User talk:Dreaded Walrus/Archives/January 2010

External links and NPOV

Hi Dreaded Walrus,

Please do not remove relevant links to informational sites that have no commercial value or system of making money as there is obviously no motivation in that case for spam.

Additionally, when charged language that is by nature one sided is changed to language with a neutral tone in a Wikipedia article, please let it be.

Wiki's should be an aggregation of many opinions for holistically accurate and balanced information, not simply one overly active editors impression of things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.152.166.22 (talk) 02:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiya.

With regards to your edits to gonzo journalism, that is simply not how we do external links on Wikipedia. You will not find an external link to the site of a travel agent linked to the word "travel agent" on our article on travel agents. The same goes for airlines, vacuum cleaners, Video game developers, e.t.c.

This is what our "external links" section is for. In most cases I would recommend linking your link in the EL section as indeed it's non-commercial as you say, except it's rather poor quality. There's spelling errors, grammar errors, and even an error where someone's first name AND last name are misspelled, such as "Ikar Cassias" for Iker Casillas. In addition, there's only three entries in total, excluding the homepage. So I'd not recommend it be linked anywhere on WP really, unless it's one day notable enough to have its own entry, of course.

As for the Cash4Gold entry, your edit introduces POV and removes cited information. "There are many complaints that Cash4Gold undervalues jewelry sent to them by customers" is certainly true, and it is cited to the LA Times. Your other edits introduce slightly incorrect information into the article by claiming that, for example, Channel 10 News used "their own internal appraiser" to determine the value of the gold, whereas the cited article includes the following text:

[...] Dano McCarthy of Leo Hamel Fine Jewelers, who weighed the 10News I-Team's rings and estimated a buyback price. [...] McCarthy has 20 years in the jewelry business and says the 10News I-Team rings should get a buyback price of about $17 each, given the price of gold $8.39 per gram on the day McCarthy weighed the gold.

As mentioned, your text is misleading as it suggests he wasn't independent to the news team.

I removed the mention of the other prices offered as our article is about Cash4Gold, but I'm certainly not set in stone about leaving those out.

Finally, your third bit of information is mostly redundant, although again I'm not set in stone about leaving it out. I just think it doesn't add any more information to the article, as the article already makes it clear that they are talking about melt value (i.e. the value of the gold when melted down) rather than any subjective value.

I hope this helps explain my reasoning (and I imagine that Deconstructhis's reasoning for undoing your edits to the gonzo article before I did would be similar). Feel free to ask if you have any more questions. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 11:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Another fanboy riot...

Can you believe this guy? --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I know... just gave him a level 4 warning. Hopefully he'll stop here. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

What is happening?

Why exactly am I getting emails that you are removing information and review scores that have been in place for months? I see that Soetermans is referring to a "fanboy" based on ignorance of a name. Go Fanboy is a long standing source for information. It's not a "fanboy", as Soetermans stated. Acquiring several long standing news sources dating back to 1998, GF is far from "a fanboy riot". Please continue to contribute and not destroy. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acfreeze (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's referring to you spamming your website on reception sections throughout Wikipedia. Stop doing it. If you think that the reviews are worthy of inclusion, feel free to bring them up on the article talk pages and see if someone else sees them as worthy inclusions. There's a clear conflict of interest here, so please stop. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: I was more or less joking that you, Acfreeze, are a fanboy of Go Fanboy, something of a pun. Anyway, you might consider it appropriate, but that doesn't make it so. We, Dreaded Walrus and I, we are not destroying, we are following the guide lines, especially the one concerning notability. We are not here to annoy you or stop you from editing, it's just that right now, you're doing it wrong. --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be clear Soetermans, WP:N only applies to whether a topic deserves having an article about it. The more relevant guidelines here would be WP:SPAM and, to a lesser extent, WP:COI. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up :) --Soetermans | drop me a line | what I'd do now? 17:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)