Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement.
Hi. I saw your recent post to the external links guidelines ([1]), but wasn't sure what you meant by it. Is your issue with the guidelines we have or with a particular link on a particular page? And if the later - could you briefly explain what the issue is (I get the impression you were trying to demonstrate the problem, but all that text obscured the issue and I was not clear on exactly what the problem is - copyright? Promotion? Unencyclopedic?). Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa21:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have provided a detailed statement that NZ/Aeotearoa http://www.murdomacdonald-bayne.com/ is unverifiable, unknown, unidentified, and mirrors the Mystica website and links to it. I have just posted another statement today which points to the fact that Mystica is behind the unknown website, plain and simple self-promotion, since they stated, "I could always just print my own books in China I suppose and flood the market with cut price books and cd/tapes etc." ... just after denying any connection to Mystica itself!
To me it is considered a "feeder link" set up as an unknown webmaster and links are directed to Mystica.
Doesn't anyone question unidentified links? I could just as well set myself up as unidentified and present another website linking to my main website (i.e., self-promotion). What is your safety net for this sort of loophole? Just wondering.
--Mmb2006 (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I've taken a look. The fact that the website directs its readers to Mystica in some places is not really a problem from Wikipedia's perspective. The promotion of books and other services and the lack of provenance may be considered an issue and editors need to decide if it adds encyclopedic information of use to readers in an appropriate format. And while I can see some of why you believe there is a link between the site and Mystica I don't think it is at all definitive and sentence you quote above could be read in several different ways most of which do not amount to any sort of confession of a link. So it's important to step back and take a breath (which you have started to do just by reaching out for further input - I'm glad you did).
Since there has been some edit warring going on and their are accusations of CoI editing I have added a comment to the talk page to try and refocus discussion as well as posting requests for more editors to review. It may take a while to sort out but community attention normally ends up improving the situation.
A couple of notes to help you with this process (I'm intending leaving this on the talk pages of all the accounts that have been editing the page):
Talk page formatting - the use of lines of equals signs (===========) to separate out comments isn't very standard here. Instead add your comment under the comment you are responding to with a colon (:) in front of each paragraph. A colon at the beginning of a new line is a formatting mark, it doesn't show up once you save, it just tabs your comment in a little so it is indented. More colons indent further so if you're responding to a response (i.e. a comment that already has one colon) you would add two colons (::) and so on.
You should take a close look at WP:3RR. Edit warring over content can get you blocked however "right" you are.
Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.--Hu12 (talk) 19:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the above NING webpage was NOT IN USE at this time so I do not understand why you referred to it if it was not there on the page??? Since spam is such a concern worldwide, I will simply add the MacDonald-Bayne biographical information which I had linked to into Wikipedia webpage and trust that will be satisfactory all round.--Mmb2006 (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has just occurred to me that it is NOT listed and I would definitely like to know why it was removed since it is a major website with a wealth of information on Murdo MacDonald-Bayne which I have had for eight years! What is going on? My contribution of this particular site is NOT spam by any means. PLEASE look into this error on Wikipedia's part.
I quote Wikipedia: If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is what I am doing here. There does seem to be a degree of confusion here and at my expense.
That's not a mistake. The site (along with the others) is currently being discussed on the article talk page. Established editors seem to agree that the information it provides about Bayne is mainly commercial in nature (in that it seems predominantly designed to sell products) and does not seem to be appropriate for the external links section. -- SiobhanHansa18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. It is certainly discouraging to me to hear that. On my Homestead.com website I've provided a great deal of personal information about MacDonald-Bayne that has been of great interest to people over the years - letters from MMB students, other letters from Dr Bayne's young son, now deceased, in which he explains what he can. It was my intention to share this insight with those who are interested. It is far more meaningful to me than merely selling books and tapes, since I'm a senior citizen these days and have a couple of pensions so it isn't a matter of monetary concern that has inspired me for some 37 years.
May I ask what you plan to do with the other website, Mystica?
http://www.mystica.co.nz/catalogue_drm_bio.html
Apparently the opening webpage is also selling books with the prices in full view and a commercial means of ordering. If you do not consider that as predominantly designed to sell products, then I don't know what websites are all about. I am feeling very disappointed all round. This morning after patiently typing a suitable biography here and then finding it was unable to be posted because of a blockage, I was really quite shocked by it all. I think I'll just withdraw the bio done earlier today and leave this whole dubious business altogether. It is all so very depressing and I don't need that in my older years. Life is far more than pursuing the dollar, in my opinion.
Mar. 13/08
Thanks for removing External Links altogether, at least that is fair after treating my website as a site selling books and therefore not qualified. A ruling applied to one should be applied to all. - regards.
--Mmb2006 (talk) 18:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Murdo MacDonald-Bayne. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murdo MacDonald-Bayne. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.
Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
