Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 14

Murray fan site

I removed the following section because of its only tangetial relationship to Andy Murray, as it's primarily about his lawyers and some fans:

Onside Law, the legal firm representing Andy Murray's official website, made an official legal request to fan site murraysworld.com to cease and desist all use of photographs and images of Andy Murray unless given explicit permission from the copyright holders in April 2008. The lawyers claimed the use of such material constituted copyright infringement; the fan site claimed the legal request was an attempt to "suppress a website that is often critical, and in some cases damaging to Murray's image due to its journalistic principles". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alonsornunez (talk • contribs) 06:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

IP editor re-added it with claim that no explanation was given. I've removed it again. I am in agreement with the above. Not only is it tangential, it is trivial. It did not involve Murray, and is not a controversy of any notability at all. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

World ranking

Murray is World Number 4, and will be until the 11th of May. The infobox is for current information, and Murray is currently World Number 4. Alan16 ^talk 00:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Scoring notation

In the runner up sections, like the US Open final against Federer, the score is written as: 6-2, 7-5, 6-2. However, when he beat Hewitt at San Jose he lost the first set, and it is written: 2–6, 6–1, 7–6(3). So is his result against Federer not written: 2-6, 5-7, 2-6. It is the result from Murray's perspective so the score should not be written as if he won. Alan16 ^talk 21:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Results in general are written from winner's perspective. This is the convention followed in all the players articles. ^LeaveSleaves 22:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Should they be written from the winner's perspective when it is not the winner's article? I just think it looks very odd. Alan16 ^talk 09:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair question, I'd take it to the project to get a wider view... The Rambling Man (talk) 09:17, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

A convention, in this case winner's perspective for scores, avoids possible confusion of the reader. Thus for the reader, the scoreline at either player's article or tournament article maintains the consistency of depiction. ^LeaveSleaves 11:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Alan, out of curiousity, why are you so keen to keep Andy Murrays page up to date when you clearly know nothing about Tennis?

I'll take that as the compliment you obviously intended it to be. Alan16 (talk) 20:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the changing of information before a tournament is over

There seems to be a bit of an editing war going on between those who wish to update Murray's infobox information - on having reached the Quarter final in 2009 - and those who do not. Personally I do not see a problem with updating this form of information as it happens. The data is nominal; Murray can only reach the Quarter final of the 2009 French Open ONCE. IE it isn't some form of statistical measurement which is likely to be added to incorrectly (e.g. 'tally of season goals scored by a footballer'). The information is already going to be entered into the career biography as it is, so there's little reason why one should wait till the end of a season to place it in the info box. The beauty of wikipedia is that if Murray reaches the semi-final that information may again be changed within seconds - it's the world wide web, not a season journal waiting to be published. If there is actually a set regulation, of course, or some justifiable reason other than pedantry, obviously that's fair enough. One might note in that case that the pages of numerous other less popular tennis players are going against this rule. --Tomsega (talk) 20:19, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is standard practice on Tennis articles. If you wish to discuss it, try the Tennis Project. The point of the summary box is to summarise in the past tense the player's achievement at that tournament. Adding it while he is still progressing could be misunderstood as an indication that he has been knocked out of the tournament and this is as far as he got. Waiting until his tournament is over also ensures that the information in the summary is sync with the statistical tables further down the article, which does contain statistical measurements that are likely to be added to incorrectly. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Right you are. At least now it has been discussed there will be fewer fights between edits. Cool beans. --Tomsega (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Jamie Murray

Regarding the sentence "His elder brother Jamie is Great Britain's highest-ranked doubles player." in the second paragraph. This is currently untrue and has been for a while as Ross Hutchins is ranked higher. 62.189.20.125 (talk) 10:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Ed

Be bold and change it yourself, but make sure you provide a reliable source to back up you claim.--AodhanTheCelticJew (talk) 19:26, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Made the changes. As Aodhan says, be bold and all that. Alan16 ^talk 22:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Somebody upload a better picture of Andy Murray, at least a picture of him either looking at the camera, or during a rally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.182.22 (talk) 14:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Highest ranked

The lead says that Murray is the highest ranked British player, but doesn't specify whether this is of all time, or just currently. The main article just says that he is the only British player of "recent times" to achieve a ranking as high as 3, but doesn't say what this means. Can someone more knowledgeable than me clarify this? I would guess that he's the highest ranked player in the modern era (does this have a clear definition?), but I'm not sure. Thanks. 4u1e (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It should really say currently in the opening sentence. I'll change that. I don't see the "recent times" bit, but it would mean that Murray is the highest ranked Brit in the open era. Alan16 ^talk_count 12:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Upset

Could we have clear terms (such as beat or won or lost) rather than 'upset' which suggests emotional disappointment rather than being a clear description of the result? 92.9.158.25 (talk) 06:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone through the article replacing this emotional language with more exact and neutral terms. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

{{editsemiprotected}}he's reached the semi final at Wimbledon, sort it out =/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by CuriousLemur (talk • contribs) 13:19, July 1, 2009

I'm not sure what you're talking about, but if it is the infobox saying QF 2008, then that is because it is convention to not update until the tournament - or his participation in it - is over. Please be more specific in the future. Alan16 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Not done for now: As noted above, we generally wait to post items until tournaments are over. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Flag

Great Britain needs British flag next to it.

Top right, you enter 'United Kingdom but the uk comes up. This needs changing so that the flag of the country he plays for is shown.

Done, you need to put {flagicon|GBR} rather than {GBR} so the UK doesnt pop up. Although i dont know if everyones going to accept that, certain people dont like the fact he plays for Great Britain and a flag might make them angry. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Is a flag really necessary?MITH 22:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Its in line with other tennis players, so i dont see why Andy should be any different. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fan site link

Regarding the inclusion of the external link to http://www.murraysworld.com/.

Consensus was in 2006 that this should be kept. However, consensus can change (as indeed can policy). External link policy suggests that the criteria for inclusion of external links should be only for if the site linked contains information that cannot be added to the article and Fan sites links are generally discouraged. What particularly makes this link a special case? The fan site may have been a good source of information three years ago, but Murray is no longer a minor player, other authoritative sources are available, and the article itself is far more complete and well cited.

I'm also concerned that the editor most keen to retain this link may have a conflict of interest. Mark7144 appears to be associated with the fan site and in three years of Wikipedia membership his chief concern has been maintenance of the external link to Murraysworld.

What is the opinion of everyone? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this. I'm somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand I think that Murraysworld is a surprisingly good, substantial site - so much so that anyone interested in Andy Murray may well consider it the kind of site they would return to. I can't believe that anyone being led there by clicking on the link in Wiki would have any cause for regret. On the other hand I am concerned that there may well be an undisclosed conflict of interest here. I've read through some (not all) of the previous posts and it appears that the user Mark7144 has been instrumental in this link being maintained. An obvious question is whether this user is the same Mark who founded Murraysworld. If so, the following para from Wikipedia: Conflict of Interest is pertinent.

Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested. Most Wikipedians will appreciate your honesty. Editors who disguise their COIs are often exposed, creating a perception that they, and perhaps their employer, are trying to distort Wikipedia..

Bottom line: I don't mind the link staying but I would like the COI cleared up. David T Tokyo (talk) 16:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware that I should make a point of revealing my identity. I am indeed the founder and therefore I do have a conflict of interest so I appreciate you may want to be sceptical of everything I say. However, I do hope you can still appreciate that my arguments for inclusion have not been about opinion but instead just the facts. Please consider the conclusions of our discussions years ago where other people without COI argued on the side of keeping it which later lead to an agreement between the editors involved.

If I were to give some new arguments for its relevance, integrity and worth to Wikipedia readers, I would point out that since we last discussed this, the website has received television coverage on BBC and Sky News in 2008 and 2009. Articles have been written about it in several newspapers, it has also been talked about on BBC radio. Only last week it was mentioned and linked to from a BBC article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8132893.stm). The website content is written by a team of writers, not just one person and because of this the website is an official Google News publisher. It's also worth mentioning it remains strictly a non-profit website. Mark7144 (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, the fan site link must be deleted. Chidel (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Chidel, please state why you disagree with the consensus reached a few years back otherwise your comment is meaningless. Mark7144 (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether you believe my opinion is meaningless is irrelevant. In any event, refer to Wikipedia policy #11 at WP:ELNO. Chidel (talk) 21:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that policy and it uses the word "normally" in the policy title for a reason - there are exceptions. The editors a few years ago came to agreement to include the link because they considered this particular case an exception, I don't think that has changed. Mark7144 (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally think there is particular benefit in its inclusion. I've had a brief browse and the site seems to be a particularly good source of information regarding Andy Murray and anyone on the search for extra having read the article may find this site really useful. Furthermore, if the news is included by Google news as Mark7144 suggests and I believe they have had recent exposure through the BBC, then the site could be looked on as slightly more than a fansite. It looks a lot more media based than the average fansite which merits its inclusion. Scls1984 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

— Scls1984 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —Teahot (talk) 11:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Mark7144 has a point. There is no blanket ban on fansite links. However, its generally the case that the better the article, the higher the bar for a fansite link's inclusion. Minor articles with little content can benefit from a good fansite link, but articles can outgrow this. Murraysworld is a good site, but does this article still benefit from the link? Who is actually getting most from it, Wikipedia or Murraysworld? I'm leaning slightly towards leaving it in, as I don't think there's a strong case for its removal at this time. But I definitely think consensus needs re-established. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

You do get information on the website that is not found in this article and neither the official website. For example there are comprehensive match reports, schedule, wallpapers, a profile of Kim Sears and results dating back to 1999.

For the month of June 09, Wikipedia counted for 0.23% of traffic to the website. Based on that and the above mentioned, I would assume its inclusion would be more beneficial to the readers than the website. I just don't like seeing something removed after years of it being there without a convincing argument. Mark7144 (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If the site is a recognized authority it can be kept. If not, then it should not be linked. Whether it is a recognized authority may be a subject to debate, but just saying EL:NO blanket prohibits it is false. 2005 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I just read through that 2006 discussion. Maybe I'm completely confused by the unfocused back-and-forth there, but I don't see a consensus. It was open to vote, maybe only two persons did so, and then Mark7144 declared that there was consensus to keep the fan link over the objections of a few editors. Could someone explain how that represents consensus? As for revisiting the issue, I just looked at the Wikipedia articles of some top male and female tennis players and could not find any external links to fan websites. Why should this article be the exception? (Mark said that his fan site is non-commercial or non-profit or whatever. But it is sponsored by a wagering website.) Chidel (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"I don't see a consensus." I don't see how you could not consider the 2006 discussions a consensus, just because there were only a few editors there doesn't make it less of a consensus. And I was not the person who declared it a consensus, RobbieC brought the discussions together and after everyone gave their opinions, he concluded, without any disapproval from other editors, that the consensus was for the link to remain.

"Why should this article be the exception? " The reasons have already been given in this discussion. It offers valuable content that the official website and this article does not.

"sponsored by a wagering website" PaddyPowers help pay for the running of the website, absolutely no money goes towards anything else but the server costs. But even if that was not the case, it would not change anything in regards to coming to a conclusion in regards to keeping the link included.

I quote from the advertising page: "This is a non-commercial website with no interest in profit and therefore we do not accept obtrusive methods of advertising, such as animated 'skyscraper' adverts, as it would lower the quality of the website. However, we are interested in having a company act exclusively as our sponsor and therefore pay for the running costs of the website in exchange for unobtrusive exposure for the company." Mark7144 (talk) 11:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks." Chidel (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think "the gentleman" is fighting his corner pretty well. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Chidel is mistaken over the issue of how the fansite is funded. It doesn't matter if the website is commercial or not, that's only something to take into account when considering the motivation for adding the link. It could be 100% commercial (as a great many websites are), what's important is the quality of the relevant content and value to the article. If it was 50% adverts and had nothing that couldn't be added to the article or wasn't already there, then there would be a problem.

As it is, I think Mark7144's motivation is open to question, but that the website falls, by a slight margin, inside acceptable. It would be a different story if it was of poorer quality.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

In the future, Mark7144 should pay strict attention to WP:EL#ADV, which says, "It is true that a link from Wikipedia to an external site may drive Web traffic to that site. But in line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked. When in doubt, you may go to the talk page and let another editor decide. This suggestion is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines." Chidel (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there is a consensus to keep the link, and this discussion should be ended. In favor: Escape Orbit, David T Tokyo, Mark 7144 (ignoring the COI), and Scls1984. Opposed: me. Not expressing an opinion: all other regular editors of this article, but silence does, after all, equal consent. Just like 2006! Let's start adding fan website links to other tennis articles. OK? Chidel (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Other tennis article should treat a fansite link on its merits, as policy suggests. Anything else would be "pointy".--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Since you brought up policy, let's look at some of the criteria: 1) "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." What "unique resource" does the fansite provide that this article would not contain if it became featured? 10) "Links to ... chat or discussion forums/groups" should be avoided. The fansite sponsors a very active discussion forum. So, how does the fansite satisfy this criterion? 11) "Links to ... most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority (this exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies)." What makes Mark7144 a "recognized authority"? In biographies of living people "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a higher standard than for other articles. Do not link to websites that contradict the spirit of WP:BLP or that are not fully compliant with this guideline." There is derogatory material about Andy Murray on the fansite. That material is not sourced. So, how does the fansite satisfy this policy? Chidel (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I feel we're going round in circles here....however...

1) The Unique resource is that murraysworld is a comprehensive, up-to-date website that provides a wealth of information far beyond that listed on Wikipedia.

2) Come on. The link isn't to the chat / discussion group - it's to the main site. The criteria is not saying that Wiki should avoid linking to any sites that have forums etc. on them (if it were sites such as the BBC could never be referenced). It is saying that links from Wiki to those areas should be avoided.

3) It's not Mark7714 who's the recognised authority, it's the site itself. As previous mentioned, the site has been referenced by a number of other, well respected media. The fact that this is happening, and continuing to happen, makes murraysworld an authority.

4) Please provide details (non forum / discussion) of what you view to be derogatory material on murraysworld.

For the record, I have absolutely no connection with murraysworld, I would simply like to see Wiki users benefit from Wikipedia and I believe that whole process is down to correct decisions (on issues such as this) being made.

Chidel, I'm growing concerned with your contributions here - I will contact you directly on your talk page. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) That isn't the question. What information does the fansite provide that would not be provided in this article once it has reached featured status? 3) The fansite does not write the material on that site. People do. So, who is the "recognized authority" if not Mark7714? 4) Look under the news tab of the fansite for obvious examples. Look under the quotes tab for more examples. Chidel (talk) 09:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

1) Schedule of forthcoming tournaments and matches. Detailed reviews and analysis of individual matches. Both on fansite, both not appropriate for article.

4) I don't see anything of concern here. It has some analysis and opinions of his play, some of which is critical, none of which is "derogatory". That's fine, it's not an encyclopaedia article. You'll find stuff exactly like this on every factual news site on the web, including even reputable sources. It would only "contradict the spirit of WP:BLP" if it contained things like possible libel, or intrusive unsupported personal gossip. It's a fansite, are you really suggesting that it contains unfair negative stuff? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 09:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able to post on Chidel's talk page - if I do it is deleted. I'm going to duck out of this thread now - I'm happy that the original question has been answered. David T Tokyo (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not allowable on wikipedia, nor should not even be an argument because Federer does not have this and his should be an example for others' like Murray's article, which this goes against this policy rule 11 [[1]]. I will be deleting this content right away because this is an encyclopdia not an indiscriminate collection of links!TW-RF (talk) 20:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have something to add to the discussion then do so and kindly do not remove content against consensus. Rule 11 does not forbid fanlinks. What is, or isn't, on the Federer article is not relevant. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 22:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Rule 10 Expressidly forbids twitter!TW-RF (talk) 20:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Federer does not have a quality fan site, this is the same for most of the top players and therefore your comparison is irrelevant to this article. You need to remember MurraysWorld came a year before the official website, it has had plenty of time to mature into an authoritative source. Mark7144 (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Federer does have one [[2]], which it is not included, and has been in existence since 2003. This is two years longer than Murrayworld! I think authoritative can be misconstrude, which I am starting a discussing at WP:Tennis to either make this a no go for all tennis player or for none of them! That's where the discussion needs to be held, not on some random players talk page!TW-RF (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please read what I said, of course Federer has a fansite, I was talking about a quality one. The fansite you linked to could barely be considered as mediocre. This is why you need to appreciate that judgements like this need to be made on a case by case basis. One rule does not fit all hence why Wikipedia use the word "normally" in their policy title because they know there are often exceptions. Mark7144 (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

An incomplete characterization of Wikipedia policy, which says, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid...." Not "normally" avoid. Avoid. Also, I'm still waiting on an explanation of how you (or anyone else who writes for your website) is a "recognized authority". Chidel (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

That's already been explained earlier. The mainstream media coverage and the fact it's an official Google News Publisher suggests it's a recognised authority. The media would not regularly air the views of the website if they didn't consider it an authority on the subject. But whether it is an authoritative website or not is completely irrelevant, its inclusion is based on the fact it offers valuable content over that of the article and official website. Mark7144 (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop quoting partial extracts of policy and pronouncing them law. The section you have quoted is headed, as you must know, "Links normally to be avoided". If this meant "these links are forbidden" then it would say that. It doesn't. Have you any reasoning for the removal of this link that isn't wikilawyering? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry that you don't like the fact that I'm merely asking for the policy to be applied in this case. And I'm sorry that you and Mark7144 keep getting stuck on circular reasoning, i.e., "the website is valuable, so it should be linked here". That has nothing to do with Wikipeida policy, however. The bottom line is that Mark7144's website does not satisfy the external link criteria, regardless of how "good" it is. As for the "normally" term, that is merely in a section header and not actually part of the policy. No amount of bad faith accusations of "wikilawyering" is going to change these facts. Chidel (talk) 22:32, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You've already accepted that a consensus has been made in this discussion so why are you trying to continue this debate? Mark7144 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Policy is being applied in this case, and at no time has my case been "the website is valuable, so it should be linked here". My position has been reached by application of policy, in the word and spirit, as I hope a review of my arguments above would indicate. It is your continual disassembling of policy to pick over details in isolation that I mean by wikilawyering. "merely in a section header", indeed. The policy still doesn't say fansite links are forbidden. Anywhere. Please, as a new editor your time would be better spent reviewing Wikipedia's policies and reaching an understanding of what they are there to achieve, rather than arguing with others how they should be interpreted. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 23:37, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the "go away" advice that I'm not going to take. I've already studied the policy we're talking about here. I'm the only one who appears to have done so. My arguments are based on that policy. You, on the other hand, talk around it and make unfriendly suggestions. The policy specifically says to "avoid" fansite links. What does that mean to you? As for Mark7144's protestations that he doesn't really care, he cared very much in 2006 because of it's affect on his website, even going so far as to protest when his website link was placed after another one. You can read that revealing discussion for yourself whenever you get time. Chidel (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"Avoid" means that in the general course of events while editing you should usually choose not to add these links. I am quite comfortable and acquainted with this guideline, which is why I raised the matter in the first place. This is quite different from a unequivocal "these links are forbidden". It would be very easy for the WP:EL to say this, and yet it doesn't. I can only surmise it doesn't say this because the guideline specifically does not intend to ban fansite links, wishing the matter to be judged on each link's merits and agreed by the overriding policy of Consensus. Just explain for you; Consensus is policy, while External Links is, strictly speaking, a style guideline. Guidelines are, of course, important, but not as central as a policy that forms part of the five pillars.

As for Mark7144's COI, I am well aware of it. Again that is why I raised the matter.

I know these policies and guidelines can seem complicated and even conflicting to a new editor. I certainly found this the case. The lead on this page explains it best, and might help you better understand what is being argued here. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

"As for Mark7144's protestations that he doesn't really care" Please refrain from making false accusations about me. Of course I care and I have never said otherwise.

This debate finished with a consensus and yet you appear to be relentlessly wikilawyering and coming up with irrelevant arguments in an attempt to add weight to your stance against the consensus reached in this discussion. To my eyes, it appears there is a possibility you have some sort of a vendetta against the website in question, please can you let us know whether you have a COI on this matter? Mark7144 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

←Chidel (22:32): "...'the website is valuable, so it should be linked here'. That has nothing to do with [the] Wikipe[d]ida [guideline] policy, however. The bottom line is that Mark7144's website does not satisfy the external link criteria, regardless of how "good" it is. As for the "normally" term, that is merely in a section header and not actually part of the [guideline] policy. No amount of bad faith accusations of "wikilawyering" is going to change these facts."(square bracket insertions and emphasis added)
Wikilawyering is the attempt to defeat principles by the application of technical rules. The underlined phrases above appear to be wikilawyering. Also WP:EL is a guideline, not a policy. Guidelines can overridden by consensus, policy can't except by broad consensus to a WP:IAR.

Chidel appears to be new editor who in good faith misunderstands wikilawyering. Wikilawyering is difficult to understand for most new, and many experienced editors. Many new editors are high school students whose lives are rigidly controlled by the real life version of wikilawyering ('the rules are the rules'), and they are culture-shocked by the difference at Wikipedia ('the rules are not always the rules').
Since Chidel has agreed that there is a consensus to keep the link, and has refused attempts to discuss on his talk page his apparent misunderstandings of WP culture, his remaining complaints here can be reasonably ignored. Milo 22:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I beleive the link should be kept as it leads to what is a valuble resource for any fan of Murray who wants to learn more about him, and to meet fellow fans. Yes , I think the link should be kept. Tommy23 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2009 (UTC)