Talk:Wishing well

The page being linked fails several of the "don't" reasons for external links: Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: Numbers 1, 4, 13, and especially 8. The site's purpose is to sell software - see the index page of the site. The note at the bottom of the "virtual" wishing well site says at the bottom "Site courtesy of WellCraftedSoftware.com ©2009" and the link in that note goes to a site which is exclusively interested in selling software. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Responses to Flopsy: Wikipedia:External_links:

1. 1: The site in question does provide a unique resource - it demonstrates a "wishing well" (just like any multimedia encyclopedia would do e.g. Encarta).
2. 4: The main intention of the site is to display a virtual wishing well. It's not promoting anything. The site doesn't sell anything.
3. 13: The site in question is directly related to the article - it shows what a wishing well looks like and how it's used.
4. 8: The link has been updated with an Adobe Flash indicator.

In conclusion: the link has existed for 3 years and no one within that time span thought it was irrelevant. The site in question (WellOfWishing.com) is not selling any software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSeber (talk • contribs) 19:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

1) "Unique" means "not available elsewhere". I removed several other wishing well sites. Perhaps we can replace this one with a different one that was removed - would you be okay with that, or is only this particular wishing well site okay? Consider your answer carefully.

2) The site promotes WellCraftedSoftware.

3) Incorrect.

4) You noted it needs Flash, but the statement on the WP:EL page says that sites with Flash are generally not to be linked, so you still haven't answered this problem either.

And after three years, I thought it was irrelevant. So you're wrong on this count, too. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Response to Flopsy: 1. The "wishing-well.eu" site does not demonstrate how a real "wishing well" functions. Real wishing wells do not have the ability to read other people's wishes. The original site in question demonstrated what a typical wishing well looked like and how it functioned - the new site does neither.

1b. The new site has affiliate links and a sponsorship link (similar to the original site).

1c. If that's the only site you could find, then you are proving that the original site was unique.

2. The site's purpose is to display a virtual wishing well. Those that purchase software are a vastly different audience than those that would view a virtual wishing well.

3. How is it incorrect? You provide no substance here.

4. There are plenty of Flash links in Wikipedia. In addition, YouTube video links are allowed and YouTube requires Flash.

4b. The new site you mentioned states that it requires "JavaScript", there are many things on the web that require more than standard HTML. Browsers support different subsets of JavaScript for instance - so it's not universally compatible with all browsers.

5. Many of your statements appear to be argumentative for arguments sake. Your language comes across as hostile and I don't understand your point of view -- if you could remove the angry subtext from your words, then we could probably work it out from a different angle.

5b. Wikipedia is a community resource, which means we should be working together - not dictating our beliefs on others. And it doesn't mean arguing each other into the ground until they cry and run away.

5c. If the link lasted for 3 years, why does one person get to dictate whether it stays or not? Many others felt it was a relevant link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSeber (talk • contribs) 03:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm not being hostile. I'm being blunt. If you want to be blunt, too, you can admit that you're the owner of that wishing well site that is the only thing you have ever entered into Wikipedia. And I get to "decide" if it stays or not because I'm following the rules, which you are refusing to do. Please remove the wishing well site to show that you also understand the rules. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Response to Flopsy:

The first definition of "blunt" is "insensitive" i.e. lack of feeling for others. For a community to work, we need to be sensitive to the feelings and viewpoints of others. How can it last if we march in, bark orders, and expect everyone to obey?

Clearly, our interpretation of the rules differ. This is a dynamic website -- things haven't always been done the same way and rules change over time. I've provided an answer for every rule you mentioned but you haven't responded in turn. You don't appear interested in a discussion, you're just demanding that I follow your orders.

I don't have any problem with following rules, I am often the one to try and enforce them. I am sure we have more in common in that regard than you are implying. But I don't agree that one person should be able to dictate the deletion of a 3 year old link and I don't agree that the link is irrelevant.

And just to note, my username has only one thing entered because it is brand new - I created it so I could have a consistent dialogue with you. I have been using Wikipedia since its start and I've just edited things anonymously over the years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TimSeber (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 October 2009

Agree fully with Flopsy, the link falls far short of our guidelines. ThemFromSpace 08:41, 28 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

External link response

The external link existed on the article's page for 3 years and was only recently removed by the user "Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth". I was restoring the link that he/she removed.

The link in question demonstrates the look and functionality of a real wishing well. How does that not "lead to a greater encyclopedic understanding of the article's subject"? It's a virtual wishing well that shows people what a wishing well looks like and how it works. It's the same way that any multimedia-based encyclopedia would use video & animation. It's not a "game", as you stated.

I would point to the external links section of the "steam engine" article for similar links, for example: http://www.animatedengines.com/

This being a community-based site, how is it appropriate for the user "Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth" to remove a 3-year-old edit out of the blue and then be so dismissive in regards to a discussion about it? I tried to engage him/her in a civil discussion about the matter but he was adamant in his ways and beliefs (and seemed purposefully rude). Although his efforts to keep irrelevant content off the site can be appreciated to some extent, there is another thing that can kill Wikipedia, and that is the lack of civil discourse. From that perspective, he may be doing more harm than good.

TimSeber (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

My authority, if you want to call it that, is that I follow the rules. The fact that ThemFromSpace agrees with me shows that I'm following consensus. I wasn't being rude. I was being direct. You repeatedly ignored what everyone said to you and made it clear that you didn't want to hear anything said by anyone that disagreed with your opinions. Over and over again you added in an external link that doesn't follow our rules for the inclusion of such links. I attempted to explain things to you on this talk page, but you basically ignored me. Please note that I initiated this conversation, up above, so it's not like I was doing this in a vacuum without communicating. I attempted at every step to communicate. With ThemFromSpace agreeing with me, however, this topic is now pretty much closed. Flopsy Mopsy and Cottonmouth (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

I see the article I wrote on "Penny Well (type of drinking fountain)" has been redirected here. This is not the same thing at all! Anyone actually reading the article would see that it was a utilitarian machine on public streets distributing water into a cup when a coin was inserted. This is NOT a wishing well!.--Stephencdickson (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

• Are we really to believe people knew putting copper into water kept it from souring?
• Isn't copper poisonous?
• Does it work with modern coins, whose copper content is lower?
• Can it possibly make up for the fact that currency is riddled with bacteria already?
• In modern wells, doesn't the loss of coinage from circulation harm the whole minting economy?
• Does anyone regularly collect the money / is it legal to do so? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.70.113 (talk) 17:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I came here looking for information on those spiral coin wishing wells, where you drop a coin into a slot and watch it roll in a spiral down a funnel and into a hole, usually for charity. Someone who knows about it needs to write an article about it, even a whole article on its own concerning the math and physics of this device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.255.60.80 (talk) 14:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Wishing well. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070823185437/http://www.strongbowsaga.com/showwik.asp?WikID=38 to http://www.strongbowsaga.com/showwik.asp?WikID=38

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

That wish would then be granted by the guardian or dweller, based upon how the coin would land at the bottom of the well. If the coin landed heads up,etc.

I've never heard this origin, and considering the cited source, a blog containing textual errors, I'm none too confident in it. After the precious possessions were tossed in, they ceased to belong to their original owners in any way; so why should whether the coins fell heads-up or not have any sway over the end result? Nuttyskin (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The article seems poorly referenced overall - I support removing that paragraph, as well as the oligodynamic effect section, since I'm fairly certain they're both informal speculation rather than serious theories. That said, it'd be good to get stronger citations and start from there, rather than just removing everything, if anyone can find any! RDXL (talk) 08:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

You would expect to read a lot about historic (perhaps even prehistoric) sources (no pun intended) about wishing wells, but most of what you get here is speculation about their origins and their alleged place in ancient cultures. Any such article would first list many ancient sources for wishing wells and their uses (fantastical or otherwise), move on to perhaps draw parallels in other cultures, and only at the end perhaps provide some "human connection" suggestions and speculations for their status in ancient society. --2A02:A473:FE0C:1:57E2:D45A:B3D4:EFB1 (talk) 08:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)Reply