Talk:Johnny Sauter

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

External Links[edit]

I'm concerned that some of the external links in this article are unnecessary and are in conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. specifically:

An unofficial fansite. WP:EL says that "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." is to be avoided. Also, I believe that fansites, particularly unofficial ones are discouraged.
An unofficial fan forum. No particular posting is being linked to, so no additional information is being provided. WP:EL states "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET" are to be avoided.
Sells (unsurprisingly) merchandise. "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" are to be avoided. (WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided)
The subject of this article is apparently sponsored by this drinks company. The site provides no information in itself - a brief mention of the sponsorship deal in the article should suffice. Also, "Links mainly intended to promote a website" are (surprise!) to be avoided.

Please consider reading External links guidelines. I would like to discuss this and maybe get some consensus rather than reverting again. Alternatively, we could take this to Third Opinion or Request for comments but that seems a little extreme at this stage. I'd welcome any comments. Thanks --Kateshortforbob 14:39, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


To be honest, I am not sure if I am using this talk page correctly, so you will have to forgive my Wikignorance. :)

My only concern is that the link for the "Official Forum" was removed improperly, so that was readded back in under his official site. Both are recognized as the official site and official discussion forum site for Johnny Sauter. The fan site and fan forum you will have to discuss with the other individual, however until recently they were on there and caused no harm. Outside of the official sites, they are used by many Sauter fans. My understanding is that the Sauters themselves know of and approve of the site and forum (like the official unofficial site and forums), but that is for the other individual to discuss.

The other sites (merch and sponsor) isn't something that was on there before someone initiated a removal of links yesterday, so I do not see why they would be necessary there.

~ Jason Stix Buckley —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonStixBuckley (talk • contribs) 15:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed Kateshortforbob's message on User:D-Day's talk page since D-Day and I have worked a lot together at WikiProject NASCAR. Forums should be removed according WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Someone should use google to find the forum if that's what they are looking for, no matter if it's official or not. Wikipedia is not the place for his forums to be promoted. Wikipedia is not a directory of external links, so it should be removed. Royalbroil 17:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I beg to differ here.

While "discussion forums" is listed #12 on the list you provided, it is on a list that states "Links normally to be avoided", not "Links ALWAYS to be avoided".

In this case, the forum services provided by my company can be just as valuable as the official website services. These are contracted agreements. Usually message boards are located on the official site's servers, but in this case, my company provides a service, which should be recognized accordingly and allowable on the Wikipedia site.

It is a matter of interpretation, just like all 14 points on the "Links normally to be avoided" list. For instance, #12 states "Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority.". Technically, JohnnySauter.net is a personal web page, so an interpretation could be taken that it should be removed. If the rub is that it is written by a recognized authority, then so is his official forum, as my company is a recognized authority for his official forum (and I also work for 51 Sports, who manages his official site).

Also, the "External references" links to a private non-official site. So, leaving that while removing official links seems a bit backwards.

I have readded the official forum link to the section, under the interpretations of the Wiki rules, which does not prohibit discussion forum links, but rather lists them as links normally to be avoided. In this case, it is his officially recognized forum, run by a recognized and contracted authority and in conjunction with his official website.

As far as the fan site and fan board, that is not my call as I do not manage or have anything to do with them. That person will have to tend to readding and discussing their point of view.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me any time.

Jason Stix Buckley Stix Fx Network Motorsports Lounge : www.MotorsportsLounge.com email: jason@ domain above —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonStixBuckley (talk • contribs) 19:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with what Royalbroil said. Message forums, no matter official or unofficial, are to be discouraged for nothing else, WP:POV purposes. As much as I'd like to assume good faith, I can't help but question the POV and/or intentions of JasonStixBuckley by looking at his contributions. I will revert those edits as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Day (talk • contribs) 23:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jason Stix has two of his allowed three reversions of this article, and will violate WP:3RR at the next instance. He is link spamming to his forums. I warning him on his talk page. Royalbroil 23:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, so let me understand. Because you are making your own interpretations of what the rules of Wikipedia are, I will be banned for adding content that does not break any rules of the site? I am a bit confused by this.

According to the about page at wikipedia as well as the above link, there is nothing wrong with me adding my OFFICIAL forum links. In fact, it is more prudent than the unofficial reference link. Please explain why that is allowed and my link is not.

I am not link spamming. If I am violating the terms of service of Wikipedia, please point this out. However, there is no rules against providing valid useful OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED links on the service. In fact, by the constant removal, you are changing the purpose of Wikipedia (again, according to the "about wikipedia" page), and violating the whole purpose of the site.

Please define where I am in the wrong here, according to the rules of Wikipedia. If I am wrong, I most certianly will admit and bow out. However, the only thing I see being in the wrong here is an interpretation of the rules from your end, based on an opinion, not fact.

The facts are simple:

- Discussion Forums are NOT prohibited by the rules of Wikipedia to be posted, only in some circumstances.

- The link that is constantly being removed is an official forum link for the person being discussed in the entry, and officially recognized by this person, as evident by their official site.

- Motorsports Lounge is a reputable and authorized source, housing OFFICIAL message boards (professionally managed) for over 120 race car drivers, from local ranks to the NASCAR top-three series. This is not a fan site service, rather a professional site service, which is at the same level as an official site. Therefore, the link is justified, again, according to the rules of Wikipedia.

- The constant removal of the forum link is removing Encyclopedic information from the public for personal reasons of the removing editor. This is defeating the purpose of the "external links" section within Wikipedia, and intentionally demeans the purpose of the site.

Again, if I am wrong, I will bow out of this. However, you will see that I am not if the facts are followed to a rightful conclusion.

I am more than willing to discuss this situation to a proper resolve.

~Jason Stix Buckley (jason@motorsportslounge.com or jason@51sports.net) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonStixBuckley (talk • contribs) 23:34, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the quick message earlier, I went to 2 racetracks tonight. Please read the blue links that I have provided to find out more details and a better explanation of all the points that I have made. They are included for a reason.
Why do I contend that you have a conflict of interest? Per WP:COI: "When an editor disregards the aims of Wikipedia to advance outside interests, they stand in a conflict." You have an outside interest in advancing your website. What you should do in this case: "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest, but must be careful when editing in mainspace. Compliance with this guideline requires discussion of proposed edits on talk pages and avoiding controversial edits in mainspace." Jason, please read WP:COI. There are more points relevant to this discussion there. I gave you warnings on your talk page which you have removed.
About guidelines: yes a guideline can be broken with occasional exception. Generally a guideline is followed except if there is a specific reason to not follow it, and then the reason should be discussed in the proper forum (either the article talk page or something that affects a group of pages would be discussed at a WikiProject like WikiProject NASCAR). The discussion is currently happening on this page, but it could be moved to WikiProject NASCAR if you'd like. Then more contributors could give their opinion and consensus over all WikiProject articles would be reached. For purposes of discussion, !votes from contributors with few edits are not counted and so are contributors with conflict of interest (like you do). You are allowed to give your opinion and state your arguments. So right now the discussion would be 3 in favor of removing the link and 0 to keep it. What you need to do is convince the 3 contributors opposed to the link why an official forum needs to be added to an article. I for the record am not convinced that ANY official forum under any circumstances should be added to any article. You need to not add official forum links to any articles until this is discussed, else you would be considered to be disruptive.
About what should be added as external links, per WP:EL. "Links should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links, or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links." From the 'Links normally to be avoided' section: "1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 4. Links mainly intended to promote a website. 11. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET." From the 'Advertising and conflicts of interest' section: 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 sites. 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 interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings."
External links are very different from references. Ideal references are independent of the subject of the article, and anything controversial should be sourced from a reputable independent source. They show that content of the article is not something that is made up. Official websites could be used to game the system, so they are not considered reliable for the purpose of sourcing something controversial.
About the 3 revert rule: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Also "The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence". Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. This particularly applies to editors who persistently make three reverts each day, or three reverts on each of a group of pages, in an apparent effort to game the system.". Royalbroil 04:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a note at WikiProject NASCAR asking WikiProject participants to join this discussion here. That way the discussion will all take place together. Royalbroil 12:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with each point made by Royalbroil in this section. Being an "Official" site does not make some website more appropriate for an external link from a Wikipedia article. I've only briefly looked at Motorsports Lounge, but from what I see and from considering Jason's claims above, I don't see anything that I would consider encyclopedic. The content is interesting to some fans, but per the WP:NOT guideline, Wikipedia is not a web directory and is not a promotional medium. Per the WP:COI guidelines, someone with a business relationship with the subject (such as the trumpeting of "Professional" in the above discussion) should cooperate with other editors to determine what's appropriate, rather than pushing insertion of his own material. Per the WP:3RR guideline, editors should not repeatedly revert others' changes unless they're clearly vandalism; when a dispute arises, discussion working toward consensus should be used instead of attempting to take control (see also the WP:OWN guideline). Barno 18:13, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


  • While I understand some points made, I would like to address a few points being overlooked.


First off, my entries were made due to multiple email requests to myself from others to add links in to my site because they thought it would serve the public, which is what Wikipedia is about. As you can see by my organizational structure, I was asked to do it so it would be done right. Thus, I did.


Next, according to the Wikipedia about page, the following is in part stated: "a multilingual, web-based, free content encyclopedia project" ..."written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world" ... and "you are welcome to be bold and edit articles yourself, contributing knowledge as you see fit in a collaborative way". Thus, according to the rules of the site, my entries were following the rules.


Unfortunately, a few (I only see a few people here objecting, not the millions of people that use Wiki daily) are objecting to the reasoning for my entries based on personal opinion on the rules stated within Wikipedia, not the facts. This grey area is being exploited from one site and not allowed from the other.


This is even more evident when MY entries were reverted by those in power positions here, but I was warned to not revert or I would be banned. As stated by the person above me ( WP:3RR guidelines ), one should DISCUSS first before reverting. I was not given that opportunity, instead my entries (not reverts) were removed by method of reverting (as seen from the history page) by those in those power positions and I was threatened with banning.


The problem here is not my entries or my actions, but the actions of those in "power positions". Stripping away all personal feelings from all sides and looking at the straight facts, my postings and actions have been within the spirit of Wiki while the others involved here have been violating the terms and essentially damaging the whole spirit and purpose of Wikipedia.


This is very disturbing.


It is also disturbing that one person in particular took it upon themselves to go through and remove all my links, from entries I made months ago that were ok then to recent entries and updates. All of this was once again done without a discussion, as stated against the spirit of Wikipedia (as mentioned above).


Unfortunately, I am fighting a losing battle here because of the opinions of those in the power positions here.


Let me state that placing the Official Forum links does not affect my bottom line. My company provides a service to over 120 professional drivers ... from local levels to NASCAR. That service is contracted and my business is paid for services regardless of traffic. The placement of the links were used to educate those that were looking for the officially supported and documented discussion forums. This is, in fact, Encyclopedic, if not just for the true nature of it, but also for the service it provides and the fact that my company provides a service not offered professionally by any other company online.


But, lets not let facts and the true spirit of Wikipedia interfere with personal opinion. (Note the sarcasm)


While I am not pleased with the situation and the decision of the higher authorities here, Wikipedia is not my site, so I have to bow to the decisions made here.


I am just disappointed that the decisions made overall comprimise what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. It is unfortunate that the rules of the site and what it claims to be is not followed by those in charge, but it is what it is.


Thanks for your time.

Jason Stix Buckley (Stix Fx Network / 51 Sports) 01:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has been hit VERY hard by spammers, so the external links sections on all articles are looked at closely. You are asking for an exception to the guidelines. We could open up this discussion to a much larger group, maybe all WikiProject Motorsports contributors. How about a posting on the administrators list so hundreds of contributors with a lot of experience would look over this situation? The results of the discussion would remain the same. We ALL are echoing the sentiments of Wikipedians: external links have been abused by spammers and people with vested interest in their websites. The nutshell at Wikipedia:External links says it best: "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Every precident that I have seen in Wikipedia says the same thing: Forums are not acceptable for external links or references.
Another thing: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. The goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia is a written compendium aiming to convey information on all branches of knowledge. It is not the place to build listings of external links to the web. That's what google and other search engines are for. Maybe you should figure out ways to improve your position on search results. I know people who do exactly that for a living.
Wikipedia is not a hierarchical. There is no "power positions". Even the administrators and bureaucrat are not "power positions". They just have a few more buttons to administer some things that would be dangerous if made available to the general public. I am not an administrator or in any position of power. I am in touch with the policies, guidelines, and the interpretations/precendents.
If you still have a problem with the outcome, read Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. I am tired of explaining everything in great detail, so you need to clink the link this time and figure it out for yourself. Royalbroil 03:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added this discussion to WikiProject Motorsport so that all Motorsport contributors from around the world can comment. Royalbroil 03:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Johnny_Sauter&oldid=1210235212"