Talk:Southport/Archive,reporter

Talk:Southport

Southport Reporter
The para on the Southport Reporter under History verges on a commercial, and seems to have undertones of the rivalry between local internet-based media. The only think that prevented me from removing it was its claims for notability. Are these well-founded? If not, then the para should be removed. If they are, then it should be shortened, and perhaps moved elsewhere on the page. Countersubject 00:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed. Countersubject 12:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've found and moved another paragraph very similar to the above from the History section (again!) to a new Media section. Have also merged to Sports a para on the Marine Lake 24 Hour Dinghy Race which was irrelevantly duplicted in the History section (!) Snowy 1973 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not rivalry between local internet-based media...   Southport Reporter is documented as a newspaper and is listed on the BBC websites. Leave it alown! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid to say sites like the one you wish to add are in breach of Wikipedia's policy and is considered a link farm. Also the link you provide does not give any evidence to the contrary. Galloglass 18:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

How does it? in that case remove Rock FM and Southport Visitor! What eveidence do you require? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So the BBC is not a responsible judge of who is media and who are not media outlets? --1takepics2 18:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Just to add.... How is it a considered a link farm? Get your facts correct! Please also leve the post ref to the BBC site or is the BBC website a link farm? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/merseyside/3754282.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 18:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would recommend you read Wikipedia is not a link farm. This gives a clear indication of what is and what is not appropriate to be added to Wikipedia pages. Simply put, we are not an internet directory, not even for local internet news. Galloglass 18:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - I was going to say...) Have a good read of external links and spam. Your edits make you appear to be a single-purpose account, with that purpose being to publicise a couple of web sites, and you have set off more than one person's 'spam radar'. Have a good read, then come back here (not the article) to suggest your additions, and let the local editors decide.  Mr Stephen 18:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have and I stand by them....  Southport has 3 main media outlets...  as it says on the BBC page. See Southport Visitor and Southport Reporter. Pleas note no listing of the Champion.

Also the Southport Reporter is like the Liverpool Echo... it covers more than one area, it covers Merseyside... hence my postings. If the Liverpool Echo is listed all over, why not a rivel. I know what spam is and --- well if you consider adding and correcting wrong info as SPAM...  well...  GET A LIFE...

I am... I have had it with Wikipedia. AS a quote that Oxford Uni. said "A group of people who think they are always correct, even when wrong. = Wikipedia"   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Last note. If the local editors are so good then why does the local pages for this area say "	This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards." Could it be that no ref. are given? Also information is deleted.

Also don't warn me... just ban me as I am not going back on here for real information anymore...  I just do not like being told as soon as I post that I am Spaming... hence why I am cross. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1takepics2 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I have read this and think that takeapic2 has a point. Why is the Liverpool Echo not commercial yet another is? It is a bit odd, but I have added an online section. This is not "link farming" as it is an important development in the Towns History and also in the development of the media. To back up their clams I have found countless reports via google about them, and yes the BBC even has them listed. takepics2 is correct! It looks like some on here are just not 100% as to what can be read into the term "link farm" when sites like the Champion and Liverpool Echo can be listed, but other can not. That reads more on the lines of being "commercial" in its intent. I agree, under history is incorrect though. But the link about the WLYC 24 hour race was backing up the information on the posting about the race. Odd. That is why I have added a new section called online! That should stop the problems...   But it might now open the door to "link farming", but it looks like the best way to go. Also the online site is very interesting as the size of Southport is so small, yet it has more websites than most towns of its size in the UK. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 00:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)newuser  PS sorry goofed up on adding this section... I am new so sorry about that.


 * The essential difference is that the Liverpool Echo is a News website that also contains a small amount of advertising were as this particular website is an Advertising one that also contains a small amount of news. - Gallo glass  15:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Check you facts, Southport Reporter has only one banner advert! Liverpool Echo has lots of adverts. Southport Reporter is 98% news and information! Gallo, you are just plain wrong. Stop and think before you type!  --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:29, 10 December 2007 (UTC)newuser ,,,


 * Also noted you say "Resident of Ormskirk, Lancashire."... stop posting on a Southport page when you do not live in that area. I am from Southport! --81.129.235.13 (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)new user - martin


 * I would very much recommend reading WP:CIVIL as well as WP:NOT. I'm sure you'll find both very informative and helpfull in making future posts here. Cheers - Gallo glass  01:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See my post asking for your references as to why you are making edit it with out discussion.


 * Please read WP:LINKS. This states explicitly the policy I am enforcing here. Also please to not make personal attacks and unfounded acusations as they will be removed. And finally not living in Southport is not a disqualification from editing these pages. Thank you. - Gallo glass  02:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

We why attack me then?

I have made it clear that the point is that the sites listed are not a violation of the rules. It was not a personal attack, more a question about you political editing. That is allowed. The reason why I said that you are not from Southport is key to my questions? You have not done you reserch and that is a fact. The sites I am talking about are Southport ones. If you remove one why not remove Southport-online.co.uk? That is a SPAM from what I can see. Also Liverpool Echo on your way of looking at things is not about Southport as it have Liverpool news in it. So to are the BBC sites etc. I am trying to make a point that is correct and you are taking it as a personal attack. It is not and I am sorry if you feel that way. I am making a point that is correct and you are not giving real information that I can see and back up my facts with. You do not back you information up. That is why I want it discussed and allowed before it is edited! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Firstly I have in no way attacked you. Secondly I have, if you check removed the Southport online link, and lastly, all I am doing is checking which external links meet the set policy or wikipedia and which fail, then removing the failed ones. I do not make this policy. It is done only after much debate and whether or not I agree with it I am boud to follow it. I'm sorry you believe I have some ulterior motive, but I don't. Btw if you check the Liverpool page you will not find the Liverpool Echo listed there in the external links, probably because someone takes a stricker view of the external links policy than myself. - Gallo glass  02:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Quote: Can I ask why you twice re-added the Southport Online link when I had removed it prior to you even mentioning it over an hour a go when you obviously objected to it so strongly? - Galloglass 02:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I was re adding the link I added as you removed that. Ok, sorry if I sounded cross. I think that Southport Reporter is worth listing and so to are some of the others. Ok, if any of the links Southport Reporter is the most impotent as it is a newspaper and is about the area. I am cross as it looks from my view as you did not read that site.

Both of us mean well. Lets call it a miss understanding for two trying to to the best for this site.

But please add Southport Reporter as it is not right to list the other two papers with out it and then see what others think. The last time no one replayed and when they did they just got egnored. that is why people get cross. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 02:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)new user Martin...


 * You may have thought you were adding the Southport Reporter. In reality you were repeatedly adding Southport Online instead. Then to go on and remove large sections of Media, which I might add I played no part in writing will simply result in you being taken less seriously in future. As regards the Southport Reporter, yes I do agree that it is now much improved and probably does warrant inclusion now the advertising/news ratio has changed. But you were not just adding the Reporter, you were adding Southort.gb and all the other pure link farm sites that are strictly forbidden, hence my earlier reversion. I do hope you will contribute more to wikipedia but please be aware that there are guidelines that need to be followed as it is, after all, an encyclopaedia. - Gallo glass  03:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Lest call it quites for now. I am just trying to improve the section and agree about with what you say about listing all the sites. I was, as I said trying to compromise with what is an increasingly gray area. Noted about removing sections. Adding new one, that is why.

As I am new, I have made a mistake not explaining on the edit thing as I could not fit it all in. --81.129.235.13 (talk) 03:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)Martin