User talk:Conservation ranger

Thanks for your message at User talk:Kahuroa. That user isn't very active at the moment, so I'm not sure when they will reply to you.

In general, we are suspicious of organisations placing large number of links to their own domain, even when those links are clearly beneficial, because there is a conflict of interest involved. I don't see any problem with COI if you are not placing the links in the first place, but only changing links which have broken due to a reorganisation at the DOC website.

A month or two ago, I would have said you should go ahead, and this statement on your talk page would exist as a record that you had asked permission and been given it. Unfortunately, an editor who did something similar was blocked recently and had many edits reverted, against my objections and those of many other New Zealand editors. Accordingly, I think you should wait while I ask some of the people involved in that case to comment here.-gadfium 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the user is only fixing broken existing links and not placing new ones, I don't see any reason to object provided the activity is all above-board as indicated by announcing it here. If they want to place new links, then I would recommend they suggest the links on the relevant article talk or project page to see if other editors want them. If the links are considered good ones, one of those editors can easily move the links into the articles. Clearly there is not a concern about for-profit spamming in this case, but regardless of motive, an "insider" may not accurately judge the relevance of their links to an article, so it is best to let third-party editors make the decision on additions. --RL0919 (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I see nothing wrong with fixing broken links that already exist. This is more of a general maintenance issue rather than one of promotion or spam. The appropriateness of the individual links may be handled on a case-by-case basis, but I don't think the organization itself would need to be concerned if they are only here to fix linkrot. I say they should get the go-ahead to do this, especially if they are concerned about transparency and neutrality, which it appears they do. Them From Space 23:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An Overview:

There are currently 1110 external links in the main namespaces on all wikimedia project (43 different project have links to www.doc.govt.nz). rowiki (ro:Format:Doc.govt.nz) and dewiki (de:Vorlage:Doc.govt.nz) have templates for linking to DOC.

If you like i can test all those links and report broken links to a subpage so that you can repair them. Merl issimo 02:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

Here is my summary of the proposal, from User:Conservation ranger:

Fix broken links to the DOC website.
Place links to the DOC website on some articles where useful for users.
Add link to the DOC blog.

Re 1: Go for it. I think it would be useful to work out (here) what the best form of the external link should be because some contributors add promotional detail. From Tui (bird), an external link currently is:

* [http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/podcover.aspx?id=32889 Tui - New Zealand native land birds] [[Department of Conservation]] fact sheet

That looks fine to me except that the link is not correct. Here are some possibilities to replace [[Department of Conservation]]:

[[Department of Conservation (New Zealand)]] which is Department of Conservation (New Zealand)
[[Department of Conservation (New Zealand)|Department of Conservation]] which is Department of Conservation
[[Department of Conservation (New Zealand)|DOC]] which is DOC

Re 2: Please give some indication of the scale of what you have in mind: Roughly one link added to 10 articles? 100 articles? Bear in mind that there are currently 716 links to your web site on Wikipedia (LinkSearch).

Re 3: Please be careful with this as blogs are generally not considered reliable sources, although I imagine the blog you have in mind may be suitable. Do you mean you want to add one link in one article, namely Department of Conservation (New Zealand)? I would say that is fine. Other articles might be a problem.

By the way, if you want to link to an article (as at User talk:Kahuroa), you would follow this example

[[Aoraki/Mount Cook]] which is Aoraki/Mount Cook

Also, please add ~~~~ to the last line of messages that you leave on a talk page, to add a signature. Welcome to Wikipedia! Johnuniq (talk) 00:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at the DOC blog, but another possible place it might be linked to is from New Zealand blogosphere.-gadfium 01:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts

Re 1: I agree that fixing broken links is good and to be approved of in pretty much all situations

Re 3: I'm generally against linking to blogs. Much of Wikipedia:Blogs as sources doesn't apply, of course, because that focuses on personal blogs. My main concern is that a website labeled a blog would appear to have less corporate permanence behind it. Sprinkling links to blog posts through wikipedia and then having them all go link-dead is the nightmare scenario. This could be offset by ensuring that the pages are in the Wayback Machine prior to linking to them.

R2 2: I have would advise against. Unless you understand the issues that other institutions have had I strong advise against it. If you have someone who understands the issues experienced by (for example) User talk:Filmtvfan and genuinely believes they can avoid the issues it seems unlikely to succeed.

If you're Wellington based I'm happy to talk about this face-to-face. My work email address is stuart.yeates@vuw.ac.nz Stuartyeates (talk) 07:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC) staffer at New Zealand Electronic Text Centre[reply]

Addition: I've just seen that most of the 'broken links' are actually redirects. I'm not 100% sure, but this seems like a job for User:Yet Another Redirect Cleanup Bot. Anyone used this bot before? Stuartyeates (talk) 07:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the general guidance given by others above, especially the cautions on item #2. There is a lot of cleanup needed with these links. Please start by reading the applicable guidelines at WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:FOOT. The best way to help is to improve the articles using your expertise and not just add more links to your website. For example, there are dozens of instances of a link to http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=39593. In the article Powelliphanta "Egmont", the link is clearly applicable, but it should be used as an in-line citation for "Conservation status" instead of as a general reference. In Powelliphanta rossiana, subspecies "Fox", it is not clear why the link is present. Is the article missing a "Conservation status" section or should the link be removed? Both articles could use major expansion and a photo. Uploading a free photo to Commons and using it within an article is highly preferred over linking to a photo at your own site. For more guidance in expanding articles, click the help link or review similar articles that have reached WP:GA status.

If you clearly improve the quality of article text, refs, and external links, you can develop a reputation for constructive, neutral editing despite your obvious conflict of interest. If on the other hand you start out by placing 30 new external links, you will find yourself quickly restricted to editing talk pages only or get blocked entirely. Your purpose here must be to improve Wikipedia rather than to make it easier for readers to find your website. UncleDouggie (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what others are saying here, While the following is a big ugly list, its important that you understand wikipedias community guidelines:

I'll start by adding that Stuartyeates suggestion of using a "bot" to deal with the broken/redirecting links seems the most practical solution. The addition of any new links seems better left to "other editors", such those helping here. One area you, User:Conservation ranger could be extremely helpful is in the area of photo's. Supplying quality pictures and images for use in the appropriate NZ articles would be an great asset for Wikipedia, more so than links. --Hu12 (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

It appears that everyone is happy for you to fix existing links. You can go ahead and do this anytime.

For new links, the suggestion is that you add them to the talk page of the article, and see if anyone comments. If you plan to do this for only a handful of links, then if there is no response after a week I'd say to go ahead and add them. If you plan to add substantially more links, then wait for another editor to move them from the talk page to the article. Feel free to drop me a note at User talk:gadfium if you don't get any editor doing this or explaining why they don't consider the link suitable.

Add a link to the blog to the main New Zealand Department of Conservation page, but not to any other.

Thank you for asking permission, and feel free to ask me if you need any assistance.-gadfium 05:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally concur with all the above and just wanted to add that it would be immensely helpful if a list of talk pages on which links have been proposed is added at User:Conservation ranger so that we know where to go to review them. I will watch your user page. dramatic (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Abel Tasman National Park, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Department of Conservation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

North Island Robin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Coromandel

Young River (New Zealand) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Stuff

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed those two links. Thanks for keeping the DoC links up to date!-gadfium 19:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]