text:
Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio/Archive 1

Town
Newton Falls is a cute, quaint little town. Living there is enjoyable because it is away from the loudness of a large city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.79.106 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 5 December 2004 (UTC)

 * Newton Falls is actually a city, not a village. Per the Ohio Constitution, Part 18, Section 1, "Municipal corporations are hereby classified into cities and villages. All such corporations having a population of five thousand or over shall be cities; all others shall be villages. The method of transition from one class to the other shall be regulated by law."  Accordingly, on September 20, 1966, the City of Newton Falls adopted a city charter, reflecting its transition from a village to a city.  SwissCelt 05:22, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Zip Day?
Re: "Zip Day": I grew up in Windham Township, Ohio, which is about 10 miles from Newton Falls, and I've never heard of it. I can't find a source on Zip Day that doesn't ultimately refer back to Wikipedia. -SwissCelt 19:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

 * Zip Days haven't been around since the late 70s or early 80s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.125.59 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

44444+4444
Who has the ZIP+4 "44444+4444"?

It might be whomever rents "PO Box 4444" (if PO Box number "4444" has been rented). NO PO BOX 4444 at NF post office. 72.82.180.21 09:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It also says we celebrate Dicker Days every year. I havent seen a Dicker Days here in years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.201.125.59 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

External links question
User:NewtonFallsLeader left the following at my talk page:

 * You've chosen to delete entries to the Newton Falls, Ohio page, specifically www.nfl.tc the Newton Falls Leader. These are not your entries and were not made by you. You have no valid reason, nor do you offer any valid reason for deleting them.  Wikipedia rules do not allow for anyone to delete entries simply because they do not like the entry.  These entries are valid and are as much a part of Newton Falls, Ohio as are any of the other entries listed.  Hence, if you choose to delete them again, I will follow the procedures set forth by Wikipedia to file a grievance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewtonFallsLeader (talk • contribs) 15:09, January 31, 2007

I have looked at the web page in question here and see no original content relating to Newton Falls that is current. I see lots of advertisements, links to the Weather Channel and local newspaper and CNN and other national and local sites, and announcements for events that are in some cases months out of date. I fail to see how this meets the criteria for a valid external link (see WP:EL for the policy). I welcome you and hope you can improve the article on Newton Falls (or anything else), but if all you want is to insert what many might call "link spam" then you will be reverted every time (and not just by me). Wikipedia is not a web directory or collection of links (see WP:NOT). I am posting this here too (also at the user's talk page in slightly different form) to explain why I reverted this edit. All responses are welcome (here is probably best as they are about this article). Ruhrfisch 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

 * EMail sent to me seven times (maybe there's a bug in the send button?) by User:NewtonFallsLeader is here, my reply is below (and at NewtonFallsLeader's talk page):

 * Again, I've read your reply. I do not agree with you and nor will Wikipedia.  You delete my link to the Newton Falls Leader, a non-profit venture established by me.  It's intent is to provide the community with a valuable resource that is much like Wikipedia...a website that is built on the participation of others.  Simply because you have a bias against it doesn't give you the right to delete it.  If your reasons for deleting it were valid then you would delete 44444.com not only is this website nothing more than an advertisement for 44444.com, but it is uses only news obtained from the Tribune-Chronical, which borders on plagiarism, and it provides for profit Google Ad links. If you aren't biased, then delete all the links that fit within your criteria!  Links such as "myspace 4th of July"  the 4th of July 2006 is long over past, the "WeeklyVillager" the last article posted on this site for Newton Falls was September 29, 2006.  Jealousy gives you no right to allow one link to exist and another to be deleted, that's bias and against the rules - you should read them!  Also, your leaving these links and deleting the Newton Falls Leader for the reasons stated are not justified...and as soon as this email is sent, I'll be filing a complaint.

 * I have almost 1000 articles on my watch list. I look at changes in them, but do not review the content of each on a regular basis. Newton Falls, Ohio is a fairly low priority article for me, but when I saw a link inserted by you, I followed and read the linked page, and reverted the link as I felt it did not meet the External links criteria. I thank you for bringing the other links to my attention - I have also removed many of them, but I did convert the tornado link into a reference. I assure you I am not jealous, in fact I am glad to help some or give advice if you or anyone wants to improve an article, but inserting a link to a web page that is 90% ads and links to other content providers does not meet WP:EL guidelines as I see it. At this point I would welcome your filing a complaint as that would allow an impartial ruling on the link you insist on inserting. While I expect to be upheld in deleting it, I agree to abide by whatever the ruling is. Finally, please use talk pages and not email for future communications on this topic. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 19:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I've apologized to you for the multiple emails, behind a proxy our systems were hanging and once thought dead, I resent the email...only to find when checking my personal email that multiple copies had been sent.
 * In my complaint about the violations you've committed against Wikipedia's rules,

Your practices of monitoring these websites are unethical and a concern Wikipedia needs to address with you, hence, I will allow them to do just that.

As for your emails, please stop emailing me. However, please feel free to use my website to look up the word "pompous" as you may want to add that to your vocab. Just because you have 1000 sites doesn't impress me, nor does it give you any right to act as you have.

Again, the Newton Falls Leader stands behind its right to be on the Newton Falls, Ohio page as it is a non-profit community based website for everyone. Simply, your opinions differ, as do your actions, from the rules of Wikipedia, which will be addressed in my complaint. 209.33.19.102 (talk) (contribs) 05:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your apology about the multiple emails - I did not and do not take offense at the multiple emails you sent to me, I was merely letting you know that there seemed to be a problem with the email system you were using. I apologize for any offense given or for appearing to be pompous - neither was my intent. I do not know what you mean by "As for your emails, please stop emailing me." as I have not sent you any emails, although I have used this talk page and your talk page and here: Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/January 2007/NewtonFallsLeader. Since you are new to Wikipedia, are you perhaps confusing talk pages with email?

I assure you I have no bias against you or your website, only an interest in keeping articles in accord with Wikipedia policies and guidlelines. As an example of this, see User talk:Pikeweatherman for a similar removal of an external link for not meeting WP:EL that I was involved in. I am also not ashamed of my edits or communications with you.

Finally, here is why I deleted your link in all the detail I intend to give. I initially though a webapge for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever). When I read it I believed it did not meet the Wikipedia external links guidleleines. All I have learned from you since only bolsters that opinion. Here are the relevant sections of WP:EL to show exactly why I now think your website is not a valid external link.

 * "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 links. 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 interests guidelines." emphasis added, taken from External_links

"...one should avoid:
 * And the following points from Links normally to be avoided:
 * 1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.
 * 5. Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.
 * 13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."

To sum up, you should not link to what you say is your own website in any case. As I see it, your website is not a unique resource suitable for a Featured Article, and it has a large amount of ads (whatever you choose to call them), and it is not directly and symmetrically related to Newton Falls, Ohio.

I am sure if someone tried to put content on your site that did not meet its rules, you would remove it or not add it. That is what I have done here (though I claim no ownership of Wikipedia). If you do not agree, I would appreciate it if you would give similarly detailed and wikilinked citations from Wikipedia of your website's "right" to be here, as well as whatever Wikipedia policies or guidelines you believe I have violated. Otherwise I fail to see what your point is. Thanks and have a good day, Ruhrfisch 19:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Wouldn't it be great if we had devoted all this effort to improving the Newton Falls, Ohio article instead?

Newton Falls Leader Reply:
Your response is evidence that you acted with bias and still maintain that way...or you're not understanding what you write. I'll choose to believe the first.

 * 1. let me say that it is not the intent of the Newton Falls Leader to spam, violate rules, or upset any external website - including Wikipedia. Since the Newton Falls Leader doesn't generate an income, I have no reason to force it upon anyone.  Simply, it doesn't matter if one person uses the site or 100,000 people use the site - the Newton Falls Leader makes the same, nothing!

 * 2. by definition, "advertisement is defined as: A notice, such as a poster or a paid announcement in the print, broadcast, or electronic media, designed to attract public attention or patronage." Nothing on the Newton Falls Leader fits that description except for two ads that are posted in exchange for gift certificates as prizes for our Weekly Mystery Question - I guess one could say that those are paid announcements - I like to call them sponsors. Besides, the Newton Falls Leader doesn't get the money, the prize winners do!

 * 3. before you jump to conclusions you should ask. When designing the site I wanted a catchy name.  When I added Leader to Newton Falls the acronym became NFL - then upon doing domain searches the only NFL domain availabe happened to be the .tc - and yes, it is from the Turks and Caicos Islands, however it fits well with Trumbull County and makes nfl.tc quite easy to remember, is this jealousy?  Chastise me because I'm creative, really!  Seriously, what difference does it make what domain name a site has as long as it isn't something derogatory or obscene? You want to make this an issue, but it isn't.

 * 4. yes, I am new to Wikipedia and hadn't fully read all the rules. However, I didn't do anything against the rules...with the posibility of posting my own site...I will investigate that. I have read enough to know that what you did was uncalled for and against Wikipedia rules. You obviously feel the same or you wouldn't be trying so fruitlessly to defend your actions.

 * 5. you call the Newton Falls Leader articles "links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." The Newton Falls Leader provides its users with useful and money saving articles. For example: one article informs users that they can save 50% at a local restaurant and provides the link to do it.  Another article informs users that they can get a 30 day supply of medication absolutely free.  You call these ads, by definition they are not.  Nevertheless, you obviously object to the way the Newton Falls Leader does it, so I'd like to hear how you propose a site provide its users with beneficial information?

 * 6. why is it that a site you left intact is ok when it contains photographs of Newton Falls events, yet you want to block other sites who have photographs of Newton Falls Events. I personally took and posted those photographs.  Again, I'd like to hear your reasons why one site is ok and another is not - if it isn't due a bias.  Also, I'd like to know how you draw your conclusion that my photographs are not an historical pictorial of Newton Falls.  Though you refuse to admit it, these photographs are unique to my site, and make my site a unique extension to the Newton Falls, Ohio page.  After all, they are pictures of the people, places and events here in Newton Falls, Ohio.

 * 7. furthermore, it is only your opinion that the Newton Falls Leader is not unique - you state, "As I see it, your website is not a unique resource...." You are entitled to your opinion, but keep in mind the old cliche', "opinions are like bad breath, we all have one and they all stink."  (of course I edited that cliche' for publication here.) If you want to back your statement, show me another Newton Falls site like the Newton Falls Leader - having personally written most of the blocks on the site, I know there isn't another website in Newton Falls like it - I think that makes it, by definition, unique!

 * 8. I chuckled when I read your PS - you must be trying to win people's favor with a touchy-feely saying? You are the one that is working to destroy the Newton Falls, Ohio page, not the Newton Falls Leader.  Fact is fact, but of course you don't agree.  However, all I did was to post two links, you took it upon yourself to act with bias and delete them without cause or justification. Again, you aren't much of a watch dog, nor do your actions give much credibility to your statements.  You can't do one thing, then say another and expect that people are going to believe you.  The facts remain that you quickly deleted, not once, but twice links without cause or notification.  You never even bothered to check out the links.  And, when you did, you attempt to call them something that simply isn't true...just your opinion.  Furthermore, for some reason you jumped on these two links, while you left several other links intact, links that in your opinion were worse than the Newton Falls Leader links. Then, you try to justify yourself by destroying links that have been on the Newton Falls, Ohio page for the better part of a year, and probably longer - links left there by you.  Personally, I'd be ashamed to call myself a watchdog.

Words are words, without actions they are empty, meaningless. Your actions clearly fit the definition of bias, and your words back that up.

Again, let's stop this pointless chatter and allow Wikipedia to decide if what you've done and how you've acted is within their rules or not.

Thank you - Newton Falls Leader (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - do I criticize you for using a user name that very few understand? Is it German? Does that belong here? This is the English version. Now, doesn't that sound silly?

Partial History of these edits, I'm done

 * Dec. 31, 2006 first addition of www.nfl.tc link Note IP address has been used again by User:NewtonFallsLeader
 * Dec. 31, 2006 edit reverted 2 minutes later by User:Heligoland, edit summary "rv linkspam"
 * January 29, 2007 second addition of www.nfl.tc link by User:NewtonFallsLeader
 * January 29, 2007 I remove this link, the picture gallery link in the article, and a non-notable "famous resident" with the edit summary "revert linkspam, remove non notable person"
 * Hilarious hijinks ensue (vide supra)

So I told you why I did it when I removed it, I'm not the first to remove it, and I stand by my assertion that it is not an appropriate link. I am done talking with you unless you can cite and wikilink chapter and verse of Wikipedia policy that your edits are OK under or that I have violated. Ruhrfisch 04:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Newton Falls Leader Reply:
Why is it that when you state opinions they become facts, but when I state facts they become opinions?
 * 1. "So I told you..." you never informed me, nor questioned me prior to removing the link to the Newton Falls Leader...to say you did is a blatant lie.
 * 2. You request a wikilink - but you are the one that cited the link. Your assertion is that the Newton Falls Leader contains advertising, and I've proven that wrong.  What about that don't you understand?  Simply, if you say something is white and the facts prove it to be black, then it isn't white.  The Newton Falls Leader does not allow advertisements beyond recognition of those who sponsor our weekly "Mystery Question."  To date, we have two such recognitions...that can hardly be construed as excessive!
 * 3. Maybe in Germany, but in the United States law is that one is innocent until proven guilty. However, you acted as judge and jury when you removed the links to the Newton Falls Leader without notification, justification, or cause! In your mind, the Newton Falls Leader is guilty as charged, and that's that.  However, the Newton Falls Leader is nothing of what you say, and you fail at trying to say it is.  Furthermore, the Newton Falls Leader meets all Wikipedia guidelines including the ones you insist it doesn't, and you've been unable to prove otherwise.
 * 4. Again, you respond with rhetoric - what you've written sounds good, but in reality is meaningless. "I am done talking with you...."  Is this your way of trying to say you cannot backup your actions?  Don't get me wrong, if you recall, I first asked you to stop this fruitless dialog.
 * 5. You still haven't answered the question of why you deleted links to the Newton Falls Leader, when you allowed other links to exist for a year or more - and continued to leave those links intact even after you deleted the links to the Newton Falls Leader - when by your definition those links actually do abuse Wikipedia rules. Furthermore, you continue to leave inappropriate link(s) intact. Again, I wouldn't be proud to call myself a watchdog.

Newton Falls Leader 209.33.19.102 (talk) (contribs) 04:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One last time

 * 1. Edit summaries are a way editors tell anyone else interested in the page what they have done. When I removed the link I left an edit summary that was for you and anyone else interested in this page that said "revert linkspam, remove non notable person" (I hate to tell you this, but the linkspam was your website). There is no requirement on Wikipedia to inform editors specifically of changes to edits they have made, nor do I ever say anywhere that I "questioned" you. Please don't accuse me of being a liar.
 * 2. I looked at the Newton Falls Leader website just now. I believe that it has more content in it since the last time I looked, but it also has ads. I quote: "Latest Classified Ads: Magnavox 13" Color TV... US$ 25.00... Hohner Accordian... $100.00 or B.O. ... Gateway 19" VX900 Monitor... US$ 25.00... Dell 21" Monitor... US$ 40.00... 1993 Mercury Marquise LS... US$ 2,600.00... More ads like this »»". I think most people would also call the Lipitor, LearningExpressLibrary.com, and other such commercial links ads. Please note that the automobile name is correctly spelled "Mercury Marquis" and I see that the Huck Finn Fishing Derby notice for September 3, 2006 is still posted.
 * 3. See above. It does not meet WP:EL. If you think it does, refute the points I made with wikilinks, but do not bloviate.
 * 4. This is Wikipedia. It has guidelines and policies. I have shown by quotations and links that your website does not meet them as far as I am concerned. I am willing to consider your arguments if you can cite Wikipedia policies and guidelines that back your case (both as to why your link should be included and as to what guidelines and policies I have broken). So far you have not done that.
 * 5. Two wrongs do not make a right. As I said above, I mostly look at changes, not the whole article. Please also see this, which says "Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam remain on the article. The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another." I never called myself a watchdog, although I do call myself a fish.

I am not sure why I am continuing this. I think it is because I see that you obviously care a lot about Newton Falls, Ohio so I hope that you will add content to the article. We can always use good editors. Take care and have fun thinking up more ways to distract me. I can always use a good laugh and your attempts at argument make me smile. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Newton Falls Leader Reply:
Ruhrfisch stated, “I am not sure why I am continuing this.” That makes two of us, and probably a lot more who read your responses, since it is clear to everyone (well, except you - Ruhrfisch) that justification for your actions exists only within the depths of your own mind, and who can argue with that? As for accusing me of calling you a liar, I’ve done no such thing...conversely, you are the one who makes statements and fails to back them up, I simply point them out. Am I to blame if the facts demonstate that your words do not match your actions?

Fact:
 * 1) You provided the Wikipedia links...or did you forget?  I have simply, and easily, refuted your arguments, as nowhere within those links does Wikipedia disallow links to the Newton Falls Leader.  Justification for your actions only exists in the realm of your reality, not Wikipedia’s.  It is your opinion, to which I revert to the cliche' I quoted earlier...fact is, Wikipedia rules do allow links to the Newton Falls Leader.  As you have said, “two wrongs do not make a right,” neither does stubbornest make one correct.
 * 2) You claim that notations of your edits somehow suffices for notifying me of your reasons and justification for removing links to the Newton Falls Leader, you are joking, right?  How can you believe that?  Never mind...the depth of your reality – I understand.
 * 3) I’m not sure if you are serious, or, are again, joking.  I cannot believe that someone with a Ph.D. does not know the difference between an advertisement and an article.  Okay, I am joking, yes I can believe it.  As a friend, a past president of Y.S.U., once said, “Just because someone has a Ph.D. doesn’t make them smart.”  Hence, I will not try to justify the pictures attached to the articles published on the Newton Falls Leader.
 * 4) Like your failure to justify your actions, you’ve also failed to answer the question I posed to you earlier.  Ignoring something because one has no justification doesn’t make one correct – it’s an old Chinese Prov...no, it’s just common sense.  You refuse to answer, because by answering the question you would have to admit that what you call ads are in fact articles – valuable articles, articles that provide a service to the readers of the Newton Falls Leader – and nowhere within the Wikipedia rules you’ve cited does it say links to websites with articles are not allowed.  Point: unless you can convince someone that an article is an advertisement (good luck doing that) then your argument is moot.  Rhetorically speaking, everyone else realizes that…why can’t you?
 * 5) You cite rules to spam links...fruitlessly attempting to imply that links to the Newton Falls Leader are spam.  I’ve asked serveral pompous professors at Y.S.U., “Where did you buy your Ph.D.?”  You continue to make unfounded, unsupported, assinine assertions based soley on your opinion, with hopes that if you repeat them enough someone will begin to believe you.  Just a clue, no one is.
 * 6)  Again, are joking...? Honestly, you can’t believe that a service (classified ads) the Newton Falls Leader provides its users, FREE of charge, constitutes advertising under the Wikipedia guidelines you’ve cited...and you really can’t be serious if you are going to classify that as excessive.  The sad reality, you are trying.   This is another example of the facts v. your actions proving you wrong.  You have failed to substantiate your argument against the Newton Falls Leader, so now you have to dig deep in the hopes of being able to fabricate evidence to support your bias actions.  I haven’t read all the rules, but it is evident that Wikipedia doesn’t have any rules governing who it allows to edit pages.
 * 7) You state, “I never called myself a watchdog….” Wikipedia defines “watchdog” as, “Citizens' groups [Wikipedia editors] that monitor and report on government, corporate, and other abuses….” I didn’t define you as a watchdog, you did when you pompously stated, “I have almost 1000 articles on my watch list.”  May I suggest Nootropics -again, please check the facts before you acuse me.
 * 8) In your fruitless attempts to justify yourself, you cite references to another editor removing a link to the Newton Falls Leader before you.  To use your words, “two wrongs don’t make a right.”  (However, three lefts do!)  Just because another person did what you did, remove links without notification, cause, or justification, does not lessen the wrong – lessen the violation to Wikipedia rules, that you’ve committed.
 * 9) The more I read your responses the more I chuckle.  How old is the information posted in the majority of Wikipedia articles?  Rhetorical....  Honestly, do really you expect people to believe that because the Newton Falls Leader maintains an historical archive of articles...?  What is Wikipedia if it isn’t a website of historical articles?  Again, rhetorical...!
 * 10) As stated earlier, your actions and your words incriminate you, not the Newton Falls Leader...case and point: Tornadoes is a link you allow to be on the Newton Falls page.  However, if you are to be taken seriuosly, and I know you're dying to be taken seriously, we must believe that you are serious when you insinuate that links to the Newton Falls Leader do not belong on Wikipedia because some of the articles are “old.”  And, if that isn’t obvious enough for you, you state, “I see that the Huck Finn Fishing Derby notice for September 3, 2006 is still posted.”  Rhetorically (simply because everyone else understands), how old are the pictures of the tornado?  Here’s a Wikipedia link for you Archive, Wikipedias definition.

Finally, you acted with bias and fail at every attempt to show that you didn’t. You fail to provide any Wikipedia rules that agree with your opinions. Listing Wikipedia links does not an argument make. And, your attempts at trying to twist Wikipedia rules to match your imagination, your reality, your unjustified attacks on the Newton Falls Leader are embarrasing – to you, to me, to Newton Falls, and to Wikipedia – talk about being destructive.

I’ll leave you with this old Chinese Prov...ok, I don’t know where I heard it, but in your case it is true...“when one argues with a fool, you both look like fools.” So, I will no longer engage in your foolishness. If you cannot concretely demonstrate (that means factually, not your opinion – or twisted view of the facts) defend your bias actions, then I again ask that you stop this senseless dialog and allow Wikipedia to decide this issue.

Hey, let’s see if you were lying when you titled your response, “One last time.” My bet, the facts will demonstrate that you have nothing to say, but will try to say it anyway – go ahead, I challenge you, show the world that your “one last time” really was your last...you’ll prove me wrong, it will be a first for you, but I’m not proud, I’ll be able to handle it.

Newton Falls Leader (talk) (contribs) 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"Famous residents"
I removed External links that did not meet WP:EL criteria again and two "famous residents". One was supported only by a link to his own website Don Lemon. If you want to add him back, start an article on him and link to that please or use a valid third party reference. Jack Kucek ref does not mention Newton Falls, so add a ref that does to add him back. Please see WP:V for more on refs. Ruhrfisch 13:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Please Let Us Know
Who would place the newton falls leader site as an external link?

I ask you this because there has been disputes as to whether or not allow this site from being placed as an external link but a representative of the site itself cannot place said link, so i ask that wikipedians vote on whether or not they would place newton falls leader as an external link based on their on research.

Please place your signature and your reason(s) under 'allow' or 'not allow'

Allow
Blah0401 10:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Blah0401 06:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you could provide some reasoning for the inclusion of the link, I'm sure everybody would be very grateful. You do realise that if something fails a policy, no amount of voting can overrule existing policy. --  Heligo  land   13:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that but as i see it, and i could be wrong, this article[*] doesn't violate policy. I think its useful as a primary source of information as it talks about political affairs going on and events that will/have happened there.Blah0401 04:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if you read the specific objections as stated on the article talk page and on the AMA page you will see that (1) "a primary source" etc. does not apply and (2) it is unclear whether the site has permission to reprint the little news it does have. Small portions of the page resemble blogs.  Much larger portions are simply commercial advertisements.   — Athænara   ✉  07:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * ( Postscript : Did you mean "website" rather than "article"[*] as you said above?)  — Æ.   ✉  07:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Athaenara The first step to being credible is to state facts, not opinions.  What articles are you referring to when you state, "it is unclear whether the site has permission to reprint the little news it does have."? FYI: Your statement is an insult to the | Newton Falls Leaderwhich places you in violation of Wikipedia rules - see above!  Furthermore, where did you go to school?  Did they not teach you the difference between commercial ads and articles? - even my 10 year-old knows the difference.  Not only is your statement false, but it is another insult ... to | Newton Falls Leader and any intelligent life form that reads what you've written.  Your words discredit you, and place you in violation of Wikipedia rules, and since you feel that the Newton Falls Leader should not be cited because you think it violates Wikipedia rules, you must agree that you should delete your account and remove all links to your account immediately because you are in violation of Wikipedia rules!
 * NewtonFallsLeader 03:52, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Newton Falls Leader - Blah0401 when are you going to read/respond to the emails I've sent you? Before I engage in any of this (online) I want to hear your response. NewtonFallsLeader 14:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not allow
Not Allow Ruhrfisch 11:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC) Fails WP:EL, especially Links normally to be avoided, #13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site."
 * I do believe that the link does have a very direct relationship with the article. After all, the article is about Newton Falls, Ohio and the website gives readers and people researching Newton Falls on wikipedia extra information straight from the source. The website talks about events and other happenings in the town. I dont see how it is indirectly related. Also, Ruhrfisch; if you have not noticed i am providing advocacy on the dispute you are currently engaged in regarding this article. I have left you a message on your talk page.Blah0401 04:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice, which I had seen. I know you are an advocate for User:NewtonFallsLeader, but he has not weighed in yet (nor made an edit since February 11th). If you read his Talk page, you'll see he and I were communicating about this and I believe we had at least partly resolved this issue. As for your question, I do not see how the NFL website is both directly and symmetrically related to the city of Newton Falls. I agree it is about Newton Falls, but I do not see the symmetry of the relationship. To me it is like the fan website in the example. The official city website would meet this test and others might, but not this one. I also think it fails to meet criterion #1: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." I fail to see what the NFL site provides that meets this (see also WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not a web directory). Please let me know what I am missing that you see. Finally, I guess I am unclear - are you a mediator (neutral third party) or an advocate just for NewtonFallsLeader (and thus on his side - if so who's on my side?) or are you something else entirely? This is my first enounter with WP:AMA, so pardon my ignorance. In any cae, thanks for your help with all this. Ruhrfisch 05:28, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I definitely see your point and i am in fact swaying to not use the link. And i am not on anyones side actually, i am mediator and i am waiting to hear from NewtonFallsLeader, and as an AMA advocate i would like to be thought of as a mutual friend between you and NewtonFallsLeader and i am merely giving my opinion. I am just here to help you resolve the content dispute and thought that when the three of us (yourself, nfl, and I) had our discussion i could use this 'poll' to introduce the thoughts of fellow wikipedians on the matter. If i don't hear from NFL soon i will ask that the AMA case be closed as i will assume that he has accepted not having the link on the article. If you'd like to know more about advocacy just ask me on my page; also if you need help resolving a dispute the AMA can help, since i am part of a dispute now involving you i personally will not be able to handle the case but there are many other AMA members available to help.Blah0401 06:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Allow. The article is currently weak on references for its factual statements. I'd be willing to consider the link to the Newton Falls Leader if it could be used as a reliable source (WP:RS) to back up anything with no current citation. However our rules for a reliable source are quite stringent, and I doubt that the Leader would qualify under our current rules. There is also some logic in linking from a town's article to the website of a local newspaper. For example Baltimore, Maryland has a link to the Baltimore Sun and even mentions it in the text. However the Baltimore Sun is a notable newspaper whose significance can be documented by many third-party sources, and it's certainly deserving of its own article. None of this applies to the Newton Falls Leader. EdJohnston 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Not Allow. With specific exceptions, such as one example noted in another discussion :
 * "specific subpages of the website he runs could probably be used as references—for example the website lists the winners of the 2006 Old Car Show, which is mentioned in the article."

the website is inappropriate as an external link. — Athænara  ✉  07:53, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation appears to have failed
I think it is clear from emails sent to me by User:NewtonFallsLeader that he is not interested in mediation. He and I both believe we are correct, and neither of us have changed our minds, so I intend to file an RFC (content dispute about the inclusion of his website as an External Link) and assume he will join it. I have sent copies of his and my emails to User:Blah0401 to help illustrate this. I have never filed or been involved in an RFC before, so I will take a few days to familiarize myself with the process before filing. Any advice or ideas are welcome. Because I want everything to be transparent, I will only discuss this via Wikipedia talk pages and will not reply to emails about this (as I have already told NewtonFallsLeader) Thanks to everyone who tried to resolve this so far, sorry it has come to this, Ruhrfisch 21:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Ruhrfisch for once, let's be honest. You are the one who is closed minded.  You are the one who has changed the reason for deleting a link to the | Newton Falls Leader each time I've disputed your previous reason.  Most importantly, take all of the reasons that you have for not allowing a link to the | Newton Falls Leader and you refuse to apply those same reasons unbiasedly across Wikipedia.  You've deleted a link to the | Newton Falls Leader violating numerous codes of conduct and ethics on Wikipedia and refuse to accept the logic behind those codes.  So, please, do not violate any more codes by writing more lies about the | Newton Falls Leader on any Wikipedia pages - simply, I am the only one who is interested in mediation. Futhermore, it isn't the | Newton Falls Leader who is the one whose argument is so weak that he needs to go around Wikipedia posting/searching for people to support him, no - that would be you Ruhrfisch.  If you truly want everything to be tansparent, then tell the truth - it is you, Ruhrfisch who refuses mediation.  And it is the Newton Falls Leader who has been asking for Wikipedia to make its ruling so that you can see up front - transparent - that you were wrong for deleting the link, that you should be sanctioned for the way in which you did it, and that Wikipedia will in fact sacntion a link to the | Newton Falls Leader as it is deserving of being here! Let's also be transparent - the only thing you're sorry about is that you can't convince me that all the excuses you've managed to compile are valid - keep in mind, you started with one (1)excuse - but the list keeps growing and growing and growing. Each time I dispute the last a new one pops-up - that's mediation?  I don't think, I know it's not.  Let's truly be transparent - you don't want mediation - you only want it your way. NewtonFallsLeader 22:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

has repeatedly misrepresented the situation in lengthy personal attack diatribes - Requests for comment/User conduct? — Athænara  ✉  22:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said I have never filed or been involved in an RFC (content or user), but if that is the best way to address the situation with him, then so be it. I'll read up on that too. Thanks, as always, Ruhrfisch 03:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Again, Athænara your words are mere deceptions - where are your facts? Oh, that's right, you don't have any! You obviously are friends with Ruhrfisch, probably his wife, as you both want people to believe your opinions, regardless of the facts.  Where have I done what you say?  No where, and that is a fact! NewtonFallsLeader 22:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * "A user may be blocked when his/her conduct severely disrupts the project — his/her conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia." — Blocking policy.

 * "Usernames of or closely resembling the names of companies and groups are discouraged and may be blocked as a violation of Wikipedia policy against spamming and advertisement." — Username policy.  — Æ.   ✉  23:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Yes, I know, that's why you should be blocked...I've already pointed out in above comment's how you have no regard for Wikipedia codes of conduct by insulting the | Newton Falls Leader. Please keep in mind that when a comment, such as those I've made in this dispute, are fact - they match Wikipedia's codes - but the opinions that you and Ruhrfisch state, which you have no evidence to support, do violate Wikipedia codes of ethical conduct. I suggest you read the codes you post! NewtonFallsLeader 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Athaenara - FYI - when I say that you insult the | Newton Falls Leader, I'm not referring to me personally - but you insult the website. Me personally, I simply laugh at the feable attempts being made to justifying people's actions. Really, all of this back-and-forth for what?  If the Baltimore Sun, the Youngstown Vindicator, the Business Journal, the Youngstown Source, Defend Youngstown, Downtown Youngstown, the list is too large for this page...however, if they are allowed on Wikipedia then there is absolutely no reason why a link to the | Newton Falls Leader should not be allowed!  Though I've stated this to Ruhrfisch, he disagrees - yet these websites violate his excuses more so than the | Newton Falls Leader ever will...and that's another fact! So, please don't take any pride in thinking that this upsets me, the only thing about this dispute that upsets me is how badly it looks on Newton Falls, Ohio NewtonFallsLeader 23:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

There is one issue here - should the link be included or not? Only one person thinks it should be included: NewtonFallLeader. Mediation is aimed at getting two parties to agree to a solution. NewtownFallsLeader and I do not agree, so I do not see how mediation can help here. The next step is an RFC on the content. NFL, if you truly care about Newton Falls, Ohio, then please add meaningful content to it. Please don't disparage others. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 03:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Ruhrfisch disparage others? I state facts. If their words incriminate them - am I to blame? There isn't one issue here...there are several. The first issue is the manner in which you deleted the link to the | Newton Falls Leader. You insist that your edit summary informed me - however, read the Problem section under Civility, it reads, "Silent and faceless words on Talk pages and Edit summaries do not transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, leading to small, facetious comments being misinterpreted." Secondly, you then state a single reason for deleting the link. When you couldn't support that reason, you came up with another, and another...only the Wikipedia rules you cite agree with me. To get them to agree with you, you disparaged the | Newton Falls Leader website by saying things like it contains commercial ads, it's this and that - all of which are lies, perpetrated by you to support your biased actions. Then, when I point out what you've started and Wikipedia's code of Civility which states, "One uncivil remark can easily escalate into a heated discussion which may not be focused objectively on the problem at hand. It is during these exchanges that community members may become uninterested in improving articles and instead focus on 'triumphing' over the 'enemy'." you refuse to admit that you are the one causing all of this. You are bent on "triumphing over me" and not concerned with what is best for the Newton Falls, Ohio page. The | Newton Falls Leader website is all about Newton Falls, Ohio - nothing else. It contains articles, pictures and more about Newton Falls, Ohio which make it a reliable resource. Again, if you aren't biased then either delete all of the links throughout Wikipedia - like the ones I've mentioned above - or restore the link to the | Newton Falls Leader...you can't have it both ways. Furthermore, quit posting your blatant lies and misunderstandings of Wikipedia rules and quit trying to denigrate me by insisting that I'm the one with the attitude! - it is against Wikipedia's code of civility! And really, who in thier right mind gets excited about two little dots over a letter in a name, oh, oh in the right place, too! NewtonFallsLeader 04:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes advocacy was unsuccessful. Since it was NewtonFallsLeader who asked for advocacy and he doesn't like the way it has gone and wants to take it up with a higher authority I suggested RFC and the case has been closed All information can be found at the AMA case page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blah0401 (talk • contribs) 00:36, March 17, 2007
 * I've read just about all of the discussion regarding the link, and though I'd rather not get involved, I have a few words of wisdom for NewtonFallsLeader. As WP:CABAL states, "When you start accusing everyone of being in on a conspiracy, you shouldn't be surprised if they decide to confirm your paranoia by banding together against you."  When you make accusations that other users who disagree with you are biased or are banding together because they know each other, it's very likely that they will get upset and...band against you (though not because they know each other).  ShadowHalo 09:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment on Username
I have opened an RFC on User:NewtonFallsLeader's apparently inappropriate username, if anyone would like to comment. Ruhrfisch 04:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

NewtonFallsLeader Reply
Thanks Ruhrfisch! You've just proven my earlier statements ... this isn't about posting an external link to the | Newton Falls Leader website, it is about you being triumphant. Seriously, you are letting your alter ego get the best of you!

Allow me to explain, I hope I can do this simply enough, I'm not married to the Wikipedia username NewtonFallsLeader. In fact, I do not use that name anywhere else. I used that name here because upon registering the name I attempted to use was taken.

Not to disappoint you even more, when I read Athaenara's comment about it being discouraged, I tried to see if I could change it. However, I wasn't successful and since you insist on being triumphant I am waiting until all of this is settled; I will then delete my account and re-register under a different name ... maybe I'll pick a name with cutsie little dots over one of the letters - like you. No, I don't think people will get them over the right letter, and besides, I don't think Wikipedia provides usage of those characters anyway! Simply, it has enough characters ... it doesn't need any more.

So Ruhrfisch, what has come of your statements you've made on | NewtonFallsLeader's talk page? There you state, "So I look forward to a friendly discussion..."? Further, you state, "If you can relieve my concern through discussing it here, I can stop worrying about it. If the two of us can't agree here, we can ask for help" You certainly have a short temper if waiting a day for me to respond isn't good enough for you...no, I know, it's that triumphant thing again, isn't it? Or, did you write that just to make people think you are professional? Lying isn't very professional.

I must say though, what you've written on [| NewtonFallsLeader]'s talk page does make you sound like you are some official Wikipedia executive. Isn't that what Wikipedia defines as deception? FYI: Ruhrfisch you are nothing more to Wikipedia than any other user!

But again, thanks for proving yourself. It makes my case against you that much stronger.

PS: the url to the Newton Falls Leader's website isn't www.NewtonFallsLeader.tc it is www.nfl.tc - a faint resemblance at best. And, I don't think posting an external link constitutes spamming! Have a great day Rührfisch.

NewtonFallsLeader 15:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't read to much into the comments left in this diff. Those comments were transcluded from the generic template regarding username concerns (see Template:UsernameConcern).  Though the URL may be http://www.nfl.tc/, the title is very plainly "Newton Falls Leader".  ShadowHalo 16:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment
This is a dispute about whether the website http://www.nfl.tc meets WP:EL criteria for the Newton Falls, Ohio article or not. 02:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Statements by editors previously involved in dispute
 * The website www.nfl.tc has been added to the article's external links section three times by one editor (as an IP address and as User:NewtonFallsLeader) and removed three time by two different editors (User:Nick and myself, diffs 1, 2, 3). The edit summaries noted reverting linkspam for the first two removals, the third was reverted with popups allowing no comment. The website fails to meet the criteria established in WP:EL, especially Links normally to be avoided points #1 (Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article.) and #13 (Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.), as well as a strong probability of violating points #3 (Links mainly intended to promote a website.) and #5 (Links to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.). I have tried to work this out with the other editor (see above, User talk:NewtonFallsLeader, my talk page and its Archive 4, and the archive for this talk page). I also requested a Third Opinion, which was not accepted as the other editor in question did not agree to that process (see here). The other editor (now know as User:DaVoice) requested help from WP:AMA, see above and here. Unfortuantely none of these actions led to a resolution of the dispute. Finally, please note that while I have been accused of bias against the website in question, I have removed a number of other linkspam websites more times from this article's external links section (diffs 4, 5, 6 and 7) as well as removing non-notable persons and questionable links in the article itself. Ruhrfisch 02:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Very clearly doesn't meet WP:EL. Not a close question. -- TedFrank 03:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC) Clearly not reasonable under WP:EL. Note all the answers contributed on this very question above. Ruhrfisch, please tell us if the participants in that earlier discussion need to re-enter their comments here. EdJohnston 03:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As you will see, Newton Falls Leader website was added as an external link to the Newton Falls, Ohio page as it has documentation of pictures and articles pertaining to events stated in the articles; ie: Newton Falls Events - Fourth of July events - Car Show; Bike Show; Carnival; pictures of Newton Falls Halloween Cake Walk; Newton Falls Sportsmen's Club Youth Fishing Derby; and Newton Falls Area Commerce Association's Home 44444 the Holidays Charity Event held at NF high school. Like the link to the tornado, these pictures support the Newton Falls, Ohio page.  A lot of allegations have been made against the link, but none have been proven.  Fact is, the Newton Falls Leader is a community based website that is in its infancy - so it is not as well known as the Youngstown Vindicator, the Youngstown Business Journal, the Baltimore Sun, but it doesn't charge a fee as these others do, and it doesn't sell advertising like these others.  Wikipedia has rules, and the I respect that, but to be credible it must apply these rules equally, and that is not being done. To comment on Ruhrfisch's remarks about being accused of bias, he has.  The reasons he has is that his first reason for deleting the link is because it has a .tc - and not a .com.  When I explained this to him, he then changed his story to the website had a lot of advertisements, again false. He then changed to it had nothing new, and it was then that I pointed out to him the other links on the Newton Falls, Ohio page that hadn't had anything new published in over a year, and that is when he deleted the other links.  Had I not said anything, he would have continued to allow those links to remain, while refusing to allow the link to the Newton Falls Leader.  I've since pointed out to him other links, such as I mentioned above, and he hasn't deleted them.  I've asked how to take this to the next step...I see that Ruhrfisch has more time to read up on how to do that than do I.  However, that doesn't make his actions correct.  I do not have a problem with not allowing a link if, that is, all other similar links are also removed from Wikipedia pages.  All I ask is that a ruling on what is and is not permitted be made - then that ruling be applied faily and equally across Wikipedia. In my defense, I must say that those who know their way around Wikipedia seem to expect those of us who don't to simply know what is going on.  That is why you will see that I didn't realize at the time there are editing summaries; further, Wikipedia rules speak against simply relying upon those summaries as a means of informing authors of changes.  Because I wasn't aware of these, I had added the links back.  It wasn't until I engaged in communication with Ruhrfisch did I become aware of Wikipedia's guidelines...such as posting a link, and user name.  I question why Wikipedia doesn't inform users of these things before they are allowed to create a user name and or edit any pages.  Regardless, all of this could have been avoided had Ruhrfisch simply notified me about the deletion. DaVoice 13:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an RFC solely about the suitability of including www.nfl.tc as an external link in the Newton Falls, Ohio article, not on what User:DaVoice was told and when. Nevertheless, I would like to correct several errors in DaVoice's statement. 1) First communication As I noted above, the first two reverts of the link insertion identified it as "linkspam" in the edit summaries (diffs 1 by User:Nick, and 2 by me). Ignorance of edit summaries does not mean no communication was made or that no reason was given. I am unaware of any official policy that reverts must be communicated to the editor who made them. If such a policy exists, please provide a wikilink to it. Otherwise please stop citing nonexistent policies. 2) Second communication After the third removal of the link, User:NewtonFallsLeader left me a message on my talk page (diff 3), then deleted it, then sent me the same as an email. I put the welcomeg template on his talk to help him learn about Wikipedia and replied to his email there and on the article's talk page (they are essentially the same posts, so only one diff: 4). I cited no original content relating to Newton Falls that is current... lots of advertisements, [and] links and said I fail to see how this meets the criteria for a valid external link (see WP:EL for the policy). I welcome you and hope you can improve the article on Newton Falls (or anything else), but if all you want is to insert what many might call "link spam" then you will be reverted every time (and not just by me). Wikipedia is not a web directory or collection of links (see WP:NOT). 3) Further communications My third communication was on talk pages (as above) and I attempted to explain Watch Lists and how I noticed the change (diff 5). I originally added the Trumbull County nav box to the Newton Falls, Ohio article, which is why it was on my watch list. My fourth communciation was my attempt to explain in more detail why I reverted and is where I finally noted (in the third paragraph of my post) I initially though[t] a webapge [sic] for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever). When I read it I believed it did not meet the Wikipedia external links guidleleines.   (diff 6). I have wasted enough time on this, but wanted to set the record straight. Funny how he's the one who calls me a liar (diff 7), but diffs don't lie. Ruhrfisch 16:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Tirelessly I've tried to see that the truth here be known...In (diff) Ruhrfisch states, "...here is why I deleted your link in all the detail I intend to give. I initially though a webapge for a community in Ohio with a Turks and Caicos internet country code top-level domain was a bit odd (no, .tc does not stand for Trumbull County, although that is clever)." Need I say more. Although dates and times in my response may need a little chronological adjustment, facts are facts and I so hope they will be considered here. DaVoice 18:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Comments
 * I see no need to re-enter previous comments, and am fine counting them as part of this RFC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I see no need to re-enter previous comments, and am fine counting them as part of this RFC. Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Came via RfC (neutral party) The site doesn't meet WP:EL, specifically the bit about "if it were to become a featured article." Not to mention the COI for the user adding the link in the first place. It also looks like it is a personal site, judging by the fact that it is mostly a forum based site, also one that has no posts, which leads me to believe the link was added solely to promote the website, a clear violation of WP:EL. IvoShandor 12:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * It is amazing how some people want to destroy what little credibility that Wikipedia may have by writing such absurd comments...especially when these opinions are easily proven false by the facts. If you folks are going to voice your opinions when you aren't involved in this issue, then at least be intelligent enough to state fact not opinion, and give examples?  People have tried to defend thier actions by stating all sorts of opinions, but when it comes to proving them they can't!  That's the truth, the fact, not opinion!  Really, you folks must think people are that stupid that they will believe you?  How pompous! DaVoice 16:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * PLease refrain from personal attacks about editor's intelligence. Read WP:EL. Websites that should not be added include those added simply to promote a website. Your forum has no members, thus new, thus your inclusion of the link is for promoting your unread website only. Do not insult me again. Thanks. IvoShandor 16:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * IvoShandor I apoligize, was I talking about you? Are you admitting to stating opinions that are false?  I made a general statement about people who post untrue comments. If you fit that general statement then I suggest you stop posting untrue comments. NO INSULT IS INTENDED or IMPLIED and this author is not responsible for how others may interpret the facts. DaVoice 17:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * What the are you talking about? Your link fails the criteria above, please read my comments and discuss the issue at hand using Wikipedia policy instead of trying to divert attention from the matter at hand to your accusations of statements of falsehoods, thanks. IvoShandor 17:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * IvoShandor again, I apologize...did you not read all of the valid reasons I have listed in my prior posts? It would be quite redundant to list them again.  Furthermore, why accuse me of diverting attention...have I listed lies or falsehoods? No, I haven't.  The fact: the link is as valid as the Tornado link is, and if it is going to be allowed because it has photographs of the tornado, then any website that has pictures of events that are relevant to items pertaining to Newton Falls, Ohio are allowed, including a link to the | Newton Falls Leader.  Why do I have to argue anything beyond that fact?  To do so is stupid and redundant...and a disgrace to Wikipedia, not to mention my intelligence. Oh, by the way ... your statement, "Your link fails the criteria..." is your opinion, not a fact. DaVoice 17:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not good enough justification. If you want to get all technical about facts and opinions, your assertion that this link does not fail the criteria is nothing more than your opinion, not fact. Yes, it is my opinion that your link fails [{WP:EL]] and if other editors feel the same then we have consensus and your link isn't included, that's how it works and it doesn't look like you have consensus. Sorry, and thanks for apologizing, I wasn't hurt too bad. : ) IvoShandor 21:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

 * IvoShandor you've obviously misconstrued my apologies. However, am I correctly understanding what you wrote?  Are you equating articles, or information therein, to links? Mmmm! Interesting.  So this is why Wikipedia has such a poor reputation of not being a reliable source?  It allows  OTHER CRAP based on the opinions of people who make those opinions based on what - facts - not?  Wow...unbelievable.  Why, then, have rules if all that the decisions to uphold those rules are going to be based on is someone's opinion?  What authenticity does that bring to anything that is being published here?  At least Wikipedia has the title correct...Other Crap!  Decide what you will...this isn't the final word in the process anyway, or is it? Good thing you folks don't run the US government, here we at least have a law that protects civil liberties - we don't force one to live by a rule while others don't have to.  FYI: Since February 2006 www.nfl.tc has had 71,314 page views - it's still young, but it surely doesn't need Wikipedia to promote it...talk about assumptions. DaVoice 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This link definitely does not belong here. --NE2 00:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

 * NE2 - just curious - you failed to give a reason? Is it because others say it doesn't?  You realize they have failed to cite one Wiki-rule that disallows the link.  Even IvoShandor's use of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS fails to disqualify the link as it speaks to content and not to links that substantiate content.  Unless we take his claim to mean that all of the content on the Newton Falls, Ohio page is "Crap".  So, what reasons do you have?  DaVoice 05:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * My reason is that it's a random blog and should not be linked. --NE2 06:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * NE2 What? Do you even know what a blog is?  The | Newton Falls Leader certainly does not fit the definition of a blog...although it does have Forums, however, Forums differ from Blogs.  This is what I love about the Wikipedians that have jumped on this bandwagon...everyone has an opinion, but no one can back it up with fact.  Please allow me to reverse the usage of Wikipedia's WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS rule and say that just because others have posted their  CRAP opinions on this link doesn't make yours acceptable.  DaVoice 17:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The most salient feature of this page, its archive, and the mediation page is this: while Wikipedians posted clearly and dispassionately about policies and guidelines which have meaning to them, one user, who is indifferent to Civility (official policy) and No personal attacks (official policy), and whose primary aim is to get his link accepted, has persistently maligned the character and intelligence of nearly every other editor who has expressed an opinion. — Athænara  ✉  18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Athaenara you write words that have no meaning...that isn't an insult it is fact. The fact is that your "clearly and dispassionately" just doesn't exist.  Instead, what you folks have written are your opinions and then you simply place a link to a Wikipedia policy that you expect (because you think others are stupid) that everyone is going to believe your opinion.  I've asked before, and I'll ask again, show me word for word how any of the Wiki rules that are cited speak against the link! Posting policy exempted.  Don't just write something to state your opinion - back it up!  I too can write how great I am to have to take the attacks of you folks...but when I do I'm "maligning" your character...when you do it it's ok - just because it's you!  My, My am I eternally greatful to have had the opportunity to walk on the same earth as you...do you see how pompous that sounds? And that is no opinion - it is fact! Another fact, Ruhrfisch was wrong for deleting the link because it is a .tc and should have checked it out.  According to the Wiki rules I've cited his "Editing Summary" isn't a sufficient notification...but it's ok for Ruhrfisch to violate Wiki rules - guess I should use two dots over my name, then it would be ok for me, too.

 * I've stated before, I've been accused of a lot of things - none of which are valid, as no one has any facts to back their accusations. On the other hand, you folks have destroyed the Newton Falls, Ohio page with your pettiness, biased actions.  In your attempts to try to justify Ruhrfisch's actions you've denigraded yourselves, Wikipedia, and the Newton Falls, Ohio page.  Yet, for pointing that out - as I've had nothing to do with your actions - I'm accused of attacking you.  Only it is you folks who have attacked DaVoice and the Newton Falls Leader with you overstated opinions - destroying Wikipedia's credibility in the process.  I will continue to fight your actions to bring respect back to Newton Falls, Ohio - and that's a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaVoice (talk • contribs) 19:43, 26 March 2007 - Nice try, but I sigend this comment! DaVoice 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Based on reviewing the arguments put forth in this page, and the site in question, I find that it fails the requirements for WP:EL and WP:COI. I do not think that it provides a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. I feel that it is a link that is intended to promote a website. I do not see a symmetrical link between the site and the topic that the link is being requested for - the site is about significantly more than the community of Newton Falls. The owner has bypassed the advice given in WP:EL, suggesting that they do not add a link, but instead suggest it on the talk page for the article, and allow other editors to add it. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 22:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Ok, here we go again, - WP:EL clearly states...

 * There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

 * Is it accessible to the reader?
 * Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?
 * Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link?

 * What should be linked
 * Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

 * Links to be considered
 * For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.

 * The Newton Falls Leader contains articles specific to topics mentioned on the Newton Falls, Ohio page. It is accessible to its readers.  By the way, it doesn't charge a fee for registration, nor do you need to register to read it.  It contains photographs of the events mentioned in the article.  It is a functional link and is likely to continue being a functional link for a long time coming.  It contains accurate, historical data about the people and events mentioned on the Newton Falls, Ohio.  It is fruitless and unreasonalble to mention the detailed articles about winners of events on the Newton Falls, Ohio page - especially since these change from year to year - event to event; any logical person can tell it is senseless to include this information directly on the Newton Falls, Ohio page. Also, Wiki-rules say not to post multi-links, but rather post one general link - and though I did post my own link, I only posted one.

 * Now, Alucard (Dr.) where is it that you read that the link should not be allowed? Again, once Wikipedia informs you that this link is appropriate, I will certainly have someone else post it!  By the way Dr. Alucard - is that Ph.D.?  No offense, just curious...did you buy -- get your degree from the same place Ruhrfisch did? Roomies maybe?  DaVoice 22:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Newton Falls, Ohio/Archive 1


text: User talk:68.77.95.29

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:68.77.95.29


text:
Talk:Theta role

[Untitled]

 * Thematic relation was split from this article after a merger between Thematic role and Theta role. For more discussion that may be relevant here, see also Talk:Thematic role.

June 2007, complete rewrite of this article
First, some history (some of which can be gleened from the discussion below): There were originally two articles Thematic role and Theta role. These largely overlapped in content (with the theta role article actually describing thematic relations). The two articles were merged. Neither article was properly referenced and the definitions were fairly inaccurate. But the merger into theta roles was unfortunate, since the article already mixed up the two notions.

I've completely rewritten this article so it is actually about theta roles and not about thematic relations. I have also created a new article on Thematic relations that now contains an edited and corrected version of the original contents of this entry. The two entries should now (hopefully!) be distinct.

This entry still needs to have the reference section properly wikified to the proper Harvard Citation template. The article on thematic relations still needs some proper referencing done in the text, as well as some wikification.

In addition to the above, I have also changed the redirect on Thematic role so that it allows the reader to point to this article or to Thematic relations. If people notice links to this article that should go to thematic relations please fix them!AndrewCarnie 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

 * Thanks! :-D —RuakhTALK 22:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need two separate articles - thematic role and theta role?
Do we really need two separate articles - thematic role and theta role? Boraczek 21:44, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Maybe put a merge tag on thematic role? Right now that article is somewhat messy, while this one is written much more clearly (perhaps because I wrote it ;). Very Verily  22:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I agree, this article is much better. Good job!
 * Another problem to solve: I'm afraid this article (theta role) is inconsistent with the article Morphosyntactic alignment. The article theta role describes "experiencer" in semantic terms, while the article Morphosyntactic alignment says that the main argument of an intransitive verb is "experiencer" with no regard to the meaning. In the sentence "John went to San Francisco" we have an intransitive verb, so according to the second definition "John" is an experiencer, but semantically "John" is an agent. Boraczek 23:39, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Hm, well this is a somewhat unstable area of linguistics, so such discrepancies aren't too surprising, but my humble opinion is that the Morphosyntactic alignment article needs some work. It's certainly hard to believe that in John screamed or Fido ran away that 'John' and 'Fido' are experiencers, even though they'd be marked absolutive in an ergative language.  My understanding (and I don't have references handy) is that the threefold S/A/P (subject/agent/patient) distinction is preferred these days, where S can be either 'Sa' (an agent-like subject) or 'So' (an object-like subject, as in The window broke), but this latter distinction is not usually case-marked, hence the catch-all (but hard to define) 'S'.  Then we say that in accusative languages  S and A fall together, and in ergative ones S and P do.  Well, I'm not up for taking a stab at working on the alignment article just yet, but it being Wikipedia I'm sure it will happen one way or another. Very Verily  19:40, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) (P.s., sorry it took so long to reply; when I tried to reply last time the database was down and then I just forgot about it....)

 * Thematic role and Theta role denote the same concept. Actually the Greek letter theta is used to indicate the theme. My suggestion is that we move Theta role to Thematic role and provide a redirect here. Hirzel 11:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is this not just a convoluted term for "theme" in linguistics? - Centrx 16:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

 * My point exactly. "Theta role" is just a condensed form of the term. There's no point in naming the encyclopedic article after the linguistic shorthand. I'll list the article at RM.
 * Peter Isotalo 09:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the same thing
Hi All,

I strongly disagree. Thematic relations (not roles) and Theta Roles are totally different things. Thematic relations are semantic relations like "theme", "agent" etc. Theta roles are syntactic objects, which correspond to syntactic argument structure. Theta roles reference thematic relations (I haven't yet fixed the article so it says this... but it's the way Gruber intended the terms), but they are not synonymous. AndrewCarnie

Please don't merge, They're not the same!
Hello,

Though these two concepts are easily confused even by beginner linguistics/syntax students, they are not the same. Thematic roles/relations are a semantic issue, while theta-roles are a sort of abstraction developed by syntacticians the be able to determine thematic assignments in the absence of a full lexical/semantic theory. In literature these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, but in the linguistics domain they are not.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Promethean (talk • contribs).

This is not a unitary concept
The notion of theta-role comes from formal Chomskyan syntax. In functional linguistics the terms thematic role and semantic role are used instead. This article does not adopt a NPOV with regard to this disagreement.

Some of the differences are significant. For example, S, A and O may be considered to be theta roles in formal syntax, but they are considered ot be grammatical roles in functionalist syntax (and thus have semantic roles too: for example, an A might be an agent, experiencer, source etc.; an O is not always a patient; etc.)

however, more clearing up than I have time for is needed.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.33.156.75 (talk • contribs).

Merge from Thematic role
I just completed the merge from Thematic role. Reading the discussion on the merge was quite confusing. I know everyone doesn't agree with the merge, but neither article cited sources for their statements. Hopefully as a merged article the development will progress more quickly. Anyone who believes a section of this new article should stand on its own please improve the section here first by citing sources and start a discussion on this talk page when you have facts to support your argument. Alan.ca 08:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to resplit these
I'm baffled by the merger of thematic roles with theta roles. I'm an associate professor of Syntactic Theory at the University of Arizona. Ph.D from MIT in 1995. I've published a major textbook on syntactic theory (Carnie 2006). I can assure you all, these are different things. Thematic roles are semantic notions; theta roles are representations of syntactic argument positions. It is true that many generative syntacticians use the terms interchangeably, but that's sloppiness, not synonymy. The term theta role isn't used outside of generative approaches, but the term thematic relation is. I'm willing to rewrite this article (and the one on thematic roles) if we can split them apart again. Here's how I envision it: The bulk of this article will be moved to Thematic roles, changing all the incorrect references of theta role to thematic relations. There will be a crossreference to this article regarding theta roles. This article (theta roles) will be completely rewritten a shorter one outlining the basic idea of argument positions tied to thematic relations and a brief explanation to the theta criterion. I'll probably also add a few lines about other approaches (LFG a-structure, HPSG Arg-STR), as well as the newer theories which link theta roles to position (i.e. Hale and Keyser) or to theta features. The current article also mixes up grammatical relations (A, S, O -- which are wrongly defined by the way) with thematic relations. I can fix this too. But I'm only going to do this if there is a consensus to split this back into thematic relations and theta roles. I'm not going to waste my time if someone is just going to switch it back. AndrewCarnie

 * I'd support that. It seems that the problem is that theta role was originally written incorrectly, in a way that made it sound synonymous with thematic role. If you can rewrite them in a way that makes the difference clear, please do. :-) —RuakhTALK 02:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Recipient is more important than instrument
I think recipient is important enough to be included with instrument in the theta-roles illustrated by the example sentences, as it is often more central to the verb as one of the arguments of a ditransitive verb than the more oblique role of "instrument". Should a sentence be added, or should the existing ones be modified to accommodate that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 169.229.64.31 (talk • contribs).

Theme
The article says "Theme: is the recipient of an action but does not change its state (e.g. Bill gave Mary a present)."

However, I've always understood that in this sentence, 'present' is the theme and Mary the recepient. This is also what the Theta-role stuff says. Jalwikip 16:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Fragment...
"If an argument fails to have the correct match between the number of arguments (typically NPs, PPs, or embedded clauses) and the number of theta roles. "

....not a sentence.... 134.93.59.195 (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Volition and capable-of-being-eaten are syntactic qualities?
In the article:

"By contrast, Theta roles are a syntactic notion about the number, type and placement of obligatory arguments. For instance, in the  sentence Fergus ate the kibble, the fact that there are two  arguments (Fergus and the kibble) and Fergus must be  capable of volition and doing the action and the kibble must be  something that can be eaten is a fact about theta roles (the number and  type of the argument)."

I thought that "capable of volition" and "something that can be eaten" were semantic qualities, not syntactic quantities. Not being a syntactician or linguist myself, when I read the "type... of obligatory arguments" I assumed that meant what type of phrase: NP (DP), PP, etc.

Can I get a clarification? --Robert.Baruch (talk) 22:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

 * Theta roles directly refer to hematic relations (the semantic type specified in the theta role), so a theta role refers to the thematic relation (say agent) within it. Comhreir (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Too dense
I did not understand this article. I suppose I probably could if I followed every link in it and came back and read it several times, but that would be several days’ work and I doubt if it would help me learn and understand any real-world languages. The article is densely written. It is full of jargon, some undefined. It relies heavily on symbols, some undefined. (One example even has unbalanced brackets.) In every paragraph, my eyes glazed over. No doubt the jargon and symbols are well known to linguists, but I bet 99% of Wikipedia users have never taken a course in linguistics.

It compares θ-roles to other theories. I get the impression that theoretical linguistics is full of many different mutually inconsistent theories trying to explain languages at some elevated abstract level. It left me more confused than before I read it. In the future, if an article is marked "category:theoretical linguistics", I will skip it. Vita brevis est. — Solo Owl (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

 * I get the impression that theoretical linguistics is full of many different mutually inconsistent theories trying to explain languages at some elevated abstract level. That is an accurate description of the state of theoretical linguistics, so you haven't misunderstood on that count. Still, I agree with you that the article could be clearer. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 04:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I also did not get much from the article. Please rewrite this and meditate the respective notions in a simple (not simplistic) way. For example:

"The correspondence between the theta grid and the actual sentence is accomplished by means of a bijective filter on the grammar known as the Theta Criterion"

could be replaced by:

"The theta grid corresponds with the actual meaning of the sentence by a one-to-one relationship known as the Theta Criterion"

Try not to use passive voice and replace difficult words like bijective (even the spell check machine doesn't recognise it) with the "one-to-one" expression, which is more commonly used and exactly as accurate. (Read George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language" 1946, for more ). The reason I adore Wikipedia is because it has an almost magical way to describe difficult notions in an easy to understand way. Please expand this philosophy to this article by rewriting it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.128.109.253 (talk) 16:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Fergus ate the kibble
I don't understand how volition fits into this example. "The solvent ate the plastic" seems like the same thing to me. Can you make it a bit clearer? Wnt (talk) 12:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The words "predicate" and "object" have multiple possible meanings, which confuses
t appears that, in addition to the two definitions of "predicate" discussed in the first paragraph in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predicate_(grammar), the current article introduces het another one: noun or adjective or preposition or verb. I must say this confused me a lot.

 * 1) a thing or being;
 * 2) a purpose;
 * 3) or a direct or indirect object?

I think many terms used are overloaded in that they carry with them multiple possible meanings.

The article would, I think, benefit from a list of clear definitions for the most prominent words used in it.Redav (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

List of Theta roles?
I found this random article circa 2002 that describes many theta roles. Some are introduced in the article (agent, theme, goal) but others are left unmentioned (possessor, trigger, constructum, location, etc). I think it would be nice to have a consised list of all of them. NotHasn't (talk) 02:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Theta role


text:
HMS Hedingham Castle (K529)

HMS Hedingham Castle was a Castle-class corvette of the Royal Navy named after Hedingham Castle in Essex.

She was originally to have been called Gorey Castle (after Mont Orgueil in Jersey). She was launched at John Crown & Sons Ltd in Sunderland on 30 October 1944. In World War II she served as a convoy escort.

In 1953 she took part in the Fleet Review to celebrate the Coronation of Queen Elizabeth II and was broken up at Granton in April 1958.

Another Castle-class corvette was originally to have been called Hedingham Castle but she was reallocated to the Royal Canadian Navy before launching and renamed HMCS Orangeville (K491).

She plays in the film Seagulls Over Sorrento (also called Crest of the Wave) (Roy Boulting – 1954).

title: HMS Hedingham Castle (K529)


text:
Phytochemistry

Phytochemistry is the study of phytochemicals, which are chemicals derived from plants. Phytochemists strive to describe the structures of the large number of secondary metabolites found in plants, the functions of these compounds in human and plant biology, and the biosynthesis of these compounds. Plants synthesize phytochemicals for many reasons, including to protect themselves against insect attacks and plant diseases. The compounds found in plants are of many kinds, but most can be grouped into four major biosynthetic classes: alkaloids, phenylpropanoids, polyketides, and terpenoids.

Phytochemistry can be considered a subfield of botany or chemistry. Activities can be led in botanical gardens or in the wild with the aid of ethnobotany. Phytochemical studies directed toward human (i.e. drug discovery) use may fall under the discipline of pharmacognosy, whereas phytochemical studies focused on the ecological functions and evolution of phytochemicals likely fall under the discipline of chemical ecology. Phytochemistry also has relevance to the field of plant physiology.

Techniques
Techniques commonly used in the field of phytochemistry are extraction, isolation, and structural elucidation (MS,1D and 2D NMR) of natural products, as well as various chromatography techniques (MPLC, HPLC, and LC-MS).

Phytochemicals
Many plants produce chemical compounds for defence against herbivores. The major classes of pharmacologically active phytochemicals are described below, with examples of medicinal plants that contain them. Human settlements are often surrounded by weeds containing phytochemicals, such as nettle, dandelion and chickweed.

Many phytochemicals, including curcumin, epigallocatechin gallate, genistein, and resveratrol are pan-assay interference compounds and are not useful in drug discovery.

Alkaloids
Alkaloids are bitter-tasting chemicals, widespread in nature, and often toxic. There are several classes with different modes of action as drugs, both recreational and pharmaceutical. Medicines of different classes include atropine, scopolamine, and hyoscyamine (all from nightshade), the traditional medicine berberine (from plants such as Berberis and Mahonia), caffeine (Coffea), cocaine (Coca), ephedrine (Ephedra), morphine (opium poppy), nicotine (tobacco), reserpine (Rauvolfia serpentina), quinidine and quinine (Cinchona), vincamine (Vinca minor), and vincristine (Catharanthus roseus).

Glycosides
Anthraquinone glycosides are found in senna, rhubarb, and Aloe.

The cardiac glycosides are phytochemicals from plants including foxglove and lily of the valley. They include digoxin and digitoxin which act as diuretics.

Polyphenols
Polyphenols of several classes are widespread in plants, including anthocyanins, phytoestrogens, and tannins. Polyphenols are secondary metabolites produced by almost every part of plants, including fruits, flowers, leaves and bark.

Terpenes
Terpenes and terpenoids of many kinds are found in resinous plants such as the conifers. They are aromatic and serve to repel herbivores. Their scent makes them useful in essential oils, whether for perfumes such as rose and lavender, or for aromatherapy. Some have had medicinal uses: thymol is an antiseptic and was once used as a vermifuge (anti-worm medicine).

Genetics
Contrary to bacteria and fungi, most plant metabolic pathways are not grouped into biosynthetic gene clusters, but instead are scattered as individual genes. Some exceptions have been discovered: steroidal glycoalkaloids in Solanum, polyketides in Pooideae, benzoxazinoids in Zea mays, triterpenes in Avena sativa, Cucurbitaceae, Arabidopsis, and momilactone diterpenes in Oryza sativa.

title: Phytochemistry


text:
Talk:Latency (engineering)

Rewrite?
This article seems on a first glance to be completely misunderstanding the nature of latency, confusing latency with the general notion of throughput.

Latency is not just "a measure of amount of time between the start of an action and its completion", it is specifically the amount of time that is unavoidably expended before transmission actually begins. To go along with the travel analogy, the jet plane may travel faster than a car once when both are in motion, and the jet plane may carry more. However, loading up luggage and passengers and starting up the vehicle will inevitably take longer for the jet plane than for the car; the amount of time it takes to prepare for the travel is the latency. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with the article and disagree with defining Latency as the time for starting an action only. In telecommunication delay and latency are often used as synonyms, but most understood latency as the total sum of the end to end signal delay. Depending on the transmission system this could be defined and measured on a per packet base (equivalent to the airplane with it's passengers) or on a bit level (no boardening of passengers, each passenger would fly immediately in a single plane). -- Matthias, 7 Dec 2004

The definition of latency is more or less correct. It is the total time, including the startup time. The definition of throughput is not. Throughput is the amount of work done (e.g., bits transmitted over a network) in a given amount of time, not just the number of actions. In a computer network, sending data in large packets has a higher throughput than sending the same data in small packets, even though there are less actions (packets). This is both because of the lower number of overhead bits and because of reduced startup and queueing latency. If the data is streamed, propogation latency won't have much effect on throughput, but if the system waits for an acknowledgement after each packet before sending the next, high propagation latency will drastically reduce throughput. Errors that cause packets to be retransmitted also reduce throughput. --Rick Sidwell 05:51, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this, but the external link given in the article seems to agree with Antaeus. It does eventually mention overall latency, but focuses on minimal latency and refers to this simply as latency. Here's the definition given:
 * "No matter how small the amount of data, for any particular network device there's always a minimum time that you can never beat. That's called the latency of the device."

Maybe this usage was chosen because the author wanted to compare networking methods in general, rather than their performance on a specific task. Does anyone have authoritative examples of contrasting usage? -- Avenue 23:22, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Maybe the disputing sides will agree to accept this definition? If a zero-length message is considered, both definitions should mean the same.

'''Latency 'The time taken to service a request or deliver a message which is independent of the size or nature of the operation. The latency of a message passing system is the minimum time to deliver a message, even one of zero length that does not have to leave the source processor. The latency of a file system is the time required to decode and execute a null operation.''

Look at http://www.nhse.org/NHSEreview/CMS/Chapter6.html

--[Grzesiek] 14:36, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This article needs a complete rewrite.

There is also the article Comparison of latency and bandwidth.

merge proposed
I have marked "comparison of latency and throughput" to be merged with this. Gigs 10:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I would add Lag as well in this merger.--itpastorn (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless there is a compelling reason, I oppose this merger. Kushal (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

proposed underline, Consequences of latency in real time as acceptable or unacceptable. by definition latency is always present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdbarnett33.1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 * Comparison of latency and throughput now redirects to Network performance. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

error in the maths
The article says that light takes 4.8 microseconds for every kilometre. This is wrong, it should be 3.3 microseconds. I don't know if the rest of the paragraph is correct or not though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.239.138 (talk) 14:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The source of error is probably due to the wrong refraction index assumed for fibre. The speed of light in fibre is about 200,000 km/s (see for example Optical fiber), so the number is more or less correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.50.46 (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Probably so. In any case, this figure is no longer in the article. ~Kvng (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

First sentence not good.
I just read the first sentence - it appeared when I googled 'latency'. "Latency is a time interval between the stimulation and response, or, from a more general point of view, as a time delay between the cause and the effect of some physical change in the system being observed.[1]" 1. Did no-one notice that it's not even a coherent sentence? 2. The reference is ridiculous, barely relevant to the sentence. At least, it's nothing like support for the definition given. It has a few very brief and specialized hi-tech uses of the term. So. Judging by this sentence, the rest of the article is.. well, I didn't bother. 110.20.158.134 (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge from Low latency
I'm proposing to merge content from Low latency into this article. All the content in Low latency is about latency and efforts and reasons to minimize it in context already described here. The paragraph on high-speed trading would make a helpful addition to this article. ~Kvng (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ ~Kvng (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Latency (engineering)