Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 7

Requesting a change to {{external links}}

I posted this on the template's talk page awhile back but my question hasn't received a response, so I'm trying this forum.

Is there a way for any template-savvy editor to change the external links cleanup template so that it makes sense when used in article sections? My request would be an {{external links|section}} tag that works similar to {{cleanup}} and {{cleanup|section}}.

The requested changes are following in bold. This section's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this section by removing excessive and inappropriate external links.

Thanks in advance! ThemFromSpace 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

As ELs are their own section per MOS, why would the template be in an article section, and therefore, why would this need to be changed at all? If ELs are in a different section other than EL, they should be there for sourcing information (and thus not repeated as an EL later. Therefore the reference cleanup template should be used. MSJapan (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Just because ELs should only be at the end of the article doesn't mean this is true in practice (and the tag is designed to bring this to our attention). For example in an article about a town there may be a section on "businesses" that is nothing but a dumping of ELs to specific businesses in that town. That section would need an EL-section cleanup tag. Currently we use the template that we have, but we should make it more specific. ThemFromSpace 04:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I too have seen ELs in sections and MOS states "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article." I think instead of making a new template that may in some way vindicate their use in sections, they should be cleaned-up on sight. Particularly if businesses are linking, I see that as unnecessary and a form of SPAM.--NortyNort (Holla) 04:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly about these sections needing to be removed, but some editors would rather tag the sections and let those who focus on this type of work take care of it. I routinely go through articles with this tag on and cut the crap from them and I don't mind others tagging needy articles for me to do so. All I'm asking for here is a clarification of the template for situations that it is already used in -- I thought this would be a noncontroversial request. I'm not asking for it to be used more often, just for it to be more accurate when used in the body of an article. ThemFromSpace 04:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
ThemFromSpace, I think this is a good idea. I don't think it will get used much, but it could be helpful. Let me suggest that you ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Templates, where some template-savvy people seem to hang out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip Jose Farmer ELs

This claims to be the official website of the author Philip Jose Farmer, but it is run by a third party (Mike Croteau, [email protected], to whom the associated Paypal account belongs), and seems to only be a way to sell overpriced Farmer-related items, like photocopies of manuscripts (for $450), books from his estate (mostly signed by the author $300-up, and now offering "discounts"), and such. Note that both Farmer and his wife have been dead for almost two years.

Now normally, I would agree with an official site EL, but there are some fundamental problems - the page on World of Tiers on the site [1] calls one of the main characters "Wolf". However, his name appears multiple times in multiple novels, and it's "Wolff" - this is simply not a mistake a fan or the writer would make and leave up. So I'm concerned that this and the associated MySpace here are just commercial funnels for a third party, and are not useful informational resources. I would like to have them looked at, and if found to be inappropriate, removed and added to the EL blocklist. MSJapan (talk) 23:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I know of several more official sites of writers which are only a way to sell overpriced items. An obituary on the website of his publisher links to pjfarmer as "his homepage", which is as much verification as I can find. Yoenit (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Is it worth taking up on the policy board in general (because there is commercial interest involved, though it isn't readily apparent), or will it make dealing with ELs too overly complicated? MSJapan (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
WP:ELOFFICIAL requires the website to be controlled by the subject. Now, it's more complicated than this, but dead people don't usually control websites, and thus a little while after a person's death, they usually quit having what we would call an official website. There might be some exceptions (maybe a website run by a trust created by the subject?), but I think you need not put too much emphasis on the website's (unverifiable?) claim to be "official". If, after considering all the facts and circumstances, you think that the link is undesirable, then you can remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Dead people usually have their estates controlling their official websites. If the entity controlling it is the person's estate, then it's still official. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think an estate-controlled site meets ELOFFICIAL. I'd certainly like to hear others' perspectives. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Sometimes, it might be; other times, it might not be. Certainly we should not dump links to a pre-existing official website on the day of a person's death. Years later, though, you have to wonder whether the estate exists any longer. I'm not sure that we have contemplated "official" status for a website owned outright by an heir or sold to an outside entity, rather than being managed by the executor of the estate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Having spent thousands of hours (not to mention dollars) working on this website for the last 15+ years, I find the statement that it only exists to “be a way to sell overpriced Farmer-related items” very misleading. This statement seems to ignore 95% of the website; the long listings of books, short stories, articles, excerpts, reviews, poems, forewords, letters, etc. that Phil wrote, the sections that list things written about Phil, the very long listings of every convention or other public event he attended, the mammoth listing of reviews of his books, ephemera such as publisher’s letters and advertising, fiction, articles and artwork submitted by fans, nine years worth of monthly updates brining Farmer’s fans any relevant news, the nearly two thousand images we’ve scanned and put online, the timeline and photo gallery, Phil’s reading recommendations, and the free webhosting we provide for other Farmer related websites just to give a quick overview. My goal has always been to make the website a repository of everything Farmer related. The website was christened "official" by Phil Farmer in 2001 although his active participation in the site was sporadic both before and after that date. To answer another question above, there is in fact a Philip J Farmer Family Trust and the website is still run with their encouragement.
If your policy states that an official site must be run by the subject, I have no issue if you wish to remove the words "Official Site" from the link to However, I do hope someone takes the time to look at the entire website to determine if it is a useful informational resource or not before adding it to an EL block list.


I added a link to the Colca Canyon page perhaps a month ago, but it was edited out (quite reasonably; I hadn't known the protocol of broaching the subject in the page's discussion forum first). I would like to establish the link's acceptability first, before taking it to the forums. The link I added - from Walkopedia - is not trying to sell anything; unlike the Colca Canyon Travel Guide link within the "Attractions" section, or the first link in the "External Links" section.

I hesitated to add an independent "Walking" section to the page, not wanting to tread on any toes... As an external link, Walkopedia is a professionally-run information store with a bent towards walking. Although the walks rating system on the site is subjective, the extensive practical information (Itiniraries/Climate/Routes/Park Permits, etc) is thoroughly researched. In terms of walking, I believe it is a valuable resource for people who would conceivably Wiki an area before their visit. The Colca Canyon page, for example, otherwise makes no mention of the fact that the canyon is actually famous for trekking.

I would appreciate it if the wider community could verify it is a link worth taking forward? Billjohnsonwalko (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

From your contributions to Wikipedia, it seems the majority have been placing links to this website in articles. This may be a conflict of interest and/or promotion of a the website. See WP:LINKSPAM. If a website has an excellent reputation and is well-established, the community can accept it as a norm. I am not sure if this website meets that criteria. Also, I see the concern with having a link not directly related to the article. In other words, the article is on the canyon, not tourism or walking through it. In my opinion, I don't see a reason for these links to be in the respective articles. If walking is very popular in these various sites, please considering adding some reliably-referenced material to their related (or maybe not existent) "Tourism/Attractions" sections. It seems the travel guide link you cited above and another were removed from the article too.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a travelguide. As such I would consider an external link to a walking specific website outside of our scope. There is already an external link to a wiki specified in providing travel information in the article ( and I suggest you contribute external links to that wiki. Yoenit (talk) 11:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Lillis IMDB link

Rachael Lillis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am concerned about the removal of her IMDB link. Today, a user removed this link from her article ([2]). I can only suspect that the user in question is an IP hopper based in New York City, who also uses accounts in addition to IP addresses. Can someone please look into this issue? I feel that IMDB links are necessary, especially for actors and voice actors (as Lillis is both). Thanks for your time. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

They surely aren't necessary but they are usually helpful. You should look into getting the page semiprotected if an IP hopper is editing against consensus and open up a sockpuppet case if you have probable cause. ThemFromSpace 01:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
FWIW, I went ahead and requested semiprotection. ThemFromSpace 01:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
After this page was semi-protected for a week, a user removed the link with the edit summary "unwanted link removed--please do not put it back." So, I agree the IMDB link is not necessary in this case. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Malayalam Music Database

Recently i reverted a new editor adding external links to this site. This is an IMDB like site for malayalam film music. It is a non-profit, ad free user contributed site. And it is very comprehensive for the subject covered. The editor has asked me to reconsider as his only intention is to add value to wikipedia articles. After looking through the site, i believe the links are very useful and add value to the articles. (I am familiar with the subject area).

I would like inputs from the wider community, whether this site can be treated as something similar to IMDB or ISFDB. --Sodabottle (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the significance and reliability of the website, but based off of your discussion with the editor and their contributions, it appears to be link spam in which they should be removed. There is already an IMDB link for that artist in the article as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 09:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I think you are not understanding *how* the link is benefiting the WIki entry. Let's take the example of a music composer. This is the IMDB link and this is the link that I added. Its not even close. As you can see the IMDB *doesn't* give the number of songs composed for a year, the number of songs sang by a particular artist, which lyricists worked the most with the music composer, the details of *all* songs of this music composer with a particular lyricist and a particular singer etc and etc.
If a fan of that music composer comes across this wiki page, he will get a general idea of the career and the hit films of that composer. But only this link will be able to give *all and any* details of the composer.

SJ MSI (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

External link to Free Math Flash Cards from Multiplication page

I'm writing to request that Wikipedia add an external link from the Wikipedia Multiplication page to Free Math Flash Cards.

The most important reason to add an external link to Free Math Flash Cards is to help the users of Wikipedia. I believe most people who view the Wikipedia multiplication article are parents teachers or students who need help with multiplication. The Wikipedia Multiplication page does a wonderful job of defining multiplication. The next logical step is to provide methods for users to actually memorize the multiplication table.

Free Math Flash Cards is more than a web site, or even a computer program. It's a process. It's the fastest easiest way to memorize the multiplication table. Free Math Flash Cards has everything students need to memorize the multiplication table. With Free Math Flash Cards, students know the answer to every problem from 1 X 1 through 12 X 12 like they know their own name. They don't have to think about it, they just know all the answers. Almost all students memorize the multiplication table in less than four hours with Free Math Flash Cards. The average is 2.5 hours.

I would like to invite an independent evaluation of Free Math Flash Cards. If you would be willing to evaluate Free Math Flash Cards and provide feedback to Wikipedia, please contact me and I'll show you how to get started.

Jarhead422 (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you are obviously here with the intention to promote this website, which makes it by definition unsuited for wikipedia (seewp:LINKSPAM). Even though the basic functionality is provided for free, the intent is to sell visitors the "best" package. However, multiplication games are a dime in a dozen and the vast majority of them is really available for free (see for example [3][4]). While I am not necessarily opposed to the inclusion of an external link on the multiplication website to a website which can help students learn multiplication, this website is unsuited. Yoenit (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Incarnation Children's Center: YouTube link

The article in dispute is Incarnation_Children's_Center. It is the subject of a BBC documentary video first aired Tuesday, 30 November, 2004 on BBC Two in the United Kingdom.

The dispute is whether the video's YouTube link is acceptable as an External Link, as I posted it in this version of the article. If you follow that link it takes you where the video can be seen. I ask that editors taking an interest in the dispute view the video in full.

The rules for linking to YouTube can be found here and here.

An opposing view is at the article's Discussion page, in the Youtube section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceSwanson (talkcontribs) 06:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't look the BBC uploaded the video to YouTube so it appears to be a copyright violation. Even if it isn't a copyright violation, I'm not sure why we'd want this in the External links section anyway. The video might be a good reference but that doesn't mean it should be included as an external link. ElKevbo (talk) 08:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
And on further examination the description of the video at YouTube clearly states that it (a) was recorded from BBC 2 (meaning it is almost certainly a copyright violation) and (b) has been edited. So this video shouldn't even be used as a source in the article much less included as an external link. ElKevbo (talk) 08:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I have contacted both the YouTube poster and the BBC regarding copyright of GPK. I originally used this as the link, where it certainly isn't a copyright violation. The editor WLU deleted it, with the comment that balance in ELs comes in the form of not including pseudoscientific links. But that is merely his opinion. That link could replace the YouTube video, could it not? Your comment that The video might be a good reference but that doesn't mean it should be included as an external link seems to indicate that it is usable as a footnote. That would be fine with me.

It's questionable whether the video could be used as a reference for anything except its existence as it is essentially a propaganda piece from an AIDS denialist. Like Peter Duesberg can't be a source on criticisms of of the treatment of AIDS, this video also shouldn't be used as a source in my opinion. I would rather reference reliable sources that refer to the existence of the documentary than refer to the video itself. My objection to the video being used as an EL were based on the video being only tangentially related to one aspect of the page itself (i.e. on the Incarnation Children's Center page, it is not a video about the whole center, it is about one aspect of it). My objection to the video being used as a reference is related to its status as a video created by an AIDS denialist promoting a fringe POV, and thus that it is an unreliable source that shouldn't be used at all. Both objections apply irrespective its status on YouTube as a copyright violation, the fact that it's a COPYVIO is an extra reason not to link to this video on YouTube. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
  • It's pretty clear what's happening here. This video prompted a barrage of complaints to the BBC, many of which were upheld. The BBC published a prominent correction stating that it identified "serious failings" in the material, and that its presentation was biased and misleading. Linking to the YouTube video, which as best I can tell does not contain these prominent disclaimers, is actively deceptive since it deprives the reader of relevant context necessary to evaluate the material.

    The argument here is particularly facile, even by Wikipedia standards. Bruce claims notability for the video by mentioning that it was published by the BBC. But the BBC has publicly distanced itself from the documentary because of its numerous failings in accuracy and objectivity, so Bruce wants to link it on YouTube to avoid those disclaimers. It's like having your cake and eating it too. Except instead of cake, it's shoddy, partisan editing. MastCell Talk 01:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Three points to consider: 1) Whether the film should be linked via an External Link or via a footnote, which ElKevbo, above, suggests might be OK. 2) Whether the link to YouTube would be a copyright violation; and 3) whether there should be a link at all.

It makes no difference to me whether the link is External or a footnote. As to the copyright problem, that can be avoided by using the link I originally supplied. As to whether there should be a link at all because it lacks the BBC's disclaimers: those disclaimers are of course discussed and cited as references in the ICC article itself. However, to reinforce those caveats, it may be that the best option is to make the film the subject of its own article. That way all aspects of the movie can be discussed in complete detail without overshadowing the ICC subject matter, the danger of which WLU objects to, above. But to argue that it should be neither linked externally nor via footnote, nor allowed its own article, would be censorship outright. After all, there are other AIDS-dissident articles in Wikipedia. Consider Inventing the AIDS Virus (which I initially wrote and submitted) and Dr. Matthias Rath.

If the decision is made here to deny both an External Link and a footnote, I will write and submit a separate GPK article. BruceSwanson (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The BBC owns the copyright to the movie. Both the YouTube link and the anonymously operated website "dedicated" to the movie are copyright violations and may not be linked on any page, including this one. This policy applies even if you write an entire article about the movie.
Accordingly, I've 'broken' the links above. If this continues to be a problem, the procedures for dealing with it are outlined at WP:BLACKLIST. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

What are you doing, indeed? We'll need a source for your claim of copyright violation at the two source-websites. And I doubt that our use of the links to those sites in this discussion would make us a party to any such violation. I doubt also that our use of the links in the article itself would constitute copyright violation. It's up to the copyright holder to enforce its rights against offending websites, not those who link to the offending websites. That the BBC hasn't done so as yet indicates to me that they are no longer concerned about the matter. One may assume that there is a legal reason for that. As I mentioned above, I have contacted the BBC about this. You can too. BruceSwanson (talk) 06:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNEVER, we never link to copyright violations regardless of the opinions of editors. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
These video's should not be linked per our copyright policy - knowingly linking to material in violation of copyright is a problem. However, one can also discuss a video without actually linking to it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:26, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I can accept that the YouTube link may be unacceptable. But what's your reasoning that this is a copyright violation? BruceSwanson (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"This is a slightly edited version of the complete documentary that was broadcast on Tuesday, 30 November, 2004, at 1930 GMT on BBC Two in the UK." That documentary is copyrighted by the Beeb; so this is a weblink to a copyright violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess you're saying that if it hadn't been edited it would not be a copyright violation. That the website states openly that the film has been edited indicates no intent and no fact of violation. The Youtube site says the same thing, making it probable that it comes from the above website, not from the BBC. A search for "Guinea Pig Kids" at the BBC website results in no pertinent information. This is surely no accident.

All this disagreement argues for the film to have its own article. A link would be superfluous, as the fact of its Internet right-click availability would be easily discovered by readers. BruceSwanson (talk) 20:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary: whether it's been tampered with or not, it's still a copyright violation, and we forbid links to such. The creation of YouTube did not repeal copyright in visual media. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Linking to a page that very prominently links to a copyright violation is still against our policies. The fact that the copyvio doesn't automatically load on the first page doesn't matter. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
There is no issue with Guinea Pig Kids having its own article, the controversy it sparked appears to present enough sources to clear WP:N. However, even on that page the YouTube video still should not be linked to as a copyright violation. The appropriate page to be included would be this one and the other GPK page shouldn't be. The page should be written based on the appropriate reliable sources that can be found, not on the AIDS denialist sources and not on the documentary itself - which is not a reliable source.
OrangeMike is saying that the BBC owns the copyright on the film and that its rebroadcast on the internet is a copyright violation. Whether it is edited or not is immaterial. I think there are sufficient voices here, Bruce, to realize that neither the YouTube, nor the GPK website should be linked to. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex

I am plainly outvoted on the issue of linking and will let it rest, but I'm not convinced that the originating website is guilty of any meaningful copyright violation. BruceSwanson (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy but we do establish consensus based on discussion, policies, guidelines and references. You were not outvoted, you were unable to muster any convincing policy-based arguments for the inclusion of the link as either an external link or reliable source. I don't think you ever actually referred to the appropriat policy pages, WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYLINK, let alone ventured an argument based on them. ElKevbo's original objection was the video was not uploaded by the BBC, who have a channel if they wanted a copy on YouTube. Therefore, there's every indication the video currently on YouTube does not meet our requirements for linking only to copyright-appropriate content. Discussion also adressed the reliability as a source and given the statements the BBC has made about the video (here and most substantively here), it seems obvious the video would probably not be a reliable source in any case. The latter link essentially labels the main proponent of the criticisms in the film an AIDS denialist ("In support of these claims, the programme interviewed an expert witness who was, though the audience was not told, a leading advocate of the propositions that HIV is unconnected with AIDS, that anti-retroviral drugs do not work in the treatment of AIDS and that they are, in fact, responsible for deaths attributed to AIDS. The audience was not told that his was a minority and controversial view which would be challenged by mainstream medical opinion"). This adds a further layer of why the video should not be an external link because generally external links should also be reliable sources. ElKevbo's statement about the video being linked as a reference was not an endorsement of the video as a reference. I would suggest asking ElKevbo if s/he fact supports the use of the video as a source. That the original publisher has distanced itself from the film argues against this. Accordingly, even if you create a separate page for the video neither the YouTube nor the GPK website hosting the video should be linked to the wikipedia article page as an external link or a source.
In this edit WhatamIdoing broke the links to the copyright-violating websites, and in this edit you replaced them. Wikipedia's policy is to never link to copyright violations (see WP:COPYLINK). I have re-broken the links, please do not replace them. Note that continuing to link to copyright violations can result in a block. This is in part a legal issue, not merely one of editor preference.
Right now the consensus is that the YouTube and versions of the video are copyright violations and are therefore inappropriate as external links. If you wish to clarify whether the community considers them copyright violations, you need to go elsewhere, probably here, and refer them to this discussion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no expertise in this area so I have no opinion on the suitability of this as a reference. But it sounds like serious objections have been raised that need to be addressed. ElKevbo (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Rachael Lillis, again

Despite the removal of the Yahoo Groups links, Wikiaccount2311 (talk · contribs), a relative newcomer who edits in the same manner as the IP hopper and account Juliet1987 (talk · contribs), and claims to be also from New York, has reverted the removal of the Yahoo Groups link, which goes against fansite consensus ([5]), as well as an unneeded category ([6]). The user swiftly reverted my recent reversion. I was going to report it at WP:BLP/N, but given the nature of these edits, I feel that reporting here is necessary. Can someone look into this mess please? I am suspicious that it must be a COI. If so, is it necessary to take this issue to WP:COI/N? Thanks, Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeffed the editor, blacklisted the links. They are fanpages, and the edit summaries suggest that it is someone with a conflict of interest. This is not the way forward (IP hopping and (I suspect) multiple accounts). Time for the editor to start discussing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Going through the article's history also reveals the same issues which date as far back as 2007. The user's actions led me to post a note about the IMDB link here and as a result, this page was semi-protected. After the semi-protection expired, the user registered the account and performed similar edits that were found today, and it led me to report this issue. This user is on a New York ISP. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I left some tracking data on User talk:Wikiaccount2311. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
On the user's discussion page, her response here indicated that this account and another one is indeed the voice actor herself. So, if there is any confusion, I apologize if I had to do it in the first place. And I tagged this article as a COI per the guidelines at WP:COI and opened up a discussion at the COI noticeboard here to get further input, and deleted her IMDB link for now until we can gain a consensus there. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:23, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dirk, for the swift response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Keep her IMDB link out?

Now that her account has unblocked by Dirk and I removed her IMDB link, is it possible if we can get a consensus of leaving the IMDB link out? Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that is a discussion for the talkpage of Rachael Lillis. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:14, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
All right, then. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
I've started a discussion at Talk:Rachael Lillis#External_links. If one of the involved editors would please name the links in question and why they're good or bad for the article, I'd appreciate it. (Old hands are also reminded that we've got a brand-new editor involved, so plain, intelligible English is very much preferable to the string of acronyms that you might use when talking to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Good point. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:32, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Over on Talk:Three-dimensional chess, there is some dispute about linking to the personal pages set up by the authors of a few non notable chess variants. The links at issue are Millennium 3D Chess, 3D Eight Level chess and Spherical Chess 400. I would appreciate some additional comments on whether these links are appropriate. Thanks. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I have replied there and hope that several other people will do the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Presently, there is no need to debate an external link for Millennium 3D Chess since an editor has recently put it into the text of the article. It is not anywhere near as notable as Raumschach or (Star Trek) Tri-Dimensional Chess, though. So, its chances of remaining explicitly in the article are marginal. -DavidWatersHC —Preceding undated comment added 21:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC).
David - I'm trying to understand consistency between this & the Chess variant article. I posted my Qs on Talk:Three-dimensional_chess#other_variants, same as WhatamIdoing. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

New task force for WP:LINKROT

I have recently started a WebCiteBOT Replacement Task Force to help coordinate an effort to get a new WebCiteBOT to combat WP:LINKROT. Anybody that is interested is encouraged to share their views about the project. Thanks. - Hydroxonium (H3O+) 15:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


A discussion-by-edit-summary is being conducted at Fred Hoyle where one editor wants to remove the external link per WP:ELNO#11, while another feels the link is useful. Similar links are being removed at other articles, examples: Chandra Wickramasinghe, Cosmic ancestry, Gaia hypothesis, Panspermia, RNA world hypothesis, Weasel program. I'm sitting on the fence: the about page shows that the site is operated by an enthusiast, Brig Klyce (complication: BrigKlyce (talk · contribs) is a new editor who has made one edit which added a link), and ELNO#11 is clear about that. Yet, a couple of the linked pages that I looked at are entirely different from the normal stuff that ELNO#11 is intended to avoid. Thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Also of interest is Bklyce (talk · contribs). Klyce's About page (and how he brags about his "special mention" on Wikipedia) gives me the impression he's been active on different accounts and IPs (potentially this IP, judging from the original state of the article it made, and the singular purpose to its edits) in an effort to promote his site. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Nevertheless the link at Fred Hoyle was an extremely interesting interview with Hoyle and of interest to readers. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 00:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
It may be relevent (just meets #4 of WP:ELMAYBE), but the site's owner has a really bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it comes to spamming his site (he refuses to discuss things with me; really only talks with people to look for ways to promote his site, ignoring their advice when they don't give him a way around WP:COI and WP:RS). Multiple editors have explained to him that he shouldn't promote his site, that it doesn't meet our sourcing guidelines, but I've just reverted him for using it as a source. I think that the two instances that it's in article space are only encouraging him. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If we've got significant, ongoing behavioral problems with a 'spammer', then the site should be submitted for WP:BLACKLISTing, regardless of its potential merits. It can be whitelisted on any specific page that independent editors agree it improves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Undergraduate student essay, linked as "Further Reading"

A WP:RSN discussion regarding this link, as a ref, is found here:Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_87#Undergraduate_Student_Essay. As the reference was removed, the editor now wishes to addd it as further reading. The essay is obscure, promotes "original research" and "fringe" concepts found nowhere else in academia or literature, and was written by an undergraduate of no notability. It has no place being linked to on any level. The effort to shoehorn it in on the technicality that the WP:RSN overwhelming consensus rejection as a ref is now moot as it is now just a mere "link" - is just simple gaming of the system. (talk) 11:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

"promotes "original research" and "fringe" concepts found nowhere else in academia or literature" - which concepts, exactly? Parrot of Doom 13:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(inserted response} Numerous, but specifically among them that Samuel Pepys was likely a trained anatomist, that apparently the soul does not migrate after death (a standard western concept) but that there exists a certain fleshly embodiment of being after death, which leads to something, again unknown in academia or literature, that one can be at the center of a heretofore unknown ritual, "Robbing of Honour". The paper is more accurately an example of "creative writing", it has no academic utility as an accurate history of that time. The Pepys postulation regarding anatomical training is the most striking, as Pepys is himself known for his meticulous diary which makes no such claim, hint or even cause to speculate. (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I think you should learn to read, or stop lying. Either will do. On the subject of Pepys the essay says "Samuel Pepys’ diary confirmed that he was capable of identifying the heart as a discernable organ, though it is uncertain whether this awareness was indicative of widespread anatomical knowledge in society. It is possible that Pepys himself was educated in anatomy, but this was rare. Perhaps the executioner announced his methods of disembowelment so that spectators could identify the organ removed from the body as a heart." That is not the same as what you said, which is "Samuel Papys was likely a trained anatomist". I can find not a single mention of the word "soul" in Jones's essay so perhaps you'd care to highlight what page that is on? As for the Robbing of Honour I suggest you read David Bellamy, The Tudor Law of Treason (1979) which does a rather competent job of repeating exactly what Jones wrote. Or is that, like the Kastenbaum book you also appear to have a chip on your shoulder about, also an unreliable source? You could also read Michel Foucault's Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, which says pretty much the same things.
So, having demonstrated quite easily that your claim "concepts found nowhere else in academia or literature" is basically utter bollocks, will you have the grace to admit that you are incorrect, and that this essay might be of interest to those reading about the subject, or will you continue to act like a child, edit warring on article pages and talk pages, posting at as many noticeboards as you can find (one instance of which resulted in a block) and generally claiming that you know best and that everybody else is wrong? Because frankly, you appear to be as constructive as a Haitian builder. Parrot of Doom 16:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(inserted response} It's Pepys, I didn't write "Papys". And if you wish to correct me as I should have written "possibly" instead of "likely" regarding the student essay's guess - I stand corrected. And are we really to discuss this? Wouldn't it have been more likely that he could identify a heart - because like everyone else on earth he'd simply seen them before? Cow's hearts, sheep hearts, pig hearts, goat hearts, deer hearts? They do look quite different from lungs or intestines and are commonly ingested. As to Jone's lack of use regarding "soul", that's the point. If there exists a certain fleshly embodiment of being after death, something that can be harmed or "Robbed", then she misses a major and significant western philosophic thought of the time, the decoupling and separate sense of being (soul) and flesh. But it's an undergraduates essay, so what? We don't use such things here for a reason. (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"And are we really to discuss this?" That's funny, I thought that in most of your edit summaries that's exactly what you asked for? Whether Pepys could identify a heart or not is irrelevant, the fact is you misrepresented Jones's essay. For your information it wasn't Jones talking about a soul, that was Kastenbaum, and he most certainly can be judged a reliable source. Then again, why would you know that, because you decided to delete an entire paragraph without checking to whom the text was attributed. As for your points about souls and flesh, I'm sorry but you're not a reliable source, are you, so why would I listen? So, what's left to whinge about? Parrot of Doom 16:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(inserted response}No, nowhere did I seek to engage you on "possibly" Vs. "likely". Perhaps you also failed to notice - I conceded that point. Your responses have a pattern of hostility(1)(2) that is uncomfortable to say the least, and counterproductive to the projects goals. This latest baseless and empty trolling attempt to provoke an argument where there is none is useless. (talk) 17:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I see, so you dodge the points I've made and continue to attack my character. Attempting to discuss the matter with you was a clear mistake, I shall trouble myself no longer. Parrot of Doom 17:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I remember that discussion and I agree that the paper shouldn't be included as an external link. ElKevbo (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Why shouldn't it be used as an external link? The previous discussion centred on the essay's use as a reliable source, but different rules apply to external links. Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If it's not good enough to use as a reference why in the world would we direct readers to it as an external link? ElKevbo (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I suggest you take a casual look at the external links section of some of this project's featured articles. Just yesterday for instance, would you use this as a reliable source? And that article has been through FAC and TFA. Parrot of Doom 17:21, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Then those should be removed, too. External links sections are for resources that are typically too large, too detailed, or of a different media to be included in an article. They're not a place to put links to documents that have already been rejected as valid sources of information about the topic in question. WP:EL is pretty clear about this. And no, I don't consider an essay by undergraduate student to be a sufficiently "knowledgeable source" except in very unusual circumstances. It's laudable that this student's essay was published in a student journal but we shouldn't rely on it or steer readers to it. ElKevbo (talk) 17:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
You say yes, I say no. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
The burden is almost always on those who wish to include information in articles so it behooves you to address the issues that are being raised instead of dismissing them. ElKevbo (talk) 17:45, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
It's staying. Live with it. Malleus Fatuorum 17:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Please note: User:Malleus Fatuorum has been brought here in violation of WP:Canvass by his friend, the editor who seeks inclusion of the link.(3) As per policy: "(Canvassing) compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behaviour." Just as an FYI. (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Seems like you have no better understanding of the canvassing guidelines than any other of the relevant guidelines. Malleus Fatuorum 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I would point out as well that I am the 8th-highest contributor to the article being discussed here, therefore I feel that I have every right to state my view without being accused of some wrong-doing. Malleus Fatuorum 17:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Well ElKevbo, with external links we have a little more leeway than with sources. WP:EL gives a short list of things that can and should be external links, and a longer of things that can't and shouldn't. This essay certainly is not in the category of really good external links, but is it a bad link? Well, some of the types of generally (and remember, it's generally) proscribed links are:
  • 1 - Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article.
  • 2 - Any site that misleads the reader by... unverifiable research.
Well, number 1 certainly applies, since the entity was disallowed as a source. However, we don't need to be dogmatic about that. The question is, does #2 apply? In other words, does the link contain false information, or information that may be false? Well, its been claimed that it does, and a reasonably cogent argument to that effect was made. And after all its just an undergraduate paper for goodness' sake, so we can't have any confidence in the professional integrity and reputation of the author or publisher. I would say, no, this is not a good external link and it should be disallowed/removed.
Also, could we chill out a little with the "either learn to read or stop lying"? This sort of statement is not helpful, and as a practical matter makes one less, rather than more, like to consider your case favorably. Herostratus (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I would argue that this essay meets #4 of Links to be considered: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." "Knowledgable", nothing about "the professional integrity and reputation of the author or publisher". The latter clearly reflects on the reliable source criterion, and everyone has agreed that the essay cannot be considered to be a reliable source. Malleus Fatuorum 18:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I have no friends here, and I agree this link meets WP:EL and can be retained. Nobody brought me here; I found it all by myself. Why is it such a big deal to you to have it removed, anonymous IP editor? --John (talk) 17:40, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Can you please address the first item in the "Links normally to be avoided" section of WP:EL: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." That, combined with my belief that this is not a particularly knowledgeable source, is my primary objection.
And it's definitely clear that there are some weird interactions surrounding this link and the personalities involved. I, too, would like to know what the big deal is - for both sides - but I doubt that we'll get a straight answer we can trust from either party given their current and past behavior. I'd be very happy if they both went their different ways and stopped interacting. ElKevbo (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(EC)Because its removal improves the article. Highlighting an undergraduate student essay, selected without even a graduate student's perusal and published by fellow undergrads between 'Pizza Party's', undermines the credibility of the article - and the encyclopedia. It fails to add anything, its veracity is challenged, and its ideas do not exist in literature nor academia. There is no substitute for a reason. It has no value, and fails to meet the standard of "historically important publications; creative works or primary sources discussed extensively in the article; and seminal, but now outdated, scientific papers. When such sources are listed, the relevance of the work should be explained by a brief annotation" (talk) 17:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So everyone is aware: I just dropped a note at WP:ANI asking for some cooler heads to take a look at this discussion and the interactions between its participants. ElKevbo (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

ANI is very rarely a good place to go looking for "cooler heads", that's where you go when you're looking for a lynch mob. Malleus Fatuorum 18:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Oh Jesus, ANI. Yes that will bring in a much-needed element of dispassionate scholarly erudition. Herostratus (talk) 19:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm less interested in the opinions of admins on the matter of this external link and more interested in their ability to reign in the ridiculous drama being perpetuated by several of the participants in this and related discussions. ElKevbo (talk) 23:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I've withdrawn my support for retaining this link per ElKevbo's points above. I now officially don't care and I support treating this as a user conduct issue if it continues. --John (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
    • Elkevbo is clearly wrong though. Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Basic rules

Just so we're all on the same page here, I'd like to expand on Herostratus' comment above:

  • ==Further reading== is not (usually) exactly, precisely the same thing as ==External links== (although very similar, with nearly identical standards enforced by the community, and the two sections are rarely merged when both would be very short).
  • ==External links== do not have to be reliable sources. See WP:ELMAYBE #4. Ditto for ==Further reading==.
  • If there is a significant dispute over any ==External link==, it gets pitched. See WP:ELBURDEN, followed by WP:Wikipedia is not that important, followed by "If Wikipedia is not that important, then the URLs listed at the end of an article are really, really, really, REALLY not that important."

Also: I'm really disappointed in the tone of some of the comments above. Some of you may want to look over your comments and ask yourself if your time on Wikipedia is turning you into the type of person you want to be. Winning some unimportant dispute like this by being the biggest jerk is not winning—at least, I don't call that winning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

You have just done exactly what you have criticised others for doing, personalising the discussion. If you're going to try to pontificate from Mount Olympus then you'll need to start practising what you preach. Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
She's exactly right, though. A little bit of mutual respect would improve Wikipedia by a great deal. --Conti| 19:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I make no claim of being perfect. I do, however, agree with Conti that an atmosphere of mutual respect is desirable; furthermore, I think such an atmosphere extremely unlikely to appear unless its current absence is noted and deplored by those involved. My own respect for those I know in this discussion extends at least so far as to say that I believe they would wish themselves to do better than this, even if the stakes were far grander than a single URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • do not include link I do not see how an undergraduate research paper could possibly be considered a reasonable external link. Thats just opening the floodgates to students posting their work to every article and appears to be an attempt to skirt WP:OR. Active Banana (bananaphone 19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
  • do not include link. I commented earlier, but am just clarifying my position with a TBSPC. WhatamIdoing makes a good point: if it's an external link, and its either dubious or contested (with reasonable cogency, and not as part of a POV push), the presumption should be that it should go. Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • do not include link This seems pretty obvious to me. I agree with Active Banana and also take the point that if there's a significan dispute that's enough not to include it. Dougweller (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  • remove Having read the argument above, I see no appropriate reason for the inclusion of this link and significant resistance against it. Following wp:ELBURDEN it should therefore be removed. Yoenit (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
  • All undergraduate essay links should be removed from all External links/Further reading sections of all Wikipedia articles under WP:ELNO criteria #11. (Hell, we should get rid of Further reading sections entirely. If they are significant enough to list they should already be used as sources. If they aren't reliable to be listed as sources we should not explicitly encourage reading them. DreamGuy (talk) 16:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

There is an EL-related discussion, regarding this article; please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley)#Links to maps.

I'd be grateful if some other editors could add their opinions. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  15:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

L. Fletcher Prouty Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?

Is this external link appropriate?

L. Fletcher Prouty Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?

It is being included in the L. Fletcher Prouty article. See talk page for the ongoing discussion. The author of this web site can be found here John C. McAdams as well. Thank you. --Threeafterthree (talk) 23:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I support inclusion of this link because McAdams, a college professor who has a forthcoming book out on the JFK assassination, is a recognized expert, substantiated both by his credentials and the citations provided in the McAdams article identifying his website as a comprehensive source of quality information. Threeafterthree has alluded to numerous allegations by McAdams which, to his mind, seem to disqualify his website as an appropriate source, but has yet to more specifically identify or substantiate these allegations despite repeated requests. Gamaliel (talk) 00:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a website maintained by McAdams for his classes at Marquette University. It contains a lot of the same material to be found in his forthcoming book, JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy, coming out in May of this years from Potomac Books. The tone is not encyclopedic, but the information is likely to be reliable. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:09, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

2011 Egyptian protests

Talk:2011 Egyptian protests#EL. Comments would be appreciated.

My reasoning:
There has been reverting at 2011 Egyptian protests over what I see as a violation of ELNO and NOTINDISCRIMINATE. To clarify, the edit warring report addresses editor conduct while this is to address content.
The official YouTube channel of Al Jazeera[7] was added since it was streaming during the speech by the president when it was anticipated (incorrectly since he did not step down) that it was to be a monumental occasion. Linking to this channel is not inline with our standards since it is the main channel for Al Jazeera and not specific to this subject. It will eventually be of no use to the article when Al Jazeera posts videos of other news and it only serves to highlight this one recent news story.
A link to a video specific to the event might be appropriate as an external link and would certainly be appropriate in a citation. Neither scenario applies.
The article currently has had four people comment. Two (myself included in that) are against inclusion based on the reasoning above. One is in favor of inclusion for now but wants to remove it when it is o longer breaking news. And the fourth may not have understood the dispute from my reading of his comment. Not sure though.
Cptnono (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Alternate view:
Since no attempt was made her to offer counterarguments or present the situation neutrally (as WP:CANVASS suggests), I'll just briefly list the arguments for the link: The coverage is unique and high-quality, it is easily updated once the channel changes, it is line with the rest of the article's current event approach, and it is extremely relevant for the ongoing globally important event. There's other reasons at the talk page linked above.
Also, the edit warring issue is tangential to the policy debate, so I'm not sure why it's relevant here. The link was originally added due to the speech but it's title has been changed as the coverage has changed. It currently only references a live feed, not coverage of a specific event.
Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
I dropped my reasoning down a bit to make it less canvassy. Since your reasoning is not inline with our standards I don't feel too bad for not detailing it but I am glad we were both able to say our piece here and consensus building (even though it is already obvious) can go forward.Cptnono (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Whether or not my reasoning is in line with your standards is the debate. You can't assume your conclusion just because you are used to doing things one way. At the very least you have to consider exceptional cases. As described above, there are non-exceptional reasons as well. Cross-posted feedback request at Jimbo's page here. Ocaasi (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A blog as an external link

Wikipedian Reisio wants to add and keep a link to a blog to the external links section on the article on Swedish indie band Little Dragon while I think it doesn't belong there. The link in question can be found here. For the last week or so I've been involved, but Reisio has been discussing the link since January 26 (see history)

First off, we've broken the three-rever rule more or less repeatedly. I guess we both tried to convince the other with arguments using the edit summary. No luck, apparently.

Second, I've been citing WP:ELNO (#11 Links to blogs, (...) except those written by a recognized authority.), Reisio cited WP:ELYES (Sites that contain ... interview transcripts ...), I claim guides are clear, Reisio claims they're not and we've been doing that for some time now.

I think my point in this is clear as is his/hers. Can someone please shed some light on the subject? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 10:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, to proof my point, I made a blog 'featuring' Reisio and myself in a faux one-on-one interview, which can be found here. Reisio claimed it was "a borderline personal attack", but what I tried to do was to show that anything can be said about anyone on a personal blog. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 11:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Please read wp:POINT. I pulled a similar stunt once and got pretty close to being banned for it. Yoenit (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good point (wordplay!), but I didn't disrupt Wikipedia itself, since I made blog just to proof my point. Reisio claimed that was a off-Wiki attack, but since I didn't attack him or her in anyway I don't consider it to be an inappropriate way of showing why a blog is considered to be unreliable. But if I were out of line, please let me know. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
P.S. What did you do? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 12:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I reverted this (awful, amateurish, non reliable blog POST) twice and could not find ANY justification for keeping it. Does not meet requirements as pointed out in the edit summary many times. Snoop God (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what your point is here, Hu12. Would you care to explain? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Those accounts are related to the blogspamming. As for the repeadedly spammed bloglink;
--Hu12 (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, now I see. Well, thanks, you summed up exactly what I've been trying to say! :) --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 18:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • As a general rule, blogs are not good links. There's some play here - if the blog is by a really notable person for instance (WP:EL makes this point). Since its just an indie band, I would give it a bit more leeway that I would for the article about George W. Bush or whatever. However, overriding that, I would say that if an external link is contested on a reasonable basis, the presumption should be that it should go. Herostratus (talk) 01:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I agree. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You agree that it should go? In that case I'll remove once more. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 10:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Let it go, PLEASE!! Snoop God (talk) 11:39, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You let it go, please. Not a very good argument, is it? ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record, I have reverted the blog out again as it doesn't belong as this thread says. If the editor wants to return it, then take it to talk and talk it out there. Please no more revert warring on this. It is now up to the editor who put it in to justify why it should be there. I do have this on my watch list for now but it won't be there permanently. I just want to be able to give some input if there should be a discussion about it again. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:48, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Completely unrelated to the merits of the link, Soetermans (talk · contribs) and Reisio (talk · contribs) have been edit warring over this link, and I have asked both of them to stop, and to post here if they require assistance in the future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my late reply. I want to thank everyone for their input. WhatamIdoing, you're absolutely right and I have no excuse. The fake blog I made has been deleted. Kind regards, --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 18:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Round 2

Just now I saw this. It looked like Reisio (talk · contribs) was convinced, but I guess not. Is a warning in order? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:23, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

And also, what should be done with that link? My thoughts are clear: it should go. Perhaps I am reading it wrong, but in my personal opinion it looked like others felt the same way. Strong arguments were presented to which Reisio didn't really replied ("I agree") but he/she chose not to listen to consensus. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 19:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
As usual, you weren't paying attention. ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the link, started a article talk page discussion pointing out the discussion here, and warned the editor for edit-warring. --Ronz (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
I see you warned everyone involved and not just me. :p ¦ Reisio (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I am paying attention, Reisio, are you? You fail to see the outcome of this here discussion. Not just that, but even when issued a warning you still reverted Ronz.
I didn't warn others, but I did ask for their input, since a couple of days went by without any noticing your actions.
Oh, by the way, Reisio's edit warring again. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 07:02, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it and replaced the hidden comment Reisio deleted. I think he's misreading ELYES in this instance. Dougweller (talk) 09:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Please stop WP:Edit warring. I don't want to see you WP:BLOCKed, the page fully WP:PROTECTed, or the link WP:BLACKLISTed site-wide—and those will be the outcomes if you don't stop inserting this link over the objections of multiple editors.
I am beginning to wonder whether the problem is a lack of clarity at the EL guideline. "ELYES" might sound like it is "ELALWAYS" (which does not exist). The fact is that ELYES is much more limited than it sounds. Yes, you can add official links—but not very many, and not at all, under certain circumstances (e.g., blacklisting and malware problems). Yes, you can add a link to a book—but just because a link exists doesn't mean that you must add it, or even that you should add that link. Yes, you can add interview transcripts—but never very many, and just because they exist doesn't mean they should be added (imagine what Barack Obama would look like if we linked every interview transcript). Furthermore, in the case of interview transcripts, the assumption is that they are properly published transcripts by a professional journalist, like transcripts from 60 Minutes television programs, not (alleged) transcripts on someone's blog.
Finally, WP:Consensus is king for external links. You do not have a consensus to include this link. You may try to achieve that consensus (which you do by talking people into agreeing with you), but you must not keep edit warring in the face of opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
The problem is that people are applying guidelines blindly — that a guideline contradicts itself is an extra bit of nonsense on top. Furthermore there is a widespread misunderstanding of consensus. A lack of consensus for something is not the same as a consensus against it, and vice versa; and even if it were, blind application of a guideline is also not consensus. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I do not believe that any editor who has voiced opposition here would consider their opposition to be blindly applying the guideline. But even if you persist in holding such insulting views of your fellow editors, let me point you to the last sentence in the guideline: "Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them." What you (incorrectly, IMO) characterize as "a lack of consensus" is not sufficient under this standard. Once a link has been disputed, the link is prohibited unless and until you can produce a consensus that actively supports its inclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
That is a frankly ridiculous approach, and even if it were policy (WP:EL is a[n unclear, self-contradictory] guideline), I would have to ignore it. It'd be equivalent to guilty until proven innocent. It'd be like people accused of rape always being condemned. To exclude something, you must have a good reason. ¦ Reisio (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia has no rule requiring editors to include everything unless they have a specific, valid-in-your-opinion reason to exclude it.
The community's WP:Consensus, as documented in the EL guideline, is to exclude all disputed external links to prevent the greater evil of WP:Edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
A reason for inclusion has already been given, what's lacking is a good reason for exclusion. ¦ Reisio (talk) 21:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The link doesn't belong. It's a bad link. Deleting it a good thing. I think this was pretty much established, was it not? So what is the problem here? Herostratus (talk) 19:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
  • The link to a transcript of an interview with the lead singer of Little Dragon doesn't belong on Little Dragon? Bad how? Good how? No it wasn't. You(pl.) are. ¦ Reisio (talk) 19:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe you don't feel like listening to arguments, I don't know. Maybe you simply don't want to notice consensus. Whatever the reason, will you stop adding the link? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 00:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Reisio was blocked for 55 hours for edit warring over this link.
If necessary, the discussion can resume here when the block expires. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A link on User:Pablozeta's user page

Is this link [8] acceptable on this user page User:Pablozeta? -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndyTheGrump (talkcontribs) 05:22, February 11, 2011

I don't speak Italian and that link is NSFW. Is it the users homepage/blog? In that case it is acceptable as stated in wp:UPYES. Yoenit (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Coming off some heated discussions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Argentine and various other talk page posts I looked at, it's quite clear there's no love lost between these two editors. Am stating this as a completely uninvolved editor, this post here smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics. "White Argentine" was deleted, you won, suggest you move on and not further antagonize other users. -- œ 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

A link in Computer_simulation article

May I post this link CryoVision - 3D Cryoablation Simulation in the Examples section of this article Computer_simulation? Why yes? - It is a good practical example of modern application of computer simulation with nice 3D pictures, IMHO. Many of the examples in the article are kind of "dry". Why not? - Well, it promotes our website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Original post removed, for context. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like there are no further objections. So I post the link, right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Inserting the link at the top of the list of examples, and adding a second link to the company home page, makes people worry that this is a promotional link. On the talk page of the article (Talk:Computer simulation), please add a new section with a brief explanation of what benefit the link provides to the article (i.e. in what way does it aid to an understanding of computer simulation?). The long list of external links at that article is a reason to look for links to remove, rather than an invitation to add more. Johnuniq (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
"Inserting the link at the top of the list of examples, and adding a second link to the company home page, makes people worry that this is a promotional link." - I added the link on the company's home page, because the same is done in the first link (which points on a very specific scientific article which is, on my opinion, not very interesting to a general reader, which is the reason why I put my link before it). But of course, you are right, it also promotes the website. Ok, I'll continue the discussion here: Talk:Computer simulation. Thank you for your comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Briefly reinstated, with the contributor's comment: "...People who do not know what a computer simulation is probably would not hire us...". That's still WP:SPAM, even though it might not be successful spam, and deleted again. Further views welcome, or should I go to WP:WPSPAM?--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Kill it and 90% of the other external links in that same article. Yoenit (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that WP:BOLD action! --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:49, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List of The Angry Video Game Nerd episodes

I've tried to tell users that listing 1-3 external links for each video is a violation of WP:EL, but they refuse to agree. Can others weigh in? I was told to come here before I file an WP:ARB case. CTJF83 21:58, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The links are clearly a violation, see wp:ELMAYBE point 2 and wp:ELPOINTS. External links should always be excluded unless a consensus exist they should be kept (wp:ELBURDEN). I don't believe those 5-6 new IP editors turned up at that RFC purely by accident, so there is either canvassing or sockpuppetry going on (wp:DUCK). Yoenit (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree, so how do we "force" the removal of links, if the consensus here is that. CTJF83 18:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
If it's all IPs, you might be able to get a sympathetic admin to temporarily semi-protect the page to prevent edit warring by IPs.
Long term, though, I think you need to find a compromise. I've suggested one at the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
The talk page RfC isn't going anywhere, except a lot of keepers with no or very few other edits. There are a few users that wouldn't be affected by semi-protect, and one in particular who flat out refuses to do mediation. The best option would be pending changes. CTJF83 20:37, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
[9] is listed on the page, which lists a link to every video, therefore a link to everyone specifically is very unnecessary. CTJF83 20:44, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Educational YouTube Link

Hello all,

Thought I would copy/paste conversation I have had thus far for the sake of time below.

Main question and/or issue: since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise.

Link in question:

Article I would like to include external link on:

Why? Because the article currently does not include or provide video of a perfect,complete, or unedited rainbow - that is not broken, or photoshopped. This video is unaltered and should be considered educational for someone who has not ever witnessed a complete natural rainbow in their lifetime. Thanks all for your help with this - I am finding this process (the contribution process) itself very educational!


YouTube LinksThanks for the feedback Old Moonraker; I was wondering if you can help me understand the YouTube restrictions. I created the YouTube video myself, and own the copyright. Do I have to indicate that somewhere on YouTube or Wikipedia or the link itself? Thanks again for your help with this, my first contribution.Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I don't own the copyright, but I am the creator of the video and I am allowing free use of the video - I believe I uploaded the video as well to the WikiCommons site. Is there an alternative option I have to include in the rainbow article? Painfullybrilliant (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Uploading media files is way outside my comfort zone, but as far as I know if you have an account on English Wikipedia, this is valid on Wikimedia Commons—the WP equivalent of YouTube—as well. Here's the start page. Upload the video and attach one of the free licenses from the drop-down menu. Any video accepted on Commons is automatically acceptable on all other Wikipedias. I haven't done a video, but here's a diagram I made that uses the same licence. Good luck! --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC) So I guess my question is, since I am the creator and originator of the content (the video on youtube), and I am allowing free and universal use without permission to use my video, is there a special protocol that I need to follow in order to include the youtube link in the article? Aside from the licensing requirements; which it appears I fulfill and meet, I don't find anything prohibiting me from using my own link. Please advise. Thanks again - Painfullybrilliant (talk) 16:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Call at WP:ELN to put yourself in touch with specialists on external links.--Old Moonraker (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Painfullybrilliant (talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice video. You should upload this at the Commons. First you may want to read and follow Wikipedia:Unified login so that your login and password are the same as here. Uploading there is preferable to linking to YouTube. The video can be downloaded by others and shared in that way where YouTube embeds the videos and prevents users from truly sharing.
What do you mean you don't own the copyright, btw?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 23:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
  Resolved the user's talk page.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

This website hosts copies of news articles concerning child molestation accusations of clergymen, mostly Catholic. It has over two hundred links from Wikipedia pages.[10] Here's a typical page: [11]. The articles appear to be copyright violations - there is no notice of permission. The bottom of many pages has this notice: "Any original material on these pages is copyright © 2004. Reproduce freely with attribution." However it's the non-original material that's the concern. In the past, we've removed links to sites like this. None of the citations would need to be removed - just the hyperlinks. Any thoughts?   Will Beback  talk  07:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been slowly working through the links to on the same grounds and from similar articles - where the material is a clear copyright violation, we can't link to it per WP:LINKVIO. As you mentioned, there is no hassle with leaving the reference - the problem is only with the link. In the case of, I've also been finding that the titles don't always match the titles of the original article, so it is sometimes worth checking this when removing the link: in many cases I've found that the articles are still online by the copyright holder, but it is tricky to find it because of the different titles. (In the example you gave above, the original article is still online [12], so there is no call to link to any other site even as a convenience). From memory bishop-accountability wasn't a necessarily a problem on this score, though. - Bilby (talk) 08:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I would be selective. WP:LINKVIO explicitly mentions the two corner cases internet archives and clearly illegal file sharing sites. does not fit the illegal category very well in my opinion - until we become aware of someone actually complaining. A quick search did not turn up anything and they have been around some time so anyone had time enough to sue. Clearly it would be better to link to google news or one of the well known archive sites. Richiez (talk) 13:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Internet Archive maintains nearly identical copies of the sites, but the issues are murky. I'm not sure how this site is different from illegal file sharing sites. It is sharing copyrighted material. I'm not aware of any requirement for a website to have been sued in order for it to be violating copyright for the purposes of this policy. So long as the rest of the citation is complete, readers can track down copies of the articles without the link.   Will Beback  talk  22:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Copies of newspaper articles like this are almost certainly copyright violations (>99%). We should not link to such things. It might be worth pursuing WP:BLACKLISTing for*, since they seem to have grouped most of their copyright violations in a single directory.
Links to the original are good, but not technically necessary. I've had some luck in the past with searching for a sentence out of the early part of a news story if the headline was changed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Also, the SNAP website seems to do the same thing, although as they are better organized, it's (barely) possible that they have actually arranged for proper licenses. I've left a note at Talk:Catholic sex abuse cases#Copyright_violations_by_other_websites to see if we can get a few more hands involved in cleaning this up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

PocketBook Reader external links

1. There is a dispute on the given page about whether should be there as an external link. Ronz is telling that its off-topic, promotional or smth. Terribly sad to see vandalism and unfair practice on the part of a distinguished editor since similar library links exist for Sony Reader, Kobo eReader, etc. There are quite a few reasons in favor of this link. 903 and 603 models are locked on this library site and people should be aware of it. The site cannot be off-topic since the subject may not operate without ebook site. If there should be a word about Bookland inside the article, it can be done.

2. There were a couple of additional external (official) sites also deleted by Ronz, however the subject models are not available at one single site but are mentioned in the article. There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed. PocketBook company has a dozen of official sites but only three were listed to cover all the models mentioned. This point #2 is less important, however, than #1 and I'm open to arguments con. --Brainsteinko (talk) 18:36, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion on this.
In the article body there are very prominent and rather questionable external links to a site for each model.
Other discussion on the external links section is located here.
Generally, I'd like to see the problems with the article addressed first.
Regarding item #1 above: It's a link to a library of books.
Regarding item #2 above: As the article is, it is unclear how WP:ELOFFICIAL should be applied. The one remaining link is a corporate directory. --Ronz (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You are avoiding all arguments here and there. If you prefer to talk about general problems you need to list specifically the problems. E.g., you inserted advert tag in the article but neither stated what looks like advert nor the neutrality issues mentioned in the tag. Please use short citations from wiki rules. E.g. "prices (which you deleted) should not be given in Wikipedia". Please address every point I'm saying.--Brainsteinko (talk) 20:53, 25 February 2011 (UTC) is inappropriate per WP:ELNO #1, #4, #5, and #13. --Ronz (talk) 22:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks you for inviting me over to discuss PocketBook Reader article. Though I have made almost 10K edits since I started Wikipedia 8 months ago, by no means does it mean that I'm an expert. The biggest problem with editing articles to trying to remember rules and trying to find edit guidelines for specific types of articles. One problem is the interpretation of rules and guidelines, some seem to be hard facts yet others seem to be suggestions. As a person edits more, they learn more, and what I thought was correct a few months ago is not what I know today.
The state of this article didn't have a perfect layout before I started editing it, and the technical aspects close to 100% accurate. This is what it looked like before I first touched it.
The reason I started editing this article was that I was shopping for an eBook Reader, came across PocketBook products, and went to the article to learn more. As I started reading the corporate web site and looking back at the Wiki article, I noticed a lot of mistakes, thus I started correcting them. I did get out of hand adding all their models to the article, but it nothing more than expanding the format that existed prior to my edits. Is it the right way or wrong way, I have no idea, because I don't have a guideline for these types of articles, but for USA CITY articles I read this WP:USCITY.
My view is that what is useful for visitors is far more important than wikipedia rules. Wikipedia rules can and do change, but MOST visitors come here to find accurate and useful information and links, and likely don't give a crap about editing rules.
Concerning the link to, since it is "promoted" by the PocketBook company, then it is a related link, see lower-right side of
Is this link 100% required for this article, likely no, but it does has more right to be in this article than all other 3rd-party book sellers. Whether or not you decide to leave the link doesn't matter to me.
Concerning links to the product manuals are another issue. I think links to online user manuals are extremely important for wikipedia articles, because they provide users an easy way to learn far more accurate information than can be added to the article. I would argue that all product-based articles on Wikipedia MUST provide links to online user manuals (if they exist).
Concerning all the product information, yes I did get out of control adding information, but it is nothing more than an expansion of the same format that existed prior to my 1st edit. If you look at the hundreds of cell phone articles on wikipedia, most of this information is refined down to INFOBOXES, the problem with this article that there are a bunch of products, and the one infobox per product wouldn't work. Maybe we should add a high-level non-product-specific infobox on this article and then summarize the products in a table? (discuss it) • SbmeirowTalk • 05:43, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Brainsteinko, I'm confused by something in your first comment. You wrote, "There is a violation of the rule that the mentioned external links should be listed." What rule? As far as I know, Wikipedia has no such rule. It has one that says almost (but not quite) the opposite at WP:ELNO#EL19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion. The information was solely taken from and relied on from Talk:PocketBook_Reader : user Jinnai: "the external links should all the in an External link section also".
To Ronz attn: Thanks for the links you sent to me. Good point there, that consensus is not about winning. Very unfortunate and unproductive discussion so far... There've been a number of improvements made to the article. The issue is: the tag. We may discuss it here or anywhere else. Please answer the question, what should be done else, so we can remove it. Anyone else is welcomed to participate in the discussion--Brainsteinko (talk) 06:04, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I suspect that Jinnai meant that whatever external links were going to be in the article ought to be in corralled under the ==External links== section heading (or in an WP:Infobox), not that these links were required to exist.
It looks like the big {{Multiple issues}} tag at the top of the article does not complain about external links. It would be better to take those issues back to the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Though Bookland is a little bit related, it isn't critical to the article. Let's just axe and move on. This issue is tiny compared to how much more work should be done to it to make it more like the Amazon Kindle article or some other quality eReader article. • SbmeirowTalk • 19:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

John Tyndall - external link - question

Dear Editors of Wikipedia,

I'm writing on behalf of the Tyndall Correspondence Project that is run by York Univ. Toronto.

On February 3rd, 2011, my friend "Orlyln" tried to add the link to our project, but it was removed.

In the article-history page the removal is explained by already having this link in the external link:

I wanted to ask you to reconsider this decision for the following reasons:

1. This project is an important academic initiative whose main goal is to publish Tyndall's correspondences in print and online as well. Through this perspective, the project's contribution to the continuity of Tyndall's work is crucial.

2. Another goal of the project is to create a community of scholars around themes raised through an intense study of John Tyndall, such as the relationship between science and religion, the popularization and professionalization of science, and advances in physics, glaciology, climatology, and spontaneous generation.

3. The project is a collaboration of several universities (Montana State University, Aberystwyth University, Arizona State, University of Auckland (NZ), Brock University, University of Cambridge, University of Exeter, Harvard University, University of Leeds, University of Leicester, New York University, University of Oklahoma). Our work based mostly on Wiki technology and in that sense we share with Wikipedia the same idea of a communal project that is developed by the contributions of groups of institutions and individuals. Our use of new technology in the Humanities scholarship is a unique and ground breaking initiative that can serve as a model for future initiatives.

4. The fact that in the external link to Michael D. Barton's blog there is a link to Tyndall Project, is not a sufficient reason to remove a direct link to our long on going academic project from Wikipedia. If you would read the page "About Michael D. Barton" (, you would immediately see that this student is not a recognized historian. There is no doubt that people who reach John Tyndall's presentation in Wikipedia would be deprived of important information regarding the project and at the same time would be presented with a link that is not supposed to represent our project. Moreover, since Mr. Barton's link leads to a blog, the chances are that people who are looking for more academic material or activity regarding Tyndall, will not use this link in the first place, and hence not know that a link to the Correspondence Project exists there too.

Therefore, I would - on behalf on the Tyndall Correspondence Project - appreciate your reconsideration regarding an external link to our project (and this is the link:

Thank you very much in advance,


Noa Yaari (MA student at York Univ. working in the project). <e-mail address redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Noa, thanks for posting here. The link that your website was compared to appears to be a blog and does not belong in the article per ELNO #11, unless the blog is a recognized authority on Tyndall. With your project and the website, I am not sure what the link offers readers of the Wikipedia article other than a bio and information about your project. The letters are still being transcribed and until they are posted, I don't see much of a reason to have the site linked within the article. Nothing against your project, just the information currently on the site.--NortyNort (Holla) 08:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree with NortyNort. The information currently at the York U site is too scant to justify linking to. Seanwal111111 (talk) 19:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Youtube (not sure where to post this O_O)

Once again youtube is being brought up. I would like a consensus because i cant find i rule on this. Is youtube to be added to external or infobox for music related articles music videos?

What should we do? Discussion is brought up from Talk:Blow_(song)#Music video in infobox. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The relevant line in wp:external links is wp:ELYES point 2: "An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work, if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply." However, the link in question [13] does not work in my country (Netherlands) I am pretty sure it only works in the USA and Canada, which means it should be excluded based on wp:ELNO criteria 7. Yoenit (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
  • In bold, at the top of links normally to be avoided, it says "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject." It seems to me that the only argument here is about whether an official music video posted by it's official author on their official channel can be considered official.--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
On the general issue, you might like to see WP:ELPEREN.
On the specific issue, if the subject of the article is the song itself (rather than the artist), then a video might (barely) qualify as an 'official' link, although I think that ELYES is a better classification.
IMO it would probably be best to list it under ==External links== rather than in the infobox, because all YouTube links must be labeled as requiring (Flash video) software, and this will be easier to do if you don't have the space restraints of an infobox. Also, sometimes YouTube links aren't available to readers in other countries, and if that list is unreasonably short (e.g., solely US readers), then I might omit the link entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't put much stake in WP:ELPEREN. As much as some would like it to be percieved otherwise it is just an Essay and doesn't carry much weight. Its just an opinion on how some think it should be handled. With that said I think that the link should be under External links (if its used at all which should be rare). The infobox should be kept for demographics. -- (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Web of Stories

Fitzrovia calling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been adding links to to numerous articles, or requesting on talk pages that such links be added to articles. It looks spammy to, but asking here for other views. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Bueller, anyone?! – ukexpat (talk) 14:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Clear WP:COI anyway, which when it comes to linking the more civil way of describing spamming/linkfarming. I would remove any links added directly to the article by that editor and give the standard warning, which I will in fact try to do now if it hasn't been done (stupid new editing toolbar is driving me nuts, though, as I have the toolbar turned off in my prefs and it insists on being there and the javascript or whatever is slowing my editing windows to a crawl). DreamGuy (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, we have reviewed the Spam and WP:COI pages and would like to make clear a few points:
The videos are not promoting a site or a product they are the life story of a person as told by that person and the links are being added to the wikipedia page of that person as they provide further information about that person.
Web of Stories has copyright for all videos on its site.
There is no banner plastered across the video giving a website address to go to.
There are no links on the page to a commercial site or to a spamming video.
There is no text that leads the person to a commercial site.
If there are problems beyond these raised, or anything we can do to rectify this, please could you let us know as we didn't mean to intentionally Spam WP.
Many thanks, Fitzrovia calling (talk) 16:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
If you are connected with the WOS website you clearly have a conflict of interest. Also, you refer to yourselves as "we" - is your Wikipedia account being used by more than one person? If so, that is a clear breach of the user name policy. – ukexpat (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello Fitzrovia,
If you are connected to the website, you'll want to read WP:PROMO. Let me encourage you to suggest the links on appropriate talk pages, but not add any to articles. When you're deeply involved in a website, it's hard to be objective about whether it's a good choice.
Also, please remember that video links in general are gently discouraged. They require far more bandwidth and computing power than many of our readers have. So people usually insist that video links be really amazing, even irreplaceable, rather than just okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the concept of linking to videos of interesting people speaking. However, someone unaffiliated with the site should make the determination, otherwise it is spam. Spam doesn't have to be Viagra or direct selling of things, it can also be mass adding links to the same location.

In general with External links, it's too easy to start filling up on links to printed interviews, podcasts and videos that end up being superficial in the long run. Most of them are just fluff. We are not a web directory, so have no real need to add lots of links.

I haven't dived into the site too much, but I honestly do like the concept of it and would not be surprised if editors decided links to it were appropriate for certain articles. A lot of the articles in question are lacking strong links. DreamGuy (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I am changing the links in the external links (which can be seen after the persons name) to a link to our Wikipedia page. Is this acceptable or should I only keep the link to the person telling their life story on  ?

Many thanks in anticipation, Fitzrovia calling (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Musical theatre

We've been slowly cleaning up the long list of external links to this article, but they all seem to fail WP:EL per WP:ELNO #1 and #13 criteria. Mostly, the links tend to be too specific for the topic.

This is the flagship article for WikiProject Musical Theatre, so I'm also hoping that we can create a better understanding of what constitutes an appropriate External links section, as there are similar problems in the related articles that the project reviews.

Discussion here. The external links are listed individually for comment here --Ronz (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I left a response there.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Still under dispute:

  • At least 4 of the remaining external links
  • One external link has been moved into the article body and formatted as a reference despite agreement it is only an external link (We've agreed to move it back to External links where it's less of a problem. --Ronz (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC))
  • Should links under dispute be removed per WP:ELBURDEN? (We've agreed that we should ignore ELBURDEN to help direct focus to the actual content problems. --Ronz (talk) 06:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

--Ronz (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Enough trouble has been caused, and it may be time for a wikibreak. Johnuniq (talk)

00:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

    • Whew, I lost track of that talk page for awhile and the discussion appears to have grown and gone into great detail. I too think that a break may be in good order so minds can take a rest.--NortyNort (Holla) 01:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
      Sorry about that.
      Here is my summary of the comments of the three editors that have already responded to this ELN discussion. Their comments are here. There have been no direct responses to any of these other than my own. I don't believe they've even been acknowledged.
      The most recent comments on the external links are here and here, but both discussions are mostly on other topics. --Ronz (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

An IP editor placed this link on the page of the young British motorcycle racer. As it links to merchandise and such, shouldn't this be removed from such external links section? Cs-wolves(talk) 01:29, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

You are correct. It is very rare for two "official" sites to be justified (I've never seen it). I reverted the link and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 02:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Many thanks for doing that earlier, but it appears to have been re-reverted. Cs-wolves(talk) 17:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Reverted back - since there is more than one IP doing the reverts, it may be a case on IP hopping (to avoid WP:3RR, or a meatpuppet - whatever, I've given it a short semi - if the link is that important, then they will now have to discuss it at the talk page.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Quick IP check - both IPs evaluate to "BT-CENTRAL-PLUS", so IP hopping.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:36, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Film links

The template {{FilmLinks}} was recently created and is a shell that lists various film websites' parameters. The template was posted at TFD as seen here. The concerns involve redundancy and/or unnecessary combining (as its aim is to phase out the individual link templates) and being a potential link farm. Are there any similar shell-style templates that have been accepted or rejected in the past? Please weigh in at the template's discussion. Thanks, Erik (talk | contribs) 13:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

 – Template in question was deleted S. Rich (talk) 22:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:YouTube artist has been nominated for deletion - Pls see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 March 7#Template:YouTube artist.......that is basically about this newly created single-puprose account that we will need to revert lots from. Moxy (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Lyrics

Hi! I have a question about external links. If an artist's official site has a page for a specific song, would this page be an acceptable link in the official links section? It seems to meet all of the criteria (it's an official source, it serves as a reference for the lyrics that can't be included in the article without being a copyvio), and it's certainly a relevant reference, so I don't see why not. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 18:20, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on the subject of the article. For an article about a song, it might be ELOFFICIAL, and it would almost certainly be WP:ELYES #2. For an article about the artist, it's probably neither. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It's for a specific song.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Then, assuming that this song is tightly associated with that artist, I would think that a link to such a page would typically be desirable. Whether it should be classified as an "official" link or an "ELYES" link is really unimportant: It's probably a good idea to include it, and that's all that really matters.
(There isn't usually an "official links section". All external links should be together under the same ==External links== section heading.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


This is to inform those that frequent this noticeboard that Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites is up for deletion. Pls see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites to leave comments.Moxy (talk) 02:05, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding the ELs in footnotes 31 and 42. The first improper EL to be added was to the Manning Support Network. Information about the network was already properly sourced. Accordingly, its' inclusion does not follow the guidance stated in WP:ELNO, footnote 5. That is, since the Support Network is documented by a secondary WP:RS, the link directing readers to the site should be deleted. The additional ELs were added by me. It was an attempt to point out how the Support Network link was improper by adding in more improper links. (Alas, other editors seem happy to let the offending footnote ELs remain.) Accordingly, I ask that all of the ELNO links (4, 11, 19 types) in footnotes 31 (Amnesty International petition) and 42 (multiple) be deleted.--S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I second that, the link directing readers to the site should be deleted. Indeed, the article has become a tribute page and it should have been nipped in the bud months ago. V7-sport (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like they're using WP:CITEBUNDLE on very long, very citation-dense paragraphs. I wish they weren't. (Statistically, "they" probably means SlimVirgin, but she's not the only person to use this approach; if she's involved, though, she'll be able to help us understand the rationale behind the other issues you've raised.)
It's sometimes useful to deal with the biggest problems first. Would you characterize the half-dozen petitions and fundraising pages under footnote 42, "For other support groups/webpages, see..." as the biggest problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with CITEBUNDLE -- indeed, SlimVirgin is an awesome Wikipedian! But there is no single "biggest problem" (I'm the one who added a lot of links in fns 42 and 31). They are all a problem. (My gosh, anyone who wants to support Manning should have no difficulty Googling up support websites without using WP.) Wikipedia should not be listing any of these sites.--S. Rich (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
S Rich, it was a bit POINTy to add another seven links you felt were inappropriate, in order to force the removal of a link to the Bradley Manning Support Network. There's consensus on talk that it's okay to include it, because the section is about that support group, and we have a section on it because reliable sources have written about it as a result of the celebrity membership. It would be odd to write about it, but then not tell readers how to contact it. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 08:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think it was at all POINTy to add the links. That is, they were not disruptive in the least. Indeed, they were accepted and modified here [14] and here [15]. At each stage I pointed out (in the edit summary) that the edit was an EL camel was poking more and more of its body under the EL tent. In fact here: [16] I pointed out how the spam link added was similar to the others already added. "Highly disruptive"? No. (And I did not add 47 ELs.)
In any event, we do not have justification for including the Support Network support site EL in the footnotes or anywhere else. That is, it violates the ELNO guidelines. (Which is why I've posted this Noticeboard request.) There is no justification in WP policy or guidelines to include it.
So, if it (the Support Network link) remains because of the rationale which says "it would be odd to write about it, but not tell readers how to contact it" then all of the other ELs should be included for each of the other support/petition/donation groups. All we have to do is simply mention them in the article.
The EL guidelines (while a bit vague) makes sense. They say don't include ELs to the organization itself unless the Article (the Bradley Manning Support Network) has an EL to itself. Since we do not have a Bradley Manning Support Network article, links to the network are not proper. --S. Rich (talk) 10:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
You acknowledged adding the extra links to illustrate a point, not to improve the article. :) You wrote (emphasis added):

The additional ELs were added by me. It was an attempt to point out how the Support Network link was improper by adding in more improper links. (Alas, other editors seem happy to let the offending footnote ELs remain.)... -- S. Rich (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2011 (UTC) [17]

SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

To illustrate further -- this newsarticle [18] shows activists from Code Pink demonstrating in support of Manning. Should we mention them as a supporting organization and then add an EL to their Website IOT tell readers how to contact them? How about if their Petition is mentioned? These are all the same vis-a-vis the Support Network EL. --S. Rich (talk) 17:16, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Srich, if you've got a whole section on an organization, it's not unreasonable to list the org's website as an external link. And I'm inclined to agree with SV that adding links you personally think are inappropriate is POINTy.
SV, can you help me understand why the link to the support network is listed as a WP:RS rather than under ==External links==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I originally added this link (to a page on the Bradley Manning Support Network's site) as an inline citation to support an edit listing the Support Network's advisory board. S Rich objected to using it as a source. So I removed it and added a secondary source, but I retained a link in the footnote to the Support Network's main page, because the subsection is about that group (see the final link in Note 40). But he objects to that too, and I think will also object to it in EL. He wants the link removed from the page entirely. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite correct (regarding my objection as it being used as a source and as to my objection as a simple EL). Again, it is an EL that Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[4][5] I cannot find how or why it qualifies as something that "should be linked or considered." The only reason it is still there, as far as I can see, is that people want it there for whatever POV they support. (Indeed, I simply wish the link was deleted so that this discussion would end. But if it won't be deleted, then someone should please justify its' existence in the article.)--S. Rich (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2011 (UTC)20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
The WP:ELOFFICIAL guidance says its okay to have a link to an organization website when and where there is an article about the organization. For example, Code Pink (mentioned above) has an official link in the External links section. But there is no Manning Support Network article, so the link to it is#19. --S. Rich (talk) 17:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure, but I'd estimate that >90% of the external links on Wikipedia aren't WP:ELOFFICIAL links. The fact that it's not an official link doesn't mean that it's not an acceptable link. The main target of WP:ELNO#EL19 is the passing mention, not organizations that are significantly described in an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
No. I think you mis-read what I'm trying to say about the official links. The "" EL is an official link to the support network, so if the article existed, then including the link would be acceptable in that article. But your logic (and SL's logic) says "If you create a section (about an organization) in an article, then it is okay to add a link to that organization."
This is another rationalization to avoid the ELNO restriction. The first rationalization was that the EL was in a footnote, so ELNO did not apply (but clearly it does as per footnote 5 of ELNO). The second rationalization was that "It would be odd to write about it, but then not tell readers how to contact it."
Again, ELNO#19 covers: Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article—unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered.[4][5] Since is not the source for the info in the article, and since the article is not about, it is violating ELNO#19. Please note the offending EL in footnote 40 says: "For the support group, see 'Bradley Manning Support Network', accessed March 4, 2011." Because this EL clearly serves to direct readers to the organization's website (which ELNOfootnote 5 says is not okay) it should be removed.--S. Rich (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Let me add that bending the guidance by saying it "normally" or "generally" applies can only support claims of unbalance in the article. The support network is documented by independent reliable sources and providing the link to it is --- well? The Bradley Manning article is fine with the separate section about the network. It does not need a link to the network. If someone will please delete it, we can mark this Noticeboard topic {Resolved} --S. Rich (talk) 01:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I think this discussion should take place on the article's talk page, so the other editors can comment. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 05:27, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
(Note: Both SlimVirgin and I added a notice on the talkpage regarding this discussion.--S. Rich (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2011 (UTC))

Surely not ELNOfootnote 5 and there are no camels around. It is perfectly fine to have it as a ref and it should. I personally wouldn't even have a problem to have it as an external link. IQinn (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

So, ELNOfootnote 5 actually says:
"Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source, but not to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.
Yes: '[ The Bradley Manning Support Network] issued a press release that said...'
Yes: 'The Bradley Manning Support Network issued a press release that said...[]'"
or is it:
"Links to websites are permitted when the website has been used as a WP:Reliable source, but not to direct readers to the organization's website or merely to verify that the organization exists, or that it has a website.
No: '[ The Red Cross] issued a press release that said...'
Yes: 'The Red Cross issued a press release that said...[]'
Except: 'For the support group see [ Bradley Manning Support Network] because we like Bradley Manning and want to direct readers to his Support Network.'"
--S. Rich (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
No. However, the reason I asked this question is essentially an issue of standing: If it is intended to support article content, then you're in the wrong place. External links are defined as those URLs that do not support article content.
SV, would you currently characterize this as an external link, or object to it being listed in the usual way, under ==External links==? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
I have no objection to it being listed in EL, though I think S. Rich would, because that would make it more prominent. I've now restored it as a source in the footnote, which is how I'd originally used it; see final entry, footnote 37. I think S. Rich should try to gain consensus for his position on the talk page, then consider an article RfC. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:33, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit [19], which less "clearly serves to direct readers to the organization's website" is fine in that it complies with the guidance given in ELNO. The website is SPS, but the listing of the advisory board members is not unduly self-serving in and of itself. Presumably, now, if we find a secondary source (such as this one: [20]) we can use it to describe the advisory board. However, including a link to the support network itself as an ==External links listing would be objectionable in that the Manning article in not about the BMSN. This said, I think we can conclude the discussion. (Most interesting! I thank all who participated and contributed.) --S. Rich (talk) 19:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, this is becoming even more puzzling. You're now saying that the first edit I made over 10 days ago, in which I used the Support Network as a source for its own advisory board, is okay; whereas before you said it wasn't, which was the only reason I changed it (bold added; see here):

Not unsurprisingly a link to has resurfaced. It is, this time, disguised as information about the board of advisors. The info is entirely primary source and I have tagged it as such. As I read WP:ELNO, the link clearly violates nos. 4 & 19. The fact that they are in a footnote and not a separate EL section does not work as WP:EL pertains to entire articles. I do not see a footnote exception to the guidance. --S. Rich (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

But I'm glad it's resolved anyway. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 19:41, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
After hashing and hashing on the subject, here and on the Manning talk page, I've run out of steam. The link is a back door link to, but I've also found (and provided) a secondary source re the board. Let's use that source.--S. Rich (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
There are already secondary sources in the footnote, but please discuss this on the article's talk page. Having a discussion going on in two places doesn't work well. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 20:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Srich, the bit about "the Manning article in not about the BMSN":
Unless someone is trying to claim extra rights for the link as an ELOFFICIAL link, then the rule you're relying on is completely irrelevant. If the link is being put forward as a normal external link, then the article does not have to be about BMSN.
Additionally, all external links have the effect of "promoting a website"; ELNO #4 is only applied to cases in which WP:SPAMMERs intend that as the effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

2 accounts created today have been creating a number of ELs to JCPA (an advocacy group)[21] see SPI report. I am reverting their EL additions, though they can be re-added on a case by case basis if someone wants to take ownership of the edits, obviously. unmi 17:43, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


The article for Groupon, as far as I can tell, is listing every single official site in the external links section. I understand why they're doing it, but, to me, it just looks cluttered. The only thought I had would be to remove all but the English sites, as this is the English Wikipedia, but since Groupon is country-based, not language-based, I'm not really sure that would even work. I just figured I'd ask for some help or suggestions here before I did anything with it. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 18:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I've always gathered that you put only the English official links (and country of origin, if different). I did that for this, and I agree it's completely silly to have them all. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk)
Thanks! An anon already went and added two more (which I reverted). An invisi-warning might help with this, but I'm not sure how I would word it. ICYTIGER'SBLOOD 03:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
You could consider a generic note, e.g., {{subst:No more links}}. Alternatively, a hidden note that says something like, "Wikipedia is not a directory of every website run by this company. Please do not add links to country-specific websites" would probably work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Amazon Affiliate Spam

I noticed an Amazon Affiliate link in an article [22]. I suspected that the user who contributed is a spammer, and sure enough, they have a pattern of using the exact same link to promote this one book about films on Amazon (Special:Contributions/Park12). What is the easiest way to 1) automatically remove these links 2) censure/ban this user, and 3) add amazon affiliates to the spam blacklist? The last part is nontrivial because it's not clear what regex would capture all Affiliate links but not legitimate links to Amazon. The URL pattern used in this particular case seems obsolete (i.e., there are other newer ways of forming an Amazon Affiliate link). Also, are plain Amazon links (non-Affiliate) automatically considered spam? -Anonymous 20:00, 13 March 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Non-affiliate links are not automatically considered spam, but they are discouraged, because you ought to be using the ISBN WP:Magic word instead (whenever possible). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Er, why would we ever link to a vendor site in an article wrapped in an affiliate link? I can understand that we may link to Amazon from to talk about the site, but any other amazon link should never be appropriate, affiliate or not. --MASEM (t) 02:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Affiliate links violate WP:ELNO #17. Non-affiliate links are merely the least desirable option. As an example, I suggested that an editor visit just the other day, because the specific cited pages are visible there, and they're not visible at Google Books. In the article, however, the citation links to neither. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I concur wholeheartedly; in fact, if I had such l33t skillz, I'd program a bot to purge Amazon links from Wikipedia almost entirely. (The only thing worse is the folks who link [often but not always in good faith] to reviews on Amazon's website, which are often written by the authors, their PR people, their families, and/or their most bitter opponents, and are never reliable sources.) --Orange Mike | Talk 20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
They do have their uses though, we do have hundreds and hundreds of lifted fair use book covers, album covers and and suchlike files from there. Off2riorob (talk) 20:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I saw this edit. Is this spamming?--v/r - TP 14:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

No, or at least not according to our definition. Spammers usually add the same link to several page, this link was only added once. I see no reason why that link should be in that article (or anywhere else on wikipedia), so I have removed it. Yoenit (talk) 15:20, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I should have said advertising instead of spamming. Thanks for taking care of it.--v/r - TP 17:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Links contaminated

What can we do when we find that an official link used in an article has some kind of virus? I just got two warnings from part of the [http:// Port Jeff Guide] in Port Jefferson, New York, and have been know to run into my share of library and local history pages in Florida that turned out to have viruses nearly several months ago. ----DanTD (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Please remove the links per WP:ELNO #3.
Malware sites should normally be reported for WP:BLACKLISTing, either at the main page or through WP:WikiProject Spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked it with the following;
All seem to check out...--Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the webchecking sites, but I found it again. It's in the "services" chapter of the page, and it gave me a bunch of tracking cookies, some of which were "healed" and others that were transferred to the virus vault. Maybe you should've checked more than one part of the page. However, I just checked that section with the first link myself, and it claimed to be clean.----DanTD (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked the specific page you've reported above. I've now run a check on, same results as the other. FYI tracking cookies are NOT harmful, just intrusive, because they track your surfing to build a profile on you for advertising purposes. See also--Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Links to Google Books

What's the attitude to these? Is it appropriate for an external link to be to a book? Is there a problem with the fact that this is not possible for those books which don't have preview? And my experience is that preview isn't available in every country. There's a discussion of a specific issue at Talk:Expanding Earth#Who is the uniformed censor ?. Dougweller (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Further reading - Normal links to books are in a "Further reading" or "Bibliography" section like at Canadians - they must adhere to all the normal guidelines at WP:FURTHER. If there happens to be a preview all the better for our readers but its not a requirement. As for some countries that are not able to see them - this should not discouraged links for those that can see them (not Wikipedias fault some countries/people cant see them).Moxy (talk) 07:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
The extensive use of redirection URLs ( needs to be fixed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Are debategraph discussions okay?

I'll copy the question here from Talk:Global warming controversy#Argument Maps as a way to summarise the debate?

I would like to propose the addition (e.g. under Further Reading) of links to Global Warming Argument Maps, which summarise key issues, responses and arguments in a visual way (i.e. mindmapping, but tuned for showing multiple viewpoints on a topic).
For example here is an interactive, embeddable Debategraph map on Anthropogenic Climate Change, and this one takes you to the top level of Compendium maps based on Climate Skeptic Arguments.
1. Do you think these are useful?
2. If so, can the page be unlocked so that these can be added?
Dr Simon Buckingham Shum

It's a new editor, I've explained about the four days and ten edits.

Anyway what do you think, are debategraph discussions a reasonable external link? Dmcq (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice websites but I'd say no. They both appear to be user-generated websites and not published by a recognized authority.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
No, while pictures are always interesting to look at, the links don't seem particularly "helpful to the reader" or relevant to an "encyclopedic understanding of the subject". Johnuniq (talk) 09:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As it says, it's "like a wiki", so I'd say no, it shouldn't be used as an EL. Dougweller (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC) and other outside Bible sites

This one is frustrating me to no end and seems to be violating multiple policies in several different ways in various articles, but I thought mentioning it here would make the most sense.

I just re-removed a huge long list of external links to embedded into the body of the Lilith article. Apparently somebody thought it was important to link a string of individual words to this off site Bible reference site to do immediate searches on each separately, as if they were Wiktionary links but all over.

This site also seems to have an article about itself largely submitted by a COI account and using very flimsy rationale to establish notability. In the past I have also seen other editors link to different Bible sites individually for various words to go direct to whatever Bible dictionary they personally supported. I do not think that individual words should be linked like that, and if we were to decide it is helpful then we should find a source that we can agree upon to use that way (perhaps a WikiBible or WikiSource Bible or something?) and not promote individual sites hosted by various special interest groups within Christianity. Any thoughts, suggested steps to take, etc. are welcome. DreamGuy (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Dreamguy, As I said, the "somebody" was me and I answered you on Feb7 sharing your opinion to an extent (as regards using sites like Biblegateway for verse refs etc) and explaining that I was linking to a Hebrew dictionary that just happens to be hosted there: "It would be better to link to a more modern/complete lexicon than Gesenius, but I don't think there's one online." Since it appears that there isn't, and since the Gesenius lexicon is hosted on a Christian website, then let's remove the links.In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Theres another copy of Gesenius at, but the site appears to be hosted by Christians too.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Just as a clarification, I do not object to the fact that the site is hosted by Christians in and of itself, but that the site is promoting a viewpoint. If it were strictly scholarly the religious beliefs of the operators would not be important to me or, presumably, the site itself. DreamGuy (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The mass of EL's to Strong's KJV via in a section on Hebrew text is excessive. That much is clear. There are a list of English translations at Wikisource. (Unless I'm mistaken, as interwiki links, these could appear in the article body.) However, these are specific translations, not a dynamic wikiBible. I wasn't able to find Strong's topical index (the resource being linked to) there. It might be absent due to copyrights. wp:bible would be better equipped to discuss whether Strong's topical index via some website that has addressed the copyrights is sufficiently reliable for use as an RS and/or EL. BitterGrey (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I have commented at Talk:Lilith#Hebrew text links to online Gesenius dictionary removed that the links do not seem satisfactory and am watching. Johnuniq (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
As above the links to the Hebrew dictionary are removed. And yes, ideally Wiktionary would cover this. Unfortunately coverage of Hebrew animal names (e.g. jackals) on Wiktionary is fairly limited. I don't intend to spend 2-3 hours adding a list of Hebrew animal names to Wiktionary, so we'll just go with removing links. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I'd like input on , added to the external links section of Outsourcing by (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I removed it as inappropriate as I believe it is a website that exists only to promote a particular POV. The IP editor questioned my removal of the link, on my talk page, and while they are not at all being uncivil they hinted that I may be biased in my view. I obviously don't think so (at least, I believe I'm biased in favour of neutrality) but would like some input on the issue.

I'll copy parts of my reasoning about the link from my discussion with the IP editor on my talk page (this section, to get the whole discussion including their responses):

Have a look at the "About us" page of the website [...]. That is not simply a site indicated to be a directory of companies (and there is no information about who is behind the list, so no way of knowing that it's "every company") - it is a site intended to promote a particular point of view concerning outsourcing from one specific country. In fact, it is evident from every page of the site that it is not a website that contains neutral material (I make no judgment concerning whether the information is accurate), so that inclusion criterion is not met. Rather, inclusion of the link would promote the website rather than provide information (per point 2 in this policy).

What they call the "directory" (actually just a list of company names) is headed by the website's logo which features their tagline, promoting their POV. The right-hand frame on that page also clarifies the POV very unambiguously. A few of the company names in the list are linked to blog posts which are anything but neutral. Yes, obviously the people behind the list are the people behind the website, but the site includes no information about who they are and there is no indication that they are authorities on the subject, so it is unclear where this list comes from and why the information is credible (even disregarding the biased slant). It was you who claimed, above, that the page was a "directory of every company in the United States that Outsources", so my use of "every company" was a direct quote.

The list of names without any of the surrounding text on the past is neutral information to some extent, but the rest of the page is not neutral. Not referring to the rest of the site here, but the linked page. It becomes eminently clear from the page that their reason for compiling the information is also in order to promote the POV, but that's rather beside the point.

The thing about WP:ELNO is that it doesn't really say very much about linking to partisan sites, and the IP has requested references to Wikipedia policy. If we are to link "[s]ites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject", the neutral sort of precludes sites presenting biased information, or at least that's my take on it. Let me know if I'm interpreting policy badly, here (or if I'm misjudging the site - which would surprise me very much indeed, I confess). Thanks! --bonadea contributions talk 21:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

In practice, NPOV is sometimes applied to the EL list as a whole, not the individual ELs. The EL you mentioned is clearly anti-offshoring, while another EL on the list is clearly pro-offshoring: "Free Trade Bulletin no. 10. Why We Have Nothing to Fear from Foreign Outsourcing." While both have clear POVs, the two together might be neutral. A different application of NPOV would call for the removal of both, since neither is individually neutral. I'll leave it to others to comment on whether individual or collective NPOV is closer to the current EL policy. However, I think it clear that removing one POV while leaving the other is not a route to a NPOV set of ELs. There are, of course, many other reasons for keeping and rejecting ELs other than POV. These too should be applied equally to all ELs on the list. BitterGrey (talk) 00:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
(Addendum: Bonadea, please ask if he/she is OK with the discussion being moved from your talk page to the article's talk page. If not, please add a link to the discussion to the article's talk page. Ideally, a consensus should be sought on the article's talk page first. Mentioning this discussion on the article's talk page is also a reasonable courtesy.) BitterGrey (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Most EL lists take the approach of a balanced set, since the combination of "pro" and "anti" is often more valuable than "wishy-washy". See WP:ELPOV for the most relevant section of the guideline (if you haven't found it already). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I was definitely impressed by Bittergrey's POV on this. I also agree with WhatIdoing. I believe in the virtues of the end reader to be able to absorb the information and analyze for themselves. The best way to do this is to present that reader with all the information available. Also, feel free to move the conversation from Bonadea's talk page. I'd do it myself if I was confident enough to do it successfully. Thanks again to everyone for their input in this matter.-- (talk) 00:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that WP:EL in general discourages pages having a lot of links (WP:ELPOINTS #3). WP:ELNO #5 discourages pages with advertising, which this page has. The list is also of uncertain reliability, I couldn't find any information on the authors on their about or contact page (WP:ELNO #2). The outsourcing article in general has a lot of external links (11 including 3 videos) and may be better served by one of the 100 options presented by the DMOZ. Job migration might be the best, as the other 99 appear to be lists and directories of companies that will do outsourcing work for you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, you might want to review Job migration before suggesting it. At first glance it appears to include 5 ELs; four anti-outsourcing links (e.g. [23] ) and one on immigration. Also regarding your interpretation of ELNO#2, note that verifiability applies to RS's, not EL's (and not the other way around e.g.[24][25]). BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

WLU already made the change to DMOZ. I thought the agreement and spirit of Wikipedia was to have a general consensus when it comes to disputes? In addition, I do not like WLU's suggestion of DMOZ job migration as I believe those links are extremely below par. Even if the total accumulation of the DMOZ links presented a balanced POV (which it does not.) The quality of the website can be seen in the quality of the build. One site looks like it was put together in the mid-1990's. I normally have a great deal of respect for DMOZ but in this category they have failed (IMO). I respectfully ask that WLU changes it back until an agreed upon consensus is built. Which from my POV it seems like most of the above agree a balanced of both POV is the best way to go. -- (talk) 23:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it, as I said on the talk page it's possible there are no good ELs for that article and it's fine in my opinion to remove all ELs. There's no reason to have ELs if there are none that are good to choose from. It's very borderline. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:41, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU does not speak for Wikipedia or any secret consensus of the folks here at EL/N. His quality as an editor is concisely demonstrated by the fact that he started an edit war with a _bot_ and is loosing. (This might be one for the record books.) I've recently had to spend far too much of my time cleaning up after him in multiple articles, with him fighting every step of the way., the next thing I'd do would be to revert back to the EL set being discussed, and then discuss them. Hopefully, that would be the end of the reverting. Hopefully, WLU will get the message that disruptive edits aren't welcome here. BitterGrey (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think that failing to memorize WP:LAYOUT is a sign of a poor editor, and I think your disparagement of WLU on this wholly unrelated point is completely inappropriate.
This noticeboard deals with many inexperienced and unregistered editors, and I have been pleased at the number of editors who make a determined effort to remain civil here. If you can't follow their example of participating without insulting people, then I personally would prefer that you did not post here at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
"WLU already made the change to DMOZ. I thought the agreement and spirit of Wikipedia was to have a general consensus when it comes to disputes? ... I respectfully ask that WLU changes it back until an agreed upon consensus is built."[26] As I see it, there were a number of editors involved in civil discussion, before WLU made himself the issue by ignoring that discussion. As for the edit war with a bot, it was a violation of assume good faith. A civil editor should have either accepted the edit based on AGF, or checked wp:layout before edit warring. WLU did neither. Now a new editor is faced with the decision of continuing to respect Wikipedia policy, or emulating those who (at least in the case of Outsourcing) get their way. BitterGrey (talk) 19:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Or, as I said above, they could remove it. Or, as I said on the talk page, they could remove all the links but the one to wiktionary. I made it quite clear that I thought all the ELs were inappropriate and the DMOZ itself wasn't great, and that I was OK with removing it. My comments were civil and part of the discussion, consensus can be established by editing, it doesn't need endless discussion on the talk page to establish it. To date, no-one has reverted my changes to outsourcing, or removed the links I've left - suggesting this option is an acceptable consensus. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sims wiki

Can I link to The Sims Wiki --LegoCityBusDriver (talk) 08:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Paraphilic infantilism

Closed, as all issues related to external links have been resolved

At paraphilic infantilism I removed two links on the basis of WP:ELNO points 2, 4, 10, 11. The two links were to a personal website about paraphilic infantilism (so ELNO 2, 4 and 11) and an Adult Baby Diaper Lover support community (ELNO 10). In the talk page archives there is a discussion involving three editors which seemed to support my removal (here). Currently the edits are being discussed on the talk page (Talk:Paraphilic infantilism#Removal of external links motivation for recent deletions), but since there are only 2 editors I thought I'd bring it up here for further input. I also removed some books from the further reading section and that edit is also being discussed in the same talk page section, obviously that material is not relevant to this page. The editor advocating for the inclusion of a link has stated that he also operates the site [27]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, three editors are involved, the third being WhatamIdoing. The deletions follow about an hour after that last round in an exchange[28]. A summary of how that started is here. I had hoped that they could let it go, instead of spreading the issue to other forums. To complicate any possible assumptions of good faith, WLU has already made accusations of wikihounding[29]. BitterGrey (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I honestly don't see how removing your latest comment on my user talk page could possibly have anything to do with a dispute over external links at an article that I've never read, much less edited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
The archive section I linked to does not have WhatamIdoing as a contributor. I didn't mention or link to the issues on the talk pages for WAID and the COI essay because I see them as completely unrelated to the removal of an external link on a mainspace page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
(This weekend) I was mentioned by name when WLU re-raised the Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) issue on WhatamIdoing's talk page[30], after "nuking" all discussions on the essay talk page. paraphilic_infantilism is an article that I've contributed text and references to, and I maintain . As a result, it was unsurprising when WLU suddenly turned his attentions to that article, starting with the external links. Next came the removal of text and obfuscation of the references [31]. WhatamIdoing was directly involved in the issue at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) and, not suprisingly, its continuation on her talk page. (She is correct in that she hasn't been directly involved in the effects of this issue on paraphilic infantilism yet.) BitterGrey (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
(2009) Since WLU included the two-year-old discussion, I'll explain the context for that too: It actually follows the second of three waves of deletions. There was a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology[32] about multiple external links that James cantor was adding under a conflict of interest. On 17 July 2009, he similarly started deleting [33][34][35], even violating 3RR[36][37][38][39].
That editor's conflicts eventually did catch up with him. WhatamIdoing advocated for him, and in the end was his sole supporter[40]. The claim that "James Cantor, a world-class expert ... chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors" was included in the post by WhatamIdoing that became Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine)[41]. This essay included some pro-doctor, anti-activist, anti-patient bias that I objected to. This gave rise to the recent conflict at Conflicts_of_interest_(medicine) which, which WLU moved to WhatamIdoing's talk page, where it continued until shortly (under two hours) before WLU started raising issues with the paraphilic_infantilism article. This clearly isn't coincidental.
(For clarity, it should be noted that while WhatamIdoing's advocacy of James Cantor was involved the conflict that caused this weekend's wave of deletions, James Cantor himself has not.)
That editor wasn't disciplined for his 2009 deletions. However, that history became part of a documented pattern of incivility. The same will probably happen regarding this round, although it might take a year or two. BitterGrey (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
BitterGrey, the WP:External links/Noticeboard is not an appropriate place to be Accusing others of harassment. If you believe that removing a personal website and an Internet chat room from a Wikipedia article constitutes harassment, then please take your complaint to ANI.
In the meantime, perhaps you would stop posting your allegations of a conspiracy against you until the editors here have had a day or two to review the disputed websites and offer their opinions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

So this link is contested based on three wp:ELNO criteria. Lets discuss these one at the time and see if the complaint is valid:

  • ELNO 2 is about sites that "misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research". Looking through to that website I see numerous citations and nothing which seems obviously inaccurate. Can you please provide specific examples of how the site meets this criteria, because I do not see it.
  • ELNO 4 is about "Links mainly intended to promote a website". This particular links has been in that article for years and is used only a few related pages within the topic area. The fact that one of the users in this debate has admitted to have a COI with regards to this link does not mean it should automatically be removed as linkspam.
  • ELNO 11 is about "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites" This criteria is written very restrictive, but this page does indeed seem to fall under "personal webpage". Then again, I doubt any recognized authorities exist who are publically affiliated with this fetish.

So to sum up, I don't see ELNO 2, ELNO 4 accusation is ridiculous and ELNO 11 applies. However, a case can be made for inclusion on wp:ELMAYBE 4. What it all comes down to in the end are is the following: Is this link an improvement to the article? I am slightly leaning towards yes. The forum link should be removed, that one is quite straightforward. Yoenit (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

(To interject, I've long avoided making any changes to the external links section myself due to the COI. This is why I hadn't removed the forum link.) BitterGrey (talk) 23:48, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
It's a personal webpage and not by a scholar on the topic as I know it, ergo its reliability is untrustworthy and I am uncomfortable with deciding on personal webpages based on the ability of editors to decide whether or not it accurately represents the sources. In my opinion this argues against ELYES since the knowledgability of the material essentially comes down to "trust me, I'm a member". The page on is infantilism OK also makes it clear that this is very much an advocacy site. Essentially by including it, wikipedia gives it's "stamp of approval" to whatever the website maintainer considers an appropriate bit of information. I have no problem with paraphilic infantilism, people can do what they want, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the standards for ELs should be high.
The link was added by User:Science Dog in September. Before that, I'm not sure it was ever actually incorporated (I looked a bit and couldn't find a previous inclusion but I may simply have missed it and if someone can demonstrate it was added earlier and stayed on the page for a long time then great). In addition, in my experience longevity is rarely a reason to keep a link, an edit or an inappropriate source - particularly on a page that isn't likely to be high traffic.
Note that I'm not advocating for the link to be removed based on COI and as BG says it's never been added by him, it's just context for the discussion. I didn't even initially include the information in my posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Bittergrey, note that you are permitted to make your case for inclusion of the link per WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE. Having a COI means that other editors take your case with a grain of salt, not that you can't argue it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I was more hoping they would visit it for themselves. If they did so, they might see the extensive list of references on the "What is Infantilism?" article. Almost all of the references in the Wikipedia article came from there. They would also see that Is Infantilism OK? is a question, not a statement as you (WLU) assert. (The statement form is "infantilism is OK," while the question form is "is infantilism OK?") It includes tools for evaluating appropriateness on an individual basis, such as a checklists of various reasons why it might not be OK. Useful tools, but too extensive to include in Wikipedia. They would also see the surveys section which includes a great wealth of information. Much of it can't be included within Wikipedia because the parts that aren't secondary or tertiary sources are primary research. Overall, it is the best resource on paraphilic infantilism, diaper fetishism, and the AB/DL community that I know of. But I'd prefer that people go and see for themselves instead of being swayed by what someone wrote.
Given the breadth of resources there, I'd include it under wp:ELYES #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 ... amount of detail") However, I see Yoenit's point about wp:ELMAYBE #4. (I'd also like to see an answer from WLU to Yoenit's question about ELNO#2[42]. WLU is effectively accusing me of misleading readers. This is something I take seriously, and this accusation should be supported or retracted. )
Overall, I have mixed feelings about the EL's inclusion. Yes, having an EL to it would provide Wikipedia readers access to all of those additional resources. However, it also means that in one or two years, we'll be back here because some other editor has a bone to pick and sees the EL as a way to get at me. BitterGrey (talk) 01:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As a sidenote, the initial inclusion was some time prior to Jan 2006, when the old article was stubbed and the history lost. (One regret that I'll bring up before someone else does: In my first few days on Wikipedia, while rebuilding the article just after the stubbing, I restored the previous set of external links in two edits when I should have done it in one.) BitterGrey (talk) 01:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I still don't see "breadth of resources" as a valid point. Any reliable, secondary sources (i.e. books or journal articles) found in one of the essays written by Bittergrey can, and should be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself. What remains are primary sources, which can only be used for very specific circumstances, and the synthesis occurring within the page (i.e. the UI page itself being used as a de facto secondary source). The page wouldn't be considered reliable for use on the PI page proper, I don't see it being valid as an EL under that circumstance. Reviewing specifics, much of the site is written by BitterGrey, reflecting his experiences with paraphilic infantilism:
  1. "Is PI OK" is an advocacy piece - a section essentially about how BitterGrey came to accept his paraphilia, which I still read as "yes, it is OK"
  2. An essay where he discusses his name choice
  3. His checklist in my mind comes down to a "how to come out as a paraphilic infantilist"
  4. An essay on what seems to be his "personal journey"
  5. A section on his interpretation of bible and his understanding of Christian morality.
  6. His interpretation of what causes PI. Note that from what I've seen, there's not really a review article on the subject itself meaning this page runs ahead of the research.
  7. A survey about PI, which I don't believe have been published anywhere considered reliable. Thus it is possible that linking to these surveys would actually give readers misinformation because the level of expertise and oversight that normal academic channels provide are missing (writing and getting adequate responses to surveys is itself a very difficult task with a specific methodology and expertise). This survey wouldn't be acceptable even as a primary source because it hasn't been published in the appropriate venue - it's a set of responses gathered by an individual of uncertain expertise, with no oversight, published on a website controlled by a single person.
  8. A copy of a 1986 PhD thesis (question - it says it has been licensed under the Creative Commons 3.0 license, would linking to a copyright be involved? Per Bittergrey's comment below, this is not an issue, but a OTRS e-mail may be required; not that familiar with copyright but it's something to keep in mind. - WLU)
  9. A listing of practices which to my mind is essentially a "how to" manual.
I see this site as a very, very personal web page - it summarizes one person's thought on the subject. It contains his tools, written by him, tools he considers "useful" (for someone considering adopting or coming out as a paraphilic infantilist). Note that these aren't tools that would be "useful", they are tools that would be barred from inclusion per WP:NOT#HOWTO. I do not see ELYES as applicable because it's not neutral (again, I read it as a fairly transparent and uniquely personal advocacy site) and it's accuracy can not be determined. It is akin to me writing an essay or blog on my experience with wikipedia, then linking to it as a source or EL.
If anyone wants a reply to ELNO#2, the prime example would be the surveys - how is it verifiable that they are accurate? How do we know they weren't simply written by a single person, be it Bittergrey himself, or a single person submitting multiple responses? There was no thesis advisor, no peer review, no publisher to assert editorial control or fact checking. The secondary example would be the sixth point, Bittergrey's analysis of what causes PI - again, no peer review, no editorial control, no reputable publisher. Just one person's website. A tertiary example can be found with extensive narratives of 1-5 and 9. These are all personal essays. I have never said that Bittergrey is deliberately misleading readers, but I see no reason to believe that this is the kind of accurate or at least vetted information one would get from a scholarly publication. This isn't raw, neutral information on paraphilic infantilism - this is Bittergrey's interpretation of paraphilic infantilism, primarily in the form of his, and his alone, thoughts and experiences. There are a multitude of cognitive biases that exist, and are responsible for most pathological science. Confirmation bias alone ensures that it is extremely unlikely a single person, particularly one heavily invested in a specific identity, could report without colouring the material extensively. That's the reason we have thesis advisors, peer review, editors of collections of essays, fact checkers and editors at newspapers and publishers, and so forth. I'm not saying it has happened, or Bittegrey deliberately skewed any of the material but without oversight it's too easy to have happened, and there is nothing to support the neutrality, independence, accuracy or integrity of any of the information and it's very easy to unconsciously skew virtually anything.
As to Bittergrey's assertion that this EL is a way to "get at him", I really just think that the link is inappropriate and don't really care who owns the link, who put it in the page, or who Bittergrey is for that matter. I'm not persecuting anyone, I admit this is a bit of a borderline case (I see it as pretty obviously inappropriate, but certainly not as cut and dry as the forum). I also think it should be removed, based on my original statement of EL 2 (the factual accuracy of the information essentially can't be verified except through a single contributor's word - any editor who thinks otherwise should ask themselves if they would be comfortable seeing this site in a footnote), 4 (the link promotes the UI site itself) and particularly 11 (this is very, very much a personal website). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The only substantial addition I see in WLU's new 900-word rant over the previous one is "Any reliable, secondary sources can, and should, be extracted from the UI website and used as citations in the paraphilic infantilism page itself..."[43] If he sees no value in my work, why is he suggesting plagiarizing it? To WLU, I'll state this simply: Do not steal my intellectual property.

Notably missing is any support for WLU's accusation that I'm misleading readers (elno #2).

WLU, I thought we were here to get input from uninvolved editors, not listen to your conclusions over and over. BitterGrey (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If an editor makes a point and I consider it to be invalid, questionable, or missing part of my rationale, I will post a reply to note this. If I am convincing in doing so, it means my original rationale was lacking. I see the above post as expanding on, not repeating, my original post. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've not really been following this debate, and I don't claim to know anything about the subject. I will however point out that sources cited in a document aren't the 'intellectual property' of anyone but the authors of the sources cited, and where the reliability of a particular source is questioned, reference to the sources cited therein is not only not plagiarism, it is a necessary part of the process required to determine reliability, and a legitimate way to investigate alternate sourcing for controversial statements. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I've no problem with the references being checked. However, extracting all the references in mass from, for the purpose of denying any mention of, takes the results of the person who worked to gather those references, and gives him no credit. BitterGrey (talk) 07:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
As I understand it, the object of looking at the references is to improve the article. Though collating references is a necessary part of research, it isn't something that one should normally expect explicit recognition for - if this were the case, one would rapidly find oneself snowed under with acknowledgements of prior sources for prior sources for prior... If the sources you've found support the position you've taken, you've achieved your goal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump, let's say you produced a literature survey for college with a large number of references. Someone took it, removed your name, reworded the text (since the content would be driven by the references, he or she couldn't change the content, just the wording), and presented the outcome as his own, would you consider that plagiarism? BitterGrey (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Please stay on topic. We are here to discuss an external link, not the definition of plagiarism. Whether such an action would constitute plagiarism is irrelevant since it is not gonna happen anyway. Edit: I am referring here to the " mass extraction of references from the website", although it applies to the hypothetical example above as well. Yoenit (talk) 08:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't consider Bittergrey's site to meet the definition of a reliable source and do not think it should be cited or linked to, ever. If a journal article or book is cited on that site, then any reader can look that source up and integrate it into the wikipedia page. All the secondary material, the synthesis that Bittergrey performs across multiple sources to produce an essay or article, should not be cited because it is not a reliable source. I have no interest in Bittergrey's intellectual property and would argue strongly against using it. I'm not saying "check the references to see if they verify the body", I'm saying ignore the body, skip straight the references and use them in the wikipedia page.
Also note that I explicitly didn't say Bittergrey's work was deliberately misleading, I'm saying it's a personal webpage comprised primarily of a single person's view of a paraphilia they themselves practice, with no editorial oversight, peer review, reputation for fact checking or expertise - all the criteria of a reliable source. A personal website will, of necessity, be a single person's viewpoint with no editorial control to ensure accuracy. Thus, in my opinion, it meets the second half of ELNO #2, the "unverifiable research" part.
Note that I am attempting to do exactly what Bittergrey asked - review the site in detail and see if it is appropriate. I do tend to write long posts, but I am attempting to be explicit in my reasoning and examples. I do not consider this a rant, I consider it a reasoned argument.
Regarding Bittergrey's final point, that would be plagiarism and unacceptable. If I printed out an article, ignored the text, read every single reference and wrote my own article, that's not plagiarism (though it would be bad research) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, I asked UNINVOLVED editors to look at it. You are involved in a conflict that has, thanks to you, spread over multiple articles, essays, and talk pages. New discoveries such as the the Creative Commons 3.0 license demonstrate that you didn't explore the website before making your conclusion and deleting the EL. (By the way, the academically-reviewed Masters thesis and Doctoral dissertation were posted with the author's written consent. I made sure to get that before putting in the work to OCR them.) Perhaps you should let unbiased editors explore for themselves. If you have some time, I'd suggest fixing those several references on paraphilic_infantilism that have read "Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes" since your disruptive edits yesterday[44]. (Sunday, they all had titles, authors, and appropriate page numbers[45].) Or, more relevant to this discussion, actually reading ELNO #2. The important part is the first half - that is why it is first. If you can't support the accusation that I'm misleading readers, stop bringing up ELNO #2. BitterGrey (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Can you point to an area where I haven't substantiated my assertion with reference to the appropriate policy, or clearly identified it as my opinion? You suggested editors conduct a substantive review, and I did that. I am an editor with an opinion, and am making the best case I can to substantiate that opinion based on my understanding and interpretation of WP:EL. Your claim that it's solely based on some sort of personal grudge is unfounded, I've removed many, many external links in my history and edited many, many pages. I've made an extra effort to not bring in past history and let the EL stand or fall on its own merits. Please stop claiming I'm doing this all out of pique.

The {{cite pmid}} templates have been fixed, apparently the bot only runs by hand now, good to know.

ELNO#2 has two halves, and both are relevant. I think the second half is more relevant since the website is the work of a single person with no oversight. I'm not suggesting you are deliberately lying to readers on your site - I'm suggesting there is no oversight, thus the potential for bias is present. We insist on peer reviewed sources or reliable news agencies with reputations for fact checking and reliability for a reason - humans are flawed and it helps maintain the quality of information. Even if the first half was more important because "it's first", that doesn't mean the second half doesn't exist. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

wp:elno#2 is constructed of a root phrase "Any site that misleads the reader," followed by two narrowing conditions, and then one exclusion. While you have gone on and on about one of the narrowing condition, you haven't addressed the root phrase. It is interesting to note that you didn't consider the Adult Baby Diaper Lover support community as ELNO#2[46]. Now, if a lack of verifiability were the real issue, why would it only affect the website with all the references? BitterGrey (talk) 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved editor, and I just reviewed the site. It is clearly a personal site, so it falls under ELNO # 11 and should not be linked. - MrOllie (talk) 15:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(ec)I too am uninvolved but after looking at all of this and going through the website I have to say that it fails per ELNO #'s 2, 4, 10 and 11. #2, there is no peer review done for accuracy of items (ie: the surveys for example); #4, there are links to promote this website also I think external link spamming may also be a problem; #10, there is a social networking club available on the site for people to get together, and finally #11, which I think is maybe the strongest reason this site should not be allowed as a reliable source is it is pretty much a testimonial of the writer of this personal website. We have to have accurate reliable sources and usually that is in the form of peer reviewed journals or books. This site is more of the owner's testimonial in a lot of the areas, no disrepect intended. Anyways, this is what I got notes from looking at everything I saw. I hope this helps, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
CrohnieGal, I know you trust WLU given the span of your contact with him[47] but do you personally believe is both a forum (ELNO#10) and a personal web page (ELNO#11)? When WLU listed those four ELNOs, he was referring to two websites. Or by "it", were you referring to (the forum) as well?BitterGrey (talk) 16:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
To your first comment, yes I do have a lot of respect for WLU. He makes his debates backed in policies and guidelines and tries to clarify what he means when he says it. As for the forum, you have a page that has a forum to set up contact with people, which is what I was talking about. #11, it is your personal website with your POV throughout. I found a lot of what you had to say as sounding like a testimonial in some ways. I did my research on this and did take notes on what I found. I didn't click everything there but I clicked a lot of what you have on the site. I hope that clarifies my comments, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it would help if you provided the URL or title for this forum page? BitterGrey (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Crohnie never said "forum", she said "social networking club". ELNO 10 is about more than just web fora. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Crohnie wrote "page." Pages have URLs. If one of you two would share this URL, we'd have a clearer picture of what is being discussed. BitterGrey (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
There's no ambiguity regarding the abdl web forum as it is clearly excluded by ELNO#10 as I said in my initial post. Web fora are inherently unreliable but that's not the point - they're web fora, they're not encyclopedic. Also, any single reason from ELNO can be enough to exclude a link. Finally, Crohnie appears to be referring to the "social networking site" part of ELNO#10 (Crohnie, I can't see a link to the social club you refer to, would you be able to link to it?) I don't think that's necessarily a reason not to link as is not primarily or solely for social networking. But I very much do agree with MrOllie and Crohnie that ELNO#11 is probably the strongest reason not to link, as it's clearly a personal webpage. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have little doubt that the abdl web forum is a forum. My point relates to votestacking. BitterGrey (talk) 17:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Also, CrohnieGal, we are discussing and EL, not an RS. They are different noticeboards. On the talk page where all this started, WLU mentioned "a long history of corresponding [with CrohnieGal] on wiki and off about wiki-related" matters[48]. Perhaps in the email exchange, some wires got crossed. At that original location, I noted how your sudden involvement coincided with a message from WLU[49]. Now here you are again, claiming to be uninvolved. BitterGrey (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
None of those posts had anything to do with this ELN discussion. Are you accusing us of colluduing off-site through e-mail to get a biased set of editors on this noticeboard? That discounts essentially all references that anyone here has made to policies, guidelines and overall thoughts in favour of a personal conspiracy against you. I see no evidence of this, but I do see a lot of (in my opinion) well-reasoned discussions and ELNO-based arguments against including Those are the issues that should be focussed on.
Also note that ELNO#2 does have implications regarding the reliability of an external link. And note that #11 is about it being a personal website and thus excluded - which Crohnie thought the most compelling reason to remove it and leave it removed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, feel free to explain the diffs if you believe you are being quoted out of context. On the subject of accusations, I'm still waiting for response regarding the accusation that I'm misleading readers (ELNO#2). Please support it or retract it, preferably with links or diffs others can check for themselves. BitterGrey (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Sure. A week before this section was created, I sent Crohnie an e-mail asking how she was doing because I know and like her, and also mentioning that she was mentioned by name at WT:MEDCOI. Crohnie is an editor whose opinion I respect who also self-identifies as an editor with a health issue. I thought she might have some insights related to an essay about possible conflicts of interest that are related to having a diagnosis. It seems rather self-evident she might have something of value to contribute. It is part of the normal process of gathering input for a new page. Beyond a brief reference to MEDCOI, there wasn't anything relevant to editing wikipedia. The posts were completely unrelated to this ELN posting, particularly as I can't travel backwards or forwards in time. The e-mail has absolutely nothing to do with this page or paraphilic infantilism.
I've repeatedly explained why I think your work on the is unreliable and may mislead readers and it essentially comes down to being a personal webpage and therefore an unreliable source. That's pretty much it. Please review WP:RS, WP:SPS and WP:V for more information on that. I've never accused you of deliberately misleading readers, I have repeatedly stated that in all cases of unreviewed work the issue is not one of deliberate deception. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Your message was sent to her 13:03, 23 February 2011[50] and her first post was 17:52, 23 February 2011[51]. The diffs don't support your claim. Regarding ELNO#2, note the absence of weasel words like "might," "maybe," or "may." Any site might be deceptive. ELNO#2 is directed at sites that ARE deceptive. Please support or retract this accusation. BitterGrey (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, guys, let's run through the facts of life again:
Sniping at each other about perceived insults makes uninvolved editors less likely to respond. If you want responses from uninvolved editors, then you need to restrain your comments. If you expect uninvolved editors to disagree with you, then sure, go ahead: keep discouraging their involvement with your endless arguing. Just keep in mind that most of the regulars are going to assume that petty sniping means your case is weak.
I would very much appreciate it if WLU and BitterGrey would each voluntarily limit himself to a single, ideally short, comment per day for the rest of this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
At 5,700 words, this discussion is already too large for the faint of heart. BitterGrey (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Besides, this way we can watch the rampage unfold in real time. For example, within two hours of my catching CrohnieGal's puppetlike foible (16:28)[52] WLU removed a ref to from Adult_diaper (17:55, 1 March 2011)[53]. BitterGrey (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Just for the record for editors here, I have had ELN on my watchlist for awhile now. I brought a question here and ever since this page has remained on my list. I have not acted as a puppet for anyone and want to make that clear to all. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:55, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Crohnie, some of us are still waiting for you to share the URL of that forum page, the reason you believe should be excluded based on ELNO #10.[54]. Knowing the URL would give us a clearer picture of your position. Otherwise, it will continue to look like you didn't understand someone else's position before claiming it as your own (at best).BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

New to this argument and i have a question about this as self published researcher. !!! In the "DISCLAIMER" its say "This is an academic site." Which academic site are they claiming to be connected to. Secondly who are this "academics" involed in the site. Thirdly is the site used as a source by institutions or general publication? Moxy (talk) 07:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

'Academic' in that it attempts to compose and convey information, and as a way to write that it wasn't a website dedicated to stories or pictures. Search engines would neglect the not, and cause disappointment among those looking for stories or pictures. As previously discussed, the website does include a related thesis and dissertation. BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

While I did not bother reading any of the recent ranting above I did have another look at the site based on some early comments. It seems my initial assesment was wrong and the site is not an "neutral information site about the phenomena" but rather a "personal website about the webmasters experiences with the phenomena". I support removal of the site based on wp:ELNO#11. Yoenit (talk) 08:13, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This again? We have been through this 2 years ago and these links are still not acceptable per WP:EL. They should be removed, as they were back in 2009. They are heavily biased and do not represent a neutral and encyclopedic assessment of the article topic. For history (where I was involved), see [55]. ThemFromSpace 08:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for not claiming to be uninvolved. You first expressed your position a month prior to that discussion, in March 2009. This is good because it separates it from the July 2009 events. In march, your position was "I looked at that link and while it wasn't ugly spam like the rest of them, it violates WP:NPOV as being overly supportive of the condition." I noted the irony that the example you cited[56] (when discussing this at one of four locations) as a proper set of ELs included an EL to "The ONE National Gay & Lesbian Archives honors the past, celebrates the present, and enriches the future of all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. We foster acceptance of sexual and gender diversity by supporting education and research about our heritage and experience worldwide. ONE is dedicated to collecting, preserving, documenting, studying, and communicating our history, our challenges, and our aspirations."[57] I couldn't figure out why you considered a site spreading information about infantilism, but not a site celebrating homosexuality, overly supportive. Anyway, your removal of all of the English ELs[58] caused an instability. During this instability, you and James Cantor left an EL to in place multiple times(eg. [59][60][61]). He then removed the entire external links section in apparent but understandable frustration[62]. Then came July and things changed dramatically. James Cantor, displeased with my part in a debate 12-16 July 2009 at Sexology[63] about multiple external links that he was adding under a conflict of interest, went on to delete large sections paraphilic infantilism on the 17th, violating 3RR[64][65][66][67]. That is the context for the discussion you and WLU have linked to. BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding -- this superficially looks like a relatively sane self-help site by an individual with the condition. While no doubt a useful resource for some, perhaps many, people, this is not the kind of thing we allow in external links. If we did allow such links in general, I could imagine an editorial decision to include this particular link. However, that would require more research than it's worth, and the question is moot anyway. Regarding -- that's a very clear case of ELNO 10.

I note that when an editor with a conflict of interest shows themselves immune to rational arguments based on policy and our general practices, and unable to refrain from fighting against a wide consensus, they may easily find themselves sanctioned. Hans Adler 09:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note I'm not the one who added the EL. I'm just providing information about the website and the full context for this discussion.BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Hans. I didn't read this whole discussion because it jumped from one issue to another, some not dealing with this noticeboard. I did look at both of the aforementioned links though. One question, is a copy of (French and CC-licensed)? --NortyNort (Holla) 10:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC) is a French translation of some of the articles on It was translated and posted with my permission. Understanding.infantilism.or has also been partially translated into Dutch (e.g. ). Regarding the complexity of the discussion, this would be a much simpler discussion if the removal was done by a neutral editor without clear motives. Time will tell whether WLU's efforts (now including a fifth and sixth page) stabilize or continue. If they continue to become broader and more disruptive, charges including wikihounding might need to be pursued. (This, by the way, is why I'd like to get an answer from Crohnie, even though she is no longer the swing vote.) BitterGrey (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hans Adler and others have listed the forums that fail #10. Your attacks need to stop now as I am not answering you anymore about this. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Quite the contrary, I don't disagree with Hans Adler and others that ELNO 10 applies to It is clearly a forum. I was hoping for some clarification on why you believed is a case of ELNO 10. BitterGrey (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree Still think all should go. Moxy (talk) 03:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
It looks like everyone agrees that this internet chat room is not a desirable link for an encyclopedia article. While people are permitted to make a different choice later, I doubt that they will. Special:LinkSearch indicates that it is linked only on this page at the moment, so let's consider that one settled. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Understanding Infantilism

The more complicated case is BitterGrey's website. Obviously, BitterGrey believes it to be a valuable resource (else he wouldn't have spent so much time creating it). Other editors have raised a variety of objections to it. BitterGrey says that he has been careful and transparent about the conflict of interest issues, and he deserves appropriate credit for that.

However, I'm not seeing anyone except BitterGrey who thinks that this is a desirable link for this article. Does anyone except the site's creator think it should be linked? (Only messages of support are really needed here; if you objected above, and still stand by that, then you need not repeat yourself.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

This should specifically apply to ELNO #11 to separate it from the still-open questions regarding ELNO #10, the personal accusations of ELNO #2, etc. BitterGrey (talk) 18:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, my goal is to determine whether anyone except you believes the website should be kept for any reason at all, even if the keep rationale is as flimsy as "I like it". I'm in no rush, so we can leave this open for a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. If there is a sudden upsurge of ELYESes and ELMAYBEs raised, that would be fine. However, given the drama bellow, new input here of any kind is unexpected. I'm concerned that this silence and the discussion before it will be used to justify something they to do not. BitterGrey (talk) 06:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's time to close this. There have been no comments except the site owner's in support of linking to his website. There are (evidenced above) many editors opposed to it. I think the obvious conclusion from this discussion is that there is a consensus to exclude this link from Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's stick with facts. Yoenit and MrOllie agree regarding the application of ELNO #11. Based on this, I'll not add, and avoid modifying, ELs to in article space. Of course, this has already long been the case.
Hans Adler considered the discussion moot, AndyTheGump commented about IP removal, and NortyNort asked about the French translation; but didn't specify inclusion or exclusion criteria.
WLU and whatamidoing were involved in this conflict from before the EL, or even the article it is on, became an issue[68]. Moxy[69] and Themfromspace [70] were personally invited by whatamidoing. (By the way, WLU was also personally invited by whatamidoing[71] back before this conflict spread to multiple pages.) CrohnieGal withdrew from the discussion after being asked repeatedly to explain her puppetlike foible.
To those few who waded through all this for the good of Wikipedia, not in support of a friend as a personal favor, I extend my sympathies and gratitude. BitterGrey (talk) 00:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There are no more links to this page in mainspace, once this is archived we should add a note to talk:paraphilic infantilism pointing to another place where consensus was established so it can be removed without controversy or issue if added in the future. Otherwise, I consider the issue settled. Misza would normally have archived it tomorrow, I am fine with it being archived today, tomorrow, or simply leaving it and letting Misza take care of it in another 10 days. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:02, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
WLU, per Wikipedia policy: "Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding." (Were this not the case, we would need to defer to the several-year-old consensus to _include_ the EL, since it had priority). Consensus changes, but histories of votestacking and using Wikipedia as a battleground become longer and more clear. As for the link already present at that talk page to this discussion, feel free to update it once this discussion is archived. (Please do not "nuke" any ongoing discussions again.) As for Misza, that assumes no one else is dense enough to edit war with a bot[72].BitterGrey (talk) 16:08, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
I did not withdraw from this discussion. I withdrew from talking to you directly, BitterGrey. I did not ever act as a puppet of any kind and if you continue with personal attacks against editors I will bring all of this to the attentions of an administrator. Enough is enough! --CrohnieGalTalk 14:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Best we simply close this talk - clear the community does not find the site relevant for Wikipedia. Moxy (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, at least two apparently uninvolved editors think ELNO #11 relevant, which should be enough to close this. Since many here were personally invited by one side of this debate ([73][74][75]...), we shouldn't extrapolate about what position the Wikipedia community holds. If anything, it shows that most don't care enough either way to wade into this.
@Crohnie, accusing others of making accusations is pointless, and I suspect any neutral admin will ask the questions already asked, and left unanswered([76][77]...). BitterGrey (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
You seem to have the interpretation that some have come to this talk with a preset notion and intent - We were asked to comment because we are experienced with the topic of references and External links with regard to there relevants and notability. It has been some time now that we have been waiting to hear "ANY" positive comments from other editors about the sites credibility and worthiness of inclusion into this encyclopedia in this section. None are forth-with - so we should move on. I understand your frustrated but would be best to assume good faith on the part of the editors that have commented here.Moxy (talk) 16:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Moxy, we can stick to the facts and close this, or we can continue to debate. Which would you prefer? If you don't wish to continue this debate, don't raise new issues based on your interpretations about my interpretations, or reword well-diff'd comments into assumptions. Stick to the facts and we can close this. BitterGrey (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
@ Bittergrey; your smoke screen doesn't work. An administrator will comment on your rude and attacking comments to multiple editors. Now please stop attacking and follow the policies that are required from all of us. No one has to answer any questions, even though I did answer yours, you chose not to hear it. Like I said before, I am not responding to you any further as we are getting no where. If others have a comment or question please feel free to make them. I will answer the best I can. Thank you, --CrohnieGalTalk 16:37, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Smokescreen? Again, let's stick to the facts. After Crohnie wrote "there is a social networking club available on the site for people to get together"[78] I asked Crohnie for the URL of this club[79]. WLU responded about what Crohnie meant, but didn't provide a URL[80]. A unique property of non-puppets is independent thought. Crohnie, explain your independent thought process and you'll show that you aren't a puppet. Since real people make mistakes, it doesn't even have to be right, just independent. BitterGrey (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
It is quite clear that the consensus is neither link was appropriate. There's nothing else to discuss that is relevant to the external links noticeboard, and as such I'm closing the section. If anyone wants to simply archive it, that's fine with me at least. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

@Crohnie: Do not delete the comments of others[81]. This is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and remarkably uncivil, especially given that you are accusing me of being "rude and uncivil"[82]. Per Wikipedia guidelines: "The basic rule ... is, that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission."

(Reposting after deletion) Given the number of new comments from a plurality of editors (edit: e.g: [83][84][85][86][87]...), I think it safe to consider this discussion still ongoing. However, to keep things concise, I'd ask all who disagree with my attempt at a factual closure[88] to provide diffs. Diffs show that points have substance, are worth substantiating, and are not new issues. BitterGrey (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Note discussion at AN/I. BitterGrey (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive682. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Notation: I did not intentionally delete anything. I am assuming an edit conflict caused this deletion. My apologies for not catching it though. --CrohnieGalTalk 10:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)