Talk:Mounts Palay-Palay–Mataas-na-Gulod Protected Landscape

s1expeditions.com as a source

Multiple editor, including myself have removed content as claims were sourced to http://www.s1expeditions.com/ which does not appear to be a reliable source, but have been reverted. See [1] and [2], [3] and [4], [5] and [6]. We need to have a larged discussion about this instead of simply reverting. In what way does the web site s1expeditions.com meet Wikipedia's definition of a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source, and User:Philippine Adventurer may have a conflict of interest here. User:Schadow1 is the owner of that website and definitely has a conflict of interest. The two of them have been spamming links to s1expeditions.com to various articles. Huon (talk) 21:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I won't be surprised if Philippine Adventurer and Schadow1 are one and the same person named Ervin Malicdem who is also the subject of an AfD. The website is a personal blog and his?/their? only real defense in the AFD is the news source for a completely different story, being part of a winning team for a local contest some years back which isn't notable either. What does Ervin from Las Piñas intend to gain from this? As this article creator, this person is a nobody as far as reliable sources are concerned.--RioHondo (talk) 00:05, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@RioHondo: I'd be surprised if they weren't the same person, or at least very close friends. I am considering opening a sock puppet investigation about this and will leave a notification here if I decide to. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

SPI is open here Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this initiative. Will wait for the result of the investigation. For the record, I was kinda lenient at first when the user inserted that claim of the discovery of a trail. But when they added a name, and made it appear that he was the "first" to do so, that's when I started to become suspicious. If its true, at least wait for the reliable media to give you credit. So this BIO and assertion in this and other articles are either too soon, or plain deliberate self-promotion.--RioHondo (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello all. I own Schadow1 Expeditions, thus my vote for its reliability as a reliable source may not count due to COI. Thus this is for FYI purpose only. I have added the information on its first mapping expedition to the Palay-Palay Mataas na Gulod range sometime January as part of its Hiking information as I find it relevant to the article (this mapping expedition information and many other additions and corrections to previously incorrect data which I replaced using data obtained from survey cited to my site for reference). The info on 1st mapping expedition is the truth and widely accepted in the mountaineering community in the Philippines and no one disagrees with it (the first trail map produced was through our expedition). I even have 4 of my companions who were the first to traverse it come with me to help me map it. I consider placing it as a reference and external link in good faith to share how and when it happened as it is a vital information related to the article. Unfortunately there is no media coverage as I do my expeditions without inviting anyone from the media (unless they wish to cover it). As for reverting edits that removed it due to RS claims, I intend to put it back as I believe it is more appropriate that factual information must not be removed and I believe a Talk like this is more appropriate to discuss its reliability than deleting it at once. As for other unrelated "claims" in this conversation, I will answer it in an appropriate venue. To note, I have recognized that deletions started to happen when my name was already placed within the article/s in addition to Schadow1 Expeditions being mentioned; which I find that its reliability has been lost to some editors' perspective when that started to happen. If in anyway, having my name in the article censors the information in this subject, feel free to remove it; yet I urge the editors to continue discussing the reliability of the information which I shared in this article through references in my website. -- Schadow1 (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

At issue here is that the material is sourced to your website / blog, and the information is gathered by yourself personally which is at odds with WP:USERGENERATED with respect to Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. From what I see, this disqualifies your site as a reliable source for the puposes of Wikipedia. And if you are wondering, yes, Wikipedia itself is not considered at reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 16:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Ummmm... of course he knows. The guy knew and yet he continued defending his article and reverting us here and in the other articles. So what does that tell you about this person? Anyway, this discussion is over for me.--RioHondo (talk) 18:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for linking that discussion. That shows that User:Philippine Adventurer actually had asked and been given an answer, and then ignored it reverting here. -- Whpq (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is reliable. Although, s1expeditions is WP:USERGENERATED, WP:COMMON protects Wikipedia from censorship. Just like Pinoy Mountaineer, which is also user generated and is also being removed in this article, both websites are definitive guides to mountains in the Philippines to which information is backed by experiences and tools that objectively log data reliably (e.g. gps tracks, elevation sensors, even geotagged photos with coordinates and timestamps). Article starter must be happy instead of ranting when his topic is being improved. Philippine Adventurer (talk) 03:19, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Common sense tells me that people shouldn't link to their own websites as it is a massive COI. The rules were created for a reason, this is not the place to ignore them. Winner 42 Talk to me! 03:55, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Rules like WP:SPS and WP:PSTS which gives a small leeway for its use, and WP:COMMON. We are talking about reliability but you keep on throwing other stuff and don't see WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and its verifiable information. Imagine removing these important information only because one or two thinks it is spam yet ask the mountaineering community in my country and you'll get the same information [7] [8] [9]. Thus it leads to censorship. By the way, COI is only secondary to NPOV. And I have always declared my interest of editing in Wikipedia in my userpage. For sure you also have yours or else you would not be spending time at all editing here. In Tagalog language, we call this "pagbabalat-kayo" and "utak talangka". Philippine Adventurer (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

@Whpq: @RioHondo: @Huon: It appears Philippine Adventurer has been blocked indefinitely for sock-puppetry and Schadow1 has received a one week block. As they were the only ones interested in keeping these links, I suggest we remove all links to http://www.s1expeditions.com/ from Wikipedia on the grounds that it is a self published source and therefore is unreliable. Winner 42 Talk to me! 17:47, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, sounds good to me. Huon (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done All external links in article space have been removed. Schadow1 maybe next time think twice about spamming Wikipedia, especially through sock puppetry. Winner 42 Talk to me! 23:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Just completed the 1 week block. First of all I don't have a sock. The reason I was not responding to any investigation is that I have read that you need not reply anyway as the decision will be based on IP addresses. I was perplexed knowing there indeed was a match. I am actually humbled on how User:Philippine Adventurer built out its contents on an article about me; impressed on how he has turned a non-notable person such as me to go by Wikipedia's rules to defend it, yet freaked out as well as he may be somewhere near who would have really done an arduous research (I do share my internet access in around 500-800 meter range which could be the case.) Too bad I wouldn't be able to ask for the result due to CU's Privacy clause and I wouldn't even bother anymore as it is such a small issue.

I am actually as equally impressed on how User:Winner_42 and User:RioHondo have devoted their time (about an hour or so) to rampantly delete all traces of "Schadow1 Expeditions" in Wikipedia's article space. And User:Whpq, seriously? Deleting OSM templates on articles to those mountains because it bears Schadow1 as the mapping contributor in OSM? :) Anyway, there's no harm done, I know you guys are only doing what you are supposed to do. But what I worry of is how these actions were done by singling out all traces of my site, even deleting quite a handful of citations to my site that I haven't edited on my own; even during the time when I was not yet editing in Wikipedia. I understand if it was removed due to WP:USERGENERATED, but seeing it done while leaving other user-generated references from the same articles while removing mine borders to WP:Harassment. But need not worry. I'm not pushing it through. I personally believe those user generated sites left behind can still stand as citations through a bunch of Wikipedia policies I need not mention anymore -- the same as mine.

To reiterate, secondly, I do not spam. It is the least thing I would've done. I wouldn't need these to link to my sites anyway. As for an added info, I only get less than 1 percent of total site traffic from Wikipedia referrals; which gives me no basis at all to spam here if I wanted to. Do you guys even know what spam actually means? The accusation is so unacademic, I could only watch in awe.

I was once invited by User:Seav on a WikiExpedition project in Sariaya last year. Upon knowing from that expedition that the goals of Wikimedia Philippines is to ensure information for the Philippines that may be lost overtime be assured to live forever. From then, I started to share some of the usable data from my expeditions, but of course adding citations, (which happened to be my site because it is an information that came from my research). As I believe my site wouldn't be there forever and afraid some of its data crucial to the Philippines may be lost in time; but at least it would be in a wiki so that the information lives on. But then again, I would admit I'm guilty of WP:ORIGINAL by including my own research through expeditions I made to the related articles. But it was merely in good faith and merely following WP:CONTEXTMATTERS why I cite it. Anyway, by the time I have posted this, I have also removed un-cited/orphaned data in the article space that was left out when my site was removed as reference; this is to ensure what was left out by these three avid editors at least meet Wikipedia policies. Does it look fugly now? Probably not, but sure it is incomplete; but that is the cost of censorship.

In time, I know that no matter how information is being deprived due to censorship, facts in articles would always surface as it is inevitable and irrevocable. It is just a question on how and when it can surface. I just do hope editors in Wikipedia would be reminded that amidst all policies, Wikipedia is not about censorship, instead it is a compendium of reliable (objective) information. Schadow1 (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

@Schadow1: You are welcome to contribute productively to Wikipedia, but it is best just to admit you abused multiple accounts, respect the COI guild lines, and move on. Winner 42 Talk to me! 20:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)