Sgts

Read the discussion pages on Shaftesbury before editing in future.

Your link posted was not wanted, since its already been debated and found to be a commercial and therefore against protocol when non-commercial versions exist.

Response: The website www.shaftesburydorset.com has been added as an external link with the approval of wiki editors. The number of links available to readers offers choice and the removal of any link is arbitrary censorship. The website is owned by the town through the Shaftesbury District Taskforce and is maintained by volunteers in the Chamber of Commerce (Business); Tourist Information Centre (Tourism); Town Hall (Local Government) and Shaftesbury Task Force (Youth). It is the most popular reference site on search engines and contains more up-to-date information than any other Shaftesbury-related website.

Shaftesburydorset.com

It's quite simple - publicly discuss the issue with others and then insert the link or not depending on the outcome. Just adding it and saying (without any proof) that other editors agree with you is just no good. Which editors? Which discussion? Where can the text of the discussion be found? All you're currently doing is getting a very bad name for yourself and closer to being blocked by an admin.86.138.52.177 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

The discussion about Shaftesbury websites last year did not involve shaftesburydorset.com - this website was only linked for the first time in wikipedia in January 2008 after numerous people wondered why the most extensive town website (and in accordance with Wiki practice, the Offical town website as it is wholly owned by the Town Council) was not offered by a resource on Wikipedia when it is on other websites. After dialogue with editors through wikipedia-en-help, it was at THEIR recommendation that this link DID MEET Wiki standards and at THEIR recomendation that the explanation was put on the discusion page (indeed the wording was agreed through this dialogue on winkpedia-en-help). This explanation included the quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL "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 interest guidelines. It is therefore for independant editors to decide NOT another editor. No-one could understand why you are so protective of the shaftesburytown website being the only link? The link to shaftesburydorset has been back. Please stick to protocol and leave it to independant editors to decide as per wiki policy - you have no right to independently remove this link (no-one has removed yours). You keep referring to an "Edit War" - whatever that is - when you are the only one removing information. Ia am quite happy to refer the issue through the WP:DR process. People should have the CHOICE to view a range of resources, especially those kept up-to-date on a daily bases.Sgts (talk) 19:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Question about 86.130.11.251

• User Sgts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 86.130.11.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sgts, have you also been editing anonymously? The 86.130.11.251 IP has now been blocked for the same kind of edits. — Athaenara ✉ 03:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Athaenara. As I agreed with you I posted discussion - and walked away. As a volunteer who gives hours and hours of my time each week helping visitors to Shaftesbury, I have better things to do. A recent meeting with representatives from the town council, chamber of commerce, tourism and local communities all agreed that the town website www.shaftesburydorset.com should be the information source, so any of them might be making the link - not me.

I simply put the official town website link ON - and was blocked. Why was curuxz not also blocked for continually taking it OFF? It seems curuxz wants www.shaftesburytown.co.uk to be the ONLY link, despite it being out-of-date (no events compared with the hundreds on the official site, council over a year old without 2007 results and no minutes, and links that don't work). I wonder why.... Look here to see who created the site and maintains it.. http://www.shaftesburytown.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=103&Itemid=82 Now look here to see who curuxz is.... http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?MemberId=3144018487

Conflict of interest or what? All the time wikipedia allows curuxz to continue to personally censor what appears to his own benefit, I cannot be bothered to waste my time any more, I prefer to help our visitors who all praise the information and links on shaftesburydorset.com. Type Shaftesbury Dorset into Google and you will see the number one site used across the world, yet wikipedia does not have it as an additional simple link because of curuxz vested interests. Look at Bradford on Avon, Wiltshire - you will see several links there including the local tourism link which is almost links identical to shaftesburydorset. No problem there, why not Shaftesbury? Local people are not asking for the town website to be the ONLY link, just an additional resource.

Enough from me, I'm out of here. I'll continue to leave others to fight for what's right.

Another IP 88.104.23.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
--Hu12 (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Had you bothered to read the previous discussion on the page and previous edits you would know that I have made all my conflicts of interest well known long ago and make no secret of my identity. You really think I would be stupid enough to edit under an ID with the same name as my old bebo page? Its frankly insulting you would stoop to such personal attacks. You still do not understand the problem do you? Your link is not the problem, you are, your organisation IS. You come on wikipedia and you edit without asking, against the consensus because you believe your self to have a right to do so, wikipedia is a community no one has a right to do anything. You should have discussed with others. My taking your link OFF is maintaining the status quo and you forcing yours own is breaking the rules. Thats why you were banned, now stop crying about other pages talk with others on the talk page make a reasoned adult debate instead of attacking my identity. You MUST achieve consensus. --Curuxz (talk) 18:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)