Jump to content

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/NewtonFallsLeader

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates‎ | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Blah0401 (talk | contribs) at 00:30, 17 March 2007 (→‎AMA Information). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Case Filed On: 18:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:

Other Wikipedians this pertains to:

Wikipedia pages this pertains to:

Questions:

Have you read the AMA FAQ?

  • Answer: Yes

How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)

  • Answer: content dispute

What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.

  • Answer: I emailed this user as he deleted the link I placed. A link to a website that I created as a community website, free of charge for anyone to use, www.nfl.tc - Newton Falls Leader. The Newton Falls Leader is similar in nature as Wikipedia in that it is an collective effort built by its users. We bring the "Best of the Web Home 44444 (our zip code)" our users. The Newton Falls Leader charges nothing for use of its site. It provides photos of events around NF, it provides Classified Ads, information, and links to news important to the area. The only charge for any use of the website is a gift certificate that a company will give for a prize when a users answers one of our "Mystery Questions of the Week".

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?

  • Answer: Given the info above, Ruhrfisch has something against the Newton Falls Leader (a bias). This is evidenced by his email to me stating that he sees no current/relevant info on the site. Yet, he leaves sites like 44444.com and the Weekly Villager. 44444.com is nothing more than a site that reprints articles from the Tribune-Chronicle which borders on plagiarism, and list numerous pay links such Google Ads and its own 44444.com apparel. The Weekly-Villager has no articles dated past September 29, 2006. Yet, another link is for a myspace site that lists July 4, 2006 info - this is 2007. If Ruhrfisch's objections to Newton Falls Leader are valid, then he should remove these other links. However, he only wishes to remove the Newton Falls Leader, a clear prejudice, bias, and violation to Wikipedia rules.

Summary:

My responses in #5 summarize my reasons for objecting to the actions user: Ruhrfisch. It is unfair for a single user to edit another users editing without first notifying the other member and asking the other member to correct thier own additions. Ruhrfisch did not do this, instead, he took it upon himself to simply delete something he had no justification to delete. People like Ruhrfisch are a detriment to the success of Wikipedia. I only added a link to a page as did others before me. My link is more relevant and fits more within the rules of Wikipedia than do the links I mentioned, and though Ruhrfisch feels differently - facts are facts. The other websites listed violate Ruhrfisch criteria and his leaving them intact only prove his bias.

I want to apologize to Ruhrfisch and Wikipedia for the repeat of emails sent to Ruhrfisch. These were sent unintentionally, as we were experiencing a network problem and I hit resend after the page failed. It wasn't until I checked my personal mail that I found multiple copies of the email.

I'd also like to add that Ruhrfisch has deleted other entries in efforts to clear himself...however, the point remains that he acted out of bias and against the rules of Wikipedia and needs to be stopped from doing this again. Wikipedia clearly states in its rules that one should email the other - what if I deleted content on his page because I felt it wasn't relevant? Wikipedia cannot afford to have people deleting content "just because". This results in the need for mediation, such as this...a waste of time for everyone! Ruhrfisch has still left a link intact to photos, while he deleted my link to more current photos...again, a clear unwarranted, bias attack by Ruhrfisch.

Response from User:Ruhrfisch

As I write below, I watch close to 1000 pages and when I see links inserted that appear to be link spam, I delete them. I use popups to do this quickly, and I did not leave any sort of message about this at the time on NewtonFallsLeader's talk page or the Newton Falls, Ohio talk page. As I also explain below, reverting edits is not the same as carefully reviewing an article and removing material that I would likely revert if I saw it added. After I read NewtonFallsLeader's emails to me I looked more closely at the article, agreed that several of the External links were not in accord with WP:EL and removed them too.

Nothing against the website, but I see a welcome, a local contest, a clock, a link to the Weather Channel, a Lipitor ad, two links to the newspaper, an ad for LearningExpressLibrary.com, a community calendar, a gallery that shows no pictures on my computer, ads for babysitting classes and a pet store, AP and CNN links, ads for Clear Channel and Twirling. Where's the content? Why is this worth linking as an External link? How does it meet WP:EL? To me it seems clear that it just does not.

I have never heard of AMA and am not sure what to do, but I saw this on the user's contributions and felt that I needed to state my case here too. This user has made less than 10 edits, all trying to link to his website or complain about my reversion of those edits. I have nothing against the user or his website, but do not see how the website meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. Ruhrfisch 20:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote at NewtonFallsLeader's Talk page

Regarding your insertion of the following at my talk page and its removal and sending to me via email, you wrote:

You've chosen to delete entries to the Newton Falls, Ohio page, specifically www.nfl.tc the Newton Falls Leader. These are not your entries and were not made by you. You have no valid reason, nor do you offer any valid reason for deleting them. Wikipedia rules do not allow for anyone to delete entries simply because they do not like the entry. These entries are valid and are as much a part of Newton Falls, Ohio as are any of the other entries listed. Hence, if you choose to delete them again, I will follow the procedures set forth by Wikipedia to file a grievance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonFallsLeader (talk • contribs) 15:09, January 31, 2007 (UTC)

I have looked at the web page in question and see no original content relating to Newton Falls that is current. I see lots of advertisements, links to the Weather Channel and local newspaper and CNN and other national and local sites, and announcements for events that are in some cases months out of date. I fail to see how this meets the criteria for a valid external link (see WP:EL for the policy). I welcome you and hope you can improve the article on Newton Falls (or anything else), but if all you want is to insert what many might call "link spam" then you will be reverted every time (and not just by me).

Wikipedia is not a web directory or collection of links (see WP:NOT). If you read the page as you edit it, the following quotation (see below) is useful to recall: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it". You might also look at WP:OWN to see that you do not own Wikipedia or your edits or the Newton Falls article.

If you feel you have a grievance, please file away, but I think you should read the policies first. I think you'll find you are the one not following the rules here, such as they are. Yours, Ruhrfisch 16:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Our second exchange

Again, I've read your reply. I do not agree with you and nor will Wikipedia. You delete my link to the Newton Falls Leader, a non-profit venture established by me. It's intent is to provide the community with a valuable resource that is much like Wikipedia...a website that is built on the participation of others. Simply because you have a bias against it doesn't give you the right to delete it. If your reasons for deleting it were valid then you would delete 44444.com not only is this website nothing more than an advertisement for 44444.com, but it is uses only news obtained from the Tribune-Chronical, which borders on plagiarism, and it provides for profit Google Ad links. If you aren't biased, then delete all the links that fit within your criteria! Links such as "myspace 4th of July" the 4th of July 2006 is long over past, the "WeeklyVillager" the last article posted on this site for Newton Falls was September 29, 2006. Jealousy gives you no right to allow one link to exist and another to be deleted, that's bias and against the rules - you should read them! Also, your leaving these links and deleting the Newton Falls Leader for the reasons stated are not justified...and as soon as this email is sent, I'll be filing a complaint.
  • I have almost 1000 articles on my watch list. I look at changes in them, but do not review the content of each on a regular basis. Newton Falls, Ohio is a fairly low priority article for me, but when I saw a link inserted by you, I followed and read the linked page, and reverted the link as I felt it did not meet the External links criteria. I thank you for bringing the other links to my attention - I have also removed many of them, but I did convert the tornado link into a reference. I assure you I am not jealous, in fact I am glad to help some or give advice if you or anyone wants to improve an article, but inserting a link to a web page that is 90% ads and links to other content providers does not meet WP:EL guidelines as I see it. At this point I would welcome your filing a complaint as that would allow an impartial ruling on the link you insist on inserting. While I expect to be upheld in deleting it, I agree to abide by whatever the ruling is. Finally, please use talk pages and not email for future communications on this topic. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • In my complaint about the violations you've committed against Wikipedia's rules,

I've apologized to you for the multiple emails, behind a proxy our systems were hanging and once thought dead, I resent the email...only to find when checking my personal email that multiple copies had been sent.

Your practices of monitoring these websites are unethical and a concern Wikipedia needs to address with you, hence, I will allow them to do just that.

As for your emails, please stop emailing me. However, please feel free to use my website to look up the word "pompous" as you may want to ad that to your vocab. Just because you have 1000 sites doesn't impress me, nor does it give you any right to act as you have.

Again, the Newton Falls Leader stands behind its right to be on the Newton Falls, Ohio page as it is a non-profit community based website for everyone. Simply, your opinions differ, as do your actions, from the rules of Wikipedia, which will be addressed in my complaint.

== Additions to talk on NewtonFallsLeader ==

STOP DELETING WHAT YOU DON'T WANT OTHERS TO READ...IF YOU ARE ASHAMED OF WHAT YOU'VE DONE THEN I'D STOP DOING IT IF I WERE YOU.

  • NewtonFallsLeader, I think you may be misunderstanding the concept of a "watch list". The watchlist is a Wikipedia tool that allows you to view changes made to specific articles in Wikipedia. If you log in and look at the top of any page on Wikipedia, there will be a tab that says "Watch"; you can click it and add that page to your watchlist. When logged in, you'll also see that one of the links on the top right of Wikipedia pages says "My watchlist". Clicking on that link will show you recent changes to all of the articles you've chosen to watch. It has nothing to do with monitoring websites outside of Wikipedia, nor is it unethical; it's a tool provided by Wikipedia to help editors be more productive. To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing as a "right" to be linked from Wikipedia. However, Wikipedia does have a policy explaining its general principles on linking other websites: Wikipedia:External links. Please consider the possibility that the behavior you find objectionable is, in fact, a misunderstanding. Choess 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)


  • Wow, thanks for that information...since I have a MS in Technology, I say that because you are not aware of it, yet you assume, as an attack on me, that I am not fully aware of what a "watch" list is. I'm also aware of the definition of "pompous" and those who fit the definition -"pompous - characterized by excessive self-esteem." I'm not the one who brags about so many pages...Also, I'm not the one who randomly, arrogantly, without reason or cause simply deletes entries without first making sure they are not being biased. If one is going to watch a page and delete entries at will (which I do not believe Wikipedia condones) then do that, but don't delete one entry for unsupported reasons, and without notifying the user, when you leave other links intact. If you are going to watch the site, then watch it. It is blatantly obvious that Ruhrfisch wasn't watching this page. He purposely, biasly deleted my entry for reasons he didn't equally apply to the other links - yet, he calls this watching a page - and we wonder what's wrong with the world. Well, Wikipedia has rules and just because Ruhrfisch doesn't believe in following them doesn't mean they don't exist. Also, the Newton Falls Leader has an archive of photographs, that is continually updated, taken of events in Newton Falls - as is mentioned on that page - that is relevant, and no different than the link he continues to leave intact. As for his allegations that we have advertisements...if he would read the site, I do not allow advertisements. What Ruhrfisch refers to are graphics attached to articles of concern specific to Newton Falls residents, intended to inform them of offers that can save them money - the Newton Falls Leader does not receive any income from any source, rather it is completely and soley funded by me. The only advertisement that is allowed to appear is when a business donates gift certificates for registered uses who answer weekly trivia questions correctly. In addition, the Newton Falls Leader highlights the positives about Newton Falls on an ongoing basis. Because this site is not intended to generate an income, I devote as much of my free time to it as I can, but make no claim to be up to the minute current, that's why I provide the other resources that I do, a dictionary, current news feeds, yellow pages, white pages, a calendar of events, and more. For Ruhrfisch to act as he has, demonstrates his biased against the Newton Falls Leader. The Newton Falls Leader is all about Newton Falls, and nothing else - therefore, it deserves to be on the Newton Falls, Ohio page, read the rules.

Ruhrfisch's Reply (from NewtonFallsLeader's Talk page)

First of all, I apologize for any offense given or for appearing to be pompous - neither was my intent. Thank you for your apology about the multiple emails - I did not and do not take offense at the multiple emails you sent to me, I was merely letting you know that there seemed to be a problem with the email system you were using.

Second, I do not know what you mean by "As for your emails, please stop emailing me." as I have not sent you any emails, although I have used this talk page and the talk pages for Newton Falls, Ohio and here: Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/NewtonFallsLeader. Since you are new to Wikipedia, are you perhaps confusing talk pages with email?

Third, I explained about my watchlist (which User:Choess explained is a commonly used tool on Wikipedia to catch vandalism and other unwanted edits) to give you an idea of why I originally did not notify you of my revert of your edit. I revert a bunch of edits every day. In your case, I assumed good faith and did not think it was vandalism (I try to always warn on vandalism), just lack of knowledge of Wikipedia policy. Hence I reverted and did not leave a message.

Fourth, I assure you I have no bias against you or your website, only an interest in keeping articles in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidlelines. As an example of this, see User talk:Pikeweatherman for a similar removal of an external link for not meeting WP:EL that I was involved in. I am also not ashamed of my edits or communications with you.

Fifth, here is why I deleted your link in all the detail I intend to give. I initially though a webapge for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever). When I read it I believed it did not meet the Wikipedia external links guidleleines. All I have learned from you since only bolsters that opinion. Here are the relevant sections of WP:EL to show exactly why I now think your website is not a valid external link.

  • "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interests guidelines." emphasis added, taken from Wikipedia:External_links#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest

"...one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."

To sum up, you should not link to what you say is your own website in any case. As I see it, your website is not a unique resource suitable for a Featured Article, and it has a large amount of ads (whatever you choose to call them), and it is not directly and symmetrically related to Newton Falls, Ohio.

I am sure if someone tried to put content on your site that did not meet its rules, you would remove it or not add it. That is what I have done here (though I claim no ownership of Wikipedia). If you do not agree, I would appreciate it if you would give similarly detailed and wikilinked citations from Wikipedia of your website's "right" to be here, as well as whatever Wikipedia policies or guidelines you believe I have violated. Otherwise I fail to see what your point is. Thanks and have a good day, Ruhrfisch 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wouldn't it be great if we had devoted all this effort to improving the Newton Falls, Ohio article instead?

Newton Falls Leader Reply:

Your response is evidence that you acted with bias and still maintain that way...or you're not understanding what you write. I'll choose to believe the first.

1. let me say that it is not the intent of the Newton Falls Leader to spam, violate rules, or upset any external website - including Wikipedia. Since the Newton Falls Leader doesn't generate an income, I have no reason to force it upon anyone. Simply, it doesn't matter if one person uses the site or 100,000 people use the site - the Newton Falls Leader makes the same, nothing!
2. by definition, "advertisement is defined as: A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage." Nothing on the Newton Falls Leader fits that description except for two ads that are posted in exchange for gift certificates as prizes for our Weekly Mystery Question - I guess one could say that those are paid announcements - I like to call them sponsors. Besides, the Newton Falls Leader doesn't get the money, the prize winners do!
3. before you jump to conclusions you should ask. When designing the site I wanted a catchy name. When I added Leader to Newton Falls the acronym became NFL - then upon doing domain searches the only NFL domain availabe happened to be the .tc - and yes, it is from the Turks and Caicos Islands, however it fits well with Trumbull County and makes nfl.tc quite easy to remember, is this jealousy? Chastise me because I'm creative, really! Seriously, what difference does it make what domain name a site has as long as it isn't something derogatory or obscene? You want to make this an issue, but it isn't.
4. yes, I am new to Wikipedia and hadn't fully read all the rules. However, I didn't do anything against the rules...with the posibility of posting my own site...I will investigate that. I have read enough to know that what you did was uncalled for and against Wikipedia rules. You obviously feel the same or you wouldn't be trying so fruitlessly to defend your actions.
5. you call the Newton Falls Leader articles "links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." The Newton Falls Leader provides its users with useful and money saving articles. For example: one article informs users that they can save 50% at a local restaurant and provides the link to do it. Another article informs users that they can get a 30 day supply of medication absolutely free. You call these ads, by definition they are not. Nevertheless, you obviously object to the way the Newton Falls Leader does it, so I'd like to hear how you propose a site provide its users with beneficial information?
6. why is it that a site you left intact is ok when it contains photographs of Newton Falls events, yet you want to block other sites who have photographs of Newton Falls Events. I personally took and posted those photographs. Again, I'd like to hear your reasons why one site is ok and another is not - if it isn't due a bias. Also, I'd like to know how you draw your conclusion that my photographs are not an historical pictorial of Newton Falls. Though you refuse to admit it, these photographs are unique to my site, and make my site a unique extension to the Newton Falls, Ohio page. After all, they are pictures of the people, places and events here in Newton Falls, Ohio.
7. furthermore, it is only your opinion that the Newton Falls Leader is not unique - you state, "As I see it, your website is not a unique resource...." You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind the old cliche', "opinions are like bad breath, we all have one and they all stink." (of course I edited that cliche' for publication here.) If you want to back your statement, show me another Newton Falls site like the Newton Falls Leader - having personally written most of the blocks on the site, I know there isn't another website in Newton Falls like it - I think that makes it, by definition, unique!
8. I chuckled when I read your PS - you must be trying to win people's favor with a touchy-feely saying? You are the one that is working to destroy the Newton Falls, Ohio page, not the Newton Falls Leader. Fact is fact, but of course you don't agree. However, all I did was to post two links, you took it upon yourself to act with bias and delete them without cause or justification. Again, you aren't much of a watch dog, nor do your actions give much credibility to your statements. You can't do one thing, then say another and expect that people are going to believe you. The facts remain that you quickly deleted, not once, but twice links without cause or notification. You never even bothered to check out the links. And, when you did, you attempt to call them something that simply isn't true...just your opinion. Furthermore, for some reason you jumped on these two links, while you left several other links intact, links that in your opinion were worse than the Newton Falls Leader links. Then, you try to justify yourself by destroying links that have been on the Newton Falls, Ohio page for the better part of a year, and probably longer - links left there by you. Personally, I'd be ashamed to call myself a watchdog.

Words are words, without actions they are empty, meaningless. Your actions clearly fit the definition of bias, and your words back that up.

Again, let's stop this pointless chatter and allow Wikipedia to decide if what you've done and how you've acted is within their rules or not.

Thank you - Newton Falls Leader

PS - do I criticize you for using a user name that very few understand? Is it German? Does that belong here? This is the English version. Now, doesn't that sound silly?

Discussion:

  • I would like to know where both sides currently stand on the issue. As we resolve this, i have a poll going on on the talk page of the article to see whether or not others would place the newton falls leader site as an external link.
  • From my understanding of wikipedia policy the newton falls leader site is a valid external link but only if it is placed by some one other than any person who owns and/or represents and/or maintains the site (NewtonFallsLeader would fall into this category therefore cannot add the link).

Blah0401 10:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I got an email back from NewtonFallsLeader (whom I had emailed to let know the case was active). He is busy now and can't respond for a week (the email was sent yesterday). Here is our exchange (I edited out his real name):

Hi,

I visited the page breifly the other day, but haven't had time to talk. What is an AMA advocate?

My schedule won't allow time for me to respond for at least a week.

Thanks for keeping me updated.

Newton Falls Leader

> Hi Newton Falls Leader,
>
> the AMA advocate has started a poll on the Newton Falls, Ohio article talk
> page about including the www.nfl.tc link in the article's external links
> section. Since you have not made any edits on Wikipedia in several days, I
> was not sure if you knew and wanted to let you know so you could weigh in
> with your opinion.
>
> Hope all is well with you,
> Ruhrfisch
Ruhrfisch 02:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Newton Falls Leader, I'm here to help you resolve your dispute with Ruhrfisch. It was you who asked for help from the AMA and i opened the case so I am your AMA advocate. When you have time, please read what other wikipedians have had to say on the talk page of the article in question. There are some good points and explanations made there that i think you should read. Feel free to write back.

Blah0401 02:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    • Thanks Blah0401, I would also put this on NewtonFallsLeader's talk page (which he checks occasionally) and consider emailing him ( the link is activated). Ruhrfisch 03:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following emails have been between myself (Blah0401,AMA advocate,QNZcolombiano91@aol.com) and NewtonFallsLeader (thevoice@nfl.tc) and Ruhrfisch. They are listed oldest to newest. My sent emails have been deleted by my mail client, so my original replaies are not avalible, but are included in some of the replies sent back by NFL or Ruhrfisch (ruhrfisch@gmail.com). Because of the copying of email text the formatting shows awkward in some areas, there is too much fixing up to do so the text stays as is. Sorry if looks awkward.


From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 11:10 AM

Hi, I've read some of the feedback posted to the session you started, however, I have not had time to respond. I have read all of the prior posts.

The points the Ruhrfisch, and those who side with him, are simply unsupported by Wikipedia rules; I've stated that in my responses. Most importantly, he (and someone before him) removed the link to the Newton Falls Leader for reasons of bias, as they cite rules as reasons for removing it, but left other links posted that were in greater violation of the very rules they stated. They only removed those links when I brought that fact to their attention. Futhermore, Ruhrfisch continues to allow a link to historical photographs to remain intact, and states that they back up the fact that the event happened. How does that differ from the link to the Newton Falls Leader's archive to its historical pictorial of events that happen in Newton Falls? Clearly it doesn't. Let's face reality - if the one link is allowed - and it should be - so then, should the link to the Newton Falls Leader.

When I explained to Ruhrfisch how his actions were biased, he then inserts his opinion into every argument he makes in his defense. He has said that articles on the NFL are old - what do you call archives? Likewise, Wikipedia is full of old information. He says that the pictures attached to articles are advertisements - seriously, who believes that? In rebuttle to him, someone stated that a newspaper would be a source. Do they not have pictures attached to articles to attract the readers attention to that article?

Someone mentioned reliable sources...I challenge anyone to find anything on the NFL that isn't true. I pride myself at monitoring the NFL so that it is a reputable/reliable source of information - and again, I challenge anyone to prove that it is anything less. Facts, not opinion.

Futhermore, Ruhrfisch still allows false information on the Newton Falls page to exist...he hasn't challenged it, nor researched it. For some reason, he has chosen to pick on the NFL - why? And, he does so with no validity to his claims - only his opinions and interpretation of Wikipedia rules - to which he doesn't even apply his opinions and interpretations of those rules unbiasedly to everything on the Newton Falls page.

Seriously, if you read the rules that Ruhrfisch has cited they more than allow for the NFL to be cited as a source, I've pointed/proved this in my past posts - only Ruhrfisch chooses not to accept that the rules actually do allow for the NFL link. He continues to try to get people to accept his absurd opinions/interpretations - I don't!

Ruhrfisch states advertisements, there are no paid advertisements on the NFL. The NFL is truly a FREE community website for everyone. To condemn the NFL for bring the best of the web home 44444 the people of Newton Falls is ridiculous - and only demonstrates a bias and a pompous attitude on anyone's part that has to twist Wikipedia rules to make their point.

Additionally, unlike other news sources, the NFL does not charge anyone to gain access - as is cited in the rules as a violation. The only reason one must join the NFL is to post classifieds and to win prizes - it helps to prevent malicious attacks on the site. Newspapers, such as those mentioned in the recent posts do charge those who want to join. They clearly require a membership to read other articles - and are clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules.

Someone also mentioned links to the city, schools, local governement. I agree these are links that should be a part of the Newton Falls page. But like the library, who has old articles, so is the Newton Falls Leader a reliable source for historical facts regarding Newton Falls - and deserves to be placed on the Newton Falls page as a source for historical reference.

Finally, show me a rule that a link to the Newton Falls Leader violates, as I have not read any - unless of course you read it with Ruhrfisch warped interpretation. It is Ruhrfisch's warped view of Wikipedia's rules (only formed to support his biased actions) that forced me to ask for mediation. If you read through the history of our dialogs you'll find that Ruhrfisch keeps changing his opinions of Wikipedia rules in attempt to further his argument each time I dispute the argument he makes. The fruitless efforts of a person who is too egocentric to admit he is wrong.

To the demise of Wikipedia, as a teacher I now instruct my students to be very cautious of Wikipedia and the information that is found there. Because of people like Ruhrfisch Wikipedia is not able to become a reliable source of information. If Ruhrfisch, and those like him, are allowed to continue to apply thier warped opinions of the rules, Wikipedia will continue to lose. Speaking with our school librarian, she tells me that Wikipedia's lack of reliability as a resource is often and widely discussed in the reference/resource field.

Fact is, the Newton Falls Leader is a reliable resource of events and happenings that occur in Newton Falls and therefore deserves to have a link on the Newton Falls page, as it does meet/exceed all Wikipedia's requirements.

When I have time, I will post on Wikipedia, however, I believe all of this dialog that is placed on Wikipedia not only discredits Wikipedia by showing how absurd some of Wikipedia's editors are, and how ridiculous their arguments are, but most importantly, reflects poorly on one of Wikipedia's pages and the Newton Falls, Ohio community. Newton Falls, Ohio is better than the childish arguments presented by Ruhrfisch and those that support him, and I do not appreciate bringing bad publicity to Newton Falls, Ohio because of the egocentricity of a few. For that reason, I had asked Ruhrfisch to archive the previous dialogs made to that page...and am hesitant in engaging in further fruitless arguments. I'd rather Wikipedia make a ruling on the issue, then I can agree or disagree with that decision on an intelligent level, not an egocentric one.

Thanks, Tony Marafiote

From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: [Fwd: Re: Wikipedia e-mail]
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 10:10 AM

Hi, In response to your email, I sent you the following, however, I haven't heard back from you. I've marked this so I'll know if you've received it. 

I would appreciate it if you could let me know specifically what

Wikipedia rules a link to the Newton Falls Leader is violating. As far as I have read, a link to the Newton Falls Leader isn't in violation of any Wikipedia rules...as partially evidenced by the responses to your poll. Folks have agreed that it is a resource, have agreed that it does document events, have failed to provide any evidence to support their arguments against the link, and have gone as far as citing like sources that they feel would be permitted - only those sources violate the very rules that these folks cite as reasons why a link to the Newton Falls Leader should not be allowed.

Again, I haven't had time to respond to your post, and am hesitant to continue to argue the illogical reasoning of others in public as it makes Newton Falls, Ohio look bad.

Facts are facts, and the facts clearly show that Ruhrfisch acted out of a bias/prejudice without any forethought or investigation to justify his actions. When questioned, he applies only his warped view of Wikipedia rules. To which, he does not apply his view to all links everywhere, only to the Newton Falls Leader...which speaks sadly of the credibility of Wikipedia.org.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Tony Marafiote


Original Message ----------------------------

Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
From: thevoice@nfl.tc
Date: Fri, March 2, 2007 10:10 am
To: "Blah0401" <QNZcolombiano91@aol.com>

Hi, I've read some of the feedback posted to the session you started, however, I have not had time to respond. I have read all of the prior posts.

The points the Ruhrfisch, and those who side with him, are simply unsupported by Wikipedia rules; I've stated that in my responses. Most importantly, he (and someone before him) removed the link to the Newton Falls Leader for reasons of bias, as they cite rules as reasons for removing it, but left other links posted that were in greater violation of the very rules they stated. They only removed those links when I brought that fact to their attention. Futhermore, Ruhrfisch continues to allow a link to historical photographs to remain intact, and states that they back up the fact that the event happened. How does that differ from the link to the Newton Falls Leader's archive to its historical pictorial of events that happen in Newton Falls? Clearly it doesn't. Let's face reality - if the one link is allowed - and it should be - so then, should the link to the Newton Falls Leader.

When I explained to Ruhrfisch how his actions were biased, he then inserts his opinion into every argument he makes in his defense. He has said that articles on the NFL are old - what do you call archives? Likewise, Wikipedia is full of old information. He says that the pictures attached to articles are advertisements - seriously, who believes that? In rebuttle to him, someone stated that a newspaper would be a source. Do they not have pictures attached to articles to attract the readers attention to that article?

Someone mentioned reliable sources...I challenge anyone to find anything on the NFL that isn't true. I pride myself at monitoring the NFL so that it is a reputable/reliable source of information - and again, I challenge anyone to prove that it is anything less. Facts, not opinion.

Futhermore, Ruhrfisch still allows false information on the Newton Falls page to exist...he hasn't challenged it, nor researched it. For some reason, he has chosen to pick on the NFL - why? And, he does so with no validity to his claims - only his opinions and interpretation of Wikipedia rules - to which he doesn't even apply his opinions and interpretations of those rules unbiasedly to everything on the Newton Falls page.

Seriously, if you read the rules that Ruhrfisch has cited they more than allow for the NFL to be cited as a source, I've pointed/proved this in my past posts - only Ruhrfisch chooses not to accept that the rules actually do allow for the NFL link. He continues to try to get people to accept his absurd opinions/interpretations - I don't!

Ruhrfisch states advertisements, there are no paid advertisements on the NFL. The NFL is truly a FREE community website for everyone. To condemn the NFL for bring the best of the web home 44444 the people of Newton Falls is ridiculous - and only demonstrates a bias and a pompous attitude on anyone's part that has to twist Wikipedia rules to make their point.

Additionally, unlike other news sources, the NFL does not charge anyone to gain access - as is cited in the rules as a violation. The only reason one must join the NFL is to post classifieds and to win prizes - it helps to prevent malicious attacks on the site. Newspapers, such as those mentioned in the recent posts do charge those who want to join. They clearly require a membership to read other articles - and are clearly in violation of Wikipedia rules.

Someone also mentioned links to the city, schools, local governement. I agree these are links that should be a part of the Newton Falls page. But like the library, who has old articles, so is the Newton Falls Leader a reliable source for historical facts regarding Newton Falls - and deserves to be placed on the Newton Falls page as a source for historical reference.

Finally, show me a rule that a link to the Newton Falls Leader violates, as I have not read any - unless of course you read it with Ruhrfisch warped interpretation. It is Ruhrfisch's warped view of Wikipedia's rules (only formed to support his biased actions) that forced me to ask for mediation. If you read through the history of our dialogs you'll find that Ruhrfisch keeps changing his opinions of Wikipedia rules in attempt to further his argument each time I dispute the argument he makes. The fruitless efforts of a person who is too egocentric to admit he is wrong.

To the demise of Wikipedia, as a teacher I now instruct my students to be very cautious of Wikipedia and the information that is found there. Because of people like Ruhrfisch Wikipedia is not able to become a reliable source of information. If Ruhrfisch, and those like him, are allowed to continue to apply thier warped opinions of the rules, Wikipedia will continue to lose. Speaking with our school librarian, she tells me that Wikipedia's lack of reliability as a resource is often and widely discussed in the reference/resource field.

Fact is, the Newton Falls Leader is a reliable resource of events and happenings that occur in Newton Falls and therefore deserves to have a link on the Newton Falls page, as it does meet/exceed all Wikipedia's requirements.

When I have time, I will post on Wikipedia, however, I believe all of this dialog that is placed on Wikipedia not only discredits Wikipedia by showing how absurd some of Wikipedia's editors are, and how ridiculous their arguments are, but most importantly, reflects poorly on one of Wikipedia's pages and the Newton Falls, Ohio community. Newton Falls, Ohio is better than the childish arguments presented by Ruhrfisch and those that support him, and I do not appreciate bringing bad publicity to Newton Falls, Ohio because of the egocentricity of a few. For that reason, I had asked Ruhrfisch to archive the previous dialogs made to that page...and am hesitant in engaging in further fruitless arguments. I'd rather Wikipedia make a ruling on the issue, then I can agree or disagree with that decision on an intelligent level, not an egocentric one.

Thanks, Tony Marafiote



> Newton Falls Leader, I'm here to help you resolve your dispute with > Ruhrfisch. It was you who asked for help from the AMA and i opened the > case so I am your AMA advocate. When you have time, please read what other > wikipedians have had to say on the talk page of the article in question. > There are some good points and explanations made there that i think you > should read. Feel free to write back.

From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: qnzcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail]
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 11:21 PM

Hi Blah0401,

I think you've taken my email the wrong way. I do understand that you have offered to help...it is, however, the logic behind what you are doing that I question.

Please do not get offended by my bluntness, it is just that Ruhrfisch has drawn me weary of this entire mess. You see, fact is that Ruhrfisch has acted with bias.

Other than my posting the link, which at the time I was unaware it violated Wikipedia rules - and may I say that it is quite a stupid rule - seriously, how difficult is it for me to have a friend post the link??? Wow, does that really make a difference? It doesn't.

Furthermore, what difference is it if a link to pictures or a link to articles are allowed, when a link to the main page isn't? All I would have to do is write an article about Newton Falls - dah - and place it on the main page and have a friend post a link to it. Again, seriously does having to do that make sense? It doesn't.

Why doesn't it? Because, in this case the Newton Falls Leader is all about Newton Falls - and nothing else. It is a community website. It is unbiased, and beholden to no one as it doesn't rely upon advertising dollars to exist, and therefore it can remain unbiased.

As for others posting rules...they post them, unfortunately they don't read them. None of the rules posted speak against a link to the Newton Falls Leader, unless of course you want to believe the absurdity of the reasons these folks are convinced they do.

Take for instance, Ed Johnson writes, "For example Baltimore, Maryland has a link to the Baltimore Sun..." Ruhrfisch argues the reason he removed the link was because of excessive advertisement...of which there is none on the Newton Falls Leader. However, The Baltimore Sun contains a lot of advertisement, and therefore based on Ruhrfisch's interpretation of the rules it should not be permitted on the Baltimore, Maryland page - bet he hasn't removed it.

Here's the problem...Ruhrfisch removed the link out of a bias against the Newton Falls Leader, and now has to justify his actions...which he is unable to do unless he can convince everyone that his interpretation of the rules is correct...but it isn't. Why is that fact? Because Ruhrfisch doesn't apply his interpretations of the rules equally across Wikipedia. He twists his interpretation each time anyone presents an argument against his opinion.

Hence, the only way to resolve this with Ruhrfisch is to kowtow to him and hail him as some fearless Wikipedia guardian - unfortunately, that isn't going to happen. Again, he hasn't provided one rule (posting rule excluded) that disallows a link to the Newton Falls Leader. And his BS about "symmetrically" is an example of his pompous egocentricity - which proves the saying, "If you can't baffle them with brilliance, befuddle with BS." And, I will say Ruhrfisch certainly has enough of that! Really, Rurhfisch states, "I do not see the symmetry of the relationship." Bet he can't explain what he means by that! But he thinks it makes him sound good. It doesn't.

So, since I'm going to continue to insist that Ruhrfisch demonstrate factually how a link to the Newton Falls Leader violates any Wikipedia rules, and since Ruhrfisch is going to continue to misconstrue those very rules, there isn't going to be an end to this until someone at Wikipedia makes a ruling.

That's why I said to you that I don't appreciate voting. Again, no offense, but it is pointless. No one is going to accept the results as valid...simply because on the one side or the other voting doesn't define the rules. It only makes a mockery of the issue, which looks badly on Wikipedia and Newton Falls.

Some one wrote those rules. So, why can't that someone determine/explain them to Ruhrfisch? Or, to me, if by some stretch that someone actually wants to argue that Ruhrfisch is correct. I know they won't, because I will then search Wikipedia to have each and every link removed that falls within that definition - and that's a lot of links to be removed and a lot of people get mad who posted those links.

Get my point? Without Ruhrfisch's constantly changing interpretations of the rules, and constantly changing reasons for removing the link, there are no rules and no reason a link to the Newton Falls Leader should not be allowed.

I appreciate the offer to help, but unless you can actually help - which Rurhfisch isn't going to allow, then are you actually being helpful? The answer is no. What you have is a pompous individual (Rurhfisch) who isn't going to accept that he's wrong. Again, apply his definition of the rules, and that of a few of his friends, to other links across Wikipedia and you'll find that they allow links that violate their definitions more than they acuse the Newton Falls Leader. That makes them wrong. It isn't my opinion, it is a fact. If they honestly felt their interpretation of the rules is correct, then they would be removing a lot more links than just the Newton Falls Leader.

Seriously, Rurhfisch first acused the Newton Falls Leader of having old articles, but left two links intact that hadn't had new info in almost a year. When I brought that to his attention he quickly removed them. Why did I have to bring them to his attention? Why didn't he apply his rules to them before? He has no reasons/justification for his actions - because he's biased - the facts speak to that.

Finally, I appreciate your help - but Rurhfisch refuses to listen to logic. He refuses to own up to his actions. He refuses to recognize the very rules his cites actually allow the link. He refuses to answer how it is if he feels a link to Newton Falls Leader violates rules, why it is he doesn't apply the same to other links.

A queston: what is the next step in this process?

Good Luck, Tony Marafiote - Newton Falls Leader



> I have received your first email, i apologize for not replying but i have > been busy. I think that your confusing me with some sort of enforcer, > which i am not. I'm just here to help you resolve the conflict you are > having with Ruhrfisch. I think your trying to convince that 'your right' > but this doesn't change anything. Currently the first rule i see that > posting the NFL site would be that you yourself have posted but many > others have posted wikipedia rules stating why the main space of the site > cant be used. But parts of the site can be. But as I see it its too broad > to sent users to the main space. Like i said before I'm not saying your > wrong or right. I'm just here to help get your through your dispute. The > dispute you have is with Ruhrfisch not me and you should also contact him. > I'm just here to help remind of you of the way disputes should be taken > care of. Hope this helps > --Blah0401 > > ________________________________________________________________________ > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free > from AOL at AOL.com. >

From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: qnzcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Just a Quick Check
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 2:40 PM

Hi Blah,

I just wanted to forward you a few examples of how Rurhfisch is biased, and how those who support him are, too.

Here is a fine example of websites that are posted and exist because they fall within Wikipedia rules...

The following links are posted under external links on Youngstown, Ohio... at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown%2C_Ohio

http://www.downtownyoungstown.com/ --- very similar to NFL.tc http://www.mahoningvalley.info/ --- very similar to NFL.tc http://www.vindy.com/ --- requires a subscription http://www.business-journal.com/ --- requires a subscription

and one link exists that is nothing but an advertisement!

http://www.youngstownsource.com/

Please let me know if you'll be removing the links above or allowing a link to the Newton Falls Leader as Rurhfisch, and his cronies, cannot have it both ways. Either these links are deleted - links that violate Rurhfisch's interpretation of Wikipeida rules more so than he claims the Newton Falls Leader does - or the link to the Newton Falls Leader is restored.

Oh, and I'll be happy to inform my friends at the Vindicator & Business Journal that you've deleted their links.

Looking forward to hearing from you. Tony Marafiote - Newton Falls Leader

From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2007 11:01 PM

Dear Blah0401,

Hi ... I know you are busy, but I've emailed you twice and have recently posted a note for you on the Newton Falls, Ohio page. Since it's been over a week since I've emailed you, and haven't heard back from you, I hope everything is ok. Sometimes, we take for granted that another is ignoring us, but, in reality, there may be something wrong ... the flu, family priorities, or a more serious issue. I hope that this finds you ok and that you are simply overwhelmed as I am.

I would appreciate hearing from you if it is only to say that all is well.

Thanks, Tony - Newton Falls Leader

From: ruhrfisch@gmail.com
To: thevoice@nfl.tc
Cc: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re:
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 2:30 PM

Hi Tony,

I have reached out to you and told you the truth. I don't have to take this kind of abuse from you or anyone. I bought my PhD with almost five years of my life, working 60 or more hours a week in lab.

From now on I will only communicate with you via Wikipedia talk pages and have set my Gmail filters to delete your incoming email.

I am copying Blah0401 on this and will forward our other previous email exchanges to him. Have a nice life,

Ruhrfisch

On 3/15/07, thevoice@nfl.tc < thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote: 

   Ruhrfisch,

   How can you go against Wikipedia rules and feel that you are correct?  Are
   you that pompous of a person?  I know you're egocentric, but where did you
   buy your phd if in fact you even have one...as much as you've lied about
   want and why you've done what you've done, I'm starting to believe you
   lied about having a phd...

   Given that, I will take this to the top of Wikipedia...and see that you
   are sanctioned for your actions!!! That being never allowed to edit
   another page on Wikipedia again!

   Remember, the evidence is on my side, I haven't had to change my story
   once...to your never ending changing reasons!

   Tony Marafiote -



   > Hi Tony,
   >
   > I am convinced I am right, just as you are convinced that you are. I would
   > prefer to discuss this openly on WIkipedia on talk pages. The next step is
   > an RFC. I am willing to go there. If you are, let's file one. Unless you
   > have something of a confidential nature to discuss, I will only use
   > Wikipedia talk pages for the rest of this discussion.
   >
   > Ruhrfisch
   >
   >
   > On 3/14/07, thevoice@nfl.tc < thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote:
   >>
   >> Hey Ruhrfisch,
   >>
   >> I've just read the Problem section of Wikipedia's civility code ... it
   >> reads, "Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do
   >> not
   >> transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious
   >> comments being misinterpreted. One uncivil remark can easily escalate
   >> into
   >> a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem
   >> at
   >> hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become
   >> uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on "triumphing"
   >> over
   >> the "enemy"."
   >>
   >> Do you recall when you tried to convince me that you contacted me by
   >> listing an Edit Summary?  Do you see Wikipedia's point?  You deleted the
   >> link to Newton Falls Leader, never informed me, and now I'm the enemy
   >> and
   >> you are trying to triumph over.  Isn't that amazing?
   >>
   >> Again, let's drop this silliness and restore the link to the Newton
   >> Falls
   >> Leader - after all it is the civil thing to do.
   >>
   >> Tony - Newton Falls Leader
   >>
   >

From: ruhrfisch@gmail.com
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re: More Websites
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 4:19 PM

Here is my other email from NFL - I had not replied to it yet and have no intention of doing so now. Ruhrfisch

On 3/12/07, thevoice@nfl.tc <thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote: 

   Ruhr Fisch,

   Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_heater - throughout this page
   are links to numerous commercial websites such as Home Depot, etc.  If a
   link to the Newton Falls Leader isn't allowed, then the majority of links
   on that page need to be removed - and that is just 1 page ... as I
   mentioned to Blah, also check out
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown%2C_OH , again, this page has
   numerous links that, according to you, violate Wikipedia rules moreso than
   the Newton Falls Leader ever will ... and no one is deleting them.

   Talk with you,
   Tony

From: ruhrfisch@gmail.com
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2007 4:18 PM

Here is my first email exchange with NFL, Ruhrfisch

On 3/13/07, thevoice@nfl.tc <thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote: 

   Ruhrfisch,

   I agree, to wrongs do not make a right - three lefts do :-)

   In order for us to mediate this issue, we both have to agree - and quite
   honestly, I see nothing in the Wikipedia rules/guidelines that prevent a
   link to the Newton Falls Leader.

   Then there is Blah0401 who writes me to say that he isn't about to take
   sides one-way or the other.  Yet, on the Newton Falls, Ohio page he states
   to you that he is being persuaded to take your side.

   So, Yes, I disagree with your interpretation of Wikipedia rules.  You have
   failed to show me one rule that posting a link to the NFL violates -
   unless we accept your opinions about ads or this or that or whatever you
   need to present to make your argument believable.

   On the other hand, I stand behind those same rules.  Unless you are
   willing to look at those rules without bias and read them as they are
   written, then you will never agree with me.

   I've asked Blah0401 several times to have Wikipedia make a ruling - as I
   do firmly believe they will side with me - that is if I have my 5 year old
   cousin post the link so that I'm not posting my own link.

   All I did was post a link to a community based website - open to everyone
   - intent on "bring the best of the web home 44444" the people of Newton
   Falls.  I've begun collecting donations from famous people and area
   businesses to promote "student spot lights", I've invited the schools to
   promote a "teacher of the month", area businesses to share their expertise
   in the forums, etc.  Because this is a small town, and the website is a
   hobby, not an income generator, I cannot spend as much time out in the
   community reporting on every piece of dust that falls on the
   sidewalks...shoot me! It is a year old, but it is still in its infancy.

   This website will one day be true community gathering place - it will
   provide the community with news, sports, and community events as more and
   more people get involved with it...it doesn't need Wikipedia.  I placed
   the link so that others who are from the area, but live elsewhere can
   enjoy seeing pictures and reading articles about Newton Falls - and to say
   that this doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines as a reputable, reliable,
   historical, resource is ludicrous.

   Ed Johnson states that the Baltimore Sun is listed on Baltimore, Maryland
   - yet the Baltimore Sun has commercial ads - tons of them, that's how they
   make their money - and if they are like any other rag, they have articles
   that you can use for toilet tissue - and they, I'm sure, require a paid
   subscription - all of which you oppose - so it is only fair that if the
   Baltimore Sun, the New York Times, the Youngstown Vindicator - or any
   other similar source is allowed on Wikipedia that the Newton Falls Leader
   is, too! By the way, each of these do require a paid subsription and the
   Newton Falls Leader doesn't.

   You are an interesting person, and I respect that.  However, in this
   matter Wikipedia will either have to remove all of those links, and more,
   or allow the link to the Newton Falls Leader - my bet is they'll allow the
   link.

   I wish we could cut-the-chase as they say (wait - who are they???) I don't
   know, but anyway, simply scratch all of this negativity, restore the link
   and let life go on.

   Talk to ya!
   Tony - Newton Falls Leader



   > Hi NFL/Tony,
   >
   > if you don't think mediation will work (and it sounds like you do not)
   > then
   > we should take this to a request for comment (search WP:RFC on Wikipedia).
   > That is the ruling you seek, if I understand the process properly. I have
   > never been involved in an RFC before. It would be about a content dispute
   > (for the Newton Falls, Ohio article).
   >
   > I understand your other argument, but two (or several thousand) wrongs do
   > not make a right (just because a lot of article have links violating WP:EL
   > doesn't mean it is allowed).
   >
   > If you don't mind, could you post to my talk page please (if it is not
   > confidential)? I do not check this address often. Thanks,
   > Ruhrfisch
   >
   > On 3/12/07, thevoice@nfl.tc <thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote:
   >>
   >> Hi Ruhrfish,
   >>
   >> He initially wrote to me and I responded, but had to write him again to
   >> see if he had received my message.  He said he had, but was busy.  I'm
   >> not
   >>
   >> certain that he is interested in handling this.
   >>
   >> Since, I've written to him twice without a reply...that is why I posted
   >> a
   >> comment on the NF, OH page.  In one of my emails, I explained to him
   >> that
   >> given our differences, I believe the only way that this is going to be
   >> resolve is for Wikipedia to make a ruling, something that he isn't in a
   >> position to do.  That way, either you or I can argue against that
   >> ruling.
   >>
   >> I don't agree with voting, and I expressed that to him; it is fruitless
   >> and makes a mockery of Wikipedia and NF, OH.  I've also indicated to him
   >> that there are many Wikipedia pages with many links that are exactly
   >> like
   >> the Newton Falls Leader and/or the Newton Falls Leader is better than -
   >> in
   >>
   >> one sense, because the Newton Fall Leader is not a commercial website -
   >> but a true community site.
   >>
   >> Personally, I think the link should be restored.  I understand that you
   >> don't - you are entitled to your opinion, but I will continue to argue
   >> against it - and the facts are on my side.  Let's reason - if the link
   >> isn't restored, Wikipedia will have to scour its pages to remove each
   >> and
   >> every link that is similar to or worse than Newton Falls Leader - and
   >> that's a lot of links to delete.
   >>
   >> Tony
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >>
   >> > Hi Tony,
   >> >
   >> > sorry, I don't check email here often and just now saw this. Have you
   >> > heard
   >> > from Blah... (the AMA advocate) yet?
   >> >
   >> > Ruhrfisch
   >> >
   >> >
   >> > On 3/1/07, thevoice@nfl.tc <thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote:
   >> >>
   >> >> Ruhrfisch,
   >> >> Thanks for the info...I'll post this weekend so there isn't a need to
   >> >> post
   >> >> the email.
   >> >> Thanks,
   >> >> Tony
   >> >>
   >> >> > Hi Tony,
   >> >> >
   >> >> > the AMA advocate is a perons who has agreed to help with your
   >> >> complaint,
   >> >> > where you initially asked for help concerning the inclusion of the
   >> >> > www.nfl.tc website link in External Links. Here is the link:
   >> >> >
   >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/January_2007/NewtonFallsLeader
   >>
   >> >> >
   >> >> > You can also email the person who has taken the case directly from
   >> >> your
   >> >> > talk
   >> >> > page (there is a link there
   >> >> >
   >> >>
   >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NewtonFallsLeader#AMA_help_on_.27Newton_Falls.2C_Ohio.27
   >> >> >  )
   >> >> >
   >> >> > I will paste the email on the page if that is Ok with you.
   >> >> >
   >> >> > Ruhrfisch
   >> >> >
   >> >> >
   >> >> > On 2/28/07, thevoice@nfl.tc <thevoice@nfl.tc> wrote:
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> Hi,
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> I visited the page breifly the other day, but haven't had time to
   >> >> talk.
   >> >> >> What is an AMA advocate?
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> My schedule won't allow time for me to respond for at least a
   >> week.
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> Thanks for keeping me updated.
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> Tony - Newton Falls Leader
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >> > Hi Newton Falls Leader,
   >> >> >> >
   >> >> >> > the AMA advocate has started a poll on the Newton Falls, Ohio
   >> >> article
   >> >> >> talk
   >> >> >> > page about including the www.nfl.tc link in the article's
   >> external
   >> >> >> links
   >> >> >> > section. Since you have not made any edits on Wikipedia in
   >> several
   >>
   >> >> >> days,
   >> >> >> I
   >> >> >> > was not sure if you knew and wanted to let you know so you could
   >> >> weigh
   >> >> >> in
   >> >> >> > with your opinion.
   >> >> >> >
   >> >> >> > Hope all is well with you,
   >> >> >> > Ruhrfisch
   >> >> >> >
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >>
   >> >> >
   >> >>
   >> >>
   >> >
   >>
   >>
   >

From: thevoice@nfl.tc
To: QNZcolombiano91@aol.com
Subject: Re: Wikipedia e-mail
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2007 8:36 AM

Blah0401,

I guess you want me to thank you? I would, but I'm not sure for what. Again, like Ruhrfisch and Athaenara, you state your opinion and expect me to take it for fact. What specific links are you talking about? I cannot defend or compare links that you do not identify!

Personally, I think you came into this as an alley to Ruhrfisch, with no intention of resolving the issues. Fact is, you would't reply to my emails, but as soon as Ruhrfisch sends you one, presto, here you are replying!

Seriously, nothing that anyone has stated in opposition to a link to the Newton Falls Leader goes against Wikipedia rules - that's why Ruhrfisch and others have to constantly change their reasons for deleting the link...they can't justify their actions!

The only rule that may have been violated is that of me posting my own link...and I'm not certain that goes against the rules.

So, don't be like the others, be civil, if you are going to acuse the Newton Falls Leader website of something then state what that is.

Just a side note, it is people such as Ruhrfisch, Athaenara, and yourself who make a mockery of Wikipedia and denigrate the good that is intended, just as you're trying to do with the Newton Falls Leader. Wikipedia can be a reliable source if the people it allows to edit/monitor its pages do so unbiasedly ... that clearly isn't happening in this case.

I look forward to hearing what links you feel violate the rules and specifcally how you think they violate them. Don't just cite a rule, explain what it is in that rule that you feel is being violated. Then explain why it is ok for other links you leave intact on Wikipedia are allowed to exist - because there isn't a sinlge link on the Newton Falls Leader that is any worse than any of the other publications I've cited.

If you should choose not to respond, like you and Ruhrfisch, I will be glad to post this along, with your apology, on the Newton Falls, Ohio page, with my own comments about it, of course.

Tony -


> I have read the emails between you and Ruhrfisch and from our > conversations I can se that my attempt at mediation is going to work. You > keep saying that you should let wikipedia decide and i a gree, both I and > Ruhrfisch see that you do intend to let this be. I suggest you do proceed > wth RFC as this would seem as a suitable decison. I'm sorry I could help > you with this dispute, hopefully wikipedia will. I do however want to > clear up some things that have come up during this process: I did and > still do apologize for not replying right away to your emails but as I > said before, I was going through some medical problems and was too > stressed to think about the matter. I know I should've been involved but > this was an emergebcy wikibreak. Secondly I did post my opinion as to what > I felt in the arguement, I shouldn't have but I did still intend to be > beutral when in the middle of conversations. Also, I will like to remind > you that there are many many links that do violate rules, its just a > truth. Ruhrfisch, myself and other wikipedians can't be checking every > single link. Ruhrfisch might of seen your link in a recent chnage log or > in some other manner. anyhow, sorry I could not be of much help. I will > also be posting this on your talk page and send this tovruhrfisch as well. > Stay well. > -Blah0401

Followup:

When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?

  • Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?

  • Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?

  • Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?

  • Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?

  • Answer:


AMA Information

Case Status: Template:AMA case status

Advocate Status:

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Association_of_Members%27_Advocates/Requests/January_2007/NewtonFallsLeader&oldid=115682820"