Talk:Mail forwarding

Beware

I have been in the business for over 15 years and I noticed that a lot of the companies out there claim to do mail forwarding but most of them are operated outside the US and not Authorized US Post Office agents. Buyers be aware! Don't trust your mail and privacy to just anyone! Always ask these questions:

1. Are you a Post Office approved vendor?
2. Is the US address an actual street address?
3. How secure is your warehouse and mailboxes?
4. Are you fully insured against fire and theft?

Please remember that cheaper is not always better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.171.178 (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments! Although last post has useful warnings, advertisement is not allowed here. --Algorithme (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Should we have a huge link directory over service providers?

I oppose the big list of links to providers this article has grown over time. WP:DIRECTORY and WP:LINKFARM seem to agree with me: Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages. User:78.86.124.181 disagrees with this, by reverting me repeatedly without explanation and adding ad hominem to my user page. I don't want to get into a revert war. Could we please form a consensus here? Haakon (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I noticed User:78.86.124.181 has very few edits, and it's fair to assume good faith; he/she is most likely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's content guidelines. Seeing as the guidelines strongly oppose having the link directory, I took the liberty of reverting yet again, with a clear and strong appeal for User:78.86.124.181 to discuss his edits here. Haakon (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply from User:78.86.124.181

In response to your points Haakon, firstly I would like to point out the discrepancies in your argument for the removal of the provider links and do not believe your explanation is viable.

Firstly, I did not attack you personally, I simply pointed out that link removal is in itself a form of vandalism, so I find your claims slightly ironic. Information is only valuable if it is kept in context, your deleting of links removes some of that context. The mail forwarding article has little value without being able to see more about this particular subject through clicking on the provider links. Your deletion takes away the users right to view the article in context with the service providers and subsequently degrades the value of the information within.

For example, here are a number of entries where the links to external corporate websites add context to the given article. I am sure you would not attempt to argue that these links should be deleted:

Viacom has external links to the corporate website.

Time Warner also has external links to corporate websites.

Howard Graham Entrepreneur in Britain who also runs a mail forwarding business amongst other things.

My interpretation of the rules (which seems to be applied by many editors considering the amount of articles with external links to other websites) is that as long as the link has some context with the article subject, and adds value to the information given in the article that they should stay put. Your removal of links doesn’t add anything to the value of the information available it actually is a form of vandalism and is a removal of additional information that is in context.

I am therefore taking the liberty to edit the page and add the link to providers list once more for the reasons above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.181 (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The stub is not about a company, but on an entire postal system. I also thought like the anonymous user, but it was bad reasoning. If one has the opportunity to know what mail forwarding alone means, there is not difficulty in finding adequate companies. --Algorithme (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to discuss! I disagree strongly that "link removal is in itself a form of vandalism". Not every link belongs, and removing such a link is not the same as vandalism. External links can provide "context", but Wikipedia is not, and should not be or become, the Yellow Pages. See for example WP:LINKFARM: "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. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." The problem with linkfarms is that they grow and grow and gradually detract more and more from the purpose of Wikipedia being an encyclopedia. Users don't have a "right", as you say, to huge link directories. The articles you point out as having external links, are not link directories. Haakon (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply from User:78.86.124.181

User:Algorithme, "If one has the opportunity to know what mail forwarding alone means, there is not difficulty in finding adequate companies."

I would disagree, your explanation presupposes a level of ability to every reader that may not be the case! If the provider list exists it enables the reader to find out immediately more about the subject matter first hand. It adds value to the explanation and is therefore completely valid to the article.

Just to add, I don't appreciate you adding "removed spam" as reason for edit as this is not a truthful statement. If you had checked my update carefully you would see that the edit included the original content from this page (provider list) and in addition a link to Trading Standards UK which has an explanation regarding the licensing of accommodation addresses in London, something discussed in the article requiring citation.

User:Algorithme “The stub is not about a company, but on an entire postal system.”

For any rules to be effective and fair they must be applied across the entire Wikipedia site without prejudice. You cannot have a case of one rule for large corporate organisations and another for lesser mortals because of the subject matter. The rules do not imply that there should be any special treatment for chosen article subjects.

Moving back to Haakon:

User:Haakon, “"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 disagree that this provider list represents an "excessive list" or Link farm. Link farms exist across the internet and are just a bunch of random links usually stuffed on a website, as you know they are usually tens of thousands of various links on page after page. A far cry from what we are discussing here!

Ten links to carefully selected websites that add context to the subject do not constitute a link farm. The important point here is that the links add context to the article and back up the information with examples. They are no less valid than the links on the Viacom, :Time Warner or Howard Graham pages I gave you earlier as they are targeted to the subject matter. These pages also have several lists of external links to corporate websites.

As an aside, I agree real link farms are pointless and a waste of bandwidth, but you are attempting to combat the issue in a way that will never be effective. I suggest you would better spend your time persuading Google and other search engines to put less weight on incoming links and more time working out a foolproof method for measuring a websites worth. Better still try and come up with a solution yourself. Then the link farms that populate the Internet would disappear without any need for Internet Link Police. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.181 (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

First I apologise for my edit summary; I reverted you before I noticed you had added more on the talk page, when I should have checked here first. I still would have reverted; you are now arguing against two seasoned Wikipedia editors.

We can split hairs over what a link farm is. Note that WP:LINKFARM says "On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate." What you want, is 18 external links. You may consider them "carefully selected", but the list will grow over time (hence, a place to "farm" links) because various actors will want their company in the list too, and it's hard to deny them. We have the DMOZ link already, and people should add links to their companies there, not in an encyclopedia article. Haakon (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reply from User:78.86.124.181

Haakon, here we go again. You believe your opinion is of a higher worth but I have argued the point fairly and logically without a satisfactory rebuttal from you.

Your justification is skewed Haakon, you want to edit your way across Wikipedia and remove useful information in the process, without anything to back up your assertion. You believe that the provider list is not of value to the article in question and you are applying the rules, but I would argue this is your skewed interpretation of the rules. The links in question are not a Link farm, and I explained why they were not. You still haven’t convinced me (or anyone else) otherwise.

Due to your varied interpretation, you are in fact skewing the rules to favour the large corporate entities that use Wikipedia for a ‘leg up’ on the internet. Large corporate entities end up with external links on Wikipedia through their encyclopaedic entries, some with dozens of external links that grow over time (according to your explanation this would constitute a Link farm). I cannot see a problem with the external links if they provide context to the discussion myself though. My issue is with editors who believe they can apply a biased interpretation of the rules (such as yourself). This discrepancy in the application or interpretation of the rules on your part needs clarification, otherwise you are working at the detriment of the information Wikipedia exists to provide.

Allowing large companies to benefit from their corporate dominance is far more damaging to Wikipedia than the few links we are discussing here. Large companies use the link back value from Wikipedia to dominate their business sectors; whilst smaller organisations will be held back by their lack of ability to compete due to vociferous nature of editors with your mindset. If you applied your logic across Wikipedia in a entirely balanced way I could see your argument, but as it stands you are creating a dangerous uneven playing field that favours the rich and powerful.

For the reasons given above I am reinstating the external links for this article, until we see a unified approach to all external links I would deem they continue to add value to the article and add weight to the information provided.

Lastly, I’m not a single purpose user, but I am spending an inordinate amount of time with this one subject as I firmly believe you are wrong. As a consequence of some of the issues discussed as a result of this article, I will be reviewing other edits to ensure even application on external link removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.181 (talk) 14:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't see that we are getting anywhere, so I have requested a third opinion (even if User:Algorithme seems to agree with me). Haakon (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

3O / Break

Third opinion: I'm with Haakon on this. Aside from turning this article into a linkfarm, the inclusion of all those links is a violation of WP:LINKSPAM on the grounds that it's promotional/advertising. Move the links to DMOZ or wherever else; they don't belong here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

User:CrestedEagle After reading through this carefully I can see that User:78.86.124.181 has made some very good points.

The links do provide additional information regarding the subject and as a third party I would tend to agree with him/her that they should really stay as part of the article. User:78.86.124.181 makes some good comments on the definition of a linkfarm as well and this should be taken into consideration, plus I also thought the point about discrepancies in the way the rules are applied quite interesting and definately offer some food for thought on improving the editing of wikipedia in the future. He/she makes a good point that as things stand large companies do have an advantage and special treatment. We should all strive to ensure a balanced application of the rules. CrestedEagle (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

So.. you're a brand-new user whose only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been on this article. Is there some reason why we should not believe that you're just the anon IP (or somehow associate with the IP) and you just registered an account? The large companies thing is irrelevant; rather than promoting anyone, we should be promoting no one. Read WP:ADVERT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Err User_talk:HelloAnnyong this isn't the only article I've commented on/edited. I'm not connected to User:78.86.124.181 either, I just find myself agreeing with him/her. You've got to agree they have made a good point regarding this subject, and taken the time to explain their reasons. Also I've been using the Internet for over 20 years, {possibly before you were born} so there is no need to be rude. You cannot expect everyone to automatically agree with you. CrestedEagle (talk) 18:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:OSE, the point that other articles have external links doesn't apply here. There is a centralized list of mail forwarding companies - the DMOZ list. If we use this page to become a centralized list, then we violate the linkfarm policy. By the IP's logic, we should have links to every Britney Spears fanpage - but we don't, and the reason is because it turns into promotion and spam. We're not here to advertise services or anything like that. Besides, we have a link to the DMOZ page, so if people want more info, they can go there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that WP:OSE is applicable in this case. User:78.86.124.181 pointed out that the references from the provider list actually offer greater context to the article. I completely agree with him/her on this point. Now, I've checked the DMOZ link and I'm not sure the information there is even accurate. Therefore I'm reverting the addition of the DMOZ list and reinstating the provider list as per User:78.86.124.181 comments, as this seems more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrestedEagle (talk • contribs) 18:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, this is just about the only article you've edited. Are you aware that it is possible to see your whole edit history and that your account was created two hours ago? I do not mean to assume ill faith, but there is no reason to believe you are not User:78.86.124.181. Haakon (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; the links need to be removed per WP:LINKSPAM and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Also, per WP:EL, DMOZ is an appropriate site to link into instead of maintaining a linkfarm on Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Reply from User:78.86.124.181

Lots happenning since I've been absent I see! user:Haakon you still refuse to accept your special interest group is wrong in this instance, and attempting to discredit me is an underhand tactic, but I can't say I'm surprised.

Good to see someone else thinks for themselves and can see my point though. Thank you CrestedEagle, for taking the time to comment on this subject. Wikipedia needs more editors with a balanced mind set, especially ones who can think for themselves rather than behave like bots. As I said before, the way things stand at present we have a situation where large corporations have a monopoly on wikipedia, and can dominate without fear of their links being edited away. See Viacom for a clear example of this. Now Wikipedia should be purely based on encyclopaedic content, but it is well know by these large corporations that they can exploit the Notability in Wikipedia issue and get a full page to advertise their company. No one will ever discuss this fact, all we see is the stubborn single answer response by editors who refuse to accept there are double standards being applied on mass. I wonder why?

user:haakon, you quote "wikipedia is not the yellow pages", but for some companies (like Viacom) it clearly is and then some! Double standards and a blind faith in the rules are the problem. A biased system in favour of wealth and power is the sad result.

Here’s an example of what I am referring to here:

Attempts to apply notability consistently across Wikipedia have led to frequent controversy, especially on topics of relatively minor interest which a paper encyclopedia would not cover. Two differing perspectives on notability are commonly known as "inclusionism" and "deletionism". In one instance, a group of editors agreed that many articles on web comics should be deleted on the grounds that the various topics lacked notability. Some of the comic artists concerned reacted negatively, accusing editors of being "wannabe tin-pot dictators masquerading as humble editors." In 2007, notability disputes spread into other topics, including companies, places, websites, and people. As Nicholson Baker put it, "There are quires, reams, bales of controversy over what constitutes notability in Wikipedia: nobody will ever sort it out."

Timothy Noah wrote several articles in 2007 in Slate about the threatened deletion of his entry on grounds of his insufficient notability. He concluded that "Wikipedia's notability policy resembles U.S. immigration policy before 9/11: stringent rules, spotty enforcement." David Segal commented in the Washington Post that "Wiki-worthiness has quietly become a new digital divide, separating those who think they are notable from those granted the imprimatur of notability by a horde of anonymous geeks."

[Notability in Wikipedia] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.181 (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Barek, Algorithme, HelloAnnyong, and myself, all disagree with you. We have a consensus, please accept that. Thanks. Haakon (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You appear to be insisting on disrupting Wikipedia in order to make a point about big corporations. You have been cited Wikipedia policy and guidelines that support removing the links. The argument to keep them boils down to "I like it" - which isn't a strong position. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

user:haakon 4-2 is hardly a huge consensus of agreement when you consider how many use Wikipedia! If anything there is clearly a reason to veer on the side of caution as some obviously do not agree with the provider list being removed. This failure to listen to other opinions is very dangerous and damages Wikipedia through dogmatic regulation.

I'm proud of the fact I can think for myself, and I'm not attempting to disrupt Wikipedia as others would like to imply. I firmly believe in this instance the provider list adds weight and context to the article in question. I also feel strongly that it should stay as the rules everyone keeps referring to are applied in such a biased way, with large companies having corporate immunity from the editors’ deletion wrath. This is a side issue but it is relevant all the same.

I've explained my opinion several times and at least one other has agreed with me, the rest of you quote the rules and refuse to discuss the issue in any detail. Hardly a closed case for removal? Surely all opinions should be equal as long as we debate the issue in a fair balanced manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.124.181 (talk) 22:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're not getting is that the Viacom article doesn't apply here. For one, other stuff exists is not a justifiable excuse. But even if it was, using that article as an example for this one doesn't work. There are no external links in the body of the text. There is an external link to the company website, but that makes sense since the article is about that company. We don't have external links on there to companies who offer similar services as Viacom; it's just the main link. The Hoovers and Yahoo! links are by notable sources; the Ketupa link, well, maybe that shouldn't be there. But five links on that page does not mean that you can add a dozen or more links on here. It doesn't work that way. All you're doing is spamming this article, and it's disruptive to the point of being vandalism. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:41, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"What you're not getting is that the Viacom article doesn't apply here. For one, other stuff exists is not a justifiable excuse."

Oh dear, round and round we go. I didn't say this was my main reasoning but it is a separate factor in my argument, and a factor for being cautious when deleting. I really think editors of your ilk do a great deal of damage to Wikipedia through your obsession with removing links and articles that you perceive break the rules.

The main thrust of my argument is that the provider list adds weight and context to the article. At least one other person agrees with me here, the rest have ignored this fact. My argument is that removal should only be applicable where there is 100% consensus, as you are taking away information and denying choice to the reader. You don't have that 100% consensus so veering on the side of caution should be the case, especially when it is balanced 4-2 at present. Now I believe this is a fair stand point, rather than pushing forward your group diktat you should learn to accept the view of other users, after all we all have a part to play in shaping Wikipedia.

My side argument with user:haakon about the yellow pages quote is he argued that "external links are not appropriate for Wikipedia". Well, the articles dedicated to large companies have plenty of external links, (they also act as one big advert as far as they are concerned, but this is another point altogether) , so his "no external links argument" falls to pieces. The argument doesn't exactly fit and it seems that to apply rules without a standard is a nonsensical approach. Either external links add value or they don’t. Your interpretation of what fits suggests the article subject dictate the rules, with large companies being immune from the rules whilst lesser mortals/articles face deletion.

I would argue that removing the provider list is in fact the real vandalism, the provider list should be retained as it improves the information in the article. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

What does 100% consensus even mean? Would that be a unanimous vote? Per WP:DEFINECONSENSUS, consensus is neither majority nor unanimity. Consensus is built by listening to everyone's arguments and coming to some central agreement. But since I don't think we're going to come to that, it might be better to look into an RFC. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it's high time we got an RFC. As long as the anon labels the consensus a "special interest group", we're not moving beyond reverting the anon. Haakon (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

So done. I picked the policy RFC, since this seems to be a question of WP:LINKSPAM. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:21, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct IMO; this is a question over interpreting Wikipedia's guidelines, or changing them. Haakon (talk) 13:28, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

Simple: NO. See WP:NOT#DIRECTORY <- We are not the yellow pages. Please see dmoz, which is where you actually want to be. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh. There you go. And now the page is blocked thanks to Beetstra (thanks!) so I think that this issue is taken care of. Any objections to ending the RfC? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done to the gang of four, Haakon you have got your way, buy your boys a beer!

I still believe my point stands and it is not really a balanced playing field when this situation arises, but I know that the rules are set up to favour the establish large corporate entities and turn a blind eye to the advertising they get from their encyclopaedic pages. If the rules are applied in a fair and even way there should be DMOZ links on every article, even the large corporate companies.

I’m just looking for balance in the Wikipedia editing which doesn't obviously exist at present. Sad really, as corporate entities are protected by this failure to deploy balanced rulings and links that add context are removed in favour of poorly chosen DMOZ links. 78.86.124.181 (talk) 15:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Size of company is irrelevant to this article - it should not contain a linkfarm of vendors regardless of their size. Articles about a specific company should have a link to that company. This article is not about a specific company, and should not be a linkfarm providing advertising links to multiple companies. If one or more of the companies do meet the guidelines for notability, create an article for them and a link to that company's website would in that case be appropriate on that article. But not here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

First, it's now five; Beetstra (an admin, btw) also chimed in and gave an opinion. You might want to read WP:GRIEF as well. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

User:78.86.124.181, these lists are simply inappropriate. This is not a comparison to 'any company should then have a dmoz. No. Companies link to the official site in an external links section, this is not that, this is a list of official companies that would fit the situation. Moreover, this list is never complete, so where does it end? And this will attract editors who want 'their' company included. A lot of them are not notable enough for a wikipedia article.

You are looking for balance in the Wikipedia editing. But then here is not the right place. You want to post on WT:NOT, and discuss why lists are needed. Edit warring and pushing one list on one page, while the policies are strongly discouraging this, is not the way forward. When consensus on the policy talkpage develops that these lists are appropriate, then the balance has shifted, and then the list can be included. But, since these policies have been written by a large number of editors, I think that the balance will stay at the side of 'Wikipedia not being the yellow pages'. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Per: WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, the list should not be included. WP:NOT is one of the core policies.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Change to content (not provider list) - article now poor in comparison to previous version?

I'm not referring to the provider list, but to the actual factual content of the article. It's been degraded by user:L0b0t removing valid information with an inferior edit. Does anyone agree? I'm not going to touch the page because of my previous involvement in the argument regarding the provider list, so if someone with knowledge in this area agrees can they revert the edit by l0b0t? CrestedEagle (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

My edits were to remove unreferenced claims and editorial opining, also a wee bit of copy editing. If you have a reliable source to cite for the claims that were excised please do so. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 01:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Links to service providers?

Should this article contain a list of mail forwarding service providers as shown in this diff, or would that list be a violation of WP:LINKSPAM and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• No That list should not be there. I have hence removed, and to stop the edit-warring until consensus is reached, I have also semi-protected it. For more information, see {{dmoz}} and We are not the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• No, obviously. Rd232 ^talk 11:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A table would, however, be both policy compliant and useful. -- samj _in^out 14:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)