User talk:Keith D/Archive 21

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

Constant removal of Bridlington website

Hi Keith, I have again added Bridlington.net as an external link as I do not agree with your statement that it carries too much advertisisng, the advertising it has is only relevent to Bridlington businesses and is provided at a highly subsidised rate as a service to that community, but that aside it has no more ad content than the aboutbritain site which you have allowed yet it carries far more information including local places of interest, community info, Bridlington History, a large section on the Priory and much more, It is believed to be the largest site on the web about Bridlington, could you please advise further on why you constantly remove this site yet have no issue with aboutbridlington.co.uk. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydoit (talk • contribs) 06:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I felt that there was far too much advertising on the home page of the site, the number of advertising links for accommodation for example is significant and as such it did not meet the External links policy. The existing entry is a long established entry on the page and has very little advertising entries on the opening page, just 3 at the bottom so is much more acceptable. You also appear to have a Conflict of interest here as the only editing you have done is to add this particular link. Keith D (talk) 10:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keith, The prominence of accommodation access on the front page is due to the importance of that facility within the site and to aid visitors looking for accommodation, the site if you take a look around provides a plethora of information about bridlington particularly in the about Bridlington section which has plenty of information which is not advertising linked. We cannot do away with the advertising facility as although heavily subsidesed the revenue it generates helps to fund the existence of the site which has been positively promoting the area for over 12 years and is a recognised source for information about bridlington. I assumed that one link to the site would be better than providing a number of links to individual sections such as the history articles and the priory.

I do not want to get into a battle over this however I do feel that as the largest internet resource of Bridlington information available Bridlington.net has avalid place within Wikipedia. Could you please then advise an appropriate method of providing links to the information provided by the site, we are happy to provide individual links to each item of interest if you would prefer but thought that this would be frowned upon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydoit (talk • contribs) 11:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to provide links to information just to promote the place we are here to provide an encyclopaedia. Ideally there should only be 1 or 2 links to external sites most of the information should be available on site. You can add information to the Bridlington article and not have a link to the external site apart from in a reference. Though that would mean releasing the information under our free re-use licence. (Just as an aside one way to promote Bridlington would be to kick the council into action to get rid of all the roadworks and to get the toilets reopened. I would have expected these works to have been finished in time for the Easter weekend!) Keith D (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

We have never said Wikipedia should promote Bridlington, I believe that the information made available via the Bridlington.net would be helpful to Wikipedia users in the process of researching Bridlington on a number of levels, unfortunately due to the extent of the information provided and copyright issues we are unable to replicate this information outside of the Bridlington.net site and as such the only way to allow wikipedia users to benefit is via external link. In my opinion the above justifies the inclusion of the link to the Bridlington.net website. I certainly cannot see how the format or content of the site differs from the about bridlington website or many of the external links provided on wikipedia pages about Blackpool or scarborough as an example, if you could advise how the Bridlington.net site differs from those sites in order to make it unacceptable as a link within Wikipedia it would be appreciated.

With regard to your comment regarding the roadworks and toilets the Bridlington.net website is not affiliated to the council and unfortunately has no influence on its activities by kicking or otherwise :-). I acknowledge your remark that you are here to provide an encyclopedia, my understanding of an encyclopedia is to collate information about a subject and make it available for others to use or learn from. As the Bridlington.net contains large amounts of copyright restricted information which is directly associated to the core subject "Bridlington" it is my belief that it has a right to have this information made available via a link on the Bridlington page equal to those already provided and to similar sites which have external links on similar pages on other resort localities such as Blackpool, Scarborough etc. Beyond a personal involvement or acquantance with the creators of the aboutBridlington website a fail to see how you can justify continued removal of the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willydoit (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for information it was removed by someone else earlier today, as I have not edited that article today. Keith D (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Keith, We havent replaced the link today, I felt it better to try to sort the issue out properly rather than just wasting everyones time adding and removing it, will you be addressing the above issues? or is it safe to reinstate the link at ny own discretion based on the above? Willydoit (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am still not happy with the link and no one has a right to have a link added to an article. If you remove 90% of the advertising links from the home page then I would consider allowing it but others may be more stricter on the presence of the link and remove it. The only reason for the aboutbridlington remaining is the absence of advertising, as there is only 3 links on its main page at the bottom. If they had significant amounts of advertising then that one would be culled as well. I have not looked at the Blackpool article and the Scarborough one was culled fairly recently if I remember correctly, but as usual just because it exists elsewhere on wiki is no argument for introducing something else. You are entitled to ask for other opinions on the article talk page if you wish. Keith D (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for responding, I appreciate what you are saying re the homepage, however we could make alterations to the History section to provide links to history items from the main history page and link to that as there are a number of items which arent even in Wiki let alone the Bridlington page, for example The Bridlington time capsule, Kit Brown, The War Memorial, HMS Bridlington thats before we even start on what is possibly the largest resource of Priory information on the net all of which I feel is relevant and it seems a shame that you are denying access for wikipedia users due to your interpretation of the site. We are willing to provide some modification to allow the information to be accessd within reason, but you need to remember that we are providing the information for the benefit of your users, we have nothing to gain from it, certainly not increased search engine positioning as the site has held prime position on most search engines for many years due to its content and popularity.

Anyway the offer is there, I am far too busy to play this game, we are happy to, and would like to make the information availiable to wiki users, if you choose to deny it then it probably explains why the content of the Bridlington page is so sparse in comparison to other localities included within wikipedia, It is obvious that wikipedia is a large part of your life and I applaud your commitment but remember that wikipedias own rules state that the rules are not written in stone, they are there to be broken if it benefits the community and its users. Willydoit (talk) 19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

See also discussion below. Keith D (talk) 23:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

7 hills

Thank you! (I've been wondering whether to do that or not, and have been indecisive.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Looked like a simple typo. Keith D (talk)

Bridlington

You had me worried there keith as I was in the middle of sorting it when it went okay! <lol> NB: I'm just wondering if or not to remove the 'Landmark' details, relating to Flamborough, Flamborough Head, Sewerby, Sewerby Hall and Bempton Cliffs, as that isn't actually Bridlington as such and is covered in the already wikilinked articles! Richard Harvey (talk) 22:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

RE:- Spam tag that just went on tonight ready for tomorrow see:- User talk:92.2.0.12 The About Bridlington ext link is heavily populated with advertising and online sales. Richard Harvey (talk) 22:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The article is in a poor state as it is and needs lots of work on it I think they probably should be cut when the section can be focused on Bridlington. At the moment there is little left if you remove this detail. I just noticed that it really could do with some updates as dated.

I removed the tag you added to the external links section. I think the aboutbridlington link that you removed was OK as it had minimal advertising, on the initial page, and is a long standing link on the page. See discussion above about a user trying to add a further link that I rejected, yesterday. Do not know if you want to chime in on that discussion. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If you take a look at the accomodation link on the about Bridlington website there are 76'ish links to serviced accomodation, 57 to self catering businesses, 7 camp sites and 10 to estate agents (commercial advertising)! Also the Directory link contains a multitude of links to commercial businesses and the 'Shop' link is selling books online via 'Amazon', which is a bit excessive! Even the link to the 'Web Design' offer is a way of making cash, albeit apparently for the RNLI. I've just had a look at the Bridlington.net link mentioned above and I feel both websites are on a par for advertising. I agree with your findings on the website and I too would have removed it had it been there! Richard Harvey (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I must say that I have not recently delved about on the site as it has been around for a few years now and they appear to have added significantly to the advertising content. May be then it should go. Keith D (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Done! I've given the article a bit of a copy edit, with some fresh images, but it still needs lots of work on it! Richard Harvey (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the trouble to do the copy edit of the article. Keith D (talk) 11:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure there must be a satisfactory way to link to specific information on external sites, it would be ludicrous to suggest that external sites give up their revenue generation in order to qualify to make information available on wikipedia. There is obviously a case for policing the issue but one has to consider the benefits to wiki itself and its users if sites are being removed simply because they try to generate revenue in order to cover associated costs. I have already cited examples of copyright protected information not available on Wiki related to Bridlington and it's history which could be accessed via a link to Bridlington.net but users are denied access because you feel the site generates revenue. I am sorry but I fail to see the logic when the references section carries links to sports illustrated and stoke city and a section refers to the creation of the london eye type attraction in one section and under refrences links to a page which advices that it is no longer there. So is there a Bridlington Eye or Isnt there, surely it's more important to get the content correct than to worry about whether a site wishing to contribute information also accepts advertising. I appreciate the difficult position you have undertaken and applaud your dedication but either the site is about providing access to relevant and accurate information or it isnt. Surely the responsibility to assess the ability of the external links to benefit wiki and its users is greater than deciding whether the site concerned generates it's own revenue by providing the towns commerce and industry the opportunity to promote itself on the back of the sites popularity and success. Without providing information on local accommodation and businesses to its visitors the site would be unlikely to enjoy the amount of traffic it currently does which would benefit no-one.

Anyway, this is my last post on the matter, I believe I have more than adequately made the case for providing relevant content within the Bridlington.net website as links from the Wiki page, as you have already demonstrated your ability to constantly remove links trumps my ability to add them and if you truly believe that doing so benefits Wiki users then so be it but I would be interested to know how many actual Wiki users have ever raised a complaint about the relevence of an external link from the Wiki Bridlington page to Bridlington.net, we on the other hand have received in the past correspondence from local education advising how helpful the content has been in providing information for students projects etc. Willydoit (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Only 5 left

At the end of Template talk:RailGauge#And yet more oddball rail gauges there are 5 left to be done. There may be more, but 0.5in and 1.25 in (31.75 mm) take care of 0.500in and 1.250in. Thanks Peter Horn User talk 23:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I had missed those, I thought that I had caught all the changes you wanted. Keith D (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The first set of 4 do not make sense as the conversions seem out 1410mm (4.63ft) NO while the other way round is 1mm different 4.43ft (1411mm), NO, see below! 55.5" & 4' 7.5" (1410mm) so should not 1410mm convert to 4' 7.5"? I have done the 5th entry. Keith D (talk) 23:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

55.5 in and 4' 7.5" is the same thing. 1,410 mm (55.51 in), 1,411 mm (55.55 in) and 4.63 ft (1,411 mm). Attention 4.43 ft (1,350 mm) is NOT 1411 mm!!! (12 x 0.63 ft = 7.56 in) and 4.625 ft (1,410 mm) 4 ft 7.5 in (1,410 mm) 4 ft 7+1⁄2 in (1,410 mm) 55.5 in (1,410 mm) Peter Horn User talk 00:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the typo I think I have added what you want. Keith D (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Mercy buckets" (merci beaucoup) Peter Horn User talk 15:25, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

JPEG Inserts

Hi again Keith, once more requesting your help inserting a jpeg I have submitted as owner to illustrate the page of Amber le Bon. It would be greatly appreciated if you could provide a summary or critique of my jpeg insert failures! This also occurred with Selina Scott you may recall & despite following instructions again through submission I cannot complete the task. Please can you assist? Many Thanks. Marcopolomaya User talk 14.40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed-up the image for you, you needed to add the .jpg on to the file name to get it to show. If you are putting images in infoboxes it is always best to have a quick look at the template documentation as that should give you a note on what format it is expecting as they are all slightly different. In this case {{Infobox model}} which indicates the it is just the name of the file without brackets or the File: prefix that is required. A basic quick guide is here.

You need to look at the image page and provide some details of where you got the photo from so that it does not get deleted as unsourced. It has already been tagged by another user and so will get automatically deleted next Wednesday unless you provide the detail. Keith D (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Keith; I've just looked at the File:Amber le Bon 2009.JPG and Selina Scott photo's. As I am involved with photographs for museums and historical publications I do a lot of scanning and digitising of photo's. I get the impression that both are photo's taken off TV screens. The Selina Scott image has a distinct Moire pattern showing on the white area of the door, in the background. The Metadata with the image shows a 30mm wideangle lens was used with an ASA 400 setting and a shutter time of 1/250th, not quite right for an outdoor photo, but fine for indoors for use on a TV screen image. On the Amber le Bonn one you can easily see where the Phototakers hands are reflected in the screen. Again the camera metadata shows an ASA800 speed with a shutter time of 1/15th seconds, which is far too long for that ASA rating, outdoors. If you go to the image files and click on them to obtain full resolution you will see the TV screen process pattern. If so they are both copyvio's! Richard Harvey (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes. The image of Amber le Bonn has been tagged, may be a fair use screen shot license would be appropriate but see what gets added. I have not looked at the Selena Scott image. Keith D (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Discrepencies

Keith please see Template talk:RailGauge#Discrepencies Peter Horn User talk 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll find an answer of sorts on Template talk:Convert#Which one is right?. I hope it makes sense. Peter Horn User talk 15:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Keith D. You have new messages at User talk:Kudpung/Brontë translation.
Message added 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry I missed your message. Kudpung (talk) 13:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for your welcome message. Inthepokey (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Yorkshire Newsletter - June 2010

Delivered June 2010 by ENewsBot. If you do not wish to receive the newsletter, please add an * before your username on the Project Mainpage.

→ Please direct all enquiries regarding this newsletter to the WikiProject talk page.
→ Newsletter delivered by ENewsBot (info) · 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Bridlington

Hi Keith I will send this to you aswell as it seems Richard Harvey has either Fallen asleep or Stumpe for a reply.

30th May 2010 While i had a spare hour or 2 today i had a look through Wikipedia and noticed discrepencies with the external links, on the following :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridlington_Town_A.F.C.#External_links the "official site link" takes you to their web site with many many more adverts than are on my front page.And theirs are money generating links. The ones on aboutbridlington are links to local places, as mentioned WE do not get paid for adding links for hotels etc, this is the point of the site to show that we are here to show the world the wonderful town and not just doing it to make money, in fact it costs me money every month to pay for the site. Another Wikipedia site is the following :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarborough,_North_Yorkshire The scarborough tourist info link, scarborough lighthouse link, the marine drive link, the jail link church of st marys, and anne brontes grave all have google ads on their front page, which is worse than our site. So if me having links to places which are not Blatent ads ie information etc are not allowed then how come these are? These are just 2 examples of 2 dozen i have found today, so if these sites are allowed to add external links then the aboutbridlington.co.uk link should be reinstated, as it is no where as blatant as the ads on the sites above. 31st May. Looking at the message below, from another user, how come TESCO a multi billion pound industry can have a whole page Advertising, and links to its UK stores. If that isn't blatant advertising then why isnt this removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.88.211 (talk) 13:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Looking at other articles in this way should be avoided as per other stuff exists. On the specific point of Bridlington Town A.F.C.#External links official sites are exempt on our policy and the external links policy says under links to avoid "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:". Keith D (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the scarborough links most are by the same company and several just have 1 line of text on the page and then more links to their other sites. The about bridlington site is a Tourism information site giving people information about what is in the Town, of course i have to include places to stay, and events that are happening, links to places of interestAs i mentioned previous WE DO NOT get paid for any links on the site the only income generated link is the "Shop" which is just an affiliate link to amazon and when it reaches £50 this is to be donated to the RNLI. I have removed the web design page, and in a short time will be removing the web design link. I was told the Directory page is classed as Advertising it is just information on general things people look for when visiting somewhere. The site is there for people wanting to visit bridlington and as i have stated is not a billboard, I would understand if i had google ads etc plastered all over the site but WE don't because it isn't a site to make money. So could you please reinstate the About bridlington link in the external links as there never seemed to be a problem with it before, and no one has complained about "Excessive Advertising" We have actually had compliments on how nice it is to see a site not plastered with money making pop up ads etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.13.88.211 (talk) 17:30, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25