Jump to content

Talk:Canyoning/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

To the person(s) who keep removing the link to the ACA, please provide your rationale so that we may come to a consensus whether the link should stay or go. From my point, the ACA is a non-profit group, and their web site has a treasure trove of canyoning-related information, probably more than any other site on the web.Adagio 17:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the edits on the page have gotten out of hand. I've tried to address the issues in this page, but several users (71.118.162.113 and 216.66.233.10, in particular) keep adding the external link back repeatedly without discussion on this talk page. The user 216.66.233.10 has even resorted to editing other external links, rendering them invalid, which is vandalism pure and simple. I've changed it back. Apparently this is all part of some dispute between two websites, and I believe this dispute has no place on wikipedia.

I've sent a request to the Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal to mediate. I hope official channels won't be necessary. I would ask those involved to refrain from adding the ATS link until this is resolved, thanks. Adagio 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We feel the ATS link should be listed on the canyoning section of wikipedia for various important reasons. Please read the talking points below. However, first we should discuss the other links in a little detail.

1) ACA -- no comments on this link as ACA individuals have been the ones continuing to eliminate us from Wikipedia.

2) CEC -- a very limited site for information sources. For a laymen, it appears the site is only trying to sell you expensive courses in Europe. Easily contradicts #6 of the wikipedia guidelines as you cannot view any information or receive any information unless you are a member. "Sites that require payment to view the relevant content"

3) Barranquismo -- a dead link that does not even work when clicked on!

4) Canyoneering.com -- the main page has an objectionable amount of google advertising and is selling books right in your face! Per wikipedia guideline #5 of sites to avoid. " Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising"

5 & 6) Wiki's dedicated to canyoneering in various locations -- rock on!

ATS Link -- Although ATS does exist to sell a product of various courses -- the website is a valuable & unique tool for various reasons. Wikipedia recognizes this as a possibility within their guideline restrictions. Per email "if you site offers a unique resource beyond the content listed within the article, exceptions can be made". A) The resources on the WCCM -- the West Coast Canyoneering Method is fast becoming the canyoneering method of choice for Southern California. Putting all biases aside (you know who you are), this methodology should be recognized on a free resource such as wikipedia. B) The ATS filmworks -- right now on the site there is a free informative training video, more are going to be added daily. There are no other sites listed offering anything of that nature. C) ATS offers free unique year round programming to anyone in Southern California -- Adventure Film Festivals, Environmental Days, & hullaballoo's (canyon partys) D) The ATS Community -- growing quickly into becoming the resource of choice for trip partners in all disciplines throughout California -- up to minute canyon beta can be found here.

There are more reasons that we should exist on Wikipedia. However, we feel we have made sufficient case against some of the other links and a good case for our link. Thank you for taking the time to keep wikipedia clean. A free encyclopedia of information can only exist through the unbiased qualities of those who edit.


Who are these guys think theyre fooling. The website is for guides service. If they want to advertize they should PAY to advertize somewhere else. Free stuff is only for promoting the guides service. One video with a guy abseiling from a tree not for instruction but for selling a product. Tying a prusick knot and calling it a autoblock is not good instruction. Everything just bragging without any real good informtion. Only agree that cec link is german not english on english wikipedia and doesnt belong here.


Hi, I'm the one who wrote the 'ATS External Link' section below. For the record, I'm not affiliated with the ACA, and I don't know the details of the fued going on between the ACA and ATS. I'm not necessarily against having an ATS link, but I think a few things should be cleared up first.
The CEC link. I think it is important to have an external link that represents Europe, where canyoning is so prevelant (note that the CEC link does have an 'english' page, just click on the US/British flag). However, if there is a better link for Europe I'd be interested in replacing it.
Barranquismo: it wasn't dead for me... ?
Canyoneering.Com: That link was added after I wrote the ATS External Link stuff below. I haven't reviewed that link in depth, and it seems to be down for me today, but I believe you have a good point. I'd be interested in hearing from the person who added it, and others, to see what value it has as an external link. Perhaps it should be removed.
As for the ATS link. I think your page is a good start, but I think it needs more work. The problem is that after years of canyoning on 3 continents, in nearly every western US state, and having a number of first descents under my belt, and after monitoring a number of canyoning-related forums and discussions groups, I've never heard of the WCCM until now. So I googled it, and the only mention of it is on the ATS page, and on a few portals that link to ATS (perhaps done through advertising?). Searches of forums have yielded nothing. I think that contradicts the assertion that the WCCM is "fast becoming the canyoneering method of choice for Southern California". So I looked on the ATS page for info on WCCM and basically found nothing. Your page basically talks about how it was invented, but gives scant info on what WCCM is, instead it implores us to take ATS-sponsored classes to learn more. It sounds to me like the WCCM is just something that ATS invented to sound 'official' as a means of selling course seats. If it is so popular, how come nobody is talking about it?
Second, part of the reason to clean up the external links is that every locale seemed to have one. Your page, by your own admission, is geared to California. If we had links for every locale, we'd be stuck with a laundry list of links again. If we have a link geared to California, then we might as well have some for the pacific northwest, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Australia, Spain, France, Italy, Reunion Island, South America, the Caribbean, etc, probably with multiple links in each geography, and again, we'd have a list of links longer than the original article! That is why I suggested the ACA, as they are geared to north america, not just a small part of it.
Third, you mention content (such as training videos) that aren't even available yet. I think they should be available before we link.
So here is my suggestion. Go back and update your web site. Put some informative information about the WCCM on your site, perhaps with videos. Put more than just "The WCCM is really popular and everyone uses it, but to find out more take one of these classes that we offer..." Currently your site reads like a glossy brochure. Add some decent information beyond a sales pitch, and then come back and add a link to the external links section. Adagio 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

To the person who keeps adding alpinenets.com as an external link. I've read through the link, and I don't believe it follows the wikipedia standards for Wikipedia:External links. In particular, I believe it violates this one:

Under Links Normally To Avoid: 4. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

It seems to me that the link is to a site that offers commercial guiding, and very little information relevant to canyoning itself, beyond what you can find in the existing list of external links. Before you add the link, yet again, please leave a note on this discussion page stating why you feel a link to ATS is appropriate in this article. Please refer to the guidelines in Wikipedia:External links and state your case. Thanks Adagio 19:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

ATS Spam

"Alpine Training Services, the only Canyoneering school on the West Coast offers a full-training curriculum (I-VI) throughout Southern California, Arizona, Utah, Northern California, and Nevada."

I editted this down to what was demonstrably true. Taking out:

"only ... west coast" - the ACA also offers course on "the West Coast", and other places could too. "full-training curriculum (I-VI)" - this is just marketing speak, contains no content. "throughout..." - means everywhere in these states, which is not true.

Nothing personal, just the Wiki is not a place for business advertising - thus I have editted it down to what I feel is NPV. Ratagonia

Ok, the External Links section of this page is completely out of control. There are more lines dedicated to links than the text of the article! The following wikipedia entries only have 4 or 5 external links each: hiking, kayaking, climbing... while canyoning currently has 19!

I recommend cutting the list down to 4 or 5. Any nominations as to what should be included? Mine are:

Any objections? 24.8.163.159 22:18, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


Hard to know where to draw the line. All of the links appear to be non-commercial, except for the ongoing spam from Alpine Training Services.


Here is my rational for chosing those five:

- the Oz Canyons Wiki contains a long list of links that include all of the links under the 'Australia' section of this article - The ACA and the canyonwiki site contains a long list of links that include all of those under US, Canada, and Mexico - The CEC site so that Europe has representation in the links list - The barranquismo site because it is by far the most complete list of links to online canyon beta in the world

All of the above are non-profit, and tend to be more substantial than a generic user canyoning page. I think the above links are the best of the best resources to find further information on canyoning. All of the links currently in this article can be found through those pages as well. 24.8.163.159 15:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Found the external link policy page. Recommendations given above are consistent with Wikipedia policies.

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

Recent changes

I rearranged the wiki quite a bit. I use wikipedia all the time, but was really disappointed in this canyoneering article, and thought I could contribute, since I do quite a bit of technical writing and editing in school and work, and happen to know something about canyoneering (although I'm no expert by any means!). Most of what I did was cutting and pasting things so they flow a little bit more logically and correcting those errors that I could find. I didn't really remove anything besides a few redundant sentences, and added a few paragraphs, sentences, and clarifications to round out a few areas/sections.

I should have discussed it here first, but got excited when I saw some place I could help (and procrastinate a little work). Sorry if I've destroyed anyone's baby. Feel free to correct anything I've added that is incorrect or appropriate, or completely undo anything I did if you feel it is that bad. Its not going to be personal for me, trust me. Canyoneers of the world unite.

Notice of Mediation

The dispute on the ATS link has been sent to mediation, I am the assigned mediator.

I would like to hear why this link should be left on this page. Talk Geo.plrd 18:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: ATS and ACA site links...

1: Control of information: "Adagio" and/or the ACA have taken it upon themselves to be the only ones to allow changes or inclusions to this site. This is not acceptable. You have a motive, it is also plain that you do not have consensus. I have seen your postings and your replies to ATS that assume some type of final say on your part. This is certainly not the case and you, "Adagio", are not the webmaster here. ALL links from this page are helpful to the community of canyoneers, not just the ones that you have chosen for us and 'allowed' to remain.

2: ACA site: The ACA site exists to disseminate information AND to SELL memberships and training. A 'non-profit' status means only that there are restrictions on the distribution of profits to owners or shareholders, not that they do not exist to make money. No company can exist without cashflow, the ACA is no exception. They do not have an endowment, and presumably the directors of the corporation are not wholly funding this company. So lets not get lost, the fact remains that the ACA website exists to SELL courses and information to users either via direct purchase of programs (http://www.canyoneering.net/content/index.php?categoryid=10) or by membership. Which you can get by PURCHASING a training course, or PAYING DUES. For those of you unfamiliar with the ACA's commercial interests, you can join them in one of 4 ways: 1) Forum membership, not officially a 'member of ACA', which entitles you to discuss things on their website. 2) Supporting member-$15 per year, and you get emails and are allowed to attend an anchor seminar. 3) Regular membership: PURCHASE a training course for $345, or submit a 'canyon resume' plus PAY dues, or submit skills checklist plus PAY DUES.

Anyone see a pattern here? The ACA exists to sell you things. That in itself is not bad. In fact it is probably a good thing for all canyoneers, we will get better exposure and have better access to and protection of the resources we all know and love.

The very issues that "Adagio" has raised in reference to Alpine Training Services exist on the ACA site, namely a commercial intent. So either they BOTH stay on the links list or they BOTH are removed from the list. Either way would be fair. "Adagio" claims not to be affiliated with the ACA yet he alone continues to post their site and remove other sites. (see #6) Whether he is or is not an ACA member/supporter etc is beside the point. Having information on a website is not reason enough for inclusion on this list. The ACA site does indeed have information about canyoneering, but all of it is skewed toward making a member out of you.

3: The Point: The point is that "Adagio" has taken it upon himself to defend the inclusions on the Wikipedia site and to prosecute and delete others at his sole discretion. This self-appointed editor status is what has me up in arms. This is a FORUM, not an individuals personal list of favorites. NO matter what the justification is, this is a public site for public use. It is from this that I ask "Adagio" to stop editorializing on this site. If you have a problem, then take it up in forum. if we 'the community' deem a site unworthy of inclusion then WE will decide it here

4: Wrap up: Rebuttals will fly I am sure, that is a GREAT thing. We should all discuss what happens in our community. As for the matter at hand, I put forth that a decision must be made with regards to editing and editorializing via editing on this site. The crux is that there are commercial interests on all sides of this discussion and there is also information flowing amongst these interests. We should decide how to move forward and not allow an individual to express him/herself through editing this site, this should be a community decision.

The ACA and ATS sites exist for different reasons. Adagio would have you believe that the ACA's 'not for profit' status somehow means that they are not a commercial enterprise. Have no doubt, if they did not make money, they would not be there. Period. ATS is a guide service, this is a commercial enterprise. They also do community work, though they are not 'non profit', if they did not make money, they would not be there. Period. Both sites have information, the ACA's site has links to information imbedded in the site (ie Canyon Database), but its primary buttons link you to the commercial aspects of the site. ATS's site has information links to their programs and encourage your participation in order to get the information to you. Whether or not this is better or worse is for you to decide for yourselves.

5: A solution: I suggest that we do one of two things with regards to listing sites on this page. 1: We list everything including ACA AND ATS, acknowledging that they both have commercial intent built into their organizations, OR 2: they are both banned for the same reason.

Additionally, if information is the really the only thing that should be listed on this site, then I would suggest that an independent site be built to house any information that would be beneficial to canyoneers and list that site here. Anyone willing to do this? A non-afffiliated canyoneering database would be ideal for the canyoneering community.

I think that the ATS site should be added back to the list of sites for canyoneering. I have no problem with the ACA being on the list as well, nor do I have any issues with the other links on the site.

6: a bit about me. I am not affiliated with either Alpine Training Services nor the American Canyoneering Association, nor any other climbing, mountaineering, rappelling association or entity whatsoever. I am an avid canyoneer and have been at it a relatively short time, just 4 years. In that time I have come across many, many good and bad things in canyons. Most of the bad things are dangerous anchors, or sloppy webbing systems that are neither elegant and safe nor removable after descent, hence they lay there spoiling the natural setting in a canyon. Anyway, I found the ATS site on Wikipedia some time ago and had a good experience talking to them. I called them and asked for information on canyons in So.Cal. They gave me all of the information I could have wanted and that was that. All of their information was spot on, by the way. They rather generously gave me whatever I asked for with regards to canyon details and approaches, they suggested canyons that I might like to try and offered up advice on some anchor systems that had worked well for them. All of this left a good taste in my mouth. Let me reiterate, I am NOT affiliated with ATS in any way, I have not purchased anything from them nor received anything from them other than information. So, quite some time had passed and I wanted to find ATS again and I went back to Wikipedia and they were gone. I got curious and dug around the web and found them and then went back to Wikipedia and added them back to the links list.

Now the curious part that led to this lenghty comment: Once I had added the ATS link to the page yesterday, it was removed within 30 minutes. I added it again, and it was removed within 10 minutes. I started to get curious and read the comments in the discussion and found the ACA/ATS banter. I wanted to know who or what was happening so I deleted the ACA link to see what happened...it got put back on in 30 minutes or so each time. Curious as to who could spend that time I continued to see what response would come about...It only took 24 hours or so for me to get a message from "Adagio" telling me to stop editing the ACA link. AH HA! So I flushed him out. good enough. I wanted to know something so I bent the rules and found out who is behind the changes.

Now for an even more curious coincidence. I got the message from "Adagio" asking me to stop editing the ACA link on the Wiki-site. Fine, fair comment. I began to write this comment, at the same time I checked out the ACA site more carefully so as to get my facts straight, and guess what....the 'network administrator' for the ACA had banned my IP address from the Forum section of the ACA site. Is this a spurious correlation? Is "Adagio" truthful and 'not affiliated with the ACA' afterall? I think he has been found out, I believe he is more than 'associated' with the ACA and that these dueling deletions are more than a concerned community member protecting free information. It smells much more like a commercial enterprise trying to secure and protect a market.

So, "Adagio", anything you want to tell us about your work with the ACA?

I look forward to having this discussion with you and all of the members of the canyoneering community. be well and safe.

Answering your items as you numbered them:
1. This is simply not true. If you check my messages left on this talk page, both under my name and my ip of 24.8.163.159, I've been very careful to offer suggestions for the link list, and ask opinions to build a consensus. There was never a consensus to remove the ACA - in fact, nobody has objected about the ACA's inclusion until your post above. However, several editors, going as far back as Ratagonia, have voiced objections to the ATS link. This is why I asked the poster of the ATS link to state their case, in the hopes that discussion would change minds and offer a reasonable solution. Instead, aside for a single reply (which was immediately followed by re-adding the ATS link), the ATS posters simply ignored the discussion and continued to add their link to the page. This is why I (and many others) have removed it. Whenever I've removed it, I've listed in the edit summary to 'read talk:canyoning' in an effort to have the poster participate in the discussion and come to a consensus. That's been ignored, which is why I have escalated things to the current state. My wish is to provide a community-consensus artical on canyoning, and I have always been open to and requesting the opinions of others on this page, as shown throughout this talk page.
2. Yes, both the ATS and ACA site sell services/products. However, the difference is that the ACA site also has a lot of free information, including canyon beta, downloads and links all accessable from the home page. The canyon beta and download sections reside on the ACA site - they are not links to an external site. From what I've seen, the ATS site does not include this sort of information, and no ATS posters have shown that it does include it. I suggested above that the ATS site would be more acceptable if it did. In fact, if it did I'd support including it in the list, as I stated above. Another point is canyoneering.com, which is another candidate for removal. I can't access that link to form an opinion, but as I stated in my edit above, I would support its removal if it turns out to be a site selling items with little additional, free information.
3. Again, this is simply not true. Read over my edits of this page, I am very interested in the opinions and consensus of the community. I am not taking it upon myself as the 'sole editor'. In fact, based on the history, three different editors have replaced the ACA link today, of which I am one. Looking through the history, a number of different editors have reverted or removed the page after the ATS link was included. To say that this is my sole work is simply laughable. I've simply stepped up my removal of the ATS link after they insisted on including it without discussion on this talk page, thus ignoring the community and avoiding consensus.
4 This is just restating #2, and my comments for #2 address those here as well.
5 Again, I disagree. If the ATS site were to add information that would remove it from the category of 'sites that primarily exist to sell products or services', I would be fine with its inclusion. The ACA site, I feel, includes a large amount of free information (the canyon database alone would qualify, but they have even more) that shows that the site is about more than merely selling products and services. That is the difference. If anyone disagrees, I'd be interested in discussing it, and if the community comes to a consensus that the ACA site isn't appropriate, so be it.
6 This is simply a personal attack on my character, and is not appreciated. As I stated, I am not affiliated with the ACA. If you were banned from their site, it is between you and that site's administrators, and I assure you that it is unrelated, to my knowlege, of this issue before us. I have no knowlege of you or your status on the ACA web site. However, the fact that you were banned from it speaks volumes about your motivation to have the link removed or replaced with the ATS link. You need not break wikipedia's rules to 'flush me out', you simply had to look at the page history to see that I, plus others, have reverted your removal of the ACA link (as well as removed the ATS link), and you would have seen my note to come to this talk page to discuss the situation. So, there is nothing I need to tell you about my work with the ACA, except that I do not appreciate your false implications about my character with respect to this discussion. Adagio 22:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Offer

There is a compromise offer on the case page. All parties are advised to review and if not acceptable leave comments on how to improve.
I still need a response from the parties, please post it in the discussion section of the case page Geo.plrd 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where is the case page?

I am happy to put my two cents in to the mediation talks, can you tell me where to find the 'case page'? I have looked around, but I am obviously not familiar enought with Wikipedia to find it. Thanx.

The Case Page Adagio 22:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comments: NPOV Description Of The Issue

This is a request for comments on the issue of the Alpine Training Systems (ATS) external link, and the American Canyoneering Association (ACA) external link. We are interested in opinions of the community at large, particularly those who are not canyoners, in this issue, in particular answering the following: Is the ATS link appropriate for wikipedia? Is the ACA link appropriate for wikipedia? Are both appropriate? Are neither appropriate?

The ATS web site is alpinenets.com. The ACA web site is www.canyoneering.net

Note that further information can be found on A Mediation Cabal Case Page.

Request For Comments: Comments

I would like to summarize my points on the issue. For the record, I am not a member of the ACA, I am not an administrator on their web site, nor have I been in contact with any ACA members recently. I have not heard of the ATS until recently, and I have not heard of the apparent fued between the two organizations before a few days ago. As far as I am aware, members of the ACA have not participated in this discussion or are even aware that it exists.

Reasons I am against the ATS link:

1. The site contains very little information on canyoning, aside for 'teasers' meant to get a viewer to sign up for services from ATS.

2. The home page of the site mentions canyoneering only once, and that is under the heading "Instructional Courses", which is one of the services ATS provides, for a fee. Clicking on that link takes the viewer to information about schedules, signing up for classes, etc, with very little canyoning-related information.

3. The site talks about methods such as "West Coast Canyoneering Method". It then gives little information on this "method", and instead mentions that ATS offers classes in the method for their (paying) clients.

4. A google search for "West Coast Canyoneering Method" (and similar searches) yields very few hits: either the ATS home page (which offers no information) or portals that link to the ATS page. This tells me that this "method" is not known or accepted by the canyon community, and is possiby a marketing gimmick to enroll clients - as opposed to a unique information source valuable to the canyoning community.

5. I believe this site fails two aspects of "Links Normally To Avoid" on WP:EL: Links that are added to promote a site and Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

6. One of the person(s) who added the link to the canyoning page is 71.103.75.173. A user at this same IP address mentioned on A Mediation Cabal Case Page that he/she is the president of ATS. This fails the aspect of "Links Normally To Avoid" on WP:EL: A website that you own or maintain

7. The web site is catered to the southwest United States, and in particular, Southern California. If we allowed such localized links on the canyoning page, the list of external links would be very large. A cleanup of links, meant to solve this very problem, happened several months ago. Currently, no other external link covers such a small geographic area as the ATS link, and is thus out of character.

8. Several people on talk:canyoning have mentioned issues with including the ATS link.

9. No other guide service - or for that matter, a for-profit company - has a link in the External Links section.

10. The person(s) who add the ATS link, until very recently, ignored several requests to discuss the issue on talk:canyoning, instead he/she simply added their link back without consensus, which sounds suspiciously like the tactic a spammer would take.

I believe, for the reasons above, and for the obvious marketing nature of the ATS web site, that the person(s) who continues to add the ATS link does so simply for advertising purposes, and the link is nothing more than spam which has no place in an encyclopedia article.

Reasons I am for the ACA link:

1. The site contains a treasure trove of free information, including canyon beta, downloads, and techniques. All of this information goes far beyond what is appropriate for an encyclopedia, and hence its usefulness as an external link. Links to this information are very obvious at the top of the home page, making navigation to this information very easy.

2. The site covers and is representative of the entire North American continent, not just a small part of it.

3. The only person(s) who have advocated removal of the ACA link are person(s) who want the ATS link listed. Apparently the ACA and ATS have some sort of fued going on, so removal of the ACA link appears to be 'revenge' for removal of the ATS link. This removal tactic avoids consensus and is "editorializing through editing".

4. The ACA page has been linked on the canyoning page since August 2005 with no complaint until today, and those complaints have been from person(s) involved in the ACA/ATS feud, who are against the ACA.

I would appreciate comments from the community, and I will be happy to go along with the community consensus in this issue. If none can be reached, perhaps we should consider a survey to solve this issue.

Adagio 03:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

First, thanks for summarizing the RfC in what appears to be a neutral way. First glance; ATS is purely commercial & would disappear quickly as linkspam most other places on WP. ACA; not 'quite' as commercial at first glance, but besides training they offer not much more than what is in the article. Both sites 'might' have more info if one digs, but if I have to dig for the info, it's prob not a very useful ext. link. my 2cents ....Bridesmill 03:50, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Bridesmill. The ATS link is useless to an encyclopedia; the web site is one big ad for the commercial services. The ACA is a bit better. The Forums and Downloads probably rescue it as an appropriate link for Wikipedia, but only barely. Powers 12:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the ACA link and against the ATS link. Comparing a national not profit organization with 2500 members to a comercial guide service is crazy. I am not a member of the ACA not even a registered user of the forum but I visit the site couple times each week and read most of the posts and it costs me nothing. Very informative especialy the technical information and the canyon data base. Also rondevous but you have to be a member for $15 thats cheap. ATS web site has little information of vlue only a few people on the comunity. My opinion ATS site also includes inacurate information. In wiki article they say the WCCM started in late 1999 on the web site it says 2002. On website owner says he has 11 years canyoneering experience in one place 20 years in another place can't even keep his story right. Will respond more in other page ATS should PAY to advertize somewhere else not wiki.

--

While you're points are as valid as anyone else's, it should be noted that inclusion in wikipedia should have nothing to do with usefulness to the "community" ie canyoneering community. Although wikipedia may be useful for the "community" to use, it is an encyclopedia for the general public and the resulting decisions on this link issue should be based on wikipedia principles/guidelines. I think it is being reasonbly agreed upon that ATS definitely doesn't belong and that ACA is probably ok, but the really useful judgments/viewpoints here are going to come from a NPOV ie, outside the "community" . Since I'm in the community, and thus have a POV on this issue, I'll shut up now. KÆN

Compromise Offer 2

There is a new compromise Offer on the case page. Please review and leave comments if you disagree with it.

I need signatures from the following people.

Adagio
Catamaran4
71.118.162.113
216.66.233.10

 these are the parties. Geo.plrd 20:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Medcab Note

In the Mediation Cabal;

Have the parties reached resolution?
Geo.plrd 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC),Mediator

Closure

I am closing the case due to inactivity. Should you be willing to continue I will just reopen it. Geo.plrd 00:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canyoning/Archive_1&oldid=1192985017"