User talk:Nonance
August 2007
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Heroes (TV series) do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Ckatzchatspy 16:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi, Ckatz. As you know this has been discussed on the talk page already, however the discussion continues to die out without reaching consensus. The link added does comply with Wikipedia policies and many other articles on television series do already contain links to external wikis that go into further depth than Wikipedia policies allow. The link is not being used to promote the site in question, merely to provide more detailed information than Wikipedia allows. If you believe in this particular instance it does not follow Wikipedia's policies, then please contribute to the discussion already on the talk page. In addition the use of a spam warning is inappropriate as it does not fall under Wikipedia:Spam. It is not being spammed to many articles, it is not advertising anything, and it was added in coordination with discussions on the article's talk page. Thanks. --Nonance 16:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As you well know, the consensus to date is to keep the link *off* of the page, as reflected by multiple removals, talk page discussion, and the hidden comment specifically mentioning the site. Given that the validity of the link is disputed, the onus is on you to prove that there is a consensus to add it *before* adding it - not the other way around. If you disagree with the "spam" warning, that is your choice. However, the vast majority of your edits serve only to add, or promote the addition of, a site that has repeatedly been rejected. --Ckatzchatspy 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Correct. Reading through the archives however reveals that the consensus was based on a vocal minority including one particular instance of what at least to me appears to be personal bias against that site (which is unfortunate since my point isn't specifically about that site, it's merely a convenient example for me). That being said, consensus is still consensus. The current consensus is that it should not be added which is partly why I'm not specifically pursuing the goal of having it added. My goal is to open this discussion on external links back up so that it can be objectively discussed and consensus can be reevaluated as often occurs here. When there is no discussion on the topic and no new consensus, I re-add the link to generate some discussion. I try to do so while encouraging discussion, but so far you've reverted it a few times without continuing the discussion. Let me also point out, and I don't intend any animosity here, that each time recently it has been you that reverted the addition, not any of the other editors who also review the article. This also brings into question whether the current consensus is even supported by the community. Hypothetically I'd be curious if the link would remain were you to not revert it as it would be an interesting test of whether consensus has changed already. I won't be silly and claim that the lack of discussion on the topic implies there is consensus on my viewpoint, but it does need to be discussed. I notice you're also a contributor over on Scrubs (TV series) which also links to an external wiki. It may help me to understand why, for example, that link is appropriate while a link to the Heroes wiki is not. Thanks. --Nonance 22:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- You should be aware that the project frowns upon disruptions to make a point, such as what you've described above. Additionally, the page is currently quieter due to the summer hiatus, which is why there are fewer people around to remove the link. (As you may recall, SigmaEpsilon was removing the link as well before getting attacked by an anon.) If you have an issue with the project's general consensus regarding fan sites, you should take it up at the external links page, not at an individual page. (FYI, you might also wish to consider that to date, your edits all seem to revolve around the goal of adding a link to Heroeswiki. Whether or not that is your intent, the apparent single-purpose editing pattern will affect how other editors perceive your actions.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not seeking just to make a point, I'm just focusing on a single example currently so that the discussion remains focused. I'm also not trying to change policy as I believe it's already sufficiently defined in most aspects. My goal is the consistent application of existing policy which I believe is not the case currently on the Heroes page. Furthermore the process I've taken isn't one I believe most would consider "disruptive"; it's merely the process by which information comes to be added when there are conflicting views on its inclusion (e.g. The discussions on the talk page) I considered the hiatus could be contributing to the dormancy, but based on the edit history for the page it looked like there was enough activity to discuss this topic. I saw the anon's initial contribution which is what started me thinking about consistency of articles across the site (as I'd grown accustomed to seeing external wikis linked on many of the other television series articles). The issue at hand is not a general consensus regarding fan sites. In fact, if you check out the talk page on WP:EL you'll see that there is no such consensus on fan sites in general. If anything it's more of an acknowledgement that fan sites need to be evaluated on a case by case basis based on their merits and compliance with WP:EL (which is what I am doing on the Heroes discussion page) and not on the WP:EL page. Yes, a few of the edits so far have been adding a link to the wiki, but more specifically they are focused on applying a consistent standard when it comes to external links. Heroes is just the first such article in this process. Could you please address my question about the Scrubs article when you get a chance? Thanks. --Nonance 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- You should be aware that the project frowns upon disruptions to make a point, such as what you've described above. Additionally, the page is currently quieter due to the summer hiatus, which is why there are fewer people around to remove the link. (As you may recall, SigmaEpsilon was removing the link as well before getting attacked by an anon.) If you have an issue with the project's general consensus regarding fan sites, you should take it up at the external links page, not at an individual page. (FYI, you might also wish to consider that to date, your edits all seem to revolve around the goal of adding a link to Heroeswiki. Whether or not that is your intent, the apparent single-purpose editing pattern will affect how other editors perceive your actions.) --Ckatzchatspy 23:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- Correct. Reading through the archives however reveals that the consensus was based on a vocal minority including one particular instance of what at least to me appears to be personal bias against that site (which is unfortunate since my point isn't specifically about that site, it's merely a convenient example for me). That being said, consensus is still consensus. The current consensus is that it should not be added which is partly why I'm not specifically pursuing the goal of having it added. My goal is to open this discussion on external links back up so that it can be objectively discussed and consensus can be reevaluated as often occurs here. When there is no discussion on the topic and no new consensus, I re-add the link to generate some discussion. I try to do so while encouraging discussion, but so far you've reverted it a few times without continuing the discussion. Let me also point out, and I don't intend any animosity here, that each time recently it has been you that reverted the addition, not any of the other editors who also review the article. This also brings into question whether the current consensus is even supported by the community. Hypothetically I'd be curious if the link would remain were you to not revert it as it would be an interesting test of whether consensus has changed already. I won't be silly and claim that the lack of discussion on the topic implies there is consensus on my viewpoint, but it does need to be discussed. I notice you're also a contributor over on Scrubs (TV series) which also links to an external wiki. It may help me to understand why, for example, that link is appropriate while a link to the Heroes wiki is not. Thanks. --Nonance 22:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
- As you well know, the consensus to date is to keep the link *off* of the page, as reflected by multiple removals, talk page discussion, and the hidden comment specifically mentioning the site. Given that the validity of the link is disputed, the onus is on you to prove that there is a consensus to add it *before* adding it - not the other way around. If you disagree with the "spam" warning, that is your choice. However, the vast majority of your edits serve only to add, or promote the addition of, a site that has repeatedly been rejected. --Ckatzchatspy 22:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)