Talk:South Bass Island

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ohio portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ohio (assessed as Low-importance).

Islands

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of islands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslandsWikipedia:WikiProject IslandsTemplate:WikiProject IslandsIslands articles

Untitled

Norman, we have a small island that we desire to provide links to, why do you keep changing the links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.8 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

I've removed the external links you added because they don't really add anything to the article. It's also disturbing that in addition to adding your own websites, you repeatedly remove the link to the island's chamber of commerice. In short, it seems that you're not trying to improve the article and are merely looking to increase hits to your own website to make money. Spam is vandalism. This same dispute occured on the Put-in-Bay, Ohio article, ran on and off for about a year, and ended with the page being semi-protected to prevent the addition of the commercial links. I'd like to nip this in the bud to keep it from getting out of control. --NormanEinstein 04:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like some answers please??

I am not sure who keeps removing an informational link to the island but please stop. The island is tourist driven and information pertaining to tourism is NOT SPAM. In fact SPAM is Clearly defined here: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&defl=en&q=define:Spam&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

in addition, it would appear Norman is in violation of the three revert rule. Any suggestions on how this might be adressed?

In addition I would point to this as an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mackinac_Island

As you can see a NEWSPAPER which clearly generates its revenue from advertising has for quite sometime been an external link. What is the difference between a website that provides tourist information and a newspaper that does the same both which help offset expenses by accepting advertising?

Both of these communities are islands and very similar in the tourism industry. Can Norman please explain the difference? If not please stop advancing your own personal agenda when it is clear that this is no more of a spam link that the example cited.

The link being added provides information that is complimentary to the article. It does not contain advertising. Please stop removing the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.192.215 (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the article and the addition of the website http://www.ohio-put-in-bay.com please stop removing this link. This site offers a large amount of information about the subject article. If you look at Key West (the sister city and very much link South Bass Island) you will find these links there:

Official City Website Chamber of Commerce Website Monroe County School District Key West Public Schools Oldest Hotel in Key West A photographic tour of Key West Key West Art Galleries Sanborn Insurance Historical Maps of Key West Key West Citizen Radio Free Key West

There is nothing different about adding the link in question than what appears in this example. One need only research a few other like tourist oriented cities to see that this link is acceptable. For example if you look at Islamorada Florida you find these links:

Islamorada travel guide from Wikitravel Islamorada, Village of Islands official site Islamorada, History Islamorada, Chamber of Commerce A Complete Guide to the Florida Keys and Key West

It would appear you have a particular "issue" with this site. Unless you can justify why a site like this is perfectly accepable in numerous other Wiki scenarios, please stop removing it for no particular reason. Your statement that it does not "add anything to the article" is without merit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.192.215 (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a travel directory. While pages for some places might include links to official or semi-official organizations like the Chamber of Commerce or to sites of landmarks mentioned in the article, that is not a blanket OK for any type of site. What makes www.ohio-put-in-bay.com/ which is "created and maintained by designbyChuck" in any way preferable to www.pibinfo.com/ or www.putinbayonline.com/ or any number of other similar types of sites? See WP:EL for more information about what is or is not appropriate. older ≠ wiser 22:12, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes any of the sites listed in Key West or Islamorada any more preferable to others? Who the community decides to engage to create a website is not relavant. The other sites have not to my knowledge asked to be included so until they do that point would be moot. If you are not able to justify why these very similar types of websites are acceptable on other examples cited, why remove them? The site in question is not simply a "travel guide" as you put it. There is a very large amount of NON COMMERCIAL information on everything from history to fishing.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. A encyclopedia is defined as Pronunciation: \in-ˌsī-klə-ˈpē-dē-ə\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin encyclopaedia course of general education, from Greek enkyklios + paideia education, child rearing, from paid-, pais child—more at few Date: 1644

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject

The website in question provides as much information as possible and as comprehensively as any resource currently provided and arranged by subject.

Please do not remove this site unless you are able to justify why in this situation the particular website in question is any less informative than those listed previously in examples. I did take the time to review the sites in the exmaples and I am not able to see where this site differs in the type of information delivered and the manner in which it is conveyed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.192.215 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:EL. The link contributes NOTHING of encyclopedic value. older ≠ wiser 00:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately your statement is incorect. The definition of encyclopedia is:

a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject.

As you can see by looking at the website in question, it actually contributes a great deal of information including history, local information etc. Lets look at this thru a much larger set of glasses. For example look at Islamorada, a city and island of equal size and similar demographics. As you can see at this Wiki site the website http://www.thefloridakeys-keywest.com/ Is permitted as an external link. Please note that the information contained in the sub sections are very similar to those of the website http://www.ohio-put-in-bay.com.

Therefore, as I have stated before, there are NUMEROUS examples of where websites of similar design and content ARE considered to add encyclopedic value.

Unless you are saying that all of these should be removed, please EXPLAIN why this is not the same and why you keep removing the NON COMMERCIAL website???

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.192.215 (talk) 01:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did look at the guideline regarding an external link. They are:

[edit] What to link There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

Is the site content accessible to the reader?

Yes this site is. Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?

Yes it is.

Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?

Yes it is and will.

Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When in doubt about the appropriateness of adding new links, make a suggestion on the article's talkpage and discuss with other editors.

As there is currently only ONE link I do not see that there is an issue with needing to be stricter. If you are able to refute these guidelines please do so BEFORE vandalizing the link. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.43.192.215 (talk) 01:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be you position, I guess we should e mail island wide and refer all the cities we find with the same types of links and remove them at will as Norma and others have done. THanks for the guidence! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.206.38.178 (talk) 02:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the link that does seem to provide encyclopedic value. I have read the comments here and it does appear that the examples cited are in fact the same type and style of articles and have very similar sites as the one in question. It would appear that those removing this link should first explain how and why it is acceptable for these type of links to be included on other wiki pages but not here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.186.62 (talk) 17:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Putinbayonline.com spam (permanent link)

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested blacklisting of put-in-bay.com after today's spamming. I also requested page protection for this page. EdBever (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]