User talk:Drummer182

Welcome!

Hello, Drummer182, 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 messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Rigadoun (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Drum. 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. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. 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. Bdb484 (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bdb484,

Concerning 411drums.com, the link that you removed. According to Wikipedia guidelines:

What should be linked

3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks), or other reasons.

This is exactly what 411drums is with glossary, list of famous drummers, drumming articles, drum tips, etc that are there to educate drummers. As you said, there is no SEO value to putting the link here. The link was put to make this information more available to drummers out there.

Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.

411 Drums provides much more information that this article on Wikipedia.

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints which such sites are presenting.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

3. Sites containing malware, malicious scripts, trojan exploits, or illegal content.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. See external link spamming.

Does not apply to 411 Drums as main purpose is to provide educational drum material

5. Links to web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. For example, the mobile phone article does not link to web pages that mostly promote or advertise cell-phone products or services.

Ads are kept to a bare minimum on 411 Drums and no more intrusive than Google Ads which permeate most other sites. Content far outweighs any advertising on 411 Drums.

6. Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation.[1] See below.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

7. Sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of users, such as sites that only work with a specific browser or in a specific country.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

8. Direct links to documents that require external applications or plugins (such as Flash or Java) to view the content, unless the article is about such file formats. See rich media for more details.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

9. Links to any search results pages, such as links to individual website searches, search engines, search aggregators, or RSS feeds.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

10. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

11. Links to blogs, personal web pages and 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.)

Does not apply to 411 Drums

12. Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

14. Lists of links to manufacturers, suppliers or customers.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

15. Links to sites already linked through Wikipedia sourcing tools. For example, instead of linking to a commercial book site, consider the "ISBN" linking format, which gives readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources. Wikipedia:Map sources can be linked by using geographical coordinates.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

16. Links that are not reliably functional, or likely to continue being functional. For example, links to temporary internet content, where the link is unlikely to remain operable for a useful amount of time.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

17. Affiliate, tracking or referral links i.e. links that contain information about who is to be credited for readers that follow the link. If the source itself is helpful, use a neutral link without the tracking information.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

18. Placing external links on Wikipedia navigation pages such as disambiguation, redirect and category.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

19. Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[1][2]

Does not apply to 411 Drums

20. External links as entries in stand-alone lists. List entries should always have non-redirect articles on Wikipedia or a reasonable expectation that such an article is forthcoming, and thus be internally-linked only.

Does not apply to 411 Drums

So what guidelines does 411 drums violate. According to your own rules, there is none. Please reply with an answer.

Drummer182

We have several screenshots on file and are documenting your abuse of power. Drummer182 (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly confirm or deny that you may have a conflict of interest and secondly, you last comment seems rather close to being personal attack. Finally, so fix it. --Mike moral ♪♫ 03:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest issue as outlined by the article that you linked. The intentions by providing a link to 411 Drums is to share knowledge that was accumulated over several years that is too expansive to be added to the article which includes lists of drum terms, famous drummers, drum tips, drum articles, etc. 411 Drums is an impressive, free resource for drummers to expand their knowledge on the subject and that is why its inclusion in Wikipedia is important. There is nothing personal gained from its inclusion just the desire to help educate the internet on drums and drumming. The previous statement is not a personal attack, just a statement of fact that this incident is being documented. There was no implication of any harm within that statement. So again, please explain how this link violates any terms as presently listed on Wikipedia and why this link was removed. Thank you.Drummer182

Be bold! Then go ahead and fix it. --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is locked Mike. How about assisting us. Drummer182 (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer locked. When you say us do you imply you have a shared account because unfortunately, only one person per account. --Mike moral ♪♫ 23:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, no only one person actually uses the account, but during this situation someone was helping me with the situation as two heads are always better than one when approaching an issue. Thank you for your assistance. Drummer182

March 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for repeatedly adding questionable external links to articles, and declaration of intent to continue indefinitely. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:42, 11 March 2010 (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).

Drummer182 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There is no reason my account should be blocked as there was an ongoing discussion. Because one user was getting upset with the link to valuable material which was shown by his abusive language here today. This action goes against everything Wikipedia stands for which is providing knowledge to everyone. Please remove this block so discussion can continue rather than BD's personal attack against this link. Thank you.

Decline reason:

411drums.com is a site that uses user-submitted links for its collection. Not an WP:RS and not a valid WP:EL. You were asked many times to not re-add it, yet you failed to abide. As such, the block is valid to limit WP:DISRUPTion, until such a point as you heed the requests/warnings not to re-add. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:59, 11 March 2010 (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.

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).

Drummer182 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

thank you for your reply, but you are misinformed about your reason. There is no where for users to submit links to that site. There is a link section, as most websites have, but they are links that were gathered by the creator of the site and not submitted (as explained to me). There is a place where article content can be submitted for consideration for inclusion on 411drums.com. Which would be more educational content to the vast amount of content that already exists. It's interesting that there hasn't been one consistent reason for this link to be removed, but rather it appears to be a grasp at straws to throw many up at the wall to see what sticks. I understand that this will probably fall on deaf ears as it seems the matter is already decided beforehand... which is a shame since it appears the "discussion" part of Wikipedia is not really for discussion at all. That is sad. I also understand the integrity for which Wikipedia stands for and that is why I am fighting so hard to include 411drums.com. I'm not the owner of the site. I am just trying to make sure important materials beyond the scope of Wikipedia are made available to the masses. Again, if 411drums.com is not a site that is appropriate for linking to from Wikipedia, then I am hard pressed to find one that is? CNN or the NY Times or The Washington Post or any other news site which all thrive on advertising online? I would just like a consistent application to all links on this site without any double standard.

Decline reason:

You won't be unblocked unless you agree to stop violating WP:EL policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:50, 11 March 2010 (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.

This will also probably fall on deaf ears but I'll try anyhow - BWilkins is exactly right for the overarching reason that unlike CNN or the NY Times, the material on your site cannot be independently confirmed because we do not know the source. If CNN posts a story, we know that the facts that they present are as accurate as they can have them. If they aren't, at best they look foolish and lose readership to a competitor and at worst they are sued for libel. We don't have that assurance from your website, and there's no real procedure for vetting your website. All that said, there is some discretion on individual articles as to whether a given link is appropriate. Where you ran afoul of the system appears to me that most of your contributions to the drum articles are adding (and re-adding, and re-re-adding) drummer.com or drum411. Despite being registered here since 2007, the first time you edited on the talkpage of the article to discuss the issue was Mar 1 2010. This behavior looks much more like someone spamming for page hits and less about someone who is concerned that a valuable source is being removed needlessly from articles and wants to try and convince other editors that they are wrong. If you return to editing after your block (or agree that you will not try to re-add those links until after a clear consensus develops that they are useful, reliable and add something to the article... in which case I will recommend unblocking you), please try and form a consensus on the talkpage of the articles as to the appropriateness of your links. Syrthiss (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Syrthiss, thank you for your reply. This is the first time I feel an actual explanation was given rather than just random pieces of policy posted to try to justify the removal. I also applaud your diplomatic tone which is a refreshing break from antagonistic one displayed by Bdb484. I was not aware how my actions looked as I was only trying to share a helpful resource. I did not add to the main article was it was well written and the information I linked to was more expansive and would not work in summary form in this article. I was not aware I would need to discuss adding such a resource that has been deemed a great tool of knowledge by the drum community. I only saw that people were removing it for "spam" which it is not and so I just re-added it as I think it is a great site. Again, I'm not the owner of the site just someone who wanted to share a great resource of knowledge with everyone else and thought Wikipedia was the best place to do so since it is the premier place for knowledge on the internet. I apologize for my naivety regarding this process. I was trying to engage in a discussion of the validity of the link in talk with Bdb484 but that user already had his mind made up before so there was no actual discussion. I would be happy to re-open discussion regarding the link (which we were engaging in before I got blocked) as long as it is a true discussion and Bdb484 isn't just saying to "get rid of it". Thank you once again for your great response to this situation. If this had been done from the beginning, I think this matter could have been resolved much earlier and easier. Drummer182

Alright. I'm glad I could help then. I know you're not the owner of the site, its just easier to refer to it as 'your site' vis a vis the re-adding. :)

I cannot make assurances that Bdb484 will listen, but there are other paths of dispute resolution that can be attempted to get more opinions and I'm will to help explain them to you if it looks like discussion is not moving forward. If the eventual consensus is that the link really is outside the scope of the encyclopedia then you will have to accept that. I'm going to recommend to Sarek that you be unblocked. Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]