This is an archive of past discussions with User:Intgr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Was trying to find references when you deleted them all
Hi Intgr. The article List of defragmentation software has been a mess for some time, if you look at the history. It was tagged Refimprove and Citation needed until this week, when I decided to take it upon myself to find sources and add citations. I do a lot of minor editing on Wikipedia, but rarely pour a bunch of effort into one page. To get around my busy schedule, I've been doing a little work on this article each day. I started by finding primary sources (usually the software companies' and authors' websites) and was going to perform a detailed fact check once I had a good list of "from the horse's mouth" sources. I admit that I didn't have every fact checked and cited before you came along and removed all my references.
My problem lies with the speed and heavy-handedness of your reference deletions:
Clearly you didn't check the history of the page, or you would have put the Refimprove tag back (or better yet, the Unreferenced tag) after removing my 14 new references. Even without checking the page history, you should have done that anyway. (Naturally it's rare for a legitimate Wikipedia edit to remove all of an article's citations.)
You didn't leave me a message explaining that you felt I had done something detrimental to the article. You could have discussed it and taught me how you would like to see the article fixed, rather than simply and quietly undoing my work.
Obviously you didn't follow any of the reference links, or you would have noticed some of the facts in the article could be verified, like supported operating systems and file systems. Perhaps I put the citation in the wrong spot and should have put them after the facts they supported (i.e. after the lists of Windows versions). But again, I was in the process of working on that.
I saw that you've removed a couple more spam-like external links from List of defragmentation software before. Please recognize that I was not spamming the article. I was trying to link to all defraggers equally, and dating and citing too.
You were right to mention Wikipedia:V in your edit memo. But the rule is that facts must be backed with citations, and you removed them all. So how is it that I'm the one violating the verifiability rules?
I urge you to let me continue my improvement of a neglected article. Please offer suggestions if I am close to being on the right track. Or, if I am way off track, explain to me how an unreferenced and untagged article is an improvement over one with 14 useful inline citations that support facts like OS compatibly and company name. Oh, and Wikipedia:DONTBITE. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry about undoing all your work, I should have contacted you beforehand. I know you were editing in good faith, I never intended to suggest otherwise. In my defence, this is the process suggested by WP:BRD.
In general, links to companies' or products' web sites are discouraged on Wikipedia. The more such links we allow, the more spammers will take advantage of it. The exception you quote, "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject", does not apply here -- its intent is, for instance, to allow links from the Diskeeper article to diskeeper.com. In this case the article's subject is "List of defragmentation software" not each individual defragmentation product.
I mentioned WP:V not because you were violating it, but because it outlines what references should be used for:
What counts as a reliable source says: "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Official websites are not considered reliable sources. They can be located easily even without a reference, and as such I believe WP:EL wins here.
Citing reliable, independent, published sources is encouraged, for example product reviews conducted by magazines. These kinds of sources are often more useful to readers, as they convey information neutrally and are harder to find. (The secondary purpose of citing sources is in fact to provide readers with more in-depth information)
WP:V requires references for "anything challenged or likely to be challenged". I don't think that anyone would challenge the list of supported OS-es or file systems. Adding sources is still encouraged regardless, but reliable sources are strongly preferred.
If you're interested, more details about reliable sources can be found at WP:PSTS
Personally I wouldn't bother citing individual facts in this article. Adding references to published comparisons between multiple defrag products would be more useful — for instance this PCMag article (although it's from 2005, so probably outdated).
I haven't read the Wikipedia guidelines in a couple years; they appear to have changed a bit. Admittedly I'm learning from this experience to comply with the new standards. Sorry to have suggested it was your responsibly to notify me of your reverting my work. You were right about WP:BRD, and the new flow chart on that page illustrates how we are both following the correct consensus cycle now. You were also right to point me to WP:PSTS — another guideline that's changed since I read it. I knew not to make a Wikipedia article the primary source in and of itself, but I didn't know not to have all references be to primary sources. Still, that doesn't preclude the use of some primary-source references where appropriate.
The reason I feel the "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" statement applies here is that a list/comparison is a compilation of a set of subjects. Each subject (i.e. row of the comparison table) should get its facts from the most reliable source, and for version numbers and operating systems supported that is usually the official webpage of the software. Note that is exactly what is done in Diskeeper to verify the latest stable-release version number. If that is the reference used in the Diskeeper article, shouldn't the comparison table ideally use the same reference(s) to verify the same fact?
"When an official website is used as a source to verify a self-published statement in the article text, it should be formatted like any other reference used in the article."
"If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate."
"More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites."
I propose I resume work on the List of defragmentation software. But this time around, I'll be less official-site happy and use more secondary sources. I'll only put the citations immediately after the facts they support, instead of in the first (defragger name) column. I will try to find external comparisons like the PC Magazine article (which coincidentally I had read early last week, so it's funny that you should mention it), and use them to span citations across multiple defraggers. If this is agreeable to you, I'll start work. Please drop me a message on my talk page if I do anything contestable. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Wrt official links guidelines, I can see now that it could be interpreted that way, but I've only seen them applied in situations where there is one subject. In practice, external links are commonly pruned from list articles, citing WP:EL and WP:NOTDIRECTORY.
"Note that is exactly what is done in Diskeeper to verify the latest stable-release version number. If that is the reference used in the Diskeeper article, shouldn't the comparison table ideally use the same reference(s) to verify the same fact?"
Let me restate this point. I wasn't trying to say that fact-citing is bad; I was saying that there are no contestable facts currently in this article. Nobody will challenge the version number — don't cite a primary source when there's no need for a reference to begin with. -- intgr[talk]08:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
I realize that trivial facts like version number will no doubt stand uncontested; I think you're still missing my point. This list/comparison article needs some references — just like every other Wikipedia article does. Many of the defraggers listed don't have an obvious external source for more information, especially the defraggers that don't have their own Wikipedia article. I'm guessing you hadn't heard of the 21 listed defraggers before visiting the article. Nor had I nor anybody else. As Wikipedia readers, we should be able to follow references or external links to find additional information off Wikipedia.
I have read every point that you have made — both above and in your edit memo. While you may slowly be convincing me that trivial facts (like file systems, operating systems, and version numbers) need not be cited, you have yet to address the underlying issue: What harm are references? If you don't like the exact way I cited, you could have fixed them instead of removing them.
I am just trying to cite the article (both because it needs it and because it was tagged Refimprove). You seem determined to prevent this from being done. Only one of your points has described a valid problem with my citations: that I was being overzealous with primary sources. All of your other points have argued for why validation is not needed for this article. But "not needed" isn't the same as "not permitted". I've tried to compromise by offering to do a classier implementation with the majority of sources being secondary. So you tell me, what should this article have (ideally) in the way of citations, references, and/or external links? —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:24, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you're misunderstanding me. I have no problem at all with reliable secondary sources, use them as much as you want. :) All I said is that I wouldn't spend my time on it.
There's no "harm in references" per se, there's harm in linking directly to companies' or products' web sites. The more such links we allow, the more spammers will take advantage of it. That's my concern. -- intgr[talk]08:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Understood. I will add secondary sources. I would like to have a few good primary sources too. If acceptable to you, this would be under the conditions that secondary/tertiary sources outnumber primary and that the primary sources don't look, smell, or taste like spam. I believe working along those lines exceeds the requirements/expectations of Wikipedia's guidelines. Furthermore it seems to be the precedent set in other list/comparison articles like Comparison of BitTorrent clients. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Stepping in: Wikipedia puts a "nofollow" tag on all links. This removes the major reason for linkspamming, improving search engine standing. My personal opinion is that the more wp:reliable sources present, the better, if only to maintain wp:neutral point of view. Likewise, in summaries of this sort, it is not out-of-line to give a link to each company's website. The reader is likely to look this up as it is. Why not provide it directly ? Nucleophilic (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
We need to reach a consensus, folks. I'm afraid to touch the article until we do. Intgr, I've tried to compromise, but my offers to use fewer primary sources and more secondary ones have gone unacknowledged. It appears that you're just arguing to belay actual improvement to the article. I think we've successfully debunked your fears that my references had anything to do with spam. How are these not reliable sources?! Official webpages must surely be the best place to get trivial information like current version number and OS support. And this article needs to be cited!
Expanding the wealth of information on Wikipedia is generally a good thing, especially when it comes to citations. In accordance with being bold (like I did to this citation-neglected article), additions to Wikipedia should only be reverted when they violate some rule or guideline, but never because somebody feels there's no "need" for something. The burden of proof is on you, intgr, to tell us what rule I violated; it's not on me to justify Wikipedia's necessity for each edit I make. While we have been arguing for quite some time now, you have failed to name one solid reason why my references aren't allowed. You stress the word "every", but I can't find a numerical limit. (Furthermore, you're exaggerating; I had only cited 14 of the 21 listed defraggers.) You also haven't addressed the two comparison articles I gave as examples. If I'm so wrong, then so are several of the primary references in those articles. Let's go remove them too! Now that the spam issue is no longer a concern, why are you still impeding this consensus cycle? —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 06:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
I thought this argument had already concluded. While I don't see any value in adding general citations to official product/company web sites, I won't be reverting your edits as long as you're not overusing them — I guess this is a consensus. I will not be changing my mind on this issue in general, however.
Wrt policy:
WP:NOTLINK states: "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia"
I explained that the "official link" exemption in WP:EL is only applied when one company/product is the subject of the article. The opposite is true for list articles — linkfarms are commonly and actively removed, citing WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK. You can see this pattern on many list articles by searching their edit history for "WP:EL", "spam", "external" etc.
I pointed out how WP:PSTS discourages primary sources.
I explained that WP:Vdoes not require citations for these claims because people are unlikely to challenge the claims.
Wrt practice: I see external link patterns on my watchlist all the time. There is a consistent effort by established editors, often administrators, to eradicate external links from list articles, because otherwise these links serve as an invitation for people to come and promote their own product (in other words, add spam). I can sometimes see these links creeping back as citations and I try to resist that because moving from direct external links to citations, when they're not even reliable sources, is not an improvement. To the contrary, over time they will devaluate proper citations from reliable sources. I also see no reason why links in citations should be exempt from the WP:EL and WP:NOTLINK policies.
Alright, your examples really helped me see that I must walk a fine line here. While I maintain that I did not add spam, I can see how my [legitimate] citations could be seen as spam by revert-happy anti-spam editors. In a sense, we are both right; Wikipedia's needs conflict here. My logical progression is as follows:
List and comparison articles have always been controversial on Wikipedia. The "they're unencyclopedic" crowd argued with the "they're useful and don't hurt anything" crowd until the decision was reached (I think by trial) to allow list articles on Wikipedia.
All articles need to be cited (or tagged Unreferenced), even list articles.
While I have agreed to shift toward secondary sources, primary sources best support the trivial facts presented in the article.
Official webpage links are allowed on Wikipedia, and are not limited as to quantity (provided they are not redundant).
Too many official/primary references look like spam.
Spam isn't allowed.
This conflict is a huge problem for us. Short of modifying Wikipedia policy to address the conflict/ambiguity, I think I'm going to have to walk a fine line between under-citing the article and over-spamming it. —Voidxor (talk | contrib) 04:36, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Re your Third Opinion request: The guidelines at the Third Opinion project say that requests are subject to being removed from the list if no volunteer chooses to provide an opinion within six days after they are listed there. The request made there in reference to this dispute has been removed for that reason. Please feel free to relist if if you still desire a third opinion, but if no one has taken the request in this length of time it may be unlikely that anyone will do so in the future. If you still need help with your dispute after the RFC, you should consider a request for comments or informal or formal mediation as the next step in the dispute resolution process. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:15, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
An article that you have been involved in editing, Rotational delay, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. § Music Sorter § (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schneier's Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Hello Intgr/Archive 6! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey
My last name and phone # is listed on your archive page in August 2008. I was unfamiliar with with Wikipedia and didn't realize that was a permanent and public conversation. If you would be kind enough to remove that info I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiwiposter (talk • contribs) 11:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
I removed it from the current page version. Note that it's still available in "page history", but won't be found by search engines. If you want to erase it permanently from the history, only administrators can do that. You can ask WP:ANI. I don't know if they satisfy such requests. -- intgr[talk]11:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions with User:Intgr. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
