the best position to decide if the link is appropriate.  (In fact, any time you get reverted, a good general rule is to take the edit to the talk page to discuss with editors of the article).  We have a guideline against blogs because, among other things, even when written by people who are very knowledgeable in the subject they tend not to have formal fact checking procedures in place and are generally intended to provide a particular point of view.  So you should be prepared to support your addition with why our general guideline against blogs should be set aside in this case.  In the end we are here to create a GFDL encyclopedia - not a portal - so try to stick to why the content of your blog can be considered encyclopedic and why it needs to be linked to instead of being re-written and included as content in the article.  Happy editing!  -- Siobhan Hansa 01:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Let Blogs exist in their own little corner on Wikipedia.........It makes sense dosen't it? 

message: Could someone help me here. The External links section has been going trough reverts for the good part of 2006 and now 2007. The last thing I did was remove all unofficial links as nobody could come to terms with which ones to keep, and instead added a link to DMOZ. Now they argue that DMOZ is silly because "I can't get my site listed there!".. Can someone please go and revert to my last edit, or maybe just give their thought about this whole debacle on the talk page? Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 10:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty incredible... people just saying they are going to keep adding links to their sites no matter what.  I'm not familiar with the spam blacklist, so perhaps someone more familar with that could take a look and blacklist those sites being defiantly added repeatedly with a "screw the wikipedia guidelines" attitude. 2005 01:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they continue, drop a note in my talk page and I will either protect the article or block the ones abusing the external linking. Remember to warn them with the  templates. -- ReyBrujo 02:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll keep an eye out as always. Thank you. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[VBulletin]] 

message: I was rather shocked to find out: Did you know we've got Wikimedia-wide custom namespaces? You can link to Google search results pages with code like this: Google:Jimbo Wales. To any page at Wikia.com with Wikia:Projectname:Article name. Recently there's even a prefix for Youtube:xKHYTd-iF8c videos. Look at the full list at meta:Interwiki map!
This thing is a breeding ground for site administrators advertising their pages, explaining why adding their links would be "useful" to a significant number of Wikipedia pages. As in: "As our Wiki develops, these pages can be linked to from potentially thousands of articles"! (whoopee…) Wikis with a few edits per month, essentially personal blogs, have a custom prefix. Best thing, for a long time the list was open to anon spammers just adding themselves.
The real fun is, these links aren't found in Special:Linksearches. Links to external wikis are normally to be avoided, at least on the en: Wikipedia. If other projects absolutely need a Youtube: namespace they're free to set it locally. Besides, what do we have templates like  or  for? So I don't see why we should have to share hardcoded custom code for the convenient mass-linking of external sites.
I think custom namespaces are just an obscure technical feature that was never meant to grow to these proportions. No word about it at Help:Link. Even Help:Namespace presents it as simple means for mapping the localized German Hilfe: to the Help: namespace, for example. Is anybody supervising it (except the few well-meaning meta admins adding those links)? Is this governed by any policy like WP:EL?
The list is eeevil. We should keep only those few custom namespaces that are directly related to the Wikimedia Foundation and the operation of Wikipedia itself. Can we get a consensus together to have this list drastically trimmed? Femto 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, and for the record, these are not "custom namespaces" which are similar appearing but technically different critters.  Portal: is an example of a custom namespace on Wikipedia, which can be distinguished by the fact that they are site specific and only generate internal links.  Dragons flight 13:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Actually, it's quite easy to construct a SQL query to find such links. Also, for many of them, it's not a problem if we "break" them because we don't need or want such links in the first place. Of course links to google and meatball and such are all fine, but most of the 100+ items on this list aren't. >Radiant< 13:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **You realize we are talking about all 400+ WMF projects, right?  Such a search would be time consuming for a developer and virtually impossible for anyone else.  Some fraction are arguably worthless on their face, but for many I would say one would want to show that the link is not being used anywhere before killing it.  Dragons flight 13:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: **PS. If you want to push to clean that thing up, then go for it.  It does need cleaning.  Just don't get caught in the illusion that it will be easy to actually make a significant dent.  Dragons flight 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ***A list that is relevant for all Wikimedia projects should be taken care of a lot better than this, and not contain many links of low relevance that block possible namespaces on all Wikipedia projects. If the list can't be fixed globally due to its size and importance, can the English Wikipedia unsubscribe form this list so we can enforce our own external links policy? Kusma (討論) 13:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ****The capacity to unsubscribe does not exist at present, and because of the way the interwiki map is implemented might be somewhat challenging to set up, but I would generally describe it as desirable option to have, and so it might be worth talking to developers about.  Dragons flight 14:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ****Though if one is going to be making requests, simply having an easy way to search for them locally might be a better place to start.  Dragons flight 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

text: ***** The whole list with the exception of Wikimedia projects needs dumped. It's a sneaky way to add in links without having some way to see where and when they're being added or some ability to search for all of these links. There's more than just the usual trying to keep external links in check, but to be able to find and change the URL if the site moves, changes ownership or becomes even less suitable for being an external link from WP. --Kind Regards - Heligoland  |  Talk |  Contribs 12:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This interwiki list should not be on meta, it should be on a per wiki basis.  This indeed results in external links which can not be controlled.  I vote dumping the list.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wow! Ok, for the time being I am going to make LinkWatcher (an IRC feedbot) catch additions of these. I to am not very happy about some of these links. Cheers P.S. The bot can be found at #wikipedia-spam on the freenode network. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 18:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If admin level approval is needed to create a new prefix, that helps a lot.  So does monitoring for new prefixs.  As for cleaning up, I think removing 50 or so obviously worthless prefixes (I found five with just a few minutes of checking) would in fact make a dent.  If someone wants to set up a page in their user space for cataloging prefixes and identifying obvious candidates for removal, I'm happy to volunteer to help.   John Broughton  |  Talk 16:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Please join us at Wikipedia:Interwiki map. >Radiant< 10:05, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meta "custom namespaces" 

message: The section on what "should be linked" lists:
#Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if  any.
#An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
#Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
#Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
In the Fleshlight article, some editors perceive the above wording to suggest that a link to the official Fleshlight web site is required.  I believe that the wording should be changed so that it allows the editors of the article to decide whether an external link offers value to the article or not.  In general, a link to the "official" web site of the notable article is desirable, I agree.  In this specific case, and a variety of other general applicability, directing users to the commercial web site does not offer value to the article, and serves no purpose other than supporting sales for the product.  The editors of the article "should" be allowed to reach consensus on whether inclusion of that link is desired or not, rather than being "forced" to include the EL of the commercial site because of the current wording of policy.  Atom 13:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about changing the wording to something like "examples of good external links" ( for the EL section ) Squidfryerchef 17:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm unsure why this is an issue. The Amazon.com article links to the Amazon websites and Tesco links to http://www.tesco.com/, which serve no other purpose but sales point for Amazon and Tesco, and that's a perfectly acceptable use of external links. It seems perfectly rational, and even a good idea, to do the same for the "Fleshlight" article, which is about a specific company and product. It's considered adding to the 'utility' of the article to the reader, rather than a contribution of content. --Barberio 21:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a guideline, not policy.  One user can come along and add any link citing whatever they want, but editor consensus can still overide, just as it can with links to be avioded.  A good reasoned argument about why it is better for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia to not link would likely hold through any dispute resolution process (should one be needed).  Are there lots of these types of situations?  Because if not WP:IAR would appear to be a better approach than changing a guideline which, in general seems pretty good (i.e. - we generally should be linking to official sites).  -- Siobhan Hansa 23:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It is indeed something that can be discussed by the editors on the article. And it appears to me that it is being discussed. --Barberio 23:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Official sites should be linked.  What is an argument why you wouldn't want to link to one?  How would that ever make a better article? It's not our concern if adding a link adds to the sales of a company or not.  We are writing encyclopedica articles about things, that users get valuable information from.  There is no reason ever to not link to the official site of an article, short of some virus infested site or something like that. 2005 00:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm proposing changing the wording of the "External Links" paragraph to a heading of "Good uses of the External Links section" ( official sites, well-maintained wikis about the subject matter, material that would create a copyright problem if wikified ex. sports stats ( this is in one of the other policies ), DMOZ or other directories of subject-related sites, etc ) and "Poor uses of the External Links section" ( placeholder for to-be-footnoted references, material that belongs in a tabulated list in the article ( ex. links to fraternity chapters ), links that are about some particular aspect of the subject, which could be made into references, and POV sites, such as a protest site in an article about a corporation, or a gossip column in a site about a celebrity )  This would be in addition to the general rules about stable URLs, rich media, copyright, etc.  The wording about "good uses" and "poor uses" doesn't imply that official sites are required.  Squidfryerchef 22:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't think we should put well maintained wikis on the same footing as official sites.  The current guideline doesn't make anything required or prohibited - it's a guideline.  Is there really a significant number of articles where it would be a good thing to not link to the official site? -- Siobhan Hansa 00:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a number of sites, for example the Muppet Wiki that some relevant articles here link to, or sites like The Payphone Project that sort user-submitted data.  A lot of this material wouldn't fit into the Wikipedia because some editors would consider it too specialized for an encyclopedia, or would consider it OR, or it's not public domain and would create a copyvio if we incorporated it.  So yes these would be good uses of the External Links section.  Now, as for official sites, some people do read that as a "must", so we should tone down that wording. Squidfryerchef 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: At least two bad ideas here counter to the guideline now.  "Well maintained wikis"? Those very seldom merit linking. Besides that, "good uses" and "poor uses" is not the point, nor a direction we should go in. We don't add "poor" external links.  On rare occasions we might link to exceptional material that is of a type normally to be avoided, but the reason to do so is because it is a great link, not just another "poor use". 2005 00:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One reason why I want to talk about good vs. poor candidates for the "External Links" section, is because many editors read "links normally to be avoided" as "links that are banned".  Nobody is suggesting we add "poor" external links, I'm actually suggesting we delete them.  But I don't want mass editors going through the Wikipedia with a script and removing links without looking at them.  I'm trying to keep deletion of links on a case by case basis. PS. What part of WP:EL does "well-maintained wikis" run counter to? It says Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors.  Squidfryerchef 05:35, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What should be linked

message: Is there any project or other forum for reporting articles with excessive ELs with a view to action being taken to clean them up? Would there be an appetite for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/External links or something similar? This talk page is great for discussion of the guideline but doesn't focus on action, and as I've noted before it would be great if editors who have a sound understanding of the policies and guidelines here could be notified of articles with EL problems and get together to sort them out and back up each others changes. <FONT STYLE="verdana" COLOR="#000000">Dei</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF3300">zio</FONT> talk 08:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a couple of WikiProjects that may be of interest: Wikipedia:WikiProject External links and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I'm not sure how active the projects are though. More informally, interested editors can review articles in need of external links cleanup at :Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. --Muchness 11:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Project spam is fairly active. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 18:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taskforce:EL 

message: Is there an appropriate format for linking to U.S. patents? I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but I looked around and couldn't find an easy answer.  I have seen a few articles referencing patents by title & patent # but normally without a link to the patent text. Manassehkatz 03:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See  and . Mike Dillon 05:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: There is a danger in using a patent application as a source for an article. I doubt a patent qualifies as reliable because its self penned. I would be very cautious linking a patent unless the article already had well established notability.  --Spartaz 06:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can certainly see cases where it would be appropriate.  If a company is suing another company over a patent and the WP article covers that, it would make perfect sense to link to the patent.  It's a reliable source, just a primary one.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A link to a patent application is certainly acceptable if the citation is to show the existence of such an application.  It's also acceptable if used as a source for a statement such as "The patent claims included X, Y, and Z".  It's not acceptable, on the other hand, for support for sentences like "X invented Y and Y" (even if a patent is approved; something can be invented by someone who then fails to patent it).  Similarly, it's not acceptable to use a patent application as a source for a statement like "The biochemical process X can do Y and Z", since, as noted above, a patent application is self-published (as in patents for perpetual motion machines). --  John Broughton  |  Talk 16:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: is exactly what I was looking for. I am cleaning up some existing articles that already have patent references without the template (and without any other link to the patent text/image). I agree that patents should be used carefully - since they can be disputed they are not the most reliable of sources. However, I think they can add useful information to many articles. Manassehkatz 03:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Patents? 

message: If an article is featured on another language Wiki, wouldn't it be prudent to highlight that instead of linking to the foreign language website about said article? Ex. In Death Note, is there any need for this when we have a link to the Japanese version at ja:デスノート Where both the official link, and more information is located? Many times when I visit articles that have a foreign subject matter, the external links section is saturated with links to websites that are not English. Also, how about non-official websites that are in another language, do we delete them without prejudice? Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:25, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My feeling, not based on any WP articles, is that since this is an English language encyclopedia, we should only have links to sites written in the english language as EL on a page. -- Alucard (Dr.) 20:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it is the official site, then it should be fine to link to the foreign site. I usually link to both the english and japanese official sites if the topic is about a japanese product, but I would delete a brazilian or spanish site. Since you can't link to another Wikipedia, and you need to avoid self references, the intrawiki is only useful if you are checking Wikipedia itself; if someone is reading this from a mirror or a dump, he would not be able to access the japanese version of Wikipedia. -- ReyBrujo 20:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that it is our responsibility in the case of non-English subjects to provide both 1. the official English resource and 2. the original language Official resource. The original language resource will often contain more information than the English copy, and cannot be considered a simple duplicate. Kill fansites at will, especially those in foreign languages. --tjstrf talk 20:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If sourcing is the main concern then editors can add ref tags to the sections of the article which need sourcing and link to the official foreign site from there. I just don't see the point of having links to foreign language websites when this Wiki is English, it only adds clutter and which are sites most people won't find any need for. Havok (T/C/e/c) 20:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Like I said on Naruto, for referencing use the Japanese links. But, use a <ref> tag on the section which needs to be referenced. That way, we can leave the foreign language links out of the external links section of the article. Also, this is not only about anime and manga, but all articles that have foreign links in their EL section. Havok (T/C/e/c) 21:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is an official english page, then it may be possible to disregard the official native page (although I would discourage that). If there is not official page, of course the foreign one should be there. As for references, these official sites should used sparingly, otherwise you may end up using primary sources for building an article, which is not recommended. -- ReyBrujo 21:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which again denotes the point of not having the links to foreign sites to begin with. There is absolutely no reason to keep them. Havok (T/C/e/c) 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nor is there any reason to delete them. --tjstrf talk 22:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given many reasons. 1. This Wiki is English. 2. Most people won't have any use for them. 3. They can't be used as sources for anything in the article. 4. They take up space either by taking the space from an English link, or by just filling up the EL section in the article. Havok (T/C/e/c) 23:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's nothing wrong with using a foreign-language EL or a foreign-language reference.  English is preferred if the same content is available in English, but if the foreign link adds value to the article then keep it. Squidfryerchef 06:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess most of these entries will have a corresponding entry in the WP of that language - people who can understand that language can follow the link to the WP page in that language and find all the links they want.  If someone doesn't understand the language then having a link to a site which they can't understand seems rather useless to me. -- Alucard (Dr.) 00:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no point having foreign language links unless there is a compelling reason for them to be there. I think the bar for having them should be higher than for English links but I'm not entirely sure we should ban them altogether. Spartaz 06:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not ban them all together no, but like you say, setting the standard higher then with the English links can be a good start. I think we should promote the articles about the same subject on foreign language Wikipedias instead of linking directly to a foreign language sites. Havok (T/C/e/c) 11:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign language links 

message: Let the record show:
*1. Guy and Radiant made changes against consensus without any discussion, and refused to engage in discussion when asked.
*2. Neither Barberio nor I are "You Tube fans"--we're "fans" of discussion instead of edit warring at EL.
*(cur) (last)  16:40, 10 January 2007 Steel359 (Talk | contribs) m (Protected Wikipedia:External links: YouTube dispute continues [edit=sysop:move=sysop])
*(cur) (last)  16:39, 10 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (Well there's a thing - the admins are edit warring and the YouTube fans are not?)
*(cur) (last)  16:35, 10 January 2007 Cindery (Talk | contribs) (→Restrictions on linking - rv --Guy and Radiant edit warring, making changes not discussed on talk.)
*(cur) (last)  16:18, 10 January 2007 Radiant! (Talk | contribs) (You're not seriously implying that our concept of consensus trumps copyright laws, now do you?)
*(cur) (last)  16:11, 10 January 2007 Barberio (Talk | contribs) (rv, these changes didn't have consensus support. Take it to the talk page.)
*(cur) (last)  13:15, 10 January 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs) (→Restrictions on linking - Let's not actively encourage Wikilawyering, shall we?)
Cindery 17:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Barberio and I reverted back to a consensus version which was based on discussion, and invited Radiant/Guy to discuss rather than make edits they knew were contentious, without discussion.
Cindery 17:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed, the "other party" seems to be missing from the description above. The title of this heading makes it sound like Guy was edit warring with Radiant... Oh, and by the way... I agree with their wording, like many others. Thanks/wangi 17:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Based on the discussion above, Barbiero discussed his version and had support for it.  Radiant and Guy made their edits without any mention on the talk page first, much less consensus.  It's unfortunate to see admins revert warring and ending up getting the revision they want by the page getting locked on their version.  I agree with the previous consensus discussion, the section is redundant with the box at the top and support removing redundant text.  --Milo H Minderbinder 17:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And is anyone surprised by this?  Guy seems to have a way of making "his" way the "permanent" way, whether through Admin tools, or condescending snobbery.  No, Wikipedia's not broken, folks.  Everything is just peachy.  Move along.  Nothing to see here. --JossBuckle Swami 16:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Guy and Radiant edit warring

message: Same applies, really.  Per WP:C, do not link to material which violates copyright.  What is the benefit in making that less clear?  Barberion reverted my addition of a section taken from WP:C and quoting WP:C directly, as "redundant".  I therefore merged the part of the text which was not redundant (i.e. Barberio's complaint is baseless, I did not re-insert redundant material).  Barberio reverted.  Did Barberio make any move to discuss?  No.  But only Radiant and I are edit warring?  I don't think so.  
Barberio and Cindery are part of the small group who wants to make it easier to link to YouTube videos with questionable copyright status.  I, Radiant, Thatcher and others see no compelling reason to encourage, implicitly or explicitly, linking to material with questionable copyright.  Nor do we see any compelling reason why the usual onus on the editor seeking to include content should be reversed, as Barberio advocates, in the case of links which may infringe copyright.  That seems particularly bizarre, given that it would legislate a reversal of the usual practice in situations where that reversal may give rise to legal problems, and which in any case goes against copyright policy.  
All of the above is in any case a spillover from Barberio's war against Dmcdevit and others who were working to reduce the number of YouTube links to content with questionable copyright status.  Barberio and Cindery know full well that Dmcdevit, Radiant, Thatcher, myself, Nearly Healdess Nick and a lot of others are opposed to introducing ambiguity and making it less clear that we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright.  Barberio's changes were made in the full knowledge that I would oppose them and so would others.  
As I have said many times before, looking the other way and whistling innocently is not a reasonable way of approaching this.  If a user wants to link to something and someone removes it in good faith citing possible copyright violation, re-inserting it without first verifying the copyright status to be clean violates WP:C and might be counted as "wilful" under the rulings cited in that policy. What is good about linking to material with unclear copyright? Guy (Help!) 17:46, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You knowingly edited the guideline against consensus, after discussion. You stopped contributing to discussion at the You Tube RfC,  and did not discuss your proposed changes on talk. You refused to discuss on talk after you you were asked, both on your talkpage  and in edit summaries: you were edit warring.
Cindery 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: While I generally agree with you, JzG, I'd like to take small exception. First, allow me to support the inclusion of the statement that we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright. Any editor who disagrees with this is opposed to our fundamental goal of making a free (beer and speech) encyclopedia. Linking to material with unclear copyright is a different issue, which requires a weighing of the issues. This, of course, is not releven to the disputed edit -  which appears transparently obvious to me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Barberio: WP:KETTLE.  Guy (Help!) 18:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Guy, you did add redundant material, specifically "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work"  which is identical to the text box at the top.  Barbiero did discuss this, and people agreed with him, see above.  And much of your argument seems like it's against a straw man.  Barbiero's version specifically said not to link to infringing material, and I don't see anything about it that would make that easier or more ambiguous.  I still don't see why you made these reversions without any mention beforehand on the talk page.  --Milo H Minderbinder 18:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Barbiero and Cindery edit warring 

message: Here are two examples to consider...
*Case A - Photo student puts up a website of their photographs of a specific type of locomotive, some including her pointing out mechanisms and coming with commentaries and associated information that make it clear that the photographs were taken by her. However, she doesn't put up and licensing information for her site.
*Case B - Warez dude puts up a site with archive file for old video games, and puts up a fake but authentic looking licensing information that seems to grant him permission to do so.
Under "reasonable belief" the guidelines would suggest you could link to Case A, and could not link to Case B.
Under "required licensing information" the guidelines would suggest you could link to Case B, and could not link to Case A. 
As counter intuitive as it seems, the "stricter" and more legalistic sounding requirement is easier to abuse than the "subjective" requirement. --Barberio 23:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Resionable belife" vs "required licensing information", a comparison by example. 

message: Something for the "project" to keep in mind:
http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/08/magazines/business2/youtube_piracy.biz2/index.htm
Cindery 01:57, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good news indeed. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 02:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Note also that it'sold news--last month.  Copyright holders appear to appreciate the exposure provided by You Tube--which is why you aren't doing anyone any favors by deleting without complaints from copyright holders.  In cases of what appear to be the most blatant infringement, you're not protecting copyright holders; you're depriving them of exposure.  (And it makes the idea that there is cause for legal hysteria @ Wikipedia over YouTube appear as ridiculous as it is.  No one is going to sue Wikipedia for You Tube links--they would sue You Tube. And people aren't suing You Tube: they're making deals with You Tube because they like the free publicity.) Cindery 02:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm definitely not here to protect copyright holders. You continue to misrepresent any push to limit YouTube links as some kind of simplistic "legal hysteria". Here's a radical idea: I subscribe fully to the Wikimedia's vision, to create a free (as in speech, not beer) compendium of knowledge. "This is legal" or worse "We won't be sued for this" lines of arguments, without regard to  addressing our project's missions, are not compelling. A major part of our goal is re-use and free content distribution. Dmcdevit·t 03:33, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  However, as repeatedly pointed out, the copyright policy indicates quite clearly that we don't restrict external links to free speech resources alone. Policy clearly states that the requirement of 'free as in speech' does not apply to external links. --Barberio 03:55, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is very different from the remark I was responding to: "No one is going to sue Wikipedia for You Tube links--they would sue You Tube. And people aren't suing You Tube." Dmcdevit·t 04:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that Japanese record companies do not really like YouTube, so remove them on sight if you work with those articles. Also, YouTube videos are hardly necessary for articles, and I have even seen people using them as references @_@ -- ReyBrujo 03:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict) And you seem to ignore the need to address hysteria: "Because, in the end, I am not going to pay for the legal costs when we get sued for linking to a YouTube ripoff of someone's copyright content. Guy (Help!) 14:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to second the comment that "free" isn't a relevant criteria for external links.  Linked material doesn't have to be free, just hosted legally on the linked site.  I'm not sure why the whole "free" issue would even be brought up in this discussion.  And Rey, "necessary" isn't the criteria for including a link - if a YouTube link adds to the value of a WP article and meets the criteria in EL, it should be linked.  If we used "necessary", wikipedia would have no external links.  --Milo H Minderbinder 14:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has alwase had a higher standard then "wait for C&D letter". Have you followed the image fair use debates over time? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 05:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't mean that Wjohnson can't address the legal facts, or that addressing them is not useful--"copyright law" has been repeatedly invoked--even in an edit summary used by Radiant in the recent edit war.-Cindery 06:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright and YouTube

message: Lots of heat and very little light. Please focus on substantive changes you want made to the guideline to reflect existing consensus that linking to copyvios is wrong. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was made abundantly clear in this conversation that the guideline already clearly prohibits linking to copyvios--and no argument has been made to justify the inclusion of redundancies:
Let's stop talking about edit warring, and instead focus on the problem. Is there any disagreement with the statement that "we should not link to materrial that infringes copyright?" From this we can move forward. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Can you ever make any argument without using strawmen? ---J.Scarecrow  (T/C/WRE) 05:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They're not strawmen; they're summaries, for the sake of brevity. (As this section is titled "Words. Lot's of them.")
Cindery 06:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except none of your three points are accurate.  Your in essence lying about my position. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 07:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All three points are fair descriptions of positions taken by various people (you are not mentioned, nor "your position.") -Cindery 07:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, you would be wrong, my friend!: I keep my true defender against redundancy in guidelines merit badge under my pillow at all times! (They give you one when you graduate with honors from the highest rated English department in the US...along with $2.50 for a soy latte.)
Cindery 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously wikimarkup and indenting your signature wasn't part of the course. I'm surprised they didn't teach you how to have a discussion without disrupting it and how to avoid arguments.  Maybe you missed that bit. Spartaz 08:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did tutor some computer science majors in "remedial rhetoric," but I found that wit isn't really teachable.-Cindery 08:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly. BTW its not an ad hom if true & trying to assert some special status because youy went to a particular colleage is simply sad. --Spartaz 08:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh, and just as wit is all too rare, so is a sense of humor (joke obviously went over your head...)   Meanwhile, didn't you tell Radiant that you hadn't been helping these discussions because you were "too confrontational" :  (Not the words I would have chosen, but it was a start on your part...unless you were insincere/just recruting? --No, impossible, I say--not the Spartaz *I* know...)-Cindery 09:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't know me full stop. And yes, I was engaging in the dispute on a very emotional level and that was wrong. I'm handling this much more calmly now and not getting wound up. I just wish you would start being more constructive yourself but them that wouldn't be the Cindery that *I* know would it?Spartaz 15:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You abandoned the RfC because it was "stupid," while reasonable, constructive discussion was taking place.-Cindery 17:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Words, lots of them. 

message: I think we do need to add text clarifying the scope somewhat.
It should be clear that we're refering to all External Links. Which is what the guideline's always said. But it's easy to assume it only applies to an 'External Links' section. (This would be silly, since you could then include links that the guideline recommends against, simply by linking from elsewhere in the article.)
It should be clear that the guidelines here do apply to all external links, but editor judgement should be applied where that would conflict with Wikipedia:Citing sources and that citing sources should have priority. --Barberio 00:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  All I can do is point you to my above, clear statements on copyright issues, and again ask you to try to discuss this in a civil manner, and not escalate the issue by bringing it up in unrelated discussion. Alternatively, you should peruse lines of dispute resolution. --Barberio 02:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe Guy could answer the question: in what way is putting the same sentence twice in the guideline a good thing? :-) Or return to the "fork"--the RfC started by User:Argyriou?-Cindery 03:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll throw it back at you: In what way is redundency negetive or harmfull? ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 06:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's genius!  In fact, let's collaborate on a new policy: WP:BROKENRECORD, which stipulates that all statements should be repeated at least twice in every article, especially policies and guidelines, because they are never long or convoluted enough. 3RR should definitely not apply, too, if anyone reverts repetitons--override is of crucial importance: Wikipedia could collapse without sufficient redundancies! And there's no such thing as enough when it comes to redundancy.  Does anyone really have a keen enough sense for the obvious?--I think not. In fact, anyone found contributing anything to a guideline/policy  which is not a repetition of already included information should just shut up.  It should be a blockable offense. Now that PAIN is gone, and there's a "noticeboard vacuum," I advocate a noticeboard for reporting violations of WP:BROKENRECORD, to deal with annoying disruptive morons who don't understand that redundacy is imperative. Maybe it should be the sixth pillar, even?-Cindery 07:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I already answered that question above in detail, showing how it's not redundancy.  Now, in what way is linking to material that violates copyright a good thing? Still, on the subject of broken records, when are the two of you going to drop your holy crusade? Guy (Help!) 12:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is blowing off a discussion of licensing to edit war and falsely accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being in favor of copyright violation a good thing?-Cindery 18:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You'd have to ask the edit warriors.  That's you and Barbiero.  Well? Guy (Help!) 02:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifying scope 

message: Enthusiasts of vehicles often create online Owners Clubs.  Unsurprisingly, they often add ext. links to their sites in the respective vehicle articles (this has always been an issue with the Ford Fiesta and other Ford articles).  I generally remove these links on sight, especially links that direct straight to forums and message boards.
Later that day, I often get a message from the anon who originally added the links asking me why I removed the links and why I believe they are inappropriate.  I typically forward them to WP:EL and explain that Wikipedia is not a vehicle for their promotion and that I believe their links were added solely for advertising.
A common response is that they become defensive and infer that they are not connected with the sites they added.  Since I can't prove nor disprove that they own the sites they linked to, I usually question that if they don't actually own the sites, it seems strange that they are so concerned and upset when their links are removed.
So, is there a clear policy on "Owners Clubs" type sites? --Tim1988 talk 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Point them at WP:NOT. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 15:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Clubs are social networks, albeit not mentioned specificaly in #10 Links normally to be avoided, however would think that applies as well.--Hu12 17:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Owner's Clubs" 

message: Guy has complained about the fork, so:
*Decision tree	
*Here is what I believe should be the decision tree for determining whether or not a YouTube(ish) external link should be kept:
*Is the content linked to relevant to the article?
*No: Delete
*Yes: continue
*Is the content a reliable source? (Keep in mind that much video is a primary source.)
*No: Delete
*Yes: continue
*Is the content obviously public domain (U.S. Government, pre-1923, labeled "released into public domain", etc.)?
*No: continue
*Yes: Keep
*Is the content obviously hosted by its copyright holder? (ie a TV station website for news clips)
*No: continue
*Yes: Keep
*Is the content reasonably ovbiously copyright by a content creator well-known for defending its copyrights (ie major motion-picture studios, RIAA members, TV stations or networks, newspapers or press agencies, or book publishers)?
*No: continue
*Yes: Delete
*If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, is there a version of equal or better quality available at the copyright-holder's website?
*No: continue
*Yes: Replace link with "authorized version".
*If the content is hosted somewhere not obviously controlled by the copyright holder, does it have a clear statement that the content is hosted with permission of the copyright holder?
*No: continue
*Yes: Keep
*Is there other reason (besides those checked above) to believe that the content is infringing?
*No: Keep
*Yes: Delete
*The standard for linking is that we not knowingly link to infringing material. A reasonable person should be expected to know that content produced by major content providers (like news media, movie studios, RIAA recording studios, and most book and magazine publishers) is copyright and requires permission directly from the copyright owner. So linking to a Metallica video or a TV clip of "The Play" (where Cal beat the Stanford football team and band) when hosted on YouTube is not ok. But if some unsigned band has made a video, the band may give permission to all and sundry to post the video everywhere so that they get more exposure; some amateur film-makers will release their work for republication for ideological reasons or to obtain exposure. Therefore, in the absence of information to the contrary, we do not know that the material is infringing, and we are therefore not liable for contributory infringement if we link to the material. Argyriou (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: removed the spaces which made that ugly block-o-text--Hu12 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: You're welcome--hopefully those who are interested in reasonable discussion about licensing and copyright verification will continue the ongoing discussion--rather than edit war to put unspecified licensing demands in the guideline, faslesly accuse everyone else of being in favor of copvios, etc.-Cindery 18:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Abandoned discussion

message: My understanding is that non-free video formats should not be linked to as, deep down, Wikipedia supports only free formats. This was a reason given for deleting all links (including those on my user page) to videos I had linked to there. As YouTube uses Flash, which is not free, there should be no links to YouTube. Stephen B Streater 18:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a link at the top of this Talk page that goes to the current YouTube discussion - the idea was to keep that separate from the other discussions on this page by giving it a page of its own.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 18:31, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  This discussion is about a separate track, which is why I included it here. If it gets more than a few comments, feel free to add it to the rest on the other page. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That has absolutely nothing to do with linking to YouTube, or we'd need to start purging all PDF and DOC links post-haste. The argument isn't whether YouTube uses a free format or not, it's whether we can rely on the assurances of YouTube uploaders that they have properly licensed the content they have uploaded. Since any brief perusal of YouTube makes it obvious that the answer is we can't always rely on the assurances of the uploaders, the question is what is the proper response. Free-software/GNU-project bigotry has no place in the discussion. Argyriou (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you perused my RfA, you would see that what you call "Free-software/GNU-project bigotry" was deemed by many as the whole point of Wikipedia. I thought this was worth mentioning here. Stephen B Streater 18:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't make a habit of perusing RfAs, and I thought the whole point of Wikipedia was to build a freely available encyclopedia, not to push the GDFL virus into every corner of the internet. Argyriou (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yup.  And linking to copyvios impinges on that.  Well done for spotting it. 02:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Ummm wikipedia has no policy or guideline that prohibits linking to non-free websites or formats. There is a "Free-content" bias, and I support it, but it should only be a bias and not a mandate. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 19:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That was not the predominant view at my RfA. You might also consider edits like this from Danny. Stephen B Streater 20:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YouTube - contravenes free formats policy 

message: Due to a user blindly removing blog.myspace.com links using WP:AWB, I've been engaging in a discussion regarding Myspace blogs as reliable sources.  The discussion has been presented at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources#Myspace.  The discussion also relates to external links.  At first glance, the idea of a Myspace blog as an external link seems ridiculous.  However, point #11 at WP:EL states the stance of "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority".  An external link to the Myspace blog of Darren Hayes was removed on the basis that such a link did not qualify.  His blog, and a blog by director Jon Favreau about his film Iron Man, seem acceptable to make available in the respective articles.  Blogs and Myspace have been criticized due to amateur authorship and false information, but if the people delivering the information are credible, then shouldn't Myspace blogs be acceptable? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think a link to a blog home page is relevant and notable for an EL, but for reasons that may differ from yours. For one, I would want to see that the author is reputable write/authority/commentator in the related field. I also don't like ELs that go to a home page or something other than directly related to the article. E.g., article on Jar-jar Binks, a blog link to David Brin's site is no-go, but a link to an article that Brin wrote on SW EP I would be good. As with most additions, judgement is required to evaluate the integrity of the link. Policies don't think, WP editors think. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 07:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Understandable.  I suppose I would add celebrities' blogs for the same reason that official sites are added to film articles.  The link, Myspace blog or not, should definitely suit the article's content. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "Blindly removing" is a rather judgemental phrase.  People who use AWB to remove links en masse generally do so in response to an identified problem - in this case, the mass linking of blogs from articles (which undoubtedly is a problem).  They are usually long-standing editors of great experience (User:Dmcdevit, or example).  In general, as you know, blogs are not good sources.  Very often, they are exceptionally bad sources, and the vast majority of blog links in articles are not good sources in my experience.  A few are, of course, but many of these are in any case linked from the subject's own website; Wikipedia is not a link farm and a link to the official site is generally sufficient in the "external links" section, we don't generally need links to pages within the site unless we are citing them explicitly as sources for a given fact.  Once good faith has been assumed on all sides, rational debate can commence.  This is not the first purge of links and it won't be the last, I'm, sure.  We've purged YTMND, Encyclopaedia Dramatica and many other sites, some of which had thousands of links.  Some of these have been blacklisted, others not.  In the end what matters is the quality of the encyclopaedia, and in general that is not improved by hundreds of links boosting the pagerank of blogs.  At the present rate every single article will have a link to the official site, the official myspace, the official fan club, the official blog, the official merchandise store, the profile at imdb, the profile at AMG, the profile at... well, you get the picture.  Go to the official site of most individuals and there you will see links to their MySpace and their blog.  Trivially easy to find.  Focus on the value that can be added, and take each case on its individual merits when it comes to reviewing which ones can go back.  Guy (Help!) 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, scratch that.  Note that Myspace blogs are now blacklisted, so removing them is simply ensuring that the pages remain editable, and is a public service. Guy (Help!) 23:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note, when using it as a source you should take some care to make sure it would be considered verifiable. --Barberio 14:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Could you provide a link to that request?  --Milo H Minderbinder 19:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The actual edit is here, with the comment "requested by Jimbo": .  Any link to Jimbo's actual request, or did he make the request privately?  I'd like to know what his reason was.  --Milo H Minderbinder 13:48, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Meta-blacklist?  That's hilarious. Wjhonson 20:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I'd love to see a link for this, too.  That's patently absurd if it happened. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *The addition was made by Raul, who generally knows what he's talking about and who speaks to Jimbo more often than the lot of us combined. I see no reason to doubt Jimbo actually said that, and more importantly myspace blogs are hardly appropriate links anyway. >Radiant< 14:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I'd still like to see the conversation regarding it, and the second part is completely absurd, in any case. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that the conversation is private, if no one can find it themselves. But more importantly, why does it matter? Jimbo doesn't just go up to random Meta admins and ask them to blacklist part of one of the most popular sites on the Internet without a reason. If I had to guess, I would say that he's trying to improve the reliability of our sources by forcing editors to find better ones. Shadow1 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, if the convo was private, that's problem nmber one.  Why does it matter?  Because there's no real good reason to blacklist an entire set of URLs for no apparent benefit.  This doesn't improve our sources at all, and likely makes it worse - that's a massive set of primary source material taken away for no discernable reason. --badlydrawnjeff talk 20:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Note that were more than 52 links in Article pages, but they were removed in this cleansing. There shouldn't be a blanket ban on blog.myspace.com, it should be up to the editors of an article to decide whether it is appropriate or not. - kollision 02:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myspace 

message: Frankly, I'm tired of this. Certain editors have acted like petulant teenagers who want to get their way, prove how smart and clever they are, and believe that such things as 'argue the points not the people' don't apply to them. Clearly they are in the right, and it's all the other people who are acting wrongly. It's their version of the page which is the good one, and only morons see otherwise. Anyone making opposition wants to fill the wiki with stolen episodes of 'Ugly Betty', and are evil nasty people.
It's taking up time from real editing, it's going nowhere, and it's just annoying people. I've been vilified and threatened with blocks. It's not going to stop, so I am. JzG, Radiant, you win, you've proved you can threaten and belittle an editor enough so he gives up. Do what ever you want.
I'm going back to making content edits and working on disambiguation link repair, and won't touch this page any more. --Barberio 15:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I give up 

message: I would like to modify the guideline to specifically exclude attack sites (generally, FooSUCKS.NET, FuckFOO.com, etc.)  There is a relevant discussion with input from the arbitrators here (persistent link since the discussion was removed).  I can think of three types of broad content on attack sites; 1) compilations or archives of negative press reports, 2) forums or BBS's for bitching, 3) unverifiable original research.  Info of types 2 and 3 are generally prohibited anyway; info of type 1, when found on an attack site, likely falls under misleads the reader because such archives are going to be highly selective cherry picking (or bottom picking) of possible sources.  My view is that such attack sites should not be linked, even for reasons of "balance", and that such reliable negative information as may be found can be incorporated into the article body (subject to usual concerns of NPOV, editorial discretion, consensus, and so on).  However, with recent edit wars and reports at WP:RFAR and WP:ANI, I'd like this actually written into policy. Thatcher131 17:27, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If we redline attack sites, should we redline corporate astroturfing sites too? Propaganda, either positive or negative, shouldn't normally be cited as a source. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 20:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say... in general, yes. However when you start looking at specific instances exceptions keep popping up.  Just like the occasional "hate" site would be relivent to the article, the occasional "astroturf" site would likewise be ok. ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 23:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We are under the heading normally to be avoided here of course.   I would like to see attack sites out as a matter of policy and included as the exception, rather than the reverse. I know what you mean by corporate astroturfing but I'm not familiar with any examples.  I would want to tend to avoid corporate sites other than the "official" site in most cases anyway. Thatcher131 05:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm I can't think of an astroturf off the top of my head. They tend to pop up as part of major political advertising campaigns. I've seen more then one innocent personal homepage looking "criticism" website funded by a political party.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:43, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:   Here's one of each:  Astroturfing - http://www.walmartfacts.com/ and Attack - http://walmartwatch.com/ Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attack sites 

message: Lsmsuresh 07:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to fail the guidelines. Sorry. Take a look at Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Number 1 and 3.  ---J.S  (T/C/WRE) 08:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coimbatore 

message: We have a... "situation" at Cumberland, Maryland. When I found the article, it was like this, with almost 200 external links through the article. I trimmed everything down, and some contributors continue adding. Right now there are around 70, with few (if any) being used as references. I need a second opinion about this matter. -- ReyBrujo 22:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have shortened the radio links so they appear as a small link (with no wording) just the link icon.  All radio links are referenced.
I have made a seperate section for "Area State Parks" (only three links there) that have a state DNR website, if this is not allowed, please let me know and I will be glad to take that down.  The government links have been trimmed to just city and county sites.  The "heritage/recreation" links have been cut down to three...and the header just to "Area Heritage", again please let me know if this is a problem and it will also be taken care of.  By count, we are down to 48 links, the majority in articles (that the links are related to) and radio.
Please let me know if the radio links can be taken down more so they are not as noticeable as they currently are, but as still accessable.
Thanks....SVRTVDude 12:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Don't know if this will help, but here is an approach I have seen used to good effect in these sorts of situations:  If the EL is directly about the subject of the article, then ask whether the link's presence truly enhances information that is not already in the article - if the link was used as a reference, use the <ref> tags to place in the article where that reference was used, and create a References Section in the article.  For ELs where it is not directly about the subject of the page (for instance, parks, cultural resources, etc,) if it could be considered notable, consider creating a WP page for that entity, do an internal Wikipedia link to THAT page.  Obviously, now the original EL can be a candidate for inclusion on the new page.  If the entity is not notable enough for its own WP article, then I believe you really need to think twice about whether that EL on the page is even needed.  -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 13:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ya know, that is a really good idea and a good point.  Rey, is this do-able? - SVRTVDude 14:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. However, note that if any of those pages are deleted because of lack of notability, it is likely the link in the Cumberland page is not needed. In example, if you have a link to a pub, create an article about the pub, move the external link there, and the article about the pub is deleted, then the external link should not brought back to the Cumberland article, otherwise we would just be throwing pebbles to the water to see if one floats. -- ReyBrujo 14:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback about [[Cumberland, Maryland]] 

message: I was adding - Driving Theory Test to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DSA_Driving_Theory_Test or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving because this site tells about driving theory test and serving its visitors before the sites which are listed on this page (talking about driving page). Please tell me how I am wrong here.
Zzuuzz removed my link several times, can I start new page for it. Looking at you guys.
Thanks--Searcharge 05:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSA Driving test Or Driving External links 

message: I'm having some serious doubts of the WP:RS kind (authoritative?) with tinymixtapes.com - . Is this a good or a bad link? JoeSmack Talk 03:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the context. The few articles I looked at the links to that site are referenced as reviews of the subject, in a template. That's not claiming to be anything that needs to be verified. It's a link to an opinion. I don;t know if it's necessary, but it doesn't seem to be misrepresenting anything. There's even an article on them Tiny Mix Tapes not that that means anything. --Monotonehell 04:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why are their review authoritative? Can I make a review site, make a 1-5 scale and start adding them to wikipedia articles? JoeSmack Talk 21:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  tinymixtapes.com 

message: See . Maybe this could be added to the project page as a note or something. (See also nofollow#rel="nofollow") --Ligulem 16:36, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could someone please estimate how long the "wikiasite" types of templates shall remain exempt from this "nofollow" campaign?  Or, has the God-King privately ruled that Wikipedia shall remain a highly-optimized Google linkfarm for his Wikia project?  I'm sure Jimbo's venture capital investor/partners would put on their little frownie-faces if an official Wikipedia policy actually policed this gross conflict of interest.  The clock is ticking, as of January 20th.  How long before Wikia wikis are also subject to the general "nofollow" policy? --JossBuckle Swami 04:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nofollow back on URL links on en.wikipedia.org articles for now 

message: I wanted to get clear about how to footnote an article correctly, however my choice of search path (from ) was perhaps unwise and I ended up at Wikipedia:External_links instead, as I think at least some others will.
No doubt, for experienced users, that links and footnotes are utterly different will be a given.
But not for such as myself, I'm afraid that this page as it stands might cause confusion for new users about footnotes or fail to encourage them to use ref tags.
At least some naive users as foolish as myself will come here to learn how to footnote, I'm sorry to say. It might be an idea to immediately and firmly redirect them to the footnote page, and perhaps ref should be mentioned here as another reminder, since, logically (especially for the naive), footnotes are links, or often confused with them. 
As a naive user I don't feel comfortable making changes in a help page, so I leave the actual changes to others, with apologies.
Ndaniels 19:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote difficulties, no mention of ref 

message: According to the policy, we should "avoid" any page that only works in one browser. IMHO, this language is too strong - it should say that we "prefer" pages that work in most browsers. Imagine a Wikipedia article about a very rare animal. There's only webpage about it, a brilliant, hugely informative page full of great photos - but it only works in IE7, and it needs Flash at that. Surely we would still link to it, since we don't have any other better sites. So we shouldn't "avoid" that link, we should just be on the lookout for a better one if it ever turns up. N'est-ce pas? Stevage 00:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Avoid" language is too strong 

message: New York Bus Service links to the MTA Bus Company website; MTA Bus took over operations of NYBS in 2005. There is a prominent link in the introduction to the MTA Bus Company article, which links to their site. I don't feel that this external link is useful, but if I remove it there will be an edit war (judging from past interactions with BWCNY). What do others think? --NE2 01:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Use the link in a citation somewhere in the article. That would probably be best. If the link can't be used as a citation... then removing it would probably be best. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 01:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you please remove it? I don't want to get into another edit war with BWCNY. --NE2 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can it be used as a citation? —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 02:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that I can see - in any case it would be to a subpage of the site, not the main page. --NE2 02:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Well see if there is anything that will be helpful in the article proper. After all we are here to improve the encyclopedia :D. If you need help using the <ref> tags, then let me know. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 02:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know how to use the tags and cite sources:  --NE2 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Why?  Looks fine.  If you want it removed, you should make your case at the talk page and get consensus for it.  --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained why it's not a useful link. The article is about the former company, not the current one. We shouldn't link to NJ Transit's official site on Erie Railroad or the United Kingdom's official site(s) on Wales. --NE2 04:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this a useful link?

message: Hi everyone I am doing this following a suggestion by Heligoland. 
I have added some links to a video podcast that I own. I did not they will be a problem. But they got deleted I think they are a nice addition to wikipedia please look at them by going to http://www.isallaboutmath.com and express you oppinion here ,judge if the links are really useful or not to wikipedia.
If any of you think they are valuable to wikipedia then feel free to add them back in the external links.
Regards
SilentVoice 04:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: have you made this point on the Talk pages of the articles where you would like to see the links?  there you will find more editors who are familiar with the subject.  This page is more for general policy decisions than discussing specific cases.  Hope this helps. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the article talk page you wish to include the link is probably the most appropriate place for a question like this. However you have done the right thing by asking. You may ask us over at WP:WPSPAM, I'm sure you'll recieve plenty of response and advice. --Hu12 16:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Are this links useful?

message: I have compiled a list of the articles with over 100 external links according to the latest database dump (November 30, 2006). There are currently 905 articles listed there (a few have been deleted). Note that templates generating external links like  are considered external links in the database dump. The list is found here. The full list is over 40mb, so I am uploading the ones with over 100 (which account for 258,885 out of 10,333,272, or 2.5% of the total external links I harvested). -- ReyBrujo 22:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of articles with over 100 external links

message: This line has been added to the article while protected: "Note that since Wikipedia uses Nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings."  Unless User:JoshuaZ wants to pass around his crystal ball or post the comuumication from every single search engine on Earth, the nonsensical sentence should be removed immediately. We certainly do not know this is true, and it makes us look like dopes to say we do. 2005 00:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest rewording it to "Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings." This is a noteworthy addition which may help reduce the spam around, but contemplating that some obsolete and/or barely used engines do not use it at all. -- ReyBrujo 00:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine.  The greater reality though is regardless of nofollow tags search engines may in fact value wikipedia links, and even more than that, it is clear a lot of people think that the engines will still value the links.  Nofollow helps in combatting spam somewhere between 1% and not at all.  It's fine mentioning it in the guideline (more sensibly like ReyBrujo wrote), but that won't make the slightest difference to any spammer. 2005 00:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Yes, it is not likely to stop spam, but now that there is even a campaign to convert every link that goes to Wikipedia in nofollow as long as Wikipedia uses it, we can as well clarify that in our guideline. -- ReyBrujo 00:39, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Er, sorry about that. I should have thought about that more and discussed the wording here before I added that. Thanks for the much better phrasing. JoshuaZ 14:49, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre edit of protected page

message: http://www.romanian-monasteries.go.ro/neamt/agapia.htm
Category:Monasteries in Romania,on the page of Agapia Monastery ?
stefan 11:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks more like a useful reference for extending the article, but since it does not cite sources it is difficult to be sure of the quality of the information. It also has a pop-up advert which would make me very reluctant to link to it. Notinasnaid 11:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this a useful link?