User talk:Mackinaw/archive1

Separate articles?

Generally, you can include relevant details in, say, climate change, and if you can flesh out a full article on the individual, by all means link to it. Really, it's a judgement call, and will come with experience. Hope this helps, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 03:38, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Eocene etc

I'm going through your edits with pleasure! I hope you'll flesh out the rest of the Cenozoic epochs. (I also hope you'll excuse and vet my tweaks.) --Wetman 17:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

wetman, thanks ... your appreciation is appreciated. planning on doing same for rest of cenozoic. yes. cheers. Mackinaw 19:57, 2004 Nov 11 (UTC)

Linkspam

Link spam is the adding of links to many articles in order to advertaise a site; commerciality isn't part of the definition (that's commercial link spam). If people insist on adding these links in this way, they may be blocked from editing.

The Wikipedia view is that, if a site is worth linking to, then it will eventually be linked to by someone not associated with the site. You may, however, place the link on the Talk page of relevant articles and ask if editors feel that it should be added. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take it from your message that you didn't bother to read the material at the page to which I linked above, much less follow up to related pages. When you've done that, we can discuss the issue (if you still object). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:11, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and if the editors agree ...

will you stop removing librivox links? i feel you are being unfair & wrongheadded here. what procedure do we have to remedy the situation? I feel both your characterization of LibriVox as linkspam is wrong, and that your invention of wikipeida policy: "The Wikipedia view is that, if a site is worth linking to, then it will eventually be linked to by someone not associated with the site," is strange. would you object, say, if a professor of paleontology linked to his own website containing valuable information on eocene mammals )for instance)?

Yes, we do object to that; the same policy applies. It's an extension of WP:CITE and Wikipedia:No original research. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

original research is a different question altogether, and is not at all the same policy, as you well know. but if you insist, what if the paleontologist works, say, for berkely's paleontology museum: http://www.paleoportal. Mackinaw 16:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and yes I did read the relevant pages - and the linked pages - and found nothing that refers to the situation. Could you please site the specific passages which you are referring to in deciding that librivox links are linkspam? If you mean the "little-known" part, then I refer you to: http://librivox.org/category/news/in-the-press/

including articles/stories by BBC, NPR, LA Times, Wired, CBC Radio, etc.

Again, this is VERY frustrating since you do not seem to have taken the time to look at what LibriVox is - audio versions on the texts which are the subject of the wikipedia articles. what could be more relevant?

so: please tell me the procedure to (try to) convince you that this is not linkspam. Mackinaw 15:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comments here and from other people on my link page make clear that librivox is, through various people (referred to as volunteers) systematically adding links to its own site to a large number of Wikipedia articles. Perhaps Wikipedia:External links will make the problem clearer: under "Links to normally avoid" it includes:

Links that are added to promote a site.
A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

Both these conditions are met in this case. When the work is carried out by spambots, they can be blocked on sight by admins; when people perform the same task (at pretty much the same rate of link-addition), immediate blocking isn't an option — but insisting on adding the links after the relevant guidelines and policies have been pointed out could lead to a block.

I've explained how the situation should be handled, in line with the second condition above: "mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it". --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

on this page: Wikipedia:External links, item 3 of "What should be linked to" is the following:

"3. An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible."

LibriVox recordings ARE the actual book! in audio form! So policy says we SHOULD link to the librivox recording. or am i missing something? we are not linking to librivox to "promote the site" but to link to an audio recording of the book in question. as we are supposed to. Mackinaw 15:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But not if it's your site, and not en masse so as suggest very strongly that what's going on is an advertisement for the site. I find it difficult to understand the problem that you seem to be having with this. No-one has suggested that there's anything wrong with the links per se; the problem concerns who is adding them, why, and how.

Regarding your last message on my Talk page, the Wikipedia custom is for me to write comments to your Talk page and you to respond on mine. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still perplexed that you're not getting it.

I am perplexed that you are calling good links linkspam, when you've (I think) agreed that it's not. I am perplexed that you removed good links, threattened to block us, and now are perplexed that it's annoying, especially since you have agreed (i think) that the links per se are fine.

Where do you see this? Of course it's linkspam; it's the adding of links to a huge number of articles by people connected to the site in question.

If one person (or a team) went through Wikipedia adding links to Gutenberg texts, then yes, we'd react in the same way.

then you would be doing a great disservice to your users. gutenberg has its own category for goodness sake! and I don't buy it.

You miss the point.

We don't allow people to use Wikipedia to advertise a site,

you cannot advertise something which is in public domain: it's not for sale.

I suggest that you look up "advertise".

and we don't allow people to add links to their own site.

and if you are one of a thousand volunteers who contribute to a public domain site, do you own the site? do you consider yourself the owner of wikipedia?

If you've been asked to add links (as the comments on my Talk page indicate) then you're working for the site.

Which part of that is unclear?

this part: You have two policies: one regarding *what* should be linked; the other regarding *who* should add links. which takes precednce? is it really *who*? do all admins agree that's the case? or, in cases like ours where the famous spam radar has been triggered (as it clearly has), do they take a look at *what* the links are first, and then decide whether they are spam? you say you have no problems with the links per se, then why are we battling out here? it seems like a beurocratic absurdity. YOU removed links that you thought were spam, because you thought they were spam, and now you say (i think?) you have no problems with the links per se. so wouldn't the reasonable thing be to put the links back? as a wikipedia editor?

Pretty clear, given that the second one gives the path that you should take in order to make the first part possible -- namely, post the link to the Talk page and let other editors decide whether or not to add it.

The status of the site is irrelevant to the conditions for not adding links, as I've explained and quoted.

what IS relevant is the usefulness & appropriateness of the links. As for the status, it is relevant, if you read your policies, for instance Wikipedia:External links, "Links to Normally Avoid" #s 1-9, all of which touch on the status of the site.

I suggest that you read them again; I quoted two of them above:

Links that are added to promote a site.
A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article.

Why do you object to following the course recommended in Wikipedia:External links?

first because I do not agree that what you have laid out is the course recommended in Wikipedia:External links (see # 3 of "what should be linked"). second because I think that the deciding factor of appropriateness should be the link and not who added it. and third, because it means two steps where there should be one. it doubles the work, unnecessarily. if they are good links, then all should be well; if they are bad links - get rid of them. but why manufacture additional steps if the links are acceptable and useful links? further you are asking us to post in Talk section of pages - many of which may not have active editors. meaning the links won't get posted, and then the useful links will not be included in wikipedia, that should be there.

Because everyone thinks that their site is special, that theoiry site is so useful that it should be an exception, etc. This keeps it all simple, and on a level playing field. If it's your site, don't add the link yourself.

and a question for you: why do you not follow external_links "what should be linked" policy #3? why do you prefer *who* over *what*?

That makes no sense.

Wikipedia editors add links to the articles in which they're interested;

and if librivox volunteers are also wikipedia editors, what happens? it turns out that people who bother to spend hours recording a particular text often have an interest in that text; and not surprisingly, many libirvox volunteers are also wikipedia editors. so: should they refrain from adding a link to a LV audio because they are involved in LV?

Who are these many Wikipedia editors who are also librivox contributors? If there are so many of them, why are a couple of people adding dozens of links at a time?

let them know about the resources at your site, and I'm sure that they'll respond accordingly.

... and if they add the links will you continue to remove LV links as they appear? Mackinaw 17:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

--Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked/said:

Please answer this question: when determining linkspam, is it the content of the link, or who/how makes the link which is more important? Does the who/how ALWAYS trump the content of the link?
Yes.
ie. Should legitimate links (ones listed as #3 "should be linked" in external_links) be removed by Admin because of who made them? (this is my7 "*who* vs *what*" question that seems confusing).
Yes, they should. That's the point of the conditions in "what should not be linked".
Please note that we/librivox/us is just a loose group of volunteers around the world who record public domain texts. we have no budget, no money, no staff, no one is working for anything, we do not have ads on our page, nor will we ever, we are totally public domain & non-commercial.
That sounds very laudable, and interesting. I also have a Web page, however, which is wholly voluntary, contains no adverts, and is completely non-commercial — and if I started adding links to it on fifty or more articles I'd very soon be pulled up short by someone... because it's against Wikipedia guidelines. I did add links to it very early on in my editing career, because I didn't know any better; once I realised what the rules were, I stopped. No-one noticed, because I added links to a few articles when I happened to be editing them anyway.
I explained the reason why LV links turn up all at once as they do (once in a while, the a batch of recently-completed recordings form the LV catalog are linked to wikipedia). but yes many LV volunteers are also wikipedists. I have no idea how many. If you are interested in reading, for instance, a long defense of wikipedia and subsequent discussions on our forum, you could check: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1016&highlight=wikipedia
finally, after spending all this time battling about links, would you consider doing a reading for us? the best place to start is weekly poetry, see: http://librivox.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1657

Mackinaw 18:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the requisite hardware (or software), I'm afraid; no microphone, for example. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said:

Whether LV is laudable or not is not the question. The question is: do we produce something which ought to be linked from wikipedia? So looking at it logically:

given: wikipedia policy states: "An article about a book, a musical score, a webcomic, a web site, or some other media, should link to the actual book, musical score, etc. if possible." (see:External_links What should be linked to #3)
given: librivox catalog pages contain "the actual book" in audio form.
then: the policy states that wikipedia "should" link to the librivox page.

so:

do you agree with 3?
and if so, are you saying that wikipedia articles SHOULD link to librivox catalog pages, but librivox volunteers are not permitted to make the links?

Mackinaw 19:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short (though I've said enough to indicate that there's more to it), yes. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:47, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not possible for you to ask your volunteers to place the links on the relevant Talk pages (with a copied-and-pasted boilerplate introduction)? It will involve them in no more work, the extra being spread across all those editors who edit the individual articles. I'll undertake to go through and deal with any cases of neglected articles. That way everyone is happy — the links go on the articles, you and your volunteers don't violate Wikipedia guidelines... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:34, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will be great — and a little effort is always bearable in a good cause. (I'm fairly sure that the Gutenberg links were added piecemeal, as the articles were written, incidentally.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'll overlook the silly jibe about getting what I wanted, on the assumption that it was the result of emotion engendered by whatever problems you're having. If things settle down, we can put into place the plan that I suggested. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:13, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If people at Librivox are sulking, I'm afraid that there's nothing I can do about it. As you still seem to be insisting on the absurd and deliberate misunderstanding of my position, despite the attempts of another editor to explain matters to you, there's probably nothing I can do about you either. If any of you cares more about Librivox and/or Wikipedia than you do your wounded pride, then my offer stands. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hi. Rollback is a tool that admins have that enable them to revert back to a previous version. It sets the content of the article to the state before the last person that edited, so if the person before edited multiple times (one after the other), all of those edits are reversed. The tool appears as a link like 'What links here' or 'Move this page' once you have been given 'Sysop' (another word for administrator) privileges. Hope that helps. Noisy | Talk 19:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems I am wrong about the way the tool is presented: see here. Noisy | Talk 19:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive Wikipedia's limits

We are not google, nor yahoo. We are an encyclopedia with verifyable noteable information - or at least we are trying to be. We are trying to NOT be a link farm. Link lists that get too long get culled regularly - even of relevant links. I love gutenburg's free books and I think the standford encyclopedia of philosophy's articles are usually much better than ours, but adding either to all the relevant articles' external links (aka further reading) would be spamming. If it happens naturally over time by numerous editors, then so be it. But to not have a spamming policy would result over the long run in articles that were not encyclopedia articles, but mere link farm pages. WAS 4.250 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice we lack a Librivox article. I'll start one. Any change (add or subtract) anyone at Librivox would like in the article should be placed in the talk page, and other editors can deal with it there. This is normal procedure for any questionable change. Earlier today, someone posted a few paragraphs he thought might go good in a policy proposal on that proposal's talk page. I liked it and added it to the proposal, not changing a word. A couple of others edited it after that. I imagine it'll be edited some more. Sometimes all that back and forth takes place on the talk page; sometimes in the article itself. Anyway, best of luck to ya. Cheers! WAS 4.250 22:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments

Use ~~~~ (4 tildes) WAS 4.250 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Size of link lists

You state on my talk page that "Wikipedia policy says EXPLICITLY that gutenberg text should be linked to". The Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy states "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files" and specifically mentions the major problem with relevant and valuable links such as yours "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Even gutenburg links can be culled when (if) it gets in the way of wikipedia being an encyclopedia rather than a link farm. The solution is to take it slow and gentle, don't swamp us with a ton of links all at once by one person. Don't have one person do in one week what 100 volunteers can individually around the world do over 100 weeks. And look at the length of the external link list. If its too long already, don't add to it! (Maybe even cull what's there, AND not add yours.) WAS 4.250 23:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is a book

The audio recording is a new work of art, an audio performance, and not actually a "book". I hope you checked with a lawyer to verify the "public domain" assertions on your site. Are you having the copyright holders (the performers reading the text) sign anything to verify they are putting their works into the public domain so if later someone claims ownership of their own product you have apiece of paper or email, or are you just saying "public domain" everywhere so you feel the verbal conytract is valid? Wikipedia has its notice on every page that you are contributing your content and don't have exclusive rights to it anymore. WAS 4.250 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gutenburg

Gutenburg has more audio-books than you, is there something wrong with them? Why not just help them out? Is it the licence? Why does that matter? WAS 4.250 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for answering (on my talk page) the above questions. WAS 4.250 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

spamming

(copied from jimbo's talk page) A month ago you had 15 books and now you have 30 books with some documents and poems. Link one every day ot two yourself. I was gonna link one for you today, but when I reviewed your contributions looking for one to unrevert from mel, I found you had spammed wikipedia by adding links all over the place. Don't add your site to external links at the author's biography. Do add it to an article on the work that is actually read. If the article doesn't exist, write it. WAS 4.250 19:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt

There is no doubt whatsoever that adding a link at Wikipedia should not be a part of your official process. Period. WAS 4.250 03:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You belong

Links to public domain audio recordings of important texts absoutely belong in Wikipedia and I'll fight to put them there, count on it. WAS 4.250 03:19, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something, but who needs to be fought against? Who is arguing that links to public domain audio recordings of important texts should be excluded from Wikipedia? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first they took your actions as indicating you thought they didn't belong here, when that is not the case at all. His response on my user talk page indicates he now understands you were fighting for objectivity, not fighting against them. Apparently there are still some ruffled feathers over this, but I think that will all be forgiven and forgotten over the next week to month as they adopt a winning startegy that includes understanding the need for Wikipedia to protect objectivity (neutrality, NPOV). By the way, may I personally thank you for protecting wikipedia from spam. Putting their links in even the author's articles was way over the top. WAS 4.250 16:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should, by the way, have thanked you for getting involved. I'm afraid, though, that the same sort of actions have been started up again, this time by Fricka (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log). It's somewhat depressing that someone, at least, seems not to have learnt anything from all this. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:29, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who Fricka is, but there's a message on LibriVox telling everyone to hold off wikipedia for the moment till this gets sorted, so it's not anything "official" ... we do have about a thousand volunteers; and 10,000 viisitors a day; so someone, unaware of what's going on, may have just decided that the links should be there.Mackinaw 19:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

You sure seem to like to talk about me ([1] and elsewhere, including directly above this). LVers are more commonly referred to as "Death Eaters". ;-) --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 14:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I need no help, I was just a little confused when scanning Jimbo's talk page that "LV" was being talked about. Little did I know you meant LibriVox. Silly Dark Lord. Thanks. See you around, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Sorry, I should have explained, but I was in the middle of something else, so just reverted. It's generally not done to remove comments from Talk pages (of articles or Users); if you want something not to be read, the usual approach is to ~~strike it out~~, or to explain. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk is accepted while deleting talk is frowned on (go figure). Anything you don't want on your talk page just stick in an archive. If you want me to, I'll do it for you. Just ask. WAS 4.250 17:22, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were talking about his removal of text from my Talk page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I noticed the removal of stuff from this page and assumed that was what was meant. I haven't looked at your talk page in ages. I guess I'll have to check it out to alleviate some of my ignorance. Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hosting LibriVox files here

Hi Mackinaw. At Commons:Commons:Village pump#LibriVox we're having a discussion about copying the LibriVox books here to Wikipedia. For example, I added a link at the bottom of The Hunting of the Snark. Anyway, I noticed your contributions here, and I though you might want to join the discussion there. (By the way, I restored your link at The Secret Agent.) Cheers, dbenbenn | talk 11:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]