This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
AsianWiki links exist on 290+ pages. They are being added as an external link (even when they serve no additional value alongside sites like IMDB and HanCinema): /info/en/?search=Age_Harassment /info/en/?search=Choi_Ri /info/en/?search=Jeong_Yong-ki
The most important thing is that AsianWiki is a user-generated website, which is not reliable WP:UGC. It also goes against WP:ELNO. Links normally to be avoided: (✓) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page. (✓) [[http://blog.asianwiki.com/ Blog AsianWiki]] Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included).
They have been linking to their website instead of not linking, linking to other language Wikipedia using Template:ill, or keeping the link red. As what is happening on this page, Special Affairs Team TEN. Kang Sung-Min, Jang Won-Young, Song Yoo Ha, and Jang In-Sub are all linking to AsianWiki for no reason.
Moreover, instead of citing news articles (Which can easily be found for the pages I provided), they cite their database page as a source. /info/en/?search=Han_Bo-bae#cite_ref-5 /info/en/?search=Yesung#cite_ref-39 /info/en/?search=Nam_Woo-hyun#cite_ref-30
In addition, the users affiliated with AsianWiki are under investigation for sock puppeting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.252.92.90, which goes against WP:ADV. NTMun12 ( talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I found a number of inline links to biblica.com and a vastly greater number to biblegateway.com. these are mostly to out of copyright work such as the King James BIBLE. is this appropriate? Guy ( Help!) 08:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request the inclusion of BDRC ID in the Authority Control template. Would that be reasonable? If so I can change the template myself. Élie Roux ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
musicbrainz.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Is MusicBrainz an appropriate external link to add to a large number of articles? See for example the entry for Don Cossacks Choir Russia. Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
|param=
if not wanted, like we do with WikiData in infoboxes).
I'm wondering if maybe we should turn this into an RfC covering MBIDs in general, not just Artist IDs. Something like:
- Should MBIDs be included in {{ authority control}}? - Yes / No
- Should MBIDs be suppressed in {{ authority control}}? - By Default / By Exception
- Which MBIDs should be included in {{ authority control}}? - Artist ID / Work ID / Release ID / Any Useful ID
Then we could get the wider community to weigh in on this. — AfroThundr ( t• c) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
See below #Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:CHESS has traditionally used the website chessgames.com to link to interactive chess boards so that interested readers can play through notable chess games if they wish. User:Aircorn has raised an objection to this and tagged the article on Magnus Carlsen (the current world chess champion). My view is that the use of these links add encyclopedic value to the article, meaning this is an appropriate exception to WP:ELPOINTS No.2, per WP:IAR. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 06:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
All links in this section lead to an external site., which almost never occurs in other "Notable games" secs, but seems to be overlooked by you as possible solution to problem of misleading readers regarding links that lead to outside sites. 2) Most "Notable games" secs are located towards the ends of the articles, many times the last-occurring sec prior to "See also" and "References" secs. Yes they are technically in the article body, but typically at end of the body, close as possible to "External links" sec w/o actually being in that sec. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To me, these should either be in the external links section - though there it may linkfarm to a significant number. Or, they should be in a list-like format in the text (or as a separate list-article) - say a table with notable matches, when played, opponent, who won, and maybe some game statistics (how long, how many moves, winning situation ..), and that could have a column with an external link, header 'game on chessgames.com', and in each cell a link. Note that I would expect that the list is referenced, as to show why the specific notable game (or all of them) belong in this list in the article. I don't think the links belong in-prose. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a good time to remember that two people have worked on tools/templates to display interactive chessboards in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards. Attempts to implement either one went off track (more than once), but they're both workable to some degree. As long as it is possible to have these games built into Wikipedia, there's no exigency to include a bunch of external links in an article body. That said, I think there are plenty of ways to format the links to move them out of the body while remaining contextual (e.g. using a ref notes section called "notable games" with a footnote [game 1] pointing down to the EL in that section). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
the problem is the style of linking which is not in line with our guidelines."). I've explained why they have accumulated in WP:CHESS bio articles 'Notable games' secs to-date & I showed how a table wasn't necessary by converting the refs in Magnus Carlsen from "inline" to References sec, so I rate myself successful here. I'm not going to veer by debating whether Chessgames.com refs are desirable or necessary or not. You failed to recognize I removed the inline links from Magnus Carlsen#Notable games, misleading thread readers that I didn't. I won't be responding further, unless something further misrepresentative is stated here. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As somebody with no connection to Chess or Chess-related articles I dont see why an exception to adding external links in the body of the article is justifiable. I presume that chessgames.com is a reliable source (although it looks a bit like a fan site and promotes advertising and the like) then it should be just used as a reference. Adding a link to the external site (particularly one that dosnt add anything to the actual article) is not what wikipedia is here for, we should not do it. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that Reddit AMAs are appropriate external links per WP:ELYES #3 since they can be construed as interview transcripts. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently had a lively exchange with another editor about whether the “Further reading” section in an article should be linked to the “Contents” section. The article in question is Alt-right. The other editor did not object to including a “Further reading” section, but he/she said the “Further reading” heading should stand alone – that it shouldn’t appear in the article hierarchy or in the “Contents” section at the top of the article. The other editor thought that "Contents" would be cluttered if "Further reading" appeared there. I disagreed. Unless “Further reading” appears in “Contents,” I argued, readers will likely not notice the “Further reading” section; the section will be lost in the article. Does the community have any thoughts on this? Should “Further reading” always be linked to “Contents,” or can this heading stand alone? (I hope this is the right place to bring up the subject. I also brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Further reading.) Chisme ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is running out of hand. The template allows for over 40 identifiers, all linking to external databases. I seriously doubt that these links mostly pass our inclusion standards, and there are articles with complete linkfarms of identifiers (where I even doubt that the data provided by the first one would even provide us with more data than what is already in the article, see intro of WP:EL.
An example coming from above thread: Jan van Eyck currently has 19 identifiers in authority control (and even more external links). At the time of implementing ( diff) there were 2 identifiers locally, now all of them (probably ‘because we have them available’) are transcluded, with the potential of more than doubling this number.
Suggestion: bring it back to 2-3, making the other ones invisible to allow for incoming searches (or get rid of them altogether .. most of them will hardly ever result in searches aimed at finding the Wikipedia article (in this language) - people looking for a KulturNav number aree more likely looking for the KulturNav record. (Note - this discussion is likely also of interest to certain infoboxes and similar template systems). — Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I spent some hours trying to disentangle various David Shapiros:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC); Updated (filmmaker still alive in 2015) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Just looked at the last few entries of the bot (which is already voluntarily on hold, thanks), I saw [7], which I reverted. Not a bot error as such, but another indication of why this bot shouldn't run and why blind (or any?) addition of authority control (or other external links) is a bad idea. The ID added, [8], si the ID for Michael Thompson (photographer), not for Michael Thompson (karateka). This was added by a bot to Wikidata in 2015, and not corrected since. Importing such errors into our BLPs is not the way to go, and it looks as if too many of these identifiers are wrong.
Even when it may be right, it too often is useless. Davie Cooper also had AC added in the last bot run. It links correctly to VIAF, which has one "work", sourced to the Library of Congress. It seems to be impossible to verify this at the LOC site though, and I have no idea what "work" they might be referring to. So not a bot error, not a Wikidata error, but still a useless external link. Fram ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.
An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page.
Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.
An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Dormant use of the template is discouraged.
it shouldn't be assumed at face balue that links shown in the template are correct or are even appropriate for the article: it is up to the editor who adds the template to check ...". The fun of WikiData is that these templates were already in the article years ago (before WikiData existed?), that the template has been edited so it transcludes WikiData after the fact of transclusion (see request below), or that WikiData data is added to WikiData far after the fact that the template is transcluded. Neither of these are checked by the
‘...editor who adds the template...’. Seen that authority control is of prime interest to our BLPs (much less than for, say, Oat) it is of prime interest that the data gets checked when it is added to the article - but we have NO control about that. Per your suggestion: I challenge ALL cases where data from WikiData is added to en.wikipedia through filtered and unfiltered transclusion. We should NOT be transcluding data from WikiData in any form to our articles (especially to WP:BLP) unless WikiData data becomes verified, reliable and unmutable. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Another example (regarding "need to check before hitting the 'Publish changes' button"): Einstein Tower apparently has two VIAF numbers: VIAF 236936180 and VIAF 128014082 – the former, however, generates a faulty "WorldCat Identities" link in the {{ authority control}} box. Nonetheless, the "wrong" number was used at WikiData. I haven't found a way to check (at Wikidata) whether the derived WorldCat Identity (WCI) is valid, afaik it can only be checked by calling the WCI elsewhere, so that it displays as a link. Problem now solved at Wikidata for this particular example, however not sorted for future similar problems. I agree with Dirk that there are other issues to sort too, however the update to the template documentation can be performed without delay, and would anyway remain valid even after other changes as long as the template exists. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Task 6: Add {{ Authority control}} to all biographical articles with an identifier on Wikidata.
Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.- if this is the main point of contention then {{ Authority control}} should be discontinued
Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of External links or Internet directories.- not the case here
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article- ok
however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.- also not the case here
Internal links [...] Public domain or other source material [...] Photographs or media files [...]- don't apply
A Templates For Discussion has been opened regarding whether it is appropriate to link to {{ Wikidata property}}. Comments are invited at that discussion page. Alsee ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
While reading Talk:ActBlue (the article refers to a company which processes donations to Democratic Party campaigns), I noticed that the edit history for our article ActBlue shows that an edit requested by their employee BostonianMaggie (who disclosed her potential WP:CoI beforehand), removal of the text:
"ActBlue is also known for accessing credit card- and PayPal- accounts of former donors without the donors' knowledge and setting up recurrent withdrawals without the account holders authorization. There are currently 42 unresolved reported fraud cases on ActBlue. Source: ScamGuard"
was done by an unregistered editor User:2603:3007:2704:83f0:e9d1:cb6f:b507:bb6f without any previous discussion on Talk:ActBlue.
We ought to have had talk page discussion, and perhaps an RfC on the question of excluding the information which was requested to be deleted. The source which BostonianMaggie linked to as evidence that ScamGuard.com was unreliable turned out to be an advertisement by a law firm specializing in reputation management, selling their services in removing reports from ScamGuard.
I ran a Google search, "ActBlue billing dispute" to determine if ScamGuard.com was the only such site reporting issues with ActBlue billing. Two other such sites also reported having received reports of disputed charges by ActBlue to customers' credit cards, bank accounts and PayPal accounts.
One of these sites, actblue.pissedconsumer.com, reported on their page for ActBlue:
"3 RESOLVED 136 TOTAL REVIEWS $120K CLAIMED LOSSES $2.3K AVG LOSS
In trying to start a discussion on this matter in Talk:ActBlue I found I couldn't even publish to Talk:ActBlue or my sandbox if I linked to the reports on actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html. We can't even see this information in order to reach a consensus on whether or not to include it in the article. The block on the external link actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html prevents a consensus from being reached.
Why is actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html blocked? loupgarous ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, if at all, but I wanted to point out that it seems URLs from this website can be altered in any way and still appear valid. Example: http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/arts-entertainment-living/tuned-in/item/41103-i--can-put-anything-here
The text after the number sequence appears to be irrelevant to the actual article, and can be used in sneaky vandalism to Folsom make it appear as if the reference supports the edit, when the actual article is completely different. Example: [13].
Please ping me in replies. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a user to insert a link to their own GitHub? I keep encountering users doing this while I'm on patrol. Aspening ( talk) 18:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Body modification keeps having links to social media websites, namely "malebodymods.com" and "malemods.com", added to the "Seel also" and "External links" section. Attempts to remove them or mark them as inappropriate are excessively reverted by User:Mc4bbs, and attempts to discuss the issue have been ignored. -- Equivamp - talk 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Are links to sites like www.playbill.com (/person) or dvd.netflix.com with a clear focus on selling stuff and advertising acceptable as external links? See Alec Baldwin as a usage example (in the edit history). Such links seem to be a clear violation of WP:ELNO #1 and #4, but I'd appreciate additional opinions before going on a mass-deletion spree (only for links in EL sections to be clear). GermanJoe ( talk) 17:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
An IP has added a link from a conservative political group to Women in STEM fields ( "The narrative falls apart"), referencing a brand-new primary source. I maintain that 1) the first link is a textbook case of an unreliable source; 2) the second link is a WP:PRIMARY source -- and a new one at that -- so not useable by itself. Thoughts? -- Calton | Talk 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like of some of you to have a look at the contributions of this editor. I've had to block the account, obviously, for a user name violation, but I hope they will request a name change to take care of that. The links are to archives at WVU, and I have no judgment on them prima facie, but I know that our practice is that not all archives are the same; that is, not all are worth listing, or have individual holdings that are worth linking in articles. Your input is appreciated. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 18:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement. My goal is to direct readers of Wikipedia to primary source material, I am not intentionally trying to promote anyone or anything. I am an MA student with a true love of the history of my state Wvarchives ( talk) 18:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I have now multiple times been reverted on Hashtag United F.C. where editors have included the Twitter as the official website, whereas the club has a registered domain, http://www.hashtagunited.co.uk/. This domain redirects to https://www.youtube.com/user/spencerbets/, their youtube channel. The intro of the article reads: 'they gained notability due to recording their matches, making videos around them, and posting them on YouTube to the Spencer FC Channel.', 'They later moved to the Hashtag United YouTube channel.', 'They are the first YouTube team of their kind to become a registered semi-professional team.', which, to me, clearly shows that the youtube is their most prominent official site, not the Twitter. I further note that the 'about' section on their youtube links to their Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
I therefore think that the youtube is the official website, which can be linked through their dedicated domain, or directly. Can I have a second opinion on which link we should use? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Lepidoptera~plwiki, I should probably ask here for consensus:
I would like to undo all these external link additions, at least those to lepidoptera.eu, with an appropriate edit summary, linking to this discussion and the ANI discussion, also taking the time to fix edits that are not the "current" version of the pages anymore.
The website contains non-free images that should instead be uploaded to Commons by the photographer. The massive promotional addition of external links has already partly been undone, and I would like to finish the process. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"started to edit articles on Wikipedia in April 2015": Unlikely, see above. There seem to be skeletons in the closet.
"I don't need any kind of promotion": Why are you promoting then, and complaining about the removal of this promotion?
"website is always in top 5 results": I guess this might be because of actions exactly like the one you made on the English Wikipedia, and is unlikely to be a good reason for continuing to do so. Also, it might be because of the fitting domain name, which increases your Google page rank without necessarily having to provide an encyclopedically relevant website. By the way, the "top 5 results" when I google for free software have often been adware-infested in the past.
"I'm working [...] for the community.": The community appears to be unhappy about the external links, though. There has not been a single complaint about the removal of the links; all I got so far was multiple "thank you"s from active, respected community members who had not found the time to do something they would have done themselves otherwise. Also, you appear to have been ignoring well-established community guidelines and warnings about conflicts of interest and spamming since 2010. If you actually want to help the community, please listen to their advice. By uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons, for example, you could actually help the community.
"I gave the people my knowledge and my time": You mostly gave them external links to your personal website. How selfless. Instead, you could license your photos under a free license, and actually give something very nice and useful to the community that way. It is not too late to start with this, and I think that I can promise that nobody will complain or laugh if you decide to edit again even after your previous statement, but this time not for promotion, but actually making Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia articles a more beautiful place.
"For thousands of people [...] to give them much more information as possible": The best way to do so would be adding reliably sourced content to Wikipedia articles, not keeping it behind an external link on your personal website. You are, and have always been, very welcome to do so.
"[...] it seems that you don’t treat me as a 'normal user' [...]": Really? If you have been receiving warnings about the same issue since 2010 and still continue to do the same thing, we might even have been too lax in this regard.
"In results you have destroyed a lot of valuable data": Sorry, no. It makes me sad to summarize it like that, but the mass rollback has not destroyed valuable data. After all, this is why the mass rollback has been done. It would not have been done if you had added "a lot of valuable data" to Wikipedia. Now would be a wonderful point to actually have a clean start and to start adding valuable data to Wikipedia. This could, for example, be: Reliably sourced information, and freely licensed images.
"[...] in one of the previous posts user ToBeFree had an argument, that I can’t add links to the pages where used pictures are copyrighted.": I have not said nor meant that, ever. I was only replying to your statement that your website is "based on the same rules as Wikipedia: it's open and free.". I tried to explain to you why this is not really true.
"I think the topic is CLOSED.": Sadly no; I'm still busy cleaning up the links. The amount of links I'm encountering makes it hard for me to believe that there was no time to make some actually useful contributions to Wikipedia instead. This could, for example, have been: Adding reliably sourced information, uploading freely licensed images.
I'm almost done with processing the edits now. Something new has come up during my research. These have later been replaced by .eu by Chris lepidoptera and/or Lepidoptera~plwiki; the original domain is no longer available
http://web.archive.org/web/20080501162745/http://www.lepidoptera.pl:80/start.php?lang=UK
"All images on this website remain the exclusive copyright of the photographer and may not be reproduced or exploited in any other way without the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright ©2007 by Chris Jonko"
There seems to be a deep deep hole dug long ago. My personal suggestion: Own up to it, without accusing others of their patience in this matter, and move on. It is never too late. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 03:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Status update: HTTPS for lepidoptera.eu was already done. HTTP for lepidoptera.eu is now done. HTTPS for lepidoptera.pl is now done (was just 1 link). HTTP for lepidoptera.pl remaining.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 04:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just leaving another note here...
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_May_1#lepidoptera.pl ( permanent link)
Monitored by WikiProject Spam since 10:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC). ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Done cleaning up the links, for both lepidoptera.eu and lepidoptera.pl, HTTP & HTTPS. Here is a list of about 1090 edits involved with the cleanup process, taking 3 days:
Permanent link
I have not used any tools or scripts, just Firefox, hundreds of open tabs and the default keyboard shortcuts. Peak RAM usage for the browser alone was somewhere between 7 and 8 gigabytes; this strategy doesn't work on every machine. To sort the backlog into multiple categories, I used the "insource" feature of MediaWiki's search engine. For the edit summaries,
AddWittyNameHere has
created a handy permalink that I updated during the cleanup process.
During the investigation, as already written above, it became apparent that the dimension of this spam wave, and the amount of warnings received, has been unexpectedly large. Here is a (possibly still incomplete) timeline:
And that's how we got here. There have been 30 abusefilter warnings, 9 talk page warnings, and 2 mass reverts. Lepidoptera~plwiki continued to spam anyway. Only after that, the ANI thread has been created. Only after that, the mass rollback has been done. Only after that, I have removed all the links to lepidoptera.eu and lepidoptera.pl. We have not been unfair here. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 04:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As one last note, a
sockpuppet investigation (
permalink) has formally determined today that, based on their behavior, there is a plausible relation between
Lepidoptera~plwiki and
Chris lepidoptera: "It is implausible that they aren't related."
This concern has been explicitly voiced by multiple administrators ( 1, 2a, 2b, 3). An explanation of possible connection types, and why Wikipedia considers these to be abusive, can be found at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Meatpuppetry. Please note that neither of these terms are meant to be derogatory. I think that there should ideally be neutral terms for describing people, but these two terms have been historically established in the Wikipedia community.
My personal view and explanation of the specific issue here: I think that using multiple accounts, in the way Lepidoptera~plwiki appears to have done, is normally not a problem. It just seemed to be an unconventional way of renaming one’s account, by creating a new account and abandoning the old one. As you can see at User:ToBeFree (old account), I have even been doing exactly that in the past, probably because I did not know that "renaming" is possible. This is perfectly okay.
The only real problem here was denying, multiple times, that there is a connection between these accounts. The following part of Wikipedia’s "Sock puppetry" policy describes this:
Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:
[…]
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
[…]
Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Wikipedia:Clean start.
( Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts)
Because the link has been added to the blacklist already, and because Lepidoptera~plwiki has already stopped adding the link to Wikipedia articles, there is no need for a block. Blocks are not meant to punish editors; they are only being used if really needed to prevent disruption. This is described in the blocking policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocks should not be punitive
Lepidoptera~plwiki: Whenever you like to, and possibly even years in the future, please feel free to give Wikipedia a second chance. A good way to finally have a clean start would probably be:
I think that this can be archived now. It feels amazing to be able to add the following text to this section:
Done
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just created a proposal on new Question and Answer site for helping Wikipedia users and editors. The link is here:
https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/119659/wikipedia?referrer=TGMbWAy-uiSoq1C-pMbTMw2
-- Mladifilozof ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, k1eyboard just went sout-h. Is [14] a good link? Doug Weller talk 08:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for some opinions on a variety of documents. I am currently working with the Rhode Island State Archives to add relevant external links to articles on Wikipedia. I am wondering if I could obtain some feedback on these articles (user There'sNoTime has been very helpful in getting me to this point!) A quick side note, the Archives are currently updating its catalog system, so sometimes the links do not work. If one of the links does not open, please let me know. Also, I was wondering if some of these would be better off as me composing a new sentence and attaching it as a footnote instead. The proposed footnotes are below:
1. Battle of Rhode Island map: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/26 Battle of Rhode Island page: /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Rhode_Island
2. Declaration of Independence: First Newport printing by Solomon Southwick facsimile: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/38 Solomon Southwick: /info/en/?search=Solomon_Southwick
Possible sentence with footnote: On July 4th, 1776, the first printing of the Declaration of Independence took place. On July 6th, a copy was sent to the Governor of Rhode Island. Southwick used this copy to print and distribute a Newport edition of the Declaration.
3. Guide to the Station Nightclub Victims’ Collection: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/134 The Station Nightclub Fire: /info/en/?search=The_Station_nightclub_fire
4. Guide to the Rhode Island School for the Deaf records and photographs: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/122 Rhode Island School for the Deaf: /info/en/?search=Rhode_Island_School_for_the_Deaf
5. Kings County Courthouse photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/249 South Kingstown, Rhode Island: /info/en/?search=South_Kingstown,_Rhode_Island
Possible sentence with footnote: The building that currently serves as the Kingston Free Library used to be the King’s County Courthouse. This courthouse also served as one of the five original state houses between 1776-1791. In 1959, the General Assembly sold the building’s title to the Kingston Free Library Corporation.
6. Rocky Point Ferris Wheel photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/220 Rocky Point Amusement Park: /info/en/?search=Rocky_Point_Amusement_Park
Possible sentence with footnote: As early as 1895, Rocky Point also featured a Ferris Wheel.
7. The Rhode Island Building: Louisiana Purchase Exposition St. Louis: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/235 Louisiana Purchase Exposition: /info/en/?search=Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition
8. People's Constitution: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/168 Dorr Rebellion: /info/en/?search=Dorr_Rebellion
Revise this sentence with a footnote from: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.
To: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution, known as the People’s Constitution, which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.
9. Ratification of the United States Constitution: New Shoreham: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/176 Block Island: /info/en/?search=Block_Island#New_Shoreham
Possible sentence with footnote: On March 24, 1798, a vote was conducted in New Shoreman to ratify the United States Constitution, with those in attendance voting against it.
10. First Petition for Women's Suffrage in Rhode Island: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/53 Elizabeth Buffum Chace: /info/en/?search=Elizabeth_Buffum_Chace
Possible sentence with footnote: She played an integral role in women’s suffrage in Rhode Island with her assistance in creating the First Petition for Women’s Suffrage in Rhode Island to the General Assembly.
Any constructive feedback would be amazing! Thank you! Rcar01 ( talk) 19:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I read the article Major scale. I checked the two external links at the bottom of the article and found out that one of the link is a dead link and another is a link to another website. So I decided to add my link [15], this is not my website/ affiliate). I added this link because I'm sure someone will find the information there useful. However many editors here on Wikipedia did not like that and reverted my edit. I address this issue here because a User:WhatamIdoing guided or instructed me.I want answers from you all experience editors ( User:Just plain Bill, User:Feline Hymnic, User:Chrissymad )who reverted my edit, if you think my link ( [16]) is not worthy to be on the article Major scale, why the other two links are there? One of the link there is a dead link, why no one bothers to fix it? Just because I am a new editor here doesn't mean I've never heard of Wikipeida. I wanted to thank User:WhatamIdoing for instructing me to address this issue here. Any editors who understood my message please restore my edit JEric94 ( talk) 04:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
tnecampus.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Message on my talk page asking for advice: Diff
One example of a probably acceptable addition is the Tennessee Board of Regents article. Diff
I would like to reply, but I should first know if this link is acceptable anywhere else than in the Tennessee Board of Regents article. Editors who have already undone additions of this link to "External links" sections:
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone look at List of manual image annotation tools and suggest what should be done with this list? I tagged it for cleanup as a WP:LINKFARM. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the rule about linking to places that sell mainly sell products like Amazon or iTunes, but provide no real useful encyclopedic information? There is currently a lot of album and artist articles associated with Bethel Music group and the Bethel Music singer Brian Johnson that contain many links to both sites. The links are not used properly as citations either and seem to only be there for the purpose of sending readers to a place where they can buy the artists work. Or to make it look like the subjects of the articles are more notable then they are. Further, Any attempts made by me or others to change the links have have been reverted and led to arguments. So I would like to know if they are actually usable or not in this context. There is also many links to a place selling lyrics and sheet music, but provides no encyclopedic usefulness, that Id like to know the appropriateness of. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor who has been edit warring to remove references to music releases from iTunes and Amazon on the After All These Years (Brian & Jenn Johnson album) article and others (@ Adamant1: decided to come where while I was on vacation (I'm not suggesting the editor knew I was on vacation at the time) and failed to notify me of the discussion (which was in the editor's purview). The discussion was at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes. First, these are not external links, but references so why was this being discussed here?
Second, Ian.thomson ( talk · contribs) fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO. Beetstra ( talk · contribs) correctly identified them as references and that this guideline does not apply. @ Kuda188: was mentioned as well.
Let me correct Ian.thomson and Adamant1 (who just incorrectly reverted again claiming that "[//en.wikipedia.org/?title=After_All_These_Years_(Brian_%26_Jenn_Johnson_album)&diff=856477381&oldid=854420258 [an admin] gave [him] the go ahead to delete the links]"), ELNO does not apply to references. If either of you want remove the offending references and supply some from other reliable source such as [17] [18] [19] or the others in the article, feel free to, but, and this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue, improve don't make article worse. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"[[You're Gonna Be OK]]", the song led by Jenn Johnson was released on May 8, 2017, as the lead single from the album.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/youre-gonna-be-ok-radio-version-single/id1241545786 |title= You're Gonna Be OK (Radio Version) – Single by Jenn Johnson on Apple Music |date= May 8, 2017 |website= Apple Music ([[iTunes Store|iTunes]]) |version= U.S. |publisher= Apple Inc. |access-date = May 14, 2017}}</ref>
Hey, Adamant1, I like your question. I think I have about 80% of an answer for you, and if you don't think that's enough, then feel free to come chat with me on my talk page.
The first thing that I want to say is that WP:Ignore all rules is a formal policy, because that idea matters to us. If you think some action (or inaction) makes the encyclopedia worse, then you personally shouldn't do it, even if there's a written rule that says someone "should" do it. The goal is improving articles, not following the rules.
But there are two relevant caveats to that:
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Adamant1 ( talk · contribs) gave some incorrect advice and essentially threatened Kuda188 ( talk · contribs) with removal of references and accused the editor of a CoI. The recurring theme here from editors who are not Adamant1 has been that EL guidelines are not to be applied to references, yet the advice clearly conflates refs and ELs. That the Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites essay is linked in the see also section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources doesn't help.
I attempted to clarify this for Kuda188 and explained that while Amazon and iTunes Store links are not ideal, they may be used. I'm tempted to request a topic ban for Adamant1 if he gets this confused again. Any comments or advice for any of the three of us? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
AsianWiki links exist on 290+ pages. They are being added as an external link (even when they serve no additional value alongside sites like IMDB and HanCinema): /info/en/?search=Age_Harassment /info/en/?search=Choi_Ri /info/en/?search=Jeong_Yong-ki
The most important thing is that AsianWiki is a user-generated website, which is not reliable WP:UGC. It also goes against WP:ELNO. Links normally to be avoided: (✓) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page. (✓) [[http://blog.asianwiki.com/ Blog AsianWiki]] Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included).
They have been linking to their website instead of not linking, linking to other language Wikipedia using Template:ill, or keeping the link red. As what is happening on this page, Special Affairs Team TEN. Kang Sung-Min, Jang Won-Young, Song Yoo Ha, and Jang In-Sub are all linking to AsianWiki for no reason.
Moreover, instead of citing news articles (Which can easily be found for the pages I provided), they cite their database page as a source. /info/en/?search=Han_Bo-bae#cite_ref-5 /info/en/?search=Yesung#cite_ref-39 /info/en/?search=Nam_Woo-hyun#cite_ref-30
In addition, the users affiliated with AsianWiki are under investigation for sock puppeting Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/24.252.92.90, which goes against WP:ADV. NTMun12 ( talk) 12:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I found a number of inline links to biblica.com and a vastly greater number to biblegateway.com. these are mostly to out of copyright work such as the King James BIBLE. is this appropriate? Guy ( Help!) 08:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
I would like to request the inclusion of BDRC ID in the Authority Control template. Would that be reasonable? If so I can change the template myself. Élie Roux ( talk) 15:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
musicbrainz.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Is MusicBrainz an appropriate external link to add to a large number of articles? See for example the entry for Don Cossacks Choir Russia. Nikkimaria ( talk) 11:58, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
|param=
if not wanted, like we do with WikiData in infoboxes).
I'm wondering if maybe we should turn this into an RfC covering MBIDs in general, not just Artist IDs. Something like:
- Should MBIDs be included in {{ authority control}}? - Yes / No
- Should MBIDs be suppressed in {{ authority control}}? - By Default / By Exception
- Which MBIDs should be included in {{ authority control}}? - Artist ID / Work ID / Release ID / Any Useful ID
Then we could get the wider community to weigh in on this. — AfroThundr ( t• c) 19:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
See below #Examples of problematic linking via the authority control box (first example), please discuss that example there, in order to keep the discussion in one place. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:32, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
WP:CHESS has traditionally used the website chessgames.com to link to interactive chess boards so that interested readers can play through notable chess games if they wish. User:Aircorn has raised an objection to this and tagged the article on Magnus Carlsen (the current world chess champion). My view is that the use of these links add encyclopedic value to the article, meaning this is an appropriate exception to WP:ELPOINTS No.2, per WP:IAR. MaxBrowne2 ( talk) 06:48, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
All links in this section lead to an external site., which almost never occurs in other "Notable games" secs, but seems to be overlooked by you as possible solution to problem of misleading readers regarding links that lead to outside sites. 2) Most "Notable games" secs are located towards the ends of the articles, many times the last-occurring sec prior to "See also" and "References" secs. Yes they are technically in the article body, but typically at end of the body, close as possible to "External links" sec w/o actually being in that sec. -- IHTS ( talk) 10:41, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
To me, these should either be in the external links section - though there it may linkfarm to a significant number. Or, they should be in a list-like format in the text (or as a separate list-article) - say a table with notable matches, when played, opponent, who won, and maybe some game statistics (how long, how many moves, winning situation ..), and that could have a column with an external link, header 'game on chessgames.com', and in each cell a link. Note that I would expect that the list is referenced, as to show why the specific notable game (or all of them) belong in this list in the article. I don't think the links belong in-prose. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a good time to remember that two people have worked on tools/templates to display interactive chessboards in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Chess/Interactive chess boards. Attempts to implement either one went off track (more than once), but they're both workable to some degree. As long as it is possible to have these games built into Wikipedia, there's no exigency to include a bunch of external links in an article body. That said, I think there are plenty of ways to format the links to move them out of the body while remaining contextual (e.g. using a ref notes section called "notable games" with a footnote [game 1] pointing down to the EL in that section). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
the problem is the style of linking which is not in line with our guidelines."). I've explained why they have accumulated in WP:CHESS bio articles 'Notable games' secs to-date & I showed how a table wasn't necessary by converting the refs in Magnus Carlsen from "inline" to References sec, so I rate myself successful here. I'm not going to veer by debating whether Chessgames.com refs are desirable or necessary or not. You failed to recognize I removed the inline links from Magnus Carlsen#Notable games, misleading thread readers that I didn't. I won't be responding further, unless something further misrepresentative is stated here. -- IHTS ( talk) 08:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
As somebody with no connection to Chess or Chess-related articles I dont see why an exception to adding external links in the body of the article is justifiable. I presume that chessgames.com is a reliable source (although it looks a bit like a fan site and promotes advertising and the like) then it should be just used as a reference. Adding a link to the external site (particularly one that dosnt add anything to the actual article) is not what wikipedia is here for, we should not do it. MilborneOne ( talk) 11:30, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
I believe that Reddit AMAs are appropriate external links per WP:ELYES #3 since they can be construed as interview transcripts. wumbolo ^^^ 12:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
I recently had a lively exchange with another editor about whether the “Further reading” section in an article should be linked to the “Contents” section. The article in question is Alt-right. The other editor did not object to including a “Further reading” section, but he/she said the “Further reading” heading should stand alone – that it shouldn’t appear in the article hierarchy or in the “Contents” section at the top of the article. The other editor thought that "Contents" would be cluttered if "Further reading" appeared there. I disagreed. Unless “Further reading” appears in “Contents,” I argued, readers will likely not notice the “Further reading” section; the section will be lost in the article. Does the community have any thoughts on this? Should “Further reading” always be linked to “Contents,” or can this heading stand alone? (I hope this is the right place to bring up the subject. I also brought it up at Wikipedia talk:Further reading.) Chisme ( talk) 18:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
This is running out of hand. The template allows for over 40 identifiers, all linking to external databases. I seriously doubt that these links mostly pass our inclusion standards, and there are articles with complete linkfarms of identifiers (where I even doubt that the data provided by the first one would even provide us with more data than what is already in the article, see intro of WP:EL.
An example coming from above thread: Jan van Eyck currently has 19 identifiers in authority control (and even more external links). At the time of implementing ( diff) there were 2 identifiers locally, now all of them (probably ‘because we have them available’) are transcluded, with the potential of more than doubling this number.
Suggestion: bring it back to 2-3, making the other ones invisible to allow for incoming searches (or get rid of them altogether .. most of them will hardly ever result in searches aimed at finding the Wikipedia article (in this language) - people looking for a KulturNav number aree more likely looking for the KulturNav record. (Note - this discussion is likely also of interest to certain infoboxes and similar template systems). — Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
I spent some hours trying to disentangle various David Shapiros:
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC); Updated (filmmaker still alive in 2015) 19:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
Just looked at the last few entries of the bot (which is already voluntarily on hold, thanks), I saw [7], which I reverted. Not a bot error as such, but another indication of why this bot shouldn't run and why blind (or any?) addition of authority control (or other external links) is a bad idea. The ID added, [8], si the ID for Michael Thompson (photographer), not for Michael Thompson (karateka). This was added by a bot to Wikidata in 2015, and not corrected since. Importing such errors into our BLPs is not the way to go, and it looks as if too many of these identifiers are wrong.
Even when it may be right, it too often is useless. Davie Cooper also had AC added in the last bot run. It links correctly to VIAF, which has one "work", sourced to the Library of Congress. It seems to be impossible to verify this at the LOC site though, and I have no idea what "work" they might be referring to. So not a bot error, not a Wikidata error, but still a useless external link. Fram ( talk) 09:45, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.
An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page.
Thus, using this template on a page with no authority information is harmless.
An empty instance of this template stays dormant in an article, until values are added to Wikidata, when it will then display them, so this template should be added to all biographies, whether or not there are authority control identifiers in Wikidata already.
If there is no information in Wikidata for the specific subject, an empty instance of this template will be dormant, meaning it will be invisible on the rendered page. Dormant use of the template is discouraged.
it shouldn't be assumed at face balue that links shown in the template are correct or are even appropriate for the article: it is up to the editor who adds the template to check ...". The fun of WikiData is that these templates were already in the article years ago (before WikiData existed?), that the template has been edited so it transcludes WikiData after the fact of transclusion (see request below), or that WikiData data is added to WikiData far after the fact that the template is transcluded. Neither of these are checked by the
‘...editor who adds the template...’. Seen that authority control is of prime interest to our BLPs (much less than for, say, Oat) it is of prime interest that the data gets checked when it is added to the article - but we have NO control about that. Per your suggestion: I challenge ALL cases where data from WikiData is added to en.wikipedia through filtered and unfiltered transclusion. We should NOT be transcluding data from WikiData in any form to our articles (especially to WP:BLP) unless WikiData data becomes verified, reliable and unmutable. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
Another example (regarding "need to check before hitting the 'Publish changes' button"): Einstein Tower apparently has two VIAF numbers: VIAF 236936180 and VIAF 128014082 – the former, however, generates a faulty "WorldCat Identities" link in the {{ authority control}} box. Nonetheless, the "wrong" number was used at WikiData. I haven't found a way to check (at Wikidata) whether the derived WorldCat Identity (WCI) is valid, afaik it can only be checked by calling the WCI elsewhere, so that it displays as a link. Problem now solved at Wikidata for this particular example, however not sorted for future similar problems. I agree with Dirk that there are other issues to sort too, however the update to the template documentation can be performed without delay, and would anyway remain valid even after other changes as long as the template exists. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
Task 6: Add {{ Authority control}} to all biographical articles with an identifier on Wikidata.
Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files.- if this is the main point of contention then {{ Authority control}} should be discontinued
Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of External links or Internet directories.- not the case here
There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article- ok
however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia.- also not the case here
Internal links [...] Public domain or other source material [...] Photographs or media files [...]- don't apply
A Templates For Discussion has been opened regarding whether it is appropriate to link to {{ Wikidata property}}. Comments are invited at that discussion page. Alsee ( talk) 21:58, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
While reading Talk:ActBlue (the article refers to a company which processes donations to Democratic Party campaigns), I noticed that the edit history for our article ActBlue shows that an edit requested by their employee BostonianMaggie (who disclosed her potential WP:CoI beforehand), removal of the text:
"ActBlue is also known for accessing credit card- and PayPal- accounts of former donors without the donors' knowledge and setting up recurrent withdrawals without the account holders authorization. There are currently 42 unresolved reported fraud cases on ActBlue. Source: ScamGuard"
was done by an unregistered editor User:2603:3007:2704:83f0:e9d1:cb6f:b507:bb6f without any previous discussion on Talk:ActBlue.
We ought to have had talk page discussion, and perhaps an RfC on the question of excluding the information which was requested to be deleted. The source which BostonianMaggie linked to as evidence that ScamGuard.com was unreliable turned out to be an advertisement by a law firm specializing in reputation management, selling their services in removing reports from ScamGuard.
I ran a Google search, "ActBlue billing dispute" to determine if ScamGuard.com was the only such site reporting issues with ActBlue billing. Two other such sites also reported having received reports of disputed charges by ActBlue to customers' credit cards, bank accounts and PayPal accounts.
One of these sites, actblue.pissedconsumer.com, reported on their page for ActBlue:
"3 RESOLVED 136 TOTAL REVIEWS $120K CLAIMED LOSSES $2.3K AVG LOSS
In trying to start a discussion on this matter in Talk:ActBlue I found I couldn't even publish to Talk:ActBlue or my sandbox if I linked to the reports on actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html. We can't even see this information in order to reach a consensus on whether or not to include it in the article. The block on the external link actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html prevents a consensus from being reached.
Why is actblue.pissedconsumer.com/review.html blocked? loupgarous ( talk) 10:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure where to post this, if at all, but I wanted to point out that it seems URLs from this website can be altered in any way and still appear valid. Example: http://communityvoices.post-gazette.com/arts-entertainment-living/tuned-in/item/41103-i--can-put-anything-here
The text after the number sequence appears to be irrelevant to the actual article, and can be used in sneaky vandalism to Folsom make it appear as if the reference supports the edit, when the actual article is completely different. Example: [13].
Please ping me in replies. EvergreenFir (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Under what circumstances is it appropriate for a user to insert a link to their own GitHub? I keep encountering users doing this while I'm on patrol. Aspening ( talk) 18:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The article Body modification keeps having links to social media websites, namely "malebodymods.com" and "malemods.com", added to the "Seel also" and "External links" section. Attempts to remove them or mark them as inappropriate are excessively reverted by User:Mc4bbs, and attempts to discuss the issue have been ignored. -- Equivamp - talk 15:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
Are links to sites like www.playbill.com (/person) or dvd.netflix.com with a clear focus on selling stuff and advertising acceptable as external links? See Alec Baldwin as a usage example (in the edit history). Such links seem to be a clear violation of WP:ELNO #1 and #4, but I'd appreciate additional opinions before going on a mass-deletion spree (only for links in EL sections to be clear). GermanJoe ( talk) 17:31, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
An IP has added a link from a conservative political group to Women in STEM fields ( "The narrative falls apart"), referencing a brand-new primary source. I maintain that 1) the first link is a textbook case of an unreliable source; 2) the second link is a WP:PRIMARY source -- and a new one at that -- so not useable by itself. Thoughts? -- Calton | Talk 00:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
I would like of some of you to have a look at the contributions of this editor. I've had to block the account, obviously, for a user name violation, but I hope they will request a name change to take care of that. The links are to archives at WVU, and I have no judgment on them prima facie, but I know that our practice is that not all archives are the same; that is, not all are worth listing, or have individual holdings that are worth linking in articles. Your input is appreciated. Thanks, Drmies ( talk) 18:14, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for the encouragement. My goal is to direct readers of Wikipedia to primary source material, I am not intentionally trying to promote anyone or anything. I am an MA student with a true love of the history of my state Wvarchives ( talk) 18:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
I have now multiple times been reverted on Hashtag United F.C. where editors have included the Twitter as the official website, whereas the club has a registered domain, http://www.hashtagunited.co.uk/. This domain redirects to https://www.youtube.com/user/spencerbets/, their youtube channel. The intro of the article reads: 'they gained notability due to recording their matches, making videos around them, and posting them on YouTube to the Spencer FC Channel.', 'They later moved to the Hashtag United YouTube channel.', 'They are the first YouTube team of their kind to become a registered semi-professional team.', which, to me, clearly shows that the youtube is their most prominent official site, not the Twitter. I further note that the 'about' section on their youtube links to their Twitter, Instagram and Facebook.
I therefore think that the youtube is the official website, which can be linked through their dedicated domain, or directly. Can I have a second opinion on which link we should use? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive989#Lepidoptera~plwiki, I should probably ask here for consensus:
I would like to undo all these external link additions, at least those to lepidoptera.eu, with an appropriate edit summary, linking to this discussion and the ANI discussion, also taking the time to fix edits that are not the "current" version of the pages anymore.
The website contains non-free images that should instead be uploaded to Commons by the photographer. The massive promotional addition of external links has already partly been undone, and I would like to finish the process. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
"started to edit articles on Wikipedia in April 2015": Unlikely, see above. There seem to be skeletons in the closet.
"I don't need any kind of promotion": Why are you promoting then, and complaining about the removal of this promotion?
"website is always in top 5 results": I guess this might be because of actions exactly like the one you made on the English Wikipedia, and is unlikely to be a good reason for continuing to do so. Also, it might be because of the fitting domain name, which increases your Google page rank without necessarily having to provide an encyclopedically relevant website. By the way, the "top 5 results" when I google for free software have often been adware-infested in the past.
"I'm working [...] for the community.": The community appears to be unhappy about the external links, though. There has not been a single complaint about the removal of the links; all I got so far was multiple "thank you"s from active, respected community members who had not found the time to do something they would have done themselves otherwise. Also, you appear to have been ignoring well-established community guidelines and warnings about conflicts of interest and spamming since 2010. If you actually want to help the community, please listen to their advice. By uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons, for example, you could actually help the community.
"I gave the people my knowledge and my time": You mostly gave them external links to your personal website. How selfless. Instead, you could license your photos under a free license, and actually give something very nice and useful to the community that way. It is not too late to start with this, and I think that I can promise that nobody will complain or laugh if you decide to edit again even after your previous statement, but this time not for promotion, but actually making Wikimedia Commons and the English Wikipedia articles a more beautiful place.
"For thousands of people [...] to give them much more information as possible": The best way to do so would be adding reliably sourced content to Wikipedia articles, not keeping it behind an external link on your personal website. You are, and have always been, very welcome to do so.
"[...] it seems that you don’t treat me as a 'normal user' [...]": Really? If you have been receiving warnings about the same issue since 2010 and still continue to do the same thing, we might even have been too lax in this regard.
"In results you have destroyed a lot of valuable data": Sorry, no. It makes me sad to summarize it like that, but the mass rollback has not destroyed valuable data. After all, this is why the mass rollback has been done. It would not have been done if you had added "a lot of valuable data" to Wikipedia. Now would be a wonderful point to actually have a clean start and to start adding valuable data to Wikipedia. This could, for example, be: Reliably sourced information, and freely licensed images.
"[...] in one of the previous posts user ToBeFree had an argument, that I can’t add links to the pages where used pictures are copyrighted.": I have not said nor meant that, ever. I was only replying to your statement that your website is "based on the same rules as Wikipedia: it's open and free.". I tried to explain to you why this is not really true.
"I think the topic is CLOSED.": Sadly no; I'm still busy cleaning up the links. The amount of links I'm encountering makes it hard for me to believe that there was no time to make some actually useful contributions to Wikipedia instead. This could, for example, have been: Adding reliably sourced information, uploading freely licensed images.
I'm almost done with processing the edits now. Something new has come up during my research. These have later been replaced by .eu by Chris lepidoptera and/or Lepidoptera~plwiki; the original domain is no longer available
http://web.archive.org/web/20080501162745/http://www.lepidoptera.pl:80/start.php?lang=UK
"All images on this website remain the exclusive copyright of the photographer and may not be reproduced or exploited in any other way without the permission of the copyright owner. Copyright ©2007 by Chris Jonko"
There seems to be a deep deep hole dug long ago. My personal suggestion: Own up to it, without accusing others of their patience in this matter, and move on. It is never too late. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 03:58, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Status update: HTTPS for lepidoptera.eu was already done. HTTP for lepidoptera.eu is now done. HTTPS for lepidoptera.pl is now done (was just 1 link). HTTP for lepidoptera.pl remaining.
~ ToBeFree (
talk) 04:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Just leaving another note here...
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2010_Archive_May_1#lepidoptera.pl ( permanent link)
Monitored by WikiProject Spam since 10:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC). ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 16:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Done cleaning up the links, for both lepidoptera.eu and lepidoptera.pl, HTTP & HTTPS. Here is a list of about 1090 edits involved with the cleanup process, taking 3 days:
Permanent link
I have not used any tools or scripts, just Firefox, hundreds of open tabs and the default keyboard shortcuts. Peak RAM usage for the browser alone was somewhere between 7 and 8 gigabytes; this strategy doesn't work on every machine. To sort the backlog into multiple categories, I used the "insource" feature of MediaWiki's search engine. For the edit summaries,
AddWittyNameHere has
created a handy permalink that I updated during the cleanup process.
During the investigation, as already written above, it became apparent that the dimension of this spam wave, and the amount of warnings received, has been unexpectedly large. Here is a (possibly still incomplete) timeline:
And that's how we got here. There have been 30 abusefilter warnings, 9 talk page warnings, and 2 mass reverts. Lepidoptera~plwiki continued to spam anyway. Only after that, the ANI thread has been created. Only after that, the mass rollback has been done. Only after that, I have removed all the links to lepidoptera.eu and lepidoptera.pl. We have not been unfair here. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 04:19, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
As one last note, a
sockpuppet investigation (
permalink) has formally determined today that, based on their behavior, there is a plausible relation between
Lepidoptera~plwiki and
Chris lepidoptera: "It is implausible that they aren't related."
This concern has been explicitly voiced by multiple administrators ( 1, 2a, 2b, 3). An explanation of possible connection types, and why Wikipedia considers these to be abusive, can be found at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry and Wikipedia:Meatpuppetry. Please note that neither of these terms are meant to be derogatory. I think that there should ideally be neutral terms for describing people, but these two terms have been historically established in the Wikipedia community.
My personal view and explanation of the specific issue here: I think that using multiple accounts, in the way Lepidoptera~plwiki appears to have done, is normally not a problem. It just seemed to be an unconventional way of renaming one’s account, by creating a new account and abandoning the old one. As you can see at User:ToBeFree (old account), I have even been doing exactly that in the past, probably because I did not know that "renaming" is possible. This is perfectly okay.
The only real problem here was denying, multiple times, that there is a connection between these accounts. The following part of Wikipedia’s "Sock puppetry" policy describes this:
Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
Editors must not use alternative accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:
[…]
Avoiding scrutiny: Using alternative accounts that are not fully and openly disclosed to split your editing history means that other editors may not be able to detect patterns in your contributions. While this is permitted in certain circumstances (see legitimate uses), it is a violation of this policy to create alternative accounts to confuse or deceive editors who may have a legitimate interest in reviewing your contributions.
[…]
Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy; see Wikipedia:Clean start.
( Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternative_accounts)
Because the link has been added to the blacklist already, and because Lepidoptera~plwiki has already stopped adding the link to Wikipedia articles, there is no need for a block. Blocks are not meant to punish editors; they are only being used if really needed to prevent disruption. This is described in the blocking policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Blocks should not be punitive
Lepidoptera~plwiki: Whenever you like to, and possibly even years in the future, please feel free to give Wikipedia a second chance. A good way to finally have a clean start would probably be:
I think that this can be archived now. It feels amazing to be able to add the following text to this section:
Done
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 05:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
I have just created a proposal on new Question and Answer site for helping Wikipedia users and editors. The link is here:
https://area51.stackexchange.com/proposals/119659/wikipedia?referrer=TGMbWAy-uiSoq1C-pMbTMw2
-- Mladifilozof ( talk) 18:58, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, k1eyboard just went sout-h. Is [14] a good link? Doug Weller talk 08:57, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello, I am looking for some opinions on a variety of documents. I am currently working with the Rhode Island State Archives to add relevant external links to articles on Wikipedia. I am wondering if I could obtain some feedback on these articles (user There'sNoTime has been very helpful in getting me to this point!) A quick side note, the Archives are currently updating its catalog system, so sometimes the links do not work. If one of the links does not open, please let me know. Also, I was wondering if some of these would be better off as me composing a new sentence and attaching it as a footnote instead. The proposed footnotes are below:
1. Battle of Rhode Island map: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/26 Battle of Rhode Island page: /info/en/?search=Battle_of_Rhode_Island
2. Declaration of Independence: First Newport printing by Solomon Southwick facsimile: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/38 Solomon Southwick: /info/en/?search=Solomon_Southwick
Possible sentence with footnote: On July 4th, 1776, the first printing of the Declaration of Independence took place. On July 6th, a copy was sent to the Governor of Rhode Island. Southwick used this copy to print and distribute a Newport edition of the Declaration.
3. Guide to the Station Nightclub Victims’ Collection: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/134 The Station Nightclub Fire: /info/en/?search=The_Station_nightclub_fire
4. Guide to the Rhode Island School for the Deaf records and photographs: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/122 Rhode Island School for the Deaf: /info/en/?search=Rhode_Island_School_for_the_Deaf
5. Kings County Courthouse photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/249 South Kingstown, Rhode Island: /info/en/?search=South_Kingstown,_Rhode_Island
Possible sentence with footnote: The building that currently serves as the Kingston Free Library used to be the King’s County Courthouse. This courthouse also served as one of the five original state houses between 1776-1791. In 1959, the General Assembly sold the building’s title to the Kingston Free Library Corporation.
6. Rocky Point Ferris Wheel photograph: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/220 Rocky Point Amusement Park: /info/en/?search=Rocky_Point_Amusement_Park
Possible sentence with footnote: As early as 1895, Rocky Point also featured a Ferris Wheel.
7. The Rhode Island Building: Louisiana Purchase Exposition St. Louis: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/235 Louisiana Purchase Exposition: /info/en/?search=Louisiana_Purchase_Exposition
8. People's Constitution: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/168 Dorr Rebellion: /info/en/?search=Dorr_Rebellion
Revise this sentence with a footnote from: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.
To: In October, they held an extralegal People's Convention and drafted a new constitution, known as the People’s Constitution, which granted the vote to all white men with one year's residence.
9. Ratification of the United States Constitution: New Shoreham: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/176 Block Island: /info/en/?search=Block_Island#New_Shoreham
Possible sentence with footnote: On March 24, 1798, a vote was conducted in New Shoreman to ratify the United States Constitution, with those in attendance voting against it.
10. First Petition for Women's Suffrage in Rhode Island: https://catalog.sos.ri.gov/repositories/2/digital_objects/53 Elizabeth Buffum Chace: /info/en/?search=Elizabeth_Buffum_Chace
Possible sentence with footnote: She played an integral role in women’s suffrage in Rhode Island with her assistance in creating the First Petition for Women’s Suffrage in Rhode Island to the General Assembly.
Any constructive feedback would be amazing! Thank you! Rcar01 ( talk) 19:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
A couple of days ago I read the article Major scale. I checked the two external links at the bottom of the article and found out that one of the link is a dead link and another is a link to another website. So I decided to add my link [15], this is not my website/ affiliate). I added this link because I'm sure someone will find the information there useful. However many editors here on Wikipedia did not like that and reverted my edit. I address this issue here because a User:WhatamIdoing guided or instructed me.I want answers from you all experience editors ( User:Just plain Bill, User:Feline Hymnic, User:Chrissymad )who reverted my edit, if you think my link ( [16]) is not worthy to be on the article Major scale, why the other two links are there? One of the link there is a dead link, why no one bothers to fix it? Just because I am a new editor here doesn't mean I've never heard of Wikipeida. I wanted to thank User:WhatamIdoing for instructing me to address this issue here. Any editors who understood my message please restore my edit JEric94 ( talk) 04:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
tnecampus.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
Message on my talk page asking for advice: Diff
One example of a probably acceptable addition is the Tennessee Board of Regents article. Diff
I would like to reply, but I should first know if this link is acceptable anywhere else than in the Tennessee Board of Regents article. Editors who have already undone additions of this link to "External links" sections:
~ ToBeFree ( talk) 18:33, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
Could someone look at List of manual image annotation tools and suggest what should be done with this list? I tagged it for cleanup as a WP:LINKFARM. Biogeographist ( talk) 18:35, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
What's the rule about linking to places that sell mainly sell products like Amazon or iTunes, but provide no real useful encyclopedic information? There is currently a lot of album and artist articles associated with Bethel Music group and the Bethel Music singer Brian Johnson that contain many links to both sites. The links are not used properly as citations either and seem to only be there for the purpose of sending readers to a place where they can buy the artists work. Or to make it look like the subjects of the articles are more notable then they are. Further, Any attempts made by me or others to change the links have have been reverted and led to arguments. So I would like to know if they are actually usable or not in this context. There is also many links to a place selling lyrics and sheet music, but provides no encyclopedic usefulness, that Id like to know the appropriateness of. -- Adamant1 ( talk) 23:40, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
An editor who has been edit warring to remove references to music releases from iTunes and Amazon on the After All These Years (Brian & Jenn Johnson album) article and others (@ Adamant1: decided to come where while I was on vacation (I'm not suggesting the editor knew I was on vacation at the time) and failed to notify me of the discussion (which was in the editor's purview). The discussion was at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive 21#Musical artists and albums pages being excessively linked to Amazon or iTunes. First, these are not external links, but references so why was this being discussed here?
Second, Ian.thomson ( talk · contribs) fell for the bait and stated that we cannot use commercial site per WP:ELNO. Beetstra ( talk · contribs) correctly identified them as references and that this guideline does not apply. @ Kuda188: was mentioned as well.
Let me correct Ian.thomson and Adamant1 (who just incorrectly reverted again claiming that "[//en.wikipedia.org/?title=After_All_These_Years_(Brian_%26_Jenn_Johnson_album)&diff=856477381&oldid=854420258 [an admin] gave [him] the go ahead to delete the links]"), ELNO does not apply to references. If either of you want remove the offending references and supply some from other reliable source such as [17] [18] [19] or the others in the article, feel free to, but, and this is an official warning to Adamant1, the next time you remove references from the article and tag it incorrectly as you did in the diff linked above, I will take you to 3RR for long-term edit warring. In short, wrong place to discuss this issue, improve don't make article worse. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:29, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
"[[You're Gonna Be OK]]", the song led by Jenn Johnson was released on May 8, 2017, as the lead single from the album.<ref>{{cite web |url= https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/youre-gonna-be-ok-radio-version-single/id1241545786 |title= You're Gonna Be OK (Radio Version) – Single by Jenn Johnson on Apple Music |date= May 8, 2017 |website= Apple Music ([[iTunes Store|iTunes]]) |version= U.S. |publisher= Apple Inc. |access-date = May 14, 2017}}</ref>
Hey, Adamant1, I like your question. I think I have about 80% of an answer for you, and if you don't think that's enough, then feel free to come chat with me on my talk page.
The first thing that I want to say is that WP:Ignore all rules is a formal policy, because that idea matters to us. If you think some action (or inaction) makes the encyclopedia worse, then you personally shouldn't do it, even if there's a written rule that says someone "should" do it. The goal is improving articles, not following the rules.
But there are two relevant caveats to that:
WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
Adamant1 ( talk · contribs) gave some incorrect advice and essentially threatened Kuda188 ( talk · contribs) with removal of references and accused the editor of a CoI. The recurring theme here from editors who are not Adamant1 has been that EL guidelines are not to be applied to references, yet the advice clearly conflates refs and ELs. That the Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites essay is linked in the see also section of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources doesn't help.
I attempted to clarify this for Kuda188 and explained that while Amazon and iTunes Store links are not ideal, they may be used. I'm tempted to request a topic ban for Adamant1 if he gets this confused again. Any comments or advice for any of the three of us? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 23:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)