User talk:Chacufc

Welcome!

Hello, Chacufc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Elkman - (Elkspeak) 14:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of http://.chatandcommunity.aol.co.uk

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure as to why my link was removed when it's hardly my own website (AOL), yet other links which appear to be individuals own links remain. Anyway, presumably you have your own reasons, or interests to serve. If those links remain, can you explain why so I know in future, thanks.

1) I hardly have an affiliation with AOL.

2) It's hardly my own personal website

3) You appear to have left unedited a link on the same page which is obviously from someone who does have an affiliation with the linked site and which obviously IS a personal website. And it collects revenue from advertising.

I have no problem with you removing the link I added but at least be consistent in future.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egremont. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you.--Charles (talk) 18:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've pointed this out to you already. Please stop removing relevant links to which I have no affiliation. There are literally thousands of links to local newspapers for towns listed on Wikipedia. Explain to me the difference between the link I added and the other two links which appear on Egremont's page. I worry that you're just being petty.

Hi Chacufc, to encourage some discussion on this subject (which I can see you've been attempting to do, which has been ignored), I have added in a wholly appropriate link to the official website, and added an entry on the article's talk page to try and discuss what would be appropriate links for this specific article. Regards, Halsteadk (talk) 12:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 10:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just forget it, seriously. A local newspaper, entitled "Egremont Today", on a page about Egremont, carrying stories relevant to Egremont. How inappropriate. It doesn't even charge money so you don't even have a "spam" excuse. You really need to stop denying Wikipedia visitors valuable information because you'd rather follow me around to seem "official".

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by some search engines, including Google. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Charles (talk) 08:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok, you explain it to me because this I have to hear

How is a local newspaper - highly relevant and of enormous interest to visitors to the Egremont page - possibly "inappropriate" or "spam" ? I have zero affiliation with the newspaper and even if I did, it's FREE OF CHARGE so it would be impossible to make money out of it.

Until you answer that question satisfactorily, the link WILL be put back in.

If we allow one political party to link its news sheet to a page all the other parties will expect the same, and where would that end? Wikipedia is not about news and current events; wikinews does that. Wikipedia is not a blog, bulletin board or community page. External links are only allowed when they add material that would not already be covered by a good article. Please do not add it again.--Charles (talk) 23:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just actively looking for reasons to remove the link, and/or using your own political bias to approve or disapprove of what links appear. The newspaper has been added again, do not remove it.

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 08:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot spam something that is free. Now I've told you this already, stop removing the link I put in and I won't tell you again. Your politics are your own concern, not visitors to Wikipedia. The link is EXTREMELY RELEVANT and USEFUL to visitors. Your politics are not.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Charles (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive edits? Adding the local newspaper of Egremont to an article about Egremont? You can't even defend that yourself, you know you're being petty and probably motivated by your own personal politics. Now either leave it there or ban me because you're really the most childish person I've ever dealt with.

And I put the link back because I defy you to state how in the world that can be "disruptive" or "irrelevant". You can't. And you know you can't. In fact, I've just noticed you've been following me around since the AOL chat room link I put up ages ago. This is a personal vendetta by you, it's got nothing to do with Wikipedia or a local newspaper.

I have explained why the link is unsuitable. There is no political bias; I would remove any such link from any party. I am not following you around, Egremont just happens to be on my watchlist, but I do of coursecheck on what else disruptive users have been doing. If this link is put in again I will be making a report to the administrators.--Charles (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for continuing to add spam links. Persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia and potentially penalized by search engines. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to other admins

Feel free to unblock with out consulting me. PhilKnight (talk) 18:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You need reporting to Wikipedia, this is ridiculous. Just as an example, we just typed in the first towns that came into anyone's head here. Canterbury and York. Both have links to their local newspaper. In fact, one even has a whole section dedicated to the newspaper. We then tried 14 other towns listed on Wikipedia. 12 of them had links to the local newspaper in them. I'm not sure how you ever became an Admin of Wikipedia but I genuinely hope they review your account.

This website is free. The newspaper is free. There are zero advertisements on the website and it is the ONLY newspaper in Egremont. I have no affiliation with this newspaper and even if I did, it would be impossible to make money from a free newspaper. In whose eyes can that possibly be considered "spam" as this over-zealous admin has claimed? In his own words, this block has taken place because of the politics of the newspaper - but which newspaper has no political allegiance? They all do. I believe PhilKnight blocked this link not through a belief it was spam, but through a personal disagreement with the newspaper's politics.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

This editor is not deserving of an indefinite block.

Request handled by: Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

I am genuinely sorry that your Wikipedia experience has been disrupted in this manner - an indefinite block was clearly inappropriate based on this circumstance and your edit history. In regard to the situation with Egremont, however, I need to point out that you and Charles are involved in an editing war that could easily result in having both of you blocked. To avoid a continuation of this tit-for-tat squabble, I am going to request that you go to WP:WQA and file a request for outside mediation to settle this manner. If the edit warring continues, I will intervene again and protect the article. Thank you. Pastor Theo (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise, it just seemed such an innocent and relevant thing to add - it wasn't meant to cause any trouble either for yourselves or for for the admin that removed it.

Don't worry about it. No great harm was done. If you ever find yourself in need of assistance, there are plenty of good people who can provide input regarding thorny editing situations. Be well. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing advice

I suggest you establish consensus on the talk page instead of reverting. If you continue to revert, I'm going to re-block your account. Regarding dispute resolution, I think obtaining a third opinion would be more constructive. PhilKnight (talk) 10:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to discuss this any further. I really suggest you consider this petty matter closed and let everyone move on from it in as friendly a manner as possible. It just is not worth this much trouble to anybody.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing - adding an external link. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 09:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|This is nothing short of ridiculous. This admin has a personal grudge against me for reasons only he will understand. He's already been told his block was unwarranted and yet here he is almost immediately doing it again. Whatever the problem is here, he needs to stop abusing his admin powers to pursue this personal vendetta. All I did was add a single link to the local newspaper of Egremont. On a Wikipedia article about Egremont. That's all I did. Why he's so determined to turn that into a major incident I cannot guess. I will duplicate this message on the talk page of the admin that removed it last time. As to you yourself, Phil Knight, you're going to bring trouble on yourself because you've already been told your block was unwarranted and your irresponsible behaviour is more likely to raise questions about your suitability as an admin than it is about my contributions to Wikipedia}}

If you want, after this block has expired, I'll put a note in your block log indicating the original block should have been around 12 hours. Also, there are various methods of raising a grievance, for example you could consider filing a request for comment on admin conduct. PhilKnight (talk) 14:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I added the link again because I think it's relevant, important and useful to fellow Wikipedians.

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 7 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing - reinserting an external link. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 20:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|I am appealing against this block on the same grounds I appealed against it last time. A link to a local newspaper is not spam (the newspaper doesn't even sell, it's free - the website it links to is also free and carries no advertising.), it's not disruptive and it's highly relevant and useful to visitors to Wikipedia. As has already been stated, there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia pages that have links to their local newspaper - Try the article on York, where a section is even devoted to it, or Canterbury, which links to three seperate newspapers, or Bournemouth which links to the newspaper's website. It's actually more difficult to find towns that don't link than those that do. I would happily accept this link's removal if either the original complainant, or the admin that places this block would present an acceptable reason for it. If linking to a local newspaper is spam or disruptive, I am asking that either admins aim for consistency and either remove them all or remove none.}}

I'm not sure you understand why you're blocked - could I suggest you have a look at Wikipedia:Tendentious editing? PhilKnight (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I have to voice my support Mr. Knight's action here. When I first unblocked you, I specifically recommended that you go to WP:WQA to get an outside mediator to work out this matter. Instead, you went right back to the article and resumed the editing war - not once, but twice! If you are not willing to work with your fellow editors, you will eventually wind up indef blocked again. I am not unsympathetic toward your goals in regard to the article's content, but this is not the way to achieve your desired results. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I accept that entirely and I'm afraid I was confusing Mr. Knight with the original complainant - I do apologise totally to Mr. Knight because it wasn't him, but the user "Charles" that made the original complaint and I thought it was Charles that was originally doing the blocking. So I do apologise wholeheartedly to Mr. Knight.

But if you review this from the beginning, you'll see this "Charles" user has done this to my edits before. It WAS a relevant link and the newspaper IS free of charge so I wasn't adding it for spamming purposes. Almost every town listed on Wikipedia has a link to their local newspaper, so it's difficult to see why Charles made such a point over this particular one other than he has some bizarre personal grudge against my edits, which makes me wonder if contributing to Wikipedia is worthwhile because he'll just do it again. It would have been helpful if someone had looked at the website I linked - it doesn't even carry any advertising and is simply a list of news stories about Egremont. If that isn't relevant on an Egremont article, what is?

I would happily accept any third party ruling just to bring the matter to a close but I don't know how to do that. If a non-partisan member of Wikipedia stated the link was unhelpful or spam, I'd happily accept its removal. But "a grudge" from the original complainant resulting in its removal is surely not the way forward for anybody.

November 2009

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Charles (talk) 22:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. A website for the local newspaper of Egremont, on an Egremont article, can only be highly relevant

2. A website with zero advertising and zero cost to anybody cannot possibly be "spam". Who would that benefit?

3. Your removal of this link is not based on the link itself but on previous contributions made to Wikipedia.

State your reasons for removing this link and state why you believe it's "spam" or leave the link where it is. Because you cannot conceivably back up an argument for this links removal as "spam".

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, as you did to Egremont, Cumbria, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Charles (talk) 22:36, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't addressed the points I made to you. I'm asking you to address them directly and give your reasoning for your behaviour. So for the final time, here they are again.

How is a link to Egremont's newspaper, which is free of charge and carries zero advertising, on an article about Egremont, considered spam? If it is, explain to me why almost every other town on Wikipedia has a similar link to their newspaper and why you aren't removing them as spam.

Now if you take it out again, I'm going to send you a list of every town on Wikipedia that links to its own newspaper and ask you why you aren't removing those too. Because right now, it looks like you're more concerned with a personal vendetta than behaving responsibly.

Leave the link as it is or remove all links to local newspapers. Otherwise it'll be *YOU* that gets reported to Wikipedia for abusing your privileges on this website.

A note

This is not a "good cop"/"bad cop" talk - it is the first time I hear this story. I was going to re-block you indefinitely, but instead offer this: if you wish to contribute constructively to wikipedia, I do suggest you bring your issues to the talk pages and calmly discuss them there, listening carefully to the opposing arguments (not only to yourself). Note that your clearly impatient and disruptive behavior has alienated quite a few editors and thus if I were you, I would be extra polite to them (no matter the disagreement). If you resume edit warring at the mainframe pages, you will be blocked indefinitely without further warning. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do accept that entirely and I apologise unreservedly if I was in any way rude to anyone. The newspaper - which I have no affiliation with other than I read it - carries no advertising on its website, is free to view, carries no external linking and is the only newspaper the town produces. My problem wasn't the fact it was being removed but that it was being removed without the provision of a valid reason.

Thank you. This is a good start. I understand your reasoning behind inclusion of that link, and apologize for not being able to review the discussion. Just some scattered comments:

Per WP:NOTLINK, virtually any "external links" section may be removed entirely and some editors fully exercise that right. In other words, loose links are not an integral part of an article; they can and may be deleted, it is not a big deal and I recommend treating it this way.
Indeed removal should be accompanied by an edit summary or/and a comment at a talk page. I can't tell whether it was always the case, but anticipate possible frustration from repeating reverts. I can easily imagine valid reasons for removing links even to non-profit and non-commercial organizations.
That something did or did not happen in other place and other time on wikipedia is a poor argument - things are getting done here gradually and one at a time - seeing "similar" links in one article does not reflect on another.
I see involved parties, for example at Talk:Egremont,_Cumbria, but not yourself. Talk pages are the first place to go in case of conflicts. Materialscientist (talk) 04:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are thousands of towns and cities on Wikipedia that have an external link to their local newspaper for information. In fact, it's difficult to find one that doesn't. I can't imagine that the user who keeps removing this particular one is going to trawl the whole of the website removing them in the name of consistency.

Chacufc, the key differentiating fact that you continuously appear to ignore and have NOT mentioned above (which will not be clear if the discussion and website has not been reviewed), and that the main editor involved in this dispute has pointed out to you, is that this paper describes itself as "Labour's voice", ie it is presumably written or published by the local Labour party or local Labour-run council. While most newspapers have some sort of political leanings (though at a local level probably more to support local general opinion of a successful or failing local government), very few of those "thousands" you mention are actually produced by the political party or local council! There doesn't seem to be any notably biased information on there now but the questions have to be asked: what stories that paint the local council in a bad light are they NOT including; will the paper become more biased and a "campaigning paper" in the run up to the election. The second is a concern that can wait but the first is a valid point NOW. I also think by putting the link back and not engaging in discussion on the article talk page (as you were advised to do above) is somewhat provocative and could appear to be a continuation of edit warring. Please can I make it clear that I have no political leanings personally, and my feelings would be the same regardless of whether it was Labour or Tory (or anyone else). Halsteadk (talk) 14:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely (again)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. PhilKnight (talk) 14:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Chacufc (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I'm putting an official complaint in about Phil Knight for this - you still have not given a genuine or convincing reason for removing this link, because you know full well that you can't. Your entire reasoning for this blocking and for constantly removing a valid and useful link is out of some bizarre personal problem you have with me. I've said this before - if you state a valid reason for removing this link I'll happily accept its removal. Explain why you're removing it.

Decline reason:

I see no indication you've attempted to use the article talk page to work this out, as you've been advised to do on this talk page repeatedly; I see no indication you've done anything but repeatedly insert the link despite being advised not to by multiple editors. Even if you're right -- that the link is appropriate -- your block is the inevitable result of your approach to editing Wikipedia. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

That's just nonsense. Phil Knight never - once - gave a reason for removing the link. If the link is valid, non-spam, and highly relevant, then the vandalism is coming from him, not me.

You have no contributions to any article talk pages. You were told repeatedly on this page to use the article talk page. You didn't; hence, this result. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]