Timotheus7

  Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.--John (talk) 03:15, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John, you recently removed one or more of links I had added to a wiki article on Rathlin island and Slieve Donard. Could you explain what is your official function within wiki and also the reason for the removal. Thank you.--Timotheus7 (talk) 05:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi Timetheus7. If you read WP:EL you will see that we have pretty strict criteria for adding external links. If you feel the link really adds value to the article, there are two things you could do. One is raise it at the article's talk page. If a consensus emerges there to add your link, then you may. Otherwise, you could take the added value that you think your link adds, summarize it in your own words, and use the link as a reference, if you believe it passes WP:RS. Let me know if there is anything else I can do for you. Please don't just keep adding the links though, as that is likely to get you blocked, which we don't want to happen. --John (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John. Many thanks for your comments but you have not answered either of my questions. I have looked at the wiki guidelines and I think my link adds value. But since you deleted it you must have a reason and I would like to know the reason. Many thanks.--Timotheus7 (talk) 05:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I'm an admin here, see WP:ADMIN for what that entails. I can only refer you to my previous answer regarding your link. Best wishes to you. --John (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John and thank you for the info. I respect your status and it is important that people like you are around to keep things in order. I have just gone through the list of links to be avoided and I cannot see why you excluded me. I do not sell anything, do not have any objectionable material, do not promote a personal blog or fall under any of the objectionable practices mentioned. The material I provide is helpful because it is a personal account of Rathlin, not only what is on the island but what I, as a visitor, enjoyed most. Furthermore, my whole website, run by my wife and myself, offers a similar approach for the whole of Northern Ireland and is already growing in popularity. If you are going to keep it off, I would like to know the specific reason with reference to the wiki guidelines.

Furthermore, I checked the other external links in the Rathlin Island article. Two are empty. Another has only one photo, nothing else. One is there to sell accommodation. Another promotes a business, the island ferries. So I think something is not fair here.

I would like this to be amicably resolved please. Thanks.--Timotheus7 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

I was going by "one should avoid: 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" (from WP:EL). The test for inclusion is not "Does it cause harm to include this?" or "Are there other equally poor links already on the article?" but "Does this link add something unique that is not already there and improves the article?" I do not believe that your link fulfills this criterion. It is a red flag behavior when I see an editor adding the same link to multiple pages as you were doing. You may also wish to read our guideline on conflicts of interest. I will have a look at the other links on the Rathlin article with a view to removing other links which fail our criteria. Best wishes and every success to your enterprise. --John (talk) 13:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello John and many thanks for the clarifications. One of the major (but not the only) criterion is whether a website causes harm or is there to promote sales. Just look at the long list of don'ts provided by wiki. Furthermore, the presence of bad links there for quite some while shows, if nothing else, partial treatment. Also, your statement about "red flag behavior" is wrong in my case. Each link I added is different to the previous. They all point to different pages within my website, each page relevant to the topic at hand. Which suggests you did not bother to even check the links I posted but assumed bad behavior and deleted. My view is that my website offers tourism with a personal touch and therefore contributes value and I would like to put it on. Please do not remove. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 (talk • contribs)

Please do not keep adding this link as if you do you are highly likely to be blocked, which is not something either of us wants to happen. I have cleaned up the other links which failed our policies from the article, something you are also very welcome to do. This would be more helpful than restoring a link which fails our policy. You are welcome to seek a second opinion if you feel I have got it wrong or you have been treated unfairly in any way. --John (talk) 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I want to seek a second opinion. I am not sure how. And I would be grateful if you could confirm that you checked each page before you deleted. Because your comment above above "red flag" suggests you didn't. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timotheus7 (talk • contribs)

No problem. I am happy to confirm I checked each link I deleted. You might want to consider that our purpose here is not to provide "tourism with a personal touch" but to write an encyclopedia. Furthermore per WP:COI (which I already referred you to above) you should not be adding links to your own website at all. The ethical course would be (as I already said) to propose these changes in talk and see if you can build a consensus that adding them adds value to the pages. I think this unlikely to happen but you are welcome to try. As you have asked for a second opinion I shall be happy to oblige. Again, best wishes and good luck with your site. Finally, can you please remember to sign your comments on talk pages using ~~~~. --John (talk) 04:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for confirming and for being a gentleman. Best regards. --Timotheus7 (talk) 08:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Timotheus7. John has advised me you seek a second opinion. Give me a bit to review this matter and I shall let you and John know what I think. ++Lar: t/c 04:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

OK. I sampled some of the articles where you have been putting links to www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com ... this review is not exhaustive, but merely enough to determine if John's comments are off the mark. First, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That means writing within it should be encyclopedic, and that with rare exception, material linked from our articles should be definitive, suitable for scholars doing research as well as for general interest reading. Not just random material, however interesting or charming it may be. So then. I did some spot checking.

• Rathlin Island - You added a link (to www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com/Rathlin-Island-Northern-Ireland.html ), more than once, as you did in this edit: [1] where you characterised it as "Tourist information with a personal touch". I could not evaluate the link for suitability since... it turns out not to be a valid link. It takes me to a page that bears the title "No Such URL at This Domain". A clearly unsuitable link, as any external site referenced should be one that the reader will find useful. Broken links are hardly useful. Note also that "personal touch" is a peacock term in that it presents an opinion, and this is to be discouraged.
• Ulster Folk and Transport Museum - You added a link (to http://www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com/ulster-folk-and-transport-museum.html ), as you did in this edit: [2], calling it "Excellent Guide on the Museum" and "Account of a personal visit with plenty of useful info". Excellent is a personal evaluation. Unless you have a critical reference to cite, it's not something that you yourself should evaluate, since it's a clear conflict of interest. The page itself actually is there, so that's an improvement over Rathlin, but the page is written in an unencyclopedic manner. While I personally found the page an acceptable enough read, it is full of personal reminiscence and opinion and is not a definitive authority. Not a suitable link in my judgement.
• Slieve Donard - You added a link (to http://www.my-secret-northern-ireland.com/Slieve-Donard-Co-Down-Ireland.html ), as you did in this edit: [3], calling it "Info On Donard and photos" and "A personal account about climbing Slieve Donard". This link, too, turns out to bring us to a "No Such URL at This Domain" page.
• Carrickfergus Castle As before, you added a link. The page is chatty, and discusses a lot of information that is not directly relevant to the castle. Again, not a suitable link in my judgement.

Of the 4 links that I examined, two do not work, and two are not suitable. Based on my spot checking, then, I concur with John's assessment of this matter. Note: this is rather more attention than most editors get... you've had matters explained to you by an extraordinarily patient administrator in John, and you should heed his advice. He is spot on. Keep adding those links and you will be blocked.

While I have your attention, I cannot help but point out that I noticed that you seem to be engaged in a bit of an argument at Daniel's Vision of Chapter 8 and the talk page. I'd advise caution there as well, my skim of the talk page back and forth is not showing the collegiality we expect. Please do not accuse others of bad faith or of prejudice against a particular religion.

I hope this review has been helpful. ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lar, and many thanks for your somewhat patronizing comments. I am glad other visitors are finding my website information very useful and within the 5 weeks it has been operative its popularity is growing. Contrary to your assertion, links in an encyclopedia article needn't be encyclopedic (unless of course you consider accommodation websites encyclopedic). The URL's were all working when placed but things do get tampered in Wiki. But given the climate encountered I will not be adding them again in the near future.

I would like two clarifications though. How does it work with administrators? Do you get notified when something is added? Does each has/her own domain? The reason I ask is that on Rathlin there was a collection of bad websites but only mine was removed (and mine is good).

The other question is, have you also cautioned spin and other contributors at the Daniel 8 article or am I being selected for special treatment. Because long before I wrote anything on the talk page, when I tried to enter an alternative interpretation to Daniel 8 (an encyclopedia needs to be representative, after all) my comments were being removed and bad faith accusations were being made in the talk page, as you can verify. --Timotheus7 (talk) 08:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sorry you found my comments patronizing, they weren't intended to be so. As to the URLs not working, I took the URLs from your own edits, exactly as you typed them (I gave the diffs), because I was viewing that version of the page, exactly as you edited it... so I'd say the error is not mine, or anyone else's... the URLS you entered don't work. Full stop. No one else is responsible for what you typed. To your questions, John asked me to come by and give a second opinion (see my talk page), so I did. We admins don't have "domains" but we do have areas of interest and we sometimes ask for assistance from each other. If you think there are other links on Rathlin that are bad you should feel free to remove them or propose their removal. As for Daniel 8 and the talk, I only glanced in there and saw your contributions were not as collegial as they could be. I did not review anyone else's. Your contributions should stand scrutiny on their own, "he started it" typically is not considered a reason to be incollegial back. Hope that helps. This all has been explained in the links you were given when welcomed. The takeaway here is that you have been given some suggested reading to do and you probably should spend some time reading the things suggested and internalising them to understand our norms, if you want to avoid further difficulty. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lars, thank you for your mail. You didn't answer part of my question. Maybe before assigning reading to others you should first do your own homework, reading carefully what others write and replying accordingly.

For the URL's, I copied and pasted from my website and they worked initially, I can't explain why they don't. By the way, I wasn't particularly bothered that my links were removed. Having, however, experience of other editors removing things at will in the Daniel 8 page I wanted to be sure that the person who removed the URLs (a) was a person of responsibility within wiki and (b) gave proper explanation and fair treatment. This has been (eventually) done (in a nicer way by John than you) so to me this chapter is closed. End of story, to use your words.

I will however pick you up on Daniel 8 because I believe I am being victimized (or otherwise you have poor communication skills). I never said "they started it", this your patronizing summary of my comments to trivialize the value of the discussion on the talk page. Foolish statement. Furthermore, "you only glanced in there"? and come here to rebuke? I request that you either point to statements I made that are outside the bounds of propriety. Or otherwise, retract. I believe my contributions were not only valid, but clearly and respectfully expressed and always in reply to others.

I will also expect that you compare my comments to what others wrote and maybe go and rebuke them to. I will not accept cavalier behavior from someone who hasn't even bothered to read what has been written, neither being singled out for special treatment. Thank you.--Timotheus7 (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

You asked for a second opinion on the links. You got one. Your links are not suitable for inclusion. As for Daniel 8, be careful what you wish for. ++Lar: t/c 01:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hello Lars. You rebuked me about Daniel 8. I deserve to know exactly why with specific references. Otherwise you can withdraw your original statement. My request is fair and clear. Best regards.--Timotheus7 (talk) 07:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Three months and no reply which suggests you have nothing to say. Next time be more careful how you express yourself--Timotheus7 (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)Reply