|
March 2009[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page FM (Canadian band) has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): \bfacebook\.com (links: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=38783583846&ref=mf).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Nash the Slash[edit]
Hello Poppet34. I'm sorry to hear you are finding Wikipedia to be frustrating, especially since, going by your edit history, your primary interest here, and in music (Nash and FM) is also one of mine. You said you didn't want to argue about it, so feel free to not read the following, but I'm hoping this will help explain, and maybe even point you to ways around the problem.
Links to social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace, Youtube, Twitter, blogs, and fan websites are generally discouraged at Wikipedia, although there are some exceptions. The exceptions usually have to do with using those sites as an inline citation or reference, rather than just a link in an "external links" section, which is regarded as advertising. And even then, all the categories I listed above are regarded as the poorest form of citation, to be used only when demonstrated to be reliable (which most aren't), relevant, and nobody can find a better citation to replace it. Another issue, especially for Youtube, is that links to videos that are likely copyright violations, are not allowed even if Youtube allows it. I should point out that Nash's own website points to those videos, but he himself didn't put them there, and he hasn't explicitly waived his copyright claims, so we can't link to them from Wikipedia. That's how strict things are around here.
It may sound strange, but Wikipedia really is an encyclopedia, and attempts to be as "prestigeous" as real printed encyclopedias like Britannica. Therefore we have a policy to omit material that could never qualify for inclusion in such an encyclopedia. The frustration comes from regarding Wikipedia as a place where anything can be added. If you think it's a shame that you can't add certain information about your favourite musicians, consider the frustration of not being able to add material about yourself (if you feel you've done some creative things for posterity), or big projects you have been involved with, or may be your "life's work". Many people get upset when they find they can't create an article for the company they work for, or even the company they founded (and it's still in business), and any attempts to write such an article are deleted because it "reads like an advertisement". I could get frustrated myself, if I wanted to. I'm an amateur recording artist, and released an album on vinyl, many years ago. (And if you like Nash's music, you might like mine too!) When I discovered Wikipedia, my first thought was to get an article for myself or my album. I quickly discovered strong, iron-clad rules against it, and never attempted it. (My real name actually does appear in an article somewhere on here, but I'm not saying anything more about that!)
Back to Nash, in addition to pointing to Youtube videos from his website, he points to 2 fan sites. You may notice only one of those is listed in "external links" on his Wikipedia page. Attempts have been made to insert the other, but it gets removed, and the one that is here is "iffy". It's only allowed to remain because it has a lot of information that can't be found elsewhere, and it's frequently used for inline citations as well, which I don't think is true of the one that isn't listed here. So even "sanctioned" sites referenced in truly official websites don't belong on Wikipedia if there is not a demonstrated reason for including them. Sorry to say, a Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Youtube, blog, or website that calls itself "official" doesn't get in just because it calls itself that, because (believe it or not) virtually ALL OF THEM call themselves "official", and 99% of the time this is nonsense.
Even if Nash did reference someone's social networking page created in his name on his own website, that wouldn't be a reason to put it in Wikipedia, because it doesn't demonstrate a reason for its inclusion. Even if Nash himself is the person who writes most of the contents on such a page, it would not qualify for the same reason, and I suspect he didn't create it, because in this message you talked about "my NtS Facebook Group page", presumably referring to the same page. I have not seen evidence that Nash is much of a two-way communicator. So what we have is a page created by you in someone else's name, not referenced from his website, and not demonstrating any reason (other than advertising) for its being on Wikipedia.
I notice there is a similar Myspace page link ("official" of course) on Nash's page, and it doesn't belong there either, so I'll be removing it.
In conclusion, Wikipedia is a frustrating experience if you make assumptions about what it is, an what it's for, and try to use it in ways for which it is not intended. Everyone on here has to learn this, and many of us get over that frustration. (If you're a regular user of Wikipedia, however, you will quickly become frustrated by other things that go on around here! Well, I'm working on getting over that too.) One thing to remember is that Wikipedia isn't the only information resource website on the internet. If something isn't allowed on Wikipedia, you will find other Wiki-like sites that do allow it, and many have been set up explicitly to allow things that are rejected at Wikipedia. The fact that you can create Facebook and Myspace accounts in other people's names, is proof of this. For some, this isn't enough, because Wikipedia has a high reputation and gets a lot of traffic, and so they really have their hearts set on getting their links on Wikipedia. All I can say is, if Wikipedia were a free-for-all dumping ground for anything anyone wants to put here, it wouldn't have that reputation or that volume of traffic. So it's a self defeating desire.
Wishing you all the best. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
- Assuming you use Watchlist, I'll put any future replies on my talk page, unless you request otherwise. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)