Page 2 of 6
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 9:14 am
by hugh
oh man this guy is getting under my skin, I am mackinaw; the wikipedia admin is Mel_Etitis, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mackinaw
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mel_Etitis
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 10:46 am
by thistlechick
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 11:22 am
by Bronwyn Kate
I really don't get it.
Do any of you also edit Wikipedia along with Librivox?
I think they respond better to known members rather than IPs.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 11:51 am
by hugh
ha ha!! I am mackinaw; Mel-Etitis is the admin with whom I am doing battle.
Mel_etis says: because volunteers are associated with the LV site, they are not permitted to post links to LV content on wikipedia. He has removed most LV links in wikipedia.
he says we must post links in the Talk section and let some "other" editor decide whether it is acceptable to post the links. This is driving me nutso.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 11:52 am
by LibraryLady
This is just ridiculous. Is there some higher level admin we can appeal this to?
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:16 pm
by hugh
well i did send an email to jimmy wales, but don't hold your breath
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:18 pm
by hugh
Ha ha ha Jimmy wales just wrote back!
If you'll send me a link to a discussion, I'll be happy to weigh in.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:37 pm
by LibraryLady
That's awesome!
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:39 pm
by hugh
it almost makes spending 9:30am to 2:45pm of my precious sunday battling with this guy, worth it.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:42 pm
by kri
hugh wrote:this is just one over-zealous admin ... so i think it'll smooth itself out.
h.
I agree. One over-zealous admin who didn't pay much attention. As far as I can tell he's the only one who has made any changes, and they were all to ones that were edited with my IP. Do a search on Wikipedia for Librivox, and you'll see four pages of results with links to Librivox audio recordings in Wikipedia pages.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:46 pm
by hugh
yes the argument is basically that it looks like linkspam (not logged in, many links to many pages all at once), and so it should be treated as such. anyway, the big kahuna promises to wade into the fray, so that should help.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 12:50 pm
by kayray
let me know how this turns out -- I'm trying not to get involved for the sake of my health and sanity, but I can't help being curious ;-)
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 1:00 pm
by kri
hugh wrote:yes the argument is basically that it looks like linkspam (not logged in, many links to many pages all at once), and so it should be treated as such. anyway, the big kahuna promises to wade into the fray, so that should help.
I'm probably being too harsh, but he seems like a narrow headed idiot. It makes me think of people who feel that the letter of the law is the most important thing. Bah reading your argument with him frustrates me. I hope this works out in the end, because it would be stupid to deprive people visiting Wikipedia of this resource.
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 1:03 pm
by thistlechick
If for some reason we're not allowed to add our links to Wikipedia, will we remove our links TO Wikipedia from out Catalog pages?
Posted: March 12th, 2006, 1:10 pm
by kri
thistlechick wrote:If for some reason we're not allowed to add our links to Wikipedia, will we remove our links TO Wikipedia from out Catalog pages?
I would say yes, just to be vindictive but...I think we'd have to weigh the usefulness of the resource vs. any objection morally to their policies. I would say the objection is a moral/ethical one of spam vs. legitimate linking. I certainly wouldn't link to a site if I had enough of an ethical problem with the contents of the site. However, I don't know if such is the case now.