Hi. You removed a link from the External Links section of the Amazon Redshift page, citing WP:ELON. I presume you are thinking of point 5. I would argue this is not applicable, as the site contains years worth of unique research, where nothing like that information is even remotely available anyway where else, and years with of ongoing monitoring of Redshift, also available nowhere else, and the link is to that index page of that information. This is not obviously "individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services". 89.14.146.243 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are concerned about your personal access to the site that has been removed from the External links section, the link can still be found in the numerous saved earlier versions of the article accessible via the page history. If the external site is a reliable source that contains information that would improve the article, then such information should be added to the article and cited to the website. In general, though, links in an External links section are not protected, and are subject to removal without prior notice. Donald Albury18:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is unique. This is why there is a link, and why the material is not in the page. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
89.14: Yes, ELNO #5, which certainly does apply because it's your consultancy page; also ELNO #13, your personal web page. I would also argue that none of the criteria under WP:ELYES or WP:ELMAYBE apply. And certainly WP:COI says you shouldn't be adding the link, either. (If it's that important, then get the information published in a reliable, secondary source and we can consider citing that.)
I may be wrong, but I think you have the wrong end of the stick. A link to the site has been on the page for years. The site contains a very large amount of detailed technical information about Redshift internals, in the form of about 25 or so white papers, as well as system table dumps for the last couple of years, and cross-region cross-node type benchmarking for the same time, and so on. AWS publish no meaningful information about Redshift internals, or anything else of this nature. For people using Redshift, this information is of immense value and is utterly unique, and that's why there's been a link. Much more recently, I added a consultancy section, and then more recently still, made that the landing page. This does not change the value or uniqueness of the content of the site, and the link I've made goes directly to, and only to, the index for that information. My argument then is that the technical information on the site, which has already been present in external links for years, remains valid and appropriate. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I might suggest, is that I make a separate landing page, which has and only had the index of technical information, rather than link to the anchor which starts the technical information section on the home page. Can you tell me what you think of that? 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the rollback by the other user, by the looks of his talk page he has a history of this, with complaints by other users that it was happening and without discussion or explanation, and he despite my attempts did not engage in any dialogue regarding why it was done. 2A02:3100:24D5:D800:0:0:0:1001 (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so a few things here.
I do think it would help if if the details on Redshift and your consultancy were on separate pages, or even separate sites entirely. But one of the bigger issues is that there's no evidence that you're a recognized subject matter expert or that your content is considered useful. I could just as easily run scans of websites in my own field, put the results on a site with some analysis, and try to force the results onto Wikipedia—but as far as anyone knows, I'm a nobody. The analysis could be faulty or the underlying data could be wrong. On Wikipedia, we look to reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy to cite as sources. And when evaluating new sources, subject matter experts, and other unknowns, we look to how those known, trusted sources use the new, questionable material. So my first piece of advice would be to separate your analysis from your consultancy and wait for reputable sources to start citing you. (Note that this is distinct from any "client reviews" on your page. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, they're not useful to us.)
Another issue is that you keep adding the link yourself, which is discouraged by our conflict of interest guidelines. If your site does end up widely cited by reputable sources, the most you should do is mention it at Talk:Amazon Redshift—then let other editors take it from there.
Finally, I'd be careful when casting aspersions about other editors, like vaguely referencing "complaints". That's typically considered a personal attack on Wikipedia. If an editor is truly acting contrary to our policies and guidelines, then start a discussion at WP:ANI. But I'll say this: plenty of people come to Wikipedia thinking they can create an article about a joke they just made or treat their fellow editors like it's 4Chan, and they often complain when someone tells them to stop. Anybody can complain, but nobody's going to do anything about it unless the editor is violating our policies and guidelines. Hell, I've been complained about probably dozens of times in my 18 years volunteering here, and I've never been blocked or banned because I'm acting in the interests of the encyclopedia and its community.
If you have any other questions, please let me know. But I hope you'll take the advise here to heart, to wait until your content is recognized as useful by reliable sources, and then post about it at the article's Talk page. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
David Mearns and Mensun Bound
Dear Woodroar, I have quoted and cited fidedign sources regarding the salvage activities of David Mearns's Blue Water Recovery company, including a masters thesis. I am not sure what else do you need. I have provided articles and sites directly relating his salvage activities to the auction of recovered artifacts. Subarqaz (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Woodroar, I am a nautical archaeologist with 30 year experience and an expert for the OSCE Heritage Crime Task Force. Believe me when I write that Mensun Bound engaged in salvage and treasure hunting activities - of course, these are now not an honorable activity, that is why people like him have been scouring the internet clean of previous evidence of this. Again, all references that I quoted, cleanly tied Mensun Bound with salvage and treasure hunting activities both in Mozambique and Cape Verde. Subarqaz (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Subarqaz! Unfortunately, the sources you used don't meet our strict requirements for negative or controversial content about living persons.
For example, we can't use self-published sources like auction house publications, forums, social media, or press releases to support any content about living persons. Masters dissertations and theses are only acceptable when they've been shown to have a significant scholarly influence, which is typically rare. I also noticed some news aggregators, like afr.com and allafrica.com; for sources like these, you would need to track down the original article, wherever it was published. In most cases, we require citations to reliable, independent, secondary sources like newspaper articles, magazine articles, scholarly article published in a reputable journal, and so on. When it comes to claims about living persons, these sources need to be the best of the best. For negative or controversial claims, we'll likely need multiple sources.
That being said, the largest issue was that none of the sources you added supported the claims, that Mearns, Bound, or Rule were "looting" or "sell[ing] the underwater cultural heritage" or anything like that. Not only do we require reputable sources, but they need to clearly and explicitly make the claims that we're using them for. We also can't combine sources to make them say things that neither source says. For example, we can't use one source to say one person was in charge of a vessel, and another source to say that vessel was involved in looting.
If you want to make that claim that any of these people were looting, you'll need to find multiple sources that say this, plainly and unambiguously. If you have any questions, please let me know! Woodroar (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, like I need another unicorn to chase. There probably was a "Stalin Strait" "meme" in Stalin's time. There are enough online references to it in historical communities for the period. But, yes, as many hits as you get on a Googling, secondary RS are not popping to the forefront (possibly due to the modern meme). Newsweek has it as mentioned in the context of threats of escalation in Ukraine. Probably, I could ask one of the Russian translators I know; the best secondary RS is probably in Russian. I would have to look at some Russian text for RS in the end, but maps of the "Stalin Strait" I have seen do not correlate with the WIS and for that reason would not belong on the WIS page.
Hi IveGoneAway! Yeah, I also Googled it and saw that Newsweek source. But I couldn't find anything connecting it to Western Interior Seaway, either. You're welcome to ask the translators you know but I'm guessing it was a random bit of SYNTH someone had. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
