Talk:Palisades Park (Santa Monica)

Public art and historic features section - Unsupported stripping of refs, ELs
I opened this section to call attention to the reversion of unsupported edits by User:Netherzone stripping this section of all refs/citations and valid list external links. These were valid useful and relevant links & references, and User:Netherzone made a blanket deletion without stating any reference-based reason(s), and without a prior TALK page discussion. Any such blanket edit should have instead been discussed/proposed here first to gain consensus. I've manually reverted to the status quo ante 7 Sept 2020 version by User:Robert Jan van de Hoek. TashaB (talk) 22:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * talk page discussion is not necessary, as you are spamming and violating WP:EL. I've explained things on your talk page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Greetings ThatMontrealIP, would you please explain why you removed the 2 in-text references? This is not an appropriate edit if you do not state exactly what is objectionable about either reference - and you have left this part of the article without its supporting references - tsk tsk. And also please explain why you remove the ELs in the list - and please address the specific WP:EL Exception for "LInks in lists" policy that you believe is not met, to support your edit.  For example, do you argue that such external links would work better in this article under an "External LInks" section? Other editors don't seem to think so, but I'm open to your argument if you have one.  Best, TashaB (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This is not the first warning given to this user- same issue happened on Millard Sheets. Jooojay (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)


 * , I am the editor who originally removed the links before removed them for a second time. Please allow me to explain my actions. You and another editor, K. M. Williamson (now using a different name), have been adding multiple links to the Art in Public Places website, and to writings by K. M. Williamson (the director of PAIPP, not necessarily the editor of the same name.) This type of blanket-adding of links and refs to the organization is promotional editing WP:PROMO, and is considered WP:SPAM which is why I deleted your edits. Netherzone (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * has already received many, many warnings and explanations about linkspamming. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I saw that in their Talk Page history, very interesting. Netherzone (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * You claim both WP:PROMO and WP:SPAM - where is your support? The criteria are viewpoint advocacy/propaganda, opinion pieces, scandal mongering, self-promotion, advertising.  You made the claims, now where is your support?  I see none.  This online archive is strictly factual, it is open/free/accessible/public - these are WP's reliability criteria for you to address BEFORE you remove an otherwise relevant reference.TashaB (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Fellow editors, 1) I have consistently asserted that 1) I have no relationship with the Public Art in Public Places archive or its staff. 2) I have defended my in-text references to this organization as a valid, relevant, accurate online source, whose "reliability" has never been questioned in the professional art archives world (where is your evidence to the contrary?). 3) I have consistently asked for your SPECIFIC objections to the validity of any of these in-text references or external links (in lists of "see also" or "ext. links"), and you give NONE. Slamming my editing reputation seems a COVER for avoiding actual and specific issues. There has not been one criticism of this archive as a "Reliable source". Not ONE. So if any of you would care to legitimately discuss specific reasons why these references are anything LESS than factual, useful, accurate, & valid ("reliable source" criteria), then fine, proceed. We'll have a good discussion. Otherwise, you're compromising your own reputations for fairness and impartiality by continuing to impugn my WP credibility. TashaB (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * per the Wikipedia manual of style, we do not add inline links in the main body of the article. In case you do not understand what an inline link to an external site looks like, here is one that you added: "Idaho Gate (1912) by Greene and Greene (terminus of Idaho Avenue)". There is  concensus on Wikipedia that these types of external links are not allowed. Understand now? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Please assume good faith,, no one is "slamming your reputation"; what is most important is the integrity of the encyclopedia. PAIPP is not a reliable source because it is a primary source, simply a database with the content written by the organization director or the organization itself. Please familiarize yourself with WP:RS, and also do read WP:SPAM and WP:PROMO. On Wikipedia reliable sources are secondary or tertiary sources in vetted books, journal and news articles, and independent, unconnected websites of merit. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)