Talk:Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation

External links

Thank you, Colte94, I do not understand why the anonymous unregistered user felt it necessary to do that. Compared to more popular mountains up north, there is very little hiking data on this one available online. Any links should be welcome. Jrclark 05:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is this war being waged? What is wrong with that link? Neither myself nor Jrclark has anything to do with it. It simply verifies the stats given on the mountain. Colte94 02:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user (IPs 47.234.0.59 and 71.181.51.206) continues to remove link to site that provides content and photos, including content that was cited in construction of the article. Link is not a store and is not in violation of Wikipedia:External Links avoidance category, section 5. Jrclark 16:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

User JRCLARK is attempting to promote a personal website for financial gain including but not limited to banner clicks and an online store. This wikipedia entry already has suitable external references and therefore this link is NOT needed under wikipedia excessive links policy. See Links normally to be avoided rule 4, and 12 and rule stated "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent".

Anonymous user 47.234.0.59 and 71.181.51.206 are same person. Anonymous user published personal information of registered user Jrclark. Anonymous user has published anonymous user's own link on a non-related article, violoating false interpretation of rule 12. Anonymous user is not registered.

In regard to item 4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website. " - link is provided for information related to subject, not for promotion of a web site. Item 12 has been incorrectly cited by anonymous user. "Links to blogs and personal web pages" - link in question is not a blog. Link is hiking reference site, including statistics from various hikes, photos, and ratings. Jrclark 17:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings."

CITED: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links

According to these guidelines, User JRCLARK is to submit links controlled by him to this TALK page for review by a neutral user. It does not matter how relevant he may think it is. I will note that he has a FINANCIAL VESTED INTEREST in having his page linked and therefore linking his site should not be encouraged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.62.53 (talk • contribs) 18:20, November 30, 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous unregistered (IPs 47.234.0.59 and 71.181.51.206) user's, contributions started with uncited removals of links. Anonymous unregistered user posted personal information on Jrclark. "Please consider" is not the same as "is to submit." Jrclark does indeed control linked site, which was the basis of information put onto this profile by third party - and referenced as so. Jrclark moved to Links section to better organize page. Link site is not fincially motivated, but rather is a hiking reference site that provides relevant data that does not fit in the Wikipedia article. Jrclark 18:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So called Personal information is available publicly, and was cited as such in original posting:

(deleted)

JRCLARK is trying to reduce credibility of whistleblower, despite whistle blowers ample and public references including but not limited to whois public database, Wikipedia external links rules, and JRCLARK's website itself containing a store and banner advertisements which are used as a form of revenue collection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.62.53 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

article split

Hello folks, it seems that this article has generated a lot of strong feelings, so I wanted to take the time to explain why I split the information into Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation and Sugarloaf Mountain (Franklin County, Massachusetts).

First, the content of the original article seemed more inclined to informing the reader about the mountain vs. the state reservation (for instance, a "mountain" info box was used).

Second, those searching for the mountain would not necessarily know to look it up via the name of the reservation.

Third, I had a significant amount of new content ready to be posted about Sugarloaf Mountain and a number of other mountains in the Connecticut River Valley. The information I had didn't seem to fit under an article simply about the reservation, therefore I split the content.

Fourth, I decided not to simply redirect from Mount Sugarloaf State Reservation to the new page and bundle them together, under the new title, because (as it was pointed out to me by another user), continuity of article history is lost. Furthermore, along these lines, it's true that the reservation differs significantly from the mountain (the reservation has river frontage AND mountain peaks; the reservation has a history of its own; the reservation article could one day include details about reservation operation and management).

Fifth, I used the original images for both articles, as seemed most appropriate for the new formatting. (It would be great if someone had an actual shot of the mountain itself from the bottom).

Finally, I decided NOT to write separate articles for South Sugarloaf and North Sugarloaf because both peaks are part of the same geologic mountain mass (South Sugarloaf is the lower shoulder of North Sugarloaf, however, South Sugarloaf is more notable).

Let me know what you think. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)