Talk:Pillsbury Chemical and Oil

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Detroit task force.

23-January-2007

User:Threeafterthree, in using a purely arbitrary, childish judgment in removing my links in all of my contributions throughout the last year to Geocities-hosted pages with relevant content, as well as in replying to my inquiry -Just the kind of guy I am I guess.

Here is a copy of the exchange:

QUOTE:There is nothing wrong with pages hosted on geocities. What's your sanctimonious reason for taking upon yourself the crusade of removing these pages? Bo Basil 19:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Just the kind of guy I am I guess??--Tom 21:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)UNQUOTE

The links were:

http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/2idf.htm (A rare glimpse into the IDF), on the IDF article,and

http://www.geocities.com/teflonivan/1entencookies.html (The Original Entenmann's Chocolate Chip Cookies Recipe) on two relevant articles.

again - the pages contain meaningful, useful content, and I intend to restore them to the relevant articles. Bo Basil 12:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can do better than geocities for sources can't we?--Tom 15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have maintained the site myself. The content speaks for itself. It is imperative to analyze instead of performing underinformed censorship. Desist from the practice, and thank you. 16:51, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
  - And you are whom?--Tom 17:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am somebody that uses concrete, factual information, and has a site that serves people who want to know. Since you had such an easy time hunting down my URLs, then please replace the links. It should take you very little time if any. Thanks. 18:49, 23 January 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bo Basil (talk • contribs)
      - geocities.com is not considered a reliable source as far as I can determine. I actually remove those links whenever I see them, so nothing personal. I am sort of a mindless pileus as it were. Carry on.--Tom 19:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, a third-party evaluation:
- Both of you would do well to reread WP:Talk page with regard to indenting.
- Bo - please sign all posts to this page, per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages (yes, this isn't a talk page, but there is a dialog going on)
- Tom - the And you are whom? posting was either catty (not constructive; please stop) or indicates that you should (re)read Wikipedia:How to read an article history. I'm inclined to go with the former, given other things you've said, above. Catty remarks might not violate the letter of WP:CIVIL, but they certainly violate the spirit of that guideline.
- A large part of the problem here, I'm guessing, is the failure by Tom to cite WP:V and WP:EL and WP:RS. Unless policy and guidelines are cited to support an action by an editor, the discuss inevitably looks like just a difference of opinion between two editors - and that isn't easy to settle. What should be discussed is whether the links do or do not meet those these policies.
- In general, geocities links do not meet these three policies, but there are exceptions. Wikipedia just blacklisted any links to blogs.myspace.com because it was decided that there were no exceptions that justified any such links. I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate.
- Article talk pages are the right places to discuss deletions of links (assuming edit summaries don't suffice -- usually they should). Wikipedia:Resolving disputes lays out a process whereby content disputes (like this) should be settled, starting with informal discussions. Please do not post anything further here arguing that the above two links are or are not appropriate (among other things, that depends on what article they appear in, and whether they are used to support text in an article or are used as an external link, which has weaker requirements).

Thank you for your time. -- John Broughton | ^(♫♫) 20:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the third party evaluation, John. It injects the air of civility and maturity to the Wikipedia experience.

I amy quote one of your paragraphs above:

QUOTE: I mention that as an example of why a blanket shoot-on-site rule is not appropriate for geocities links, although it's fair to start with a presumption that they are probably inappropriate. UNQUOTE

There are many unprofessional, irrelevant pages on MySpace and Geocities. However, the links I have posted a while ago, that have been deleted in the herein discussed summary action, happen to point to the content I have maintained personally, for over 10 years, almost from the time when Geocities were still an independnet entity.

The linked pages contain serious materials that I have compiled and are of use in research on Hebrew grammar, Judaism, and genetics in Bible. One of the pages has also been famous in the Jewish community for listing a recipe for chocolate chip cookies.

That is why the content serves to rule out the probably inappropriate in this case. When I get the time, I plan to reverse the deletions.Bo Basil 13:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]