Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 11 February 2007

Discussion copied from Misplaced Pages help desk

Someone keeps inserting irrelevant links into the external links section of our article. nthellworld is an entity which I operate.

I've had to remove this link twice. If you view the history of this article you will see someone keeps inserting 'nthell.net' - This site has no connection whatsoever with ours, thus doesn't belong in our external links.

Please advise on how this can be prevented from happening again?

Thank you.

Mick — Preceding unsigned comment added by MickR (talk • contribs)

You may find what I wrote on my user page helpful. Xiner (talk, email) 19:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• It is right to remove irrelevant links, if they are irrelevant. These links, however, could be argued to be critical links of the article content. Disputes over content should initially be taken up with on the article's talk page. Because Misplaced Pages is open, you cannot stop things like this from happening, but you can try to reach a consensus on what belongs there. However, I am very concerned to hear you write "our article". It is not "your article": please read Misplaced Pages:Ownership of articles. Please take care not to classify things you disagree with as "nonsense": you should take a very cautious approach to editing this article, and perhaps propose all changes via the talk page, to avoid any accusations of Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You should in no case be adding external links to any web site you are connected with. Notinasnaid 19:44, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading the article in question, I'd also note WP:N and WP:V. Xiner (talk, email) 19:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I will copy this discussion to the talk page of the article, in order to provide a framework for discussion and consensus. Notinasnaid 08:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The link to 'nthell.net' indeed has nothing to do whatsoever with this article. I suggest it be removed; what do you think? Dolphinn 01:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this article represents what cableforum is about in a balanced way. I'm happy to remove the link if people wish to discuss edit to the article. I don't understand why my requests for discussion are being deleted? Is there a rule I missed? Ongal 06:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the rules I don't think the people who run cableforum should be deleting or editing this discussion page at all - that is a conflict of interest. I also see that I should not be adding a link to my site. But it appears someone else has in the mean time.Ongal 06:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This article isn't about cableforum ongal - it is about the entity that started out as nthellworld. Your site is purely a protest about being banned from cableforum. You are 'one' person with an axe to grind and are vandalising a wikipedia entry about the entity, just to be spiteful.

It doesn't justify a link by you in the external links. As already mentioned, your site isn't a reliable source of information and which bears no relevance on the said article. The link should be removed.

And as to who put the link back in - I *guess* someone was trying to avoid the edit war block ruling.

MickR 14:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The link doesn't belong in this article - I think ongal is just protesting at being banned from the website. I have been helped a great deal by the website in this article and my uncle has. They have a fantastic escalation policy that gets results. Enough said. 86.138.52.19 14:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I see you got the gang over to help. As usual you make decisions about me - your 'guess' is wrong. Also my site is not 'purely' a protest about cableforum, it is mainly about NTL. It does credit cableforum for helping me out in the past, maybe you should read it. Third, this article is not a balanced represantation of what's going on at cableforum. Fourth, if you bother to read my reply you would know that I have already agreed that the link to my site is not appropriate and I will not add it again. Please stop analysing me and making judgements and guesses about me. You are generally wrong. I refuse to attack you personally.

As far as reliabiity goes, I don't think you have followed wikipedia rules either as has been pointed out before. The very fact that you created this article is a conflict of interest. The fact that you now actively try to control it is totally against the rules. Now, can we please start discussing the contents of the article? Ongal 18:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Changes

I think the article should be clear about who created it.

It should also say that cableforum is used by many NTL employees and ex-employees.

It should make it clear that several of the admins are NTL employees and ex-employees and explain who Paul Goodson is - the owner of the domain name cableforum.co.uk

Finally, some mention of the fact that a pro-NTL bias exists by the very nature of the population.

Any objections? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ongal (talk • contribs) 01:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I object. None of the CF team works for ntl. One of them worked for ntl untl a few weeks ago and another worked for them 4 years ago. CF is completely neutral but when a small minority of individuals demand to be disruptive and abusive against ntl employees because they're not getting their way, the team will act. The reason you think it's biased is because for some reason, there doesn't seem to be many ntl employees coming on the site giving abuse like some customers do.

Ongal 18:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC) So you agree - the forum was created by people who at the time were NTL employees. Some continued to work for NTL until the end of 2006 while claiming to be running a neutral site. How exactly is that neutral? Can you be more specific as to which points you object to and why? You forgot to sign, so I don't know if you are affiliated with cableforum or NTL and therefore what weight your opinion should have on the matter. I would argue that cableforum tries to look like a user forum when in fact it was created by (at the time) NTL employees. This fact should be made clear. Also, who are Neil Crayne and Mick Ramsden - were they at any time employed by NTL in any way? And if cableforum is a user site - why were NTL employees given the admin rights to delete user comments? Doesn't seem neutral? All this should be included in the article which at the moment seems to concentrate too much on NTL itself and doesn't really explain what cableforum is.

Ongal 19:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC) I have now edited the article to reflect your comments so far. Are there any more objections?

Yes, there most certainly are big objections - Who do you think you are adding unfounded allegations? The information you posted about us supposedly giving admin access to ntl employees is a complete lie, made up again by you and this article wasn't written by cableforum at all, another infactual account, dreamed up by you.

I suggest in the interest of this article that you stop editing it as you see fit, as though you have a personal vendetta against the site just because you got bannned from it.

When oh when you will stop vandalising this article?.

MickR 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ongal 21:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)But you said: " One of them worked for ntl untl a few weeks ago and another worked for them 4 years ago" - so are you saying that those team members did not have admin accounts?

You have not addressed any of my points properly. You just keep talking about me. I refuse to enter into discussion about me. Can you address the points I made please? Who are the founders of the site and have they at any point been employed by NTL. Whoe is the owner of the domain and has he been employed by NTL. Surely these are relevant points. Please re-read my comments and address them instead of attacking me.

MickR 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Wrote: I am not attacking you, please show evidence where I have attacked you. But I see you keep attacking our site with unfounded allegations, which you have shown no evidence to back up your claims. So if anyone keeps doing the 'attacking' it is you, to this wikipedia article.

I would also like to point out that it wasn't me who made the first objection today (The one which isn't singned), before you had then decided to change it - I don't know who that was. But regardless, you keep badgering on about how CF is not being neutral - It jolly well is - There is nobody on the team who is working for ntl (Now Virgin Media).

The Founder of nthellworld is Frank Whitestone, you are clearly demonstrating that you are not up to speed with accurate information regarding nthellworld article and I again would recommend that in the interest of this article that you refrain from editing this article at your leisure.

86.138.52.19 22:26, 10 February 2007 (UTC) Ongal - you cannot keep changing this article because you feel what you believe is right - This is not how wikipedia operates. You cannot state something as fact without proper hard evidence. I would also like to point out that I am not in anyones 'gang' as you put it above. Clearly, you are showing a real immature approach to this discussion.

In the interest of this article - I would like to see this article left alone by you as you obviously appear not to know a great deal about the subject matter of this article.

Of course wikipedia is open to all and who am I to tell someone to stop editing something? But if you are going to edit an article, please do so by adding relevant and factual information that you can back up and not just adding your own opinions.

Ongal 00:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)It has been stated to me by email from CF admins and here in this discussion that some CF team members were NTL employees - one of them until a few weeks ago. I was merely adding this fact to the article. Do you know anything that contradicts this information. And I see you forgot to sign. I do not see any reason to remove my edit. In the interest of the article I would like to see it left alone by the people who run CF. That is a conflict of interest.

Why aren't you addressing the points I made instead?

MickR 01:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Wrote: To answer a point you keep making about some of the admins being ex-ntl employees? So what if they were, it doesn't change a single thing about the sites neutral status.

You made a claim the site has a pro-ntl population - again this is untrue. If you don't believe this then fine, but to add a statement in the article without backing it up with evidence, is very out of order. You cannot just state opinions without a reliable source, to back that up.

For your information - We run a very successful website that is continuing to grow. There are many cable customers that appreciate our efforts and we have helped more customers than you care to imagine.

You have also made a claim that an ntl employee had admin access and edited and or deleted posts - This is totally untrue.

If you're going to expand or change the article you have to add factual information, that you are able to back up. But I query that you are able to expand your knowledge of this website since you have actually demonstrated that you know little history of the website by asking who the founder / creator is (when it says so in this article).

I would also like to point out that you have also stated that I keep deleting this discussion - I haven't touched any of it - someone else did that, can you not see the warning at the top of this page?

This talk page is for discussing and improving the article. You are not improving it by posting infactual and opinionated statements.

Ongal 05:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)You are not answering my questions at all. I am asking for some background about "Neil Crayne and Mick Ramsden, launched a new version of nthellworld..." and specifically whether they where at any time NTL employees. I ask the same about the domain owner. Does anyone know?

And after you have answered these questions: is the following text true?: "NTL (Now Virgin Media) itself does not provide an official support forum for its customers and the Cable Forum team included at different times NTL employees and ex-employees. The forums are frequented by customers as well as Virgin Media employees."

If you are not happy with the text then please provide your version, but you cannot simply avoid the issue that your neutrality is in question. I am trying to have a reasonable discussion so please make an effort. I think it's prety clear to anyone reading this that if NTL employees were admins the site cannot be neutral and any claim it is, is ludicrous in my opinion.

I did not claim "that an ntl employee had admin access and edited and or deleted posts" I said that they had admin access and were ABLE to delete messages. I also didn't mention the word edit. Why are you misquoting me? There's a big difference. Here's my text: "NTL employees were given admin rights and the ability to delete user comments". See the difference?

Neil Crayne, Mick Ramsden and the domain owner have NEVER been employed by ntl. Only two team members of CF have even been employees, one was 4 years ago and the other ONE was on the team for a month before being made redundant.

MickR 13:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC) Wrote: The Mick Ramsden you are referring at, is me and no I have never worked for ntl nor has Neil Crayne - Neil left the CF team last year.

Your 'statement' that CF isn't neutral is wrong - it is very independent of ntl. I couldn't careless how ludicrous you think that is. You are purely making a judgement based on absolutely no evidence and I am not interested in hearing judgements that are highly speculative.

To quote you... "I did not claim "that an ntl employee had admin access and edited and or deleted posts" I said that they had admin access and were ABLE to delete messages. "

Which is still you making a claim!!! But to correct you. No they weren't! You are making a bold statement as if it was true, I will not repeat myself again for you - At no time on CF has any ntl employee been given admin access to delete or edit posts and even if they were and I am speaking hypothetically here, what exactly is your point?

I will say it again - You are one spiteful person, with an axe to grind - You got banned from the website so therefore you should not be editing this article, to fit your own agenda by making all sorts of wild speculated statements that you are unable to back up because the events which you keep stating as a fact in the article, never ever actually happened.

Misplaced Pages isn't a court of law yet you are treating it like one nor is it a place for you to place your wild accusations.