Talk:Contesting

message: * I'm pondering removing the MD4K photo, as I'm not sure that it contributes much - it's just a bunch of hard-to-see antennas.  We need other, more relevant photos to replace it first, though.  I would especially love to see photos of JA or South American stations as well, to give a better impression of the worldwide scope of the sport. --Kharker 15:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

message: The article states that first VHF contest was the ARRL VHF Sweepstakes held in 1948.  I'm almost certain that the RSGB sponsored contests on the 5 metre/56 MHz band in the UK before the Second World War.  Will check.  Gerry Lynch 16:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First VHF contest 

message: I have added a note about its amateur radio use on the Cabrillo disambiguation page with a redirect to this page. Is it worth adding a description of this and related contest logging formats on here?Dsergeant 07:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cabrillo

message: I am not sure why we have a separate page for VHF contesting. If we do, why do we not have one for HF contesting? This page covers both quite well as it is and VHF radio contest has little new. Its example is very specific to USA contests, European contests follow a different format. Rather than a merger I propose that VHF radio contest is simply deleted.Dsergeant 06:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with VHF radio contest

message: Can anyone stop the anti-contest lobby from adding this non-neutral text repeatedly? Time to get productive... JurgenG (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is indeed the text I was referring to, I do agree there are some frictions in contesting but Wikipedia is not the place to fight this battle. Noone will change contest rules because of this text on Wikipedia... If you have references about this, please write an NPOV text about it and it will be accepted. I can cite numerous references of contest rules where compliance with the band plans is required. JurgenG (talk) 09:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The edits seem to be coming from one individual in the United Kingdom whose IP address (in a British Telecom block) keeps changing.  It's clear from past edit attempts that the anonymous user is attempting to introduce biased anti-contesting content to the introductory section of this article, which is unacceptable in Wikipedia.  Having said that, conflicts between contesters and non-contesters are already covered in the Contesting controversies article, which is linked to from this article in the last paragraph of Contesting#Types of contests.  Perhaps the connection between the two articles could be made clearer either there or in the Contesting#Contesting activity section.  In either event, it doesn't seem (to me) to rise to level of importance that would place it in the introductory section of this article even if it could be done in an NPOV way.--Kharker (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The callsign of at least one of the 'offenders' is known to me... guess that's one callsign I'll never find in any of my contest logs :-) JurgenG (talk) 15:21, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war caused by the anti-contest lobby 

message: Is this  revision NPOV or not? Proponents and opponents of contesting don't seem to agree.
:That edit does not conform with a neutral point of view.  It argues a position of opinion.  Point by point:
:* "...that although contesters claim worldwide participation..."  This aims to refute a claim is well documented and supported by accurate citation in the article.  Contests like CQWW do have worldwide participation, and stating so in this article is a relevant and acceptable point of fact.
:* "This SMALL number of people cause complete disruption of the most popular and most usable amateur frequencies for long periods."  This is inaccurate, but more importantly cannot be proved one way or another.  What does "complete disruption" mean?  what are the "most popular and most usable" amateur frequencies?  What does a "long period" mean?  The aim of this sentence is to persuade the reader to accept a particular point of view.  It is by nature a POV statement.
:* "This makes them very unpopular and attracts the label of bullying, selfish behavior."  This is patently indefensible in an encyclopedic article.  It would difficult enough to support a claim that events which attract up to 65,000 participants are unpopular, but to stereotype an entire group in a derogatory manner is basically juvenile, bigoted name-calling.
:* "This could easily be avoided if all contesters stuck to internationally agreed band plans and accepted that others have the right to operate during contests."  This is clearly an argument aiming to persuade the reader that some hypothetical change could result in some hypothetical benefit, and is by definition POV.  While that might be acceptable in a discussion forum, it is completely innapropriate in an encyclopedia.  This is like writing in an encyclopedia article about a sports team that "sports team A could win a championship in the future if only the coach would cut player B from the team." 
:In short, there's really nothing in that edit that meets the standards of NPOV.--Kharker (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The preceding comments clearly indicate that you are pursuing an agenda (to make adherence to band plans a condition of entry for all contests) and are willing to resort to ad hominem arguments (stereotyping contesters as selfish and bullying) to do so.  Wikipedia is not an appropriate venue for waging your personal crusade.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a discussion forum.  Write letters to the editor of RadCom, make posts to eHam.net or Contesting.com, discuss it at a local radio meeting, or whatever.  There are countless forums that invite that kind of debate and discussion.  In the meanwhile, please stop vandalizing this encyclopedia article.--Kharker (talk) 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just re-read through the article, and I have to say that I don't see anything in the article text that is promotional or expository. It is a description of contesting aimed at informing a general audience about what contesting is - not persuading a general audience about how great it is or how terrible it is.  There are perhaps too many External links, and I'm going to trim them.  Adding ad hominem attacks against contesters is clearly unacceptable just as adding racial insults to an article about an ethnic group would be clearly unacceptable, even if the author is claiming to do so in the name of democracy.  Is there a place in this article to mention that contesters do not always follow voluntary band plans?  Perhaps.  Is there a place to mention that there can be friction between contesters and non-contesters?  There is a duaghter article, Contesting controversies, where those issues are mentioned.  But the contributions of that sort in the main Contesting article have so far have been problematic.  They either make an unsubstatianted claim that a single governance body would require band plan compliance (which is completely speculative and likely false, given that the current IARU-sponsored contests presently do not have such a requirement) or that band plan compliance would eliminate any friction that does exist (which is also speculative).  If the friction between contesters and non-contesters can be included in a dispassionate, descriptive, and accurate manner in a way that doesn't take over the article, I don't think you'd have people opposed to it.  But prejorative, insulting, and speculative contributions are out of line for an encyclopedia.--Kharker (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Kharker makes some good points, you should read them... Please understand I am not really a contester myself but I do enjoy entering the occasional one with my very modest station (just like some of your friends who post here used to do before they went QRT..). I also enjoy the odd ragchew. I personally see very few of the problems you so passionately complain about, contests do not prevent me persuing my other amateur persuits in any way. The article is balanced in that it accurately describes the sport of contesting in the way an encyclopedia should and like many WP articles does refer to criticisms of it, both in the main article and in the controversies article. Remember also that personal criticisms and abuse aimed directly at particular editors are against the rules of WP, please don't do it. 73 G3YMC Dsergeant (talk) 07:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request comment 

message: REMINDER: This talk page is NOT for discussion of amateur radio contesting. This talk page is for the discussion of the article in Wikipedia. Please keep discussions here pertinent to the article ONLY. Not bandplans, rules, contesters vs. emcomm, or anything else. The discussions here MUST relate to the article. Mdechris (talk) 23:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Except that all the comments above date from over four years ago. They seem to have got the message.... Dsergeant (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is NOT a chat room 

message: This article opens "Contesting (also known as radiosport)..." - does that mean the two articles should be merged? If not, what's the difference between them? --McGeddon (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiosport 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Contesting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719125707/http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/wazmap.jpg to http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/wazmap.jpg
*Added  tag to http://jzap.com/k7rat/stew.rules.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060107213535/http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cqwwhome.html to http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/cqwwhome.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117043940/http://home.woh.rr.com/wpx/ to http://home.woh.rr.com/wpx/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060117062635/http://www.ncjweb.com/naqprules.php to http://www.ncjweb.com/naqprules.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060506062938/http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/contesthof.html to http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/contesthof.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060225191411/http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/1CQWWDXSSB%20August%202001ALL-ap.pdf to http://www.cq-amateur-radio.com/1CQWWDXSSB%20August%202001ALL-ap.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060209210422/http://www.cqww.com/cqwwubn.htm to http://www.cqww.com/cqwwubn.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these links are not dead, just that websites get changed and updated and the identical page is still live but just in a different place. When I have time I will try and sort these out but the current practice of the bots to automatically replace them with links to the web archive rather than spending a few minutes finding the current address just causes a lot of work for all of us. Dsergeant (talk) 17:01, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Contesting. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090430062416/http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art01.htm to http://life.itu.int/radioclub/rr/art01.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:59, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified