User talk:Time-further-out

Welcome

Welcome

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate encyclopedic contributions, but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes. Wikipedia does not allow advertising. For more information on this, see:

If you still have questions, there is a new contributor's help page, or you can write {{helpme}} below this message along with a question and someone will be along to answer it shortly. You may also find the following pages useful for a general introduction to Wikipedia:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
How to edit a page and how to develop articles
Help pages
Tutorial
Article wizard for creating new articles
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Feel free to write a note on the bottom of my talk page if you want to get in touch with me. Again, welcome! Ckatz^chat _spy 20:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. Please note that links to commercial sites are to be avoided; this is a reflection of Wikipedia's role as an encyclopedia, not as a directory service. Ckatz^chat _spy 16:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ckatz, your edits were inappropriate for several reasons. First, they did not assume good faith, in fact, you jumped to the automatic conclusion that the ELs were all spam. After reasonable people have discussed the issue, several other editors have reached the conclusion that the edits were NOT spam. Second, you engaged in absolutely no discussion of your edits on any of the article talk pages before blanking my edits across a wide-range of articles... there was no attempt to reach consensus. Third, you sought out my edits across a range of articles and deleted them, even though each EL that had been added referred to an entirely different link-target. Could you please explain your actions? Time-further-out (talk) 17:23, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Rolex. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

EL Noticeboard

I've started a discussion of your link over at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard#pocketwatchrepair.com. Feel free to chime in there. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Time-further-out,

Thanks for your participation in these discussions. I realize that Wikipedia can be complicated and obscure, and that some responses from editors occasionally seem irrational. Based on my experience, I can generally say that (with very, very few exceptions), the editors whose actions seem frustrating are honestly trying to achieve something positive -- just like I believe you are trying to achieve something positive by adding links that you believe are appropriate, helpful, and desirable for our readers.

Here's the reality that you need to keep firmly in mind: If you can't convince other editors to support these links, then they're not going to be kept in the articles (but they may be put on the site-wide blacklist, if people get really upset). This is a consensus-driven process, and the default resolution of this type of dispute is (always) against adding disputed external links. Telling people that they're unfair/wrong/biased/whatever isn't likely to win any support -- and you really do need their support, whereas they really need need nothing at all from you. All they have to do to keep the link out is to continue repeating their initial objection: ongoing opposition means no link. You've got to change their minds about the link -- to make them want these links.

IMO your current approach is not going to be successful. You need to win friends and influence people to get these links included. You might consider whether you are more likely to gain their support with some pleasant honey, or with the vinegar you seem to be spraying at your opponents.

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What Wikipedia is and is not

Regarding this edit, note that everything you do can be seen by everyone. No one is stalking you. Stalking requires that you be engaged in unquestionable edits, wherein your edits could be seen by the community to be obviously legitimate. Your consistent addition of a possibly unreliable source (per WP:EL) suggest that you may be a single-purpose account with a conflict of interest. (I'm not claiming this, but explaining why other users may be watching your editing patterns further.) This suspicion is reason enough for experienced editors and administrators to observe, and more than one user here has reacted to your edits. We can't all be stalking you, now can we? I would recommend continued reading of what is and is not generally acceptable content on Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:03, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony... I understand that everything I do can be seen by everyone... I get that. I'm not doing anything that should be hidden, so that's not a problem. I have presented evidence as to why my edits present no conflict of interest. As for your assertion that "no one is stalking you" I would respectfully suggest that you really don't know that. When EL's in multiple articles that have been in place for well over a year are reverted by the same editor in a period of 2 minutes, one could reasonably reach the conclusion that there might possibly be some stalking going on. I believe the edits I've made were positive contributions, have explained why they were not in violation of WP guidelines, and have engaged in civil, good faith discussion in order to resolve any conflicts. What more should I do, and why would someone expend the effort? Time-further-out (talk) 17:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, TFO, when someone makes an edit that could be considered to be spam, it is definitely _not_ stalking to see where else that editor may have added the link. WP:HOUND says "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam." Now, if you found people consistently reverting edits of yours that don't involve that link, you might have a argument for Hounding violations, but considering the strong reactions against your links to date on the EL noticeboard, it was entirely proper for them to be reverted at this point. With patience, you might be able to convince us that they do add encyclopedic value to the article, but accusations of stalking are not the way to do it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur 100% with Sarek's reply. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek:To be clear, I made no accusations... I suggested that someone following me around and reverting every similar EL, some of which had been in place for well over a year, might suggest that stalking was going on. I believe that's a reasonable assertion from my point of view. WP:SPAM makes it clear that "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam." But I have presented clear and concise arguments on the EL noticeboard for why the links I submitted promoted neither a product (or service) nor a web site. I gain absolutely nothing from the links. As a subject-matter expert, I know that the information provided by the EL is frequently requested information, and my addition of the link was entirely a good faith effort to improve the quality of the articles. Time-further-out (talk) 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the reversions you're complaining about took place while you were edit warring over the link and before you joined the discussion on the noticeboard. At that point, nobody had any reason to assume it was more than spam. While it might be a reasonable assertion if it happened now (or not), it's not reasonable for the facts on the ground at the time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted that Wikipedia is a work in progress. There's crap everywhere, and we're knee-deep in cleaning it up. But make no mistake, we do intend to clean it all up. So the duration of an external link's existence in an article has no bearing on its acceptability per WP:EL. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek... I would respectfully disagree with your assertion that "nobody had any reason to assume it was more than spam." The reason would be an assumption of good-faith as outlined in WP:5P. In fact, the reverts were made on the assumption that it was spam. Seems like WP (or at least some editors) operates on the philosophy of "guilty until proven innocent". So now that reasons have been given for why it is not SPAM, what is the proper procedure for reintroducing the EL's so that they have a better chance of surviving? Or is it even worth the trouble? Time-further-out (talk) 18:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're already engaging in that process over on the external links noticeboard. If you can convince folks there that they're valid and encyclopedic, you're in a much better position to reintroduce them into the articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sarek... Point of clarification... user Ckatz reverted approx. 10 of my EL's on the 10th... prior to anything which could be construed as edit-warring. This was a systematic removal of every EL I had submitted. In each case the only explanation was "spammed site" (not sure what that even means). That doesn't seem like a reasonable editorial approach. Time-further-out (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly adding the same external link is considered spamming. Unless your website is considered a reliable source for this type of information, its "spammer-like" addition to Wikipedia can only be considered Wikipedia's definition of spam. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBT... I accept your definition, but that has no bearing on what happened here. Links had not been "repeatedly added" at the time the "spammed site" comment was used as justification of their deletion. Time-further-out (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly added means added to more than one article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBT... the same link was not added to more than one article. Each article linked to a different page within the target site with historical information that was specific to that particular brand of watch. There was no duplication of links. Time-further-out (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The same website was used, which still gets attention... - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CBT... the links were to different pages. They were as different as WP:Rolex and WP:Waltham and WP:Omega. The fact that the pages were contained within the same top-level domain does not in any way justify a blanket deletion of these EL's. Time-further-out (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a justification. It's based on the Wikipedia community's years of observing the common practices of wikispammers and POV pushers. Nevertheless, as I've indicated on the EL discussion page, what remains to be seen is if you/your shop can be vetted as an authority on this topic and become a reliable source, making the additions of these links acceptable. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 21:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

the real silliness of articles on watches

Hi. In Talk:Rolex, you write:

[. . .] this is getting really silly. If I overcome the objections of one group of editors I have no doubt there will be another group of editors waiting in the wings with ever more reasons why the page should be kept just the way THEY want it.

Actually I agree with much of this. The arguments do at times add up to something really silly. And life is a bitch.

But I'd also disagree. I don't want the pages kept they way they are. I think that most (all?) of the articles on watch companies -- let alone those few on particular watches -- are various shades of horrible. Although sometimes this shades into the risible, so they provide unintended enjoyment.

There's a fundamental problem here, I think, pertaining to the subject matter itself. Until quartz watches became cheap, there were some pretty simple, rational reasons for at least some people who could afford them to buy expensive wristwatches. That's all gone now. My crappiest wristwatch does the job well, and if I'm in any doubt I can just flip open my cellphone and see what that tells me. So, in recent decades, what is a Rolex or an Audemars Piguet or a Panerai? Arguably, it's primarily a particular genre of costume jewelry. But (non-camp) men being men, they can't bring themselves to admit that, and instead prefer to bang on about escapements, depth ratings, lume, and other stuff that's entirely irrelevant to the actual function of a typical example of the watch on the arm of a working stiff. (How often do most "divers'" watches even get wet?)

From this point of view, image is all (at least as long as it's not undermined by blatantly defective mechanics). So the hell with what's inside (which could be generically ETA or for that matter Chinese): it's vitally important that (for example, and I quote) "Like many other brands of luxury watches, Audemars Piguet has a number of ambassadors, such as Indonesian-French singer Anggun, Indian Cricketer Sachin Tendulkar and Malaysian actress Michelle Yeoh, as well personalities and teams in different sport categories such as cricket, softball, golf, skiing, motor sports and sailing."

Viewed otherwise, AP pays these celebs to shill for it in its paid advertising; there's no particular reason why WP should amplify the effect by reporting it -- after all, WP does not solemnly list the celebs who've appeared with Fujitsu computers or Ford cars -- and WP should cut through the PR flimflam (available in abundance elsewhere on the web) and concentrate on what, if anything, has made these products distinctive as devices for keeping and displaying the time.

Well, what do you think? If you can improve the content of one or more of these articles, via use of reliable, disinterested sources, that would be appreciated. -- Hoary (talk) 01:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary, while I don't particularly disagree with your point of view on this, it has nothing to do with the issue of the EL's that I submitted in an effort to improve several WP articles based upon my own areas of expertise. I am a vintage watchmaker. I don't care about what's in someone's Rolex or Panerai, or what it's depth rating is, or how many times per minute its tourbillon revolves. What I was attempting to do was provide a link to information that is frequently requested by those collecting vintage mechanical watches... serial numbers, dates, calibers. While I don't discount your agenda as stated above, I would also appreciate it if you did not discount mine. This issue has been beaten to death... but all it takes is one more voice chiming in at the last minute to put everything back to square one. Seems like an enormous exercise in futility. Time-further-out (talk) 02:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take some time to contribute to Wikipedia directly

Hi. As you know, I've added a few comments to the ongoing discussion on whether it's ok to use pocketwatchrepair.com as external links. My family is big on clocks, and the material on your site is high quality. But at this point, you're antagonizing senior editors; I recommend you drop the discussion entirely. What would work perfectly well is for you and your group to modify the text of Wikipedia articles directly. Add common, uncontroversial information that doesn't need a reference. Wikipedia is always interested in quality contributions from experts. At some point along the way, if a point really needs support ... then perhaps a link or two to your site would be appropriate. Please consider this as an approach that will benefit all. Regards to you, Piano non troppo (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PNT... thank you for your comments and your advice, though your recommendation to drop the discussion entirely is troubling in that it suggests that if certain editors are antagonized, then there are negative consequences to that. To the extent what you say is true, WP may need to examine the role of editors to determine if that's really productive and conducive to improving the encyclopedia. I haven't done anything to "antagonize senior editors" other than argue intelligently for a point of view that some disagree with. If they are antagonized by that, then it would seem that they are more interested in propping up their own egos than they are in truly seeking positive contributions from qualified individuals. I don't want to make a career out of wikipedia. I already have a job. I tried to offer my expertise in an area where I have a lot of knowledge in order to improve WP, and encountered a lot of "senior editors" who acted like the article was theirs to defend and protect from those they considered to be unworthy. There was no assumption of good faith... in fact, quite the oppposite. The bottom line is it's really not worth the effort. I am not harmed in the slightest if WP doesn't take my suggestions... but WP is harmed if good, qualified editors are discouraged from contributing by a few editors who feel that WP belongs to them. Time-further-out (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've raised interesting and thought-provoking points over the course of discussion. It isn't so much that anyone was mortally offended, but rather that the discussion on external links here is at an impasse. When I began in Wiki I paid heed to a then-already-senior editor: If you can't convince other editors of your point in the space of three replies ... you're wasting time, you never will. That's a better way of stating "antagonism".

The issue of discouraging good, qualified editors has troubled me deeply over years. I have, in fact, been a professional editor in a Fortune 500 company. The naive opinion of less experienced Wiki editors and writers -- the territoriality -- the foaming, hostile defense of unencyclopedic popular culture -- have at times been discouraging. After being threatened (for altering the number of movies in a series!) by someone claiming to be a superior court judge, I left Wikipedia entirely for over a year. Upon long reflection, it occurred that Wiki's greatest importance is not as an encyclopedia, but as a social experiment. I was able to return with that foremost in my mind. (And I now rank, at least by edits, in the top 400 editors.) Something interesting and important is happening, I'm more convinced than ever.

That philosophy aside, it would certainly be nice to have better Wiki articles on watches and clocks! With Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 12:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]