Jump to content

Talk:Beech Fork

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Colloquial, subjective language

[edit]

This article needs a minor rewrite to clean up the colloquial, subjective language in use. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising accusations

[edit]

Apathy78: Dude what am I advertising? This is news. As cited, it was in the Bardstown local paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true, a citation from the Bardstown paper would there instead of links to your business. Please don't add it back unless you place a proper reference there. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, you have no right to remove this talk. Further, I decided to compromise and keep the content, assuming good faith about the claim, but without the advertising links. If they are restored, I'm calling in admins to deal with it that way. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy78: I have every right to remove it. I am an editor like you. (Though, I am a newbie.) I got rid of this section because I thought we were done with this topic. And we should have been before this section came to be. The links are not advertising, they are a sources of info. I did not read all of Wikipedia:Citing sources but I did read that a person needs to site the source he or she uses.>> Say Where You Got It. I do remember reading the original articles in the KY Slandered, however when I went to the net to find a copy so every one else can read the same the Boats club site was all I could find(Mabey you should help with finding better references.) I am in no way related to the boaters club and I have no personal gain from using them as a source. I don't see what makes this an advertisement. I sense your claims may be such due to the fact that this section of the river has nothing to with Louisville but yet the river section discussed has ever thing to do with the river its self.(Btw, your slant does not have any thing to do with your editing ability, I just wanted to say that you could be biased about the nature of the "Bardstown" Boaters Club and this section of the river.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you cannot remove a talk entry except under exceptional circumstances. It's here to stay, permanently. Further, a reference doesn't require a link to the source, although that would be beneficial to those checking up on the reference. The Bardstown Boaters have been linked to before from this article in a promotional manner, and that is why the links won't be allowed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apathy78: But the context and content witch they are link to now is very different from the first time(I don't think you looked at the new material at all.). If this thing ever gets built(Which is questionable.) the btown boaters club will be the authority governing it. If it falls through, the Bardstown boaters will likely be the a source for finding why it failed.(Of course we can do an edit when things change.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prediscussion by apathy78: Stevietheman Deleted content that had been sourced as coming from the Bardstown boaters club. He claimed it was advertising for them. Apathy78 re wrote the same information in a much better light using the KY Standard as a source.(So that it could not be claimed as advertising) The Bardstown boaters club has a copy of the article used.Stevietheman Deleted the content again with out even looking at what it said or seeing if it was still advertising. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising the Bardstown Boaters by linking to content that belongs to The Kentucky Standard, a copyright violation, is simply not going to be allowed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its still not advertising however I will agree it could be copy write infringement. You should have stated that to begin with buddy. I am not an advertiser/spammer and never will be. I did not enjoy being claimed as such. Now a copyright infringer I tend to be, and I don't mind being called out on that one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is indeed advertising if a site is trying to grab views for itself using the original content of another source. It's a combo advert/copyvio. No question. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apathy78: Its no question because its not Advertising. The Btown Boaters club is trying to help people who come to their site by providing information about the river and the current stat about the project. They are not a company or business. I don't know what they as an organization(nonprofit or what ever.). I find other parts of their site informative to knowing more about how rapids and water parks are built. I do admit that the btown boaters will always have a slant to information because the are advocates of the project to put a water park their. But at the same time, I would like to point out that it I can not find any people or groups who oppose the project in its current state(an idea). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apathy78 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalising accusations

[edit]

explain plz Apathy78 17:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By all Wikipedia standards, early archiving is akin to removing talk, which is vandalism. I'm sorry you have said things in public you don't want others to see, but that's the breaks. Should I do a Request for Comment on your behavior, or will you stop it? This talk will not be archived until it is proper to do so. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And it is proper to do so. So lets move on. Im reverting it back, before this was here.Apathy78 18:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beech Fork. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Beech Fork. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beech_Fork&oldid=1199752047"