User talk:Mpalmer22

Welcome!

Hello, Mpalmer22, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Gwandoya (talk) 23:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits[edit]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008[edit]

Hi, the recent edit you made to Moscow has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Cape Town constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Please do not vandalize pages, as you did with this edit to Beijing. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Cairo. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily blocked this account due to spamming. When the block expires please find a way to contribute that doesn't involve adding external links. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel like the stuff I was doing was spam. I was adding travel guides to the cities that have travel guides. Isn't it kind of a monopoly if only the wikitravel guides are the only options people have?

(I'm not an admin, I'm just commenting for your information) Wikipedia is not a travel guide (per WP:NOT). There is no need or requirement to add information for tourists. Wikipedia is not a link directory either, so we can't just keep adding travel sites to a big list.

Yet, people felt that some tourist info should be available, so the wikitravel pages are linked on those articles where people won't reach a consensus on a small list of travel sites. The big lists of links get replaced by a single link to wikitravel. Some articles *do* have some links to travel guide sites, as soon as those sites have encyclopaedical information that is seen by some editor as adding useful additional information to the article.

Your website *does* have some content, but, for me, it's not encyclopaedic enough to warrant linking to it, and the actual info is not sourced, so it's imposible to verify its actual accuracy --Enric Naval (talk) 08:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you just reminded me of deleting that last rogue travel guide link, just like I commented on the Cairo's talk page a few days ago. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my biggest concern with that, is that there is a wikitravel link. That may be encyclopedic, but it is not comprehensive. It lists a couple of restaurants, a couple of hotels, I think it is unreasonable to force people to have to use the wikitravel articles. The hotels and restaurants have nothing to back them up as a guarantee, now a travel guide from a reputable source, i.e. Peter Greenberg, gives you some assurance of quality and a person you can complain to if the information is wrong. It would be very difficult to base travel decisions off of wikitravel recommendations, but you can and many people do make travel decisions based on Peter Greenberg. To me saying articles about travel by Peter Greenberg are not allowed is kind of like saying Michael Jordan cannot contribute articles on Basketball. Wouldn't it improve the quality of the overall article if, a leading spokesperson was allowed to make a claim. I think it is a little unfair to have a wikitravel guide, but not allow other travel guides or easy ways to find other travel guides. To me, it should be all or none and let the user sort out what information they think is relevant and useful, than telling them that this single source of information is the best information they can expect.

(sorry for very long post, but I tried to address all the points you made)

Answering on your own page is ok. Usually people will answer on the other's people talk page, because this way the wikipedia software will automatically warn the user of the new messages, but it's also ok if you say "I answer on my own talk page". Some very busy users have placed at the top of their talk page a warning about how to contact them, for talking to those users you should follow thir indications. For me, it's ok to talk here.

About the number of hotels, the article Cairo article [1] has no hotels on it. Instead it links to the Downtown article [2], which list seven hotels, and advices to look at the districts subarticles. I can see 3 hotels on Midan Tahir, 4 on Garden City, etc. I can also see lots of places to drink, eat and buy listed on subpages.

I have no idea about the reliability of wikitravel's information, but if you find some incorrect information, you are free to change the information, providing sources of the correct info, just like you can do on wikipedia articles. You see, the important thing about wikipedia-like projects is that they can be edited and checked by many people, and its information is under a free license that allows to reuse it on many other places for free, and Greenberg's pages don't allow that. Wikitravel gives about the same level of assurance of quality as wikipedia (that is, no assurance at all) so I don't see the problem there.

Finally, it's not fair or unfair to list or not the Peter Greenberg site. It's just adequate or not according to wikipedia's guideline about external links, called WP:EL and its purpose of making a repository of free encyclopaedic info. Also, tourist looking for that sort of info should not go to a encyplopaedia to find it, since it doesn't really beling there. As I said, it's there because some people felt that they should at least refer to some actual travel information somewhere, and it has become an habit to just link to wikitravel. They could have just decided to not include any touristic information at all. (Also, as I said, wikipedia is not a link directory per policy, so we can't just go and link to lots of sites to let the user decide)

Hint: Michael Jordan would be told *not* to collaborate on basketball-related articles because of the wikipedia policy of conflict of interest, called WP:COI, unless he was making very neutral edits not relating to himself. The quality could be compromised because of WP:COI, and because of him probably not using a neutral point of view about his own accomplishments. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any travel guide links that you put will be probably removed too. You should try contributing to wikitravel instead, but not by placing links but by adding raw information to the articles. Of course, notice that both on wikipedia and wikitravel, the information is licensed by you under the GFDL when you submit it, so you can't use information from the Greenberg website unless you are the titular of the copyright (altough, I think, a list of hotels is not copyrightable). You should try to add information to the articles, instead of linking to websites. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be alright if I add the content, and referenced it as an outside source? I do have written permission to use the content.