This is a talk page archive of Eagle_101. These are archives, please go to my talk page if you want to talk to me.
I do ALL my archiving by hand.
If there is something in this archive that I mistakenly archived, feel free to bring it back out of this archive (copy and paste it, but do remove it out of the archive), and put on my talk page. If you should do this, please add it to a new section at the bottom of my talk page and put a signed reason why you thought it should not be archived yet.
I posted the http://www.turdwater.com/board/ link on a couple sites you took it off of. We were trying to build local message board, and we were looking to get some publicity from posting it on here, and we feel its relevant , since it has to do with that towns discussions, and would be a news source like any other newspaper link you may have listed.
We tried advertising the website with local newspapers, but they found it to be 'competition' and would not allow us to advertise with them.
Your consideration is appreciated.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.106.165.126 (talk • contribs) 17:05, December 22, 2006 (UTC)
Please read out guidelines on External links. Wikipedia is not for promotional purposes. If your link really is relevant, allow someone else to add the link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 17:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I asked for help with regard to the Ai Kago page and all you did was block me and suggest I discuss this further with the other user, in spite of the fact that I had already pointed out he was refusing to respond to my own and other people's request to discuss it. He has now deleted my comments on the Talk:Ai Kago page. I'm sure you'll respond that all you did was enforce the 3 revert rule, I know that, the original problem is still unresolved. Brettr 11:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Dear Eagle 101 -
All thanks for your time on this. I have been advised through Wikipedia to ask you for more information about your speedy deletion of Moondance Magazine's article. This occured recently on Dec. 22. I have searched through the Candidates for Deletion page and cannot clearly find a Moondance Magazine deletion under any of the category deletion listings. Also reading through the policies themselves, I cannot find any clear reason for the speedy article deletion. Since all discussion and history of edits has been also deleted there is no way to track the problem to correct the matter.
Moondance Magazine has listed on Wikipedia to let the public know the publication is one of the long existing online magazines for women. Moondance does not take any monies from any advertiser. Moondance is an award winning (UNESCO)online women's publication (Moondance began its publication online in the early days of ezine publishing in 1996). Each year Moondance nominates writers for the Pushcart Prize.
If the Moondance Magazine article was deleted in error it would also be good to know the status.
If this was deleted for specific reasons please let me know and we will correct this so Wikipedia has the proper listing.
Any and all information to correct this quickly will be greatly appreciated.
I have just re-issued a new article again but want to make sure that this issue is cleared up quickly.
You can reach me personally via my email: lysanzia at yahoo.com , or I can check this page again in a few days to see your answer here.
We believe strongly that Wikipedia is a very useful public education tool. (Moondance Magazine has been used for numerous University level classes).
We do appreciate the magazine being included and also strongly support the focus to keep Wikipedia on the track with strict encyclopedia formatting.
For more information on Moondance Magazine:
home page: [1]
history and policies of the magazine: [2]
All thanks again for your speedy response.
Happy Holidays.
-Lys Anzia, book reviews editor / Moondance Magazine —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lysanzia (talk • contribs) 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC).
Since you recreated the page, I went ahead and put it up for community discussion. I did not delete this but the log can be here. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
New Dec. 24 Moondance Magazine Speedy Deletion Troubles / Possible Vandals Seem to Be Using Your Name
Dear Eagle 101,
So sorry to bother you again. I think we desperately need your assistance. It seems that someone is using your name to post deletion notices again on the Moondance Magazine article. The new article was just posted yesterday and this notice to delete it is on today. If this is not you how can I find out who this is? Who can I report this to? Is there some kind of vandalism report? I am currently trying to prevent an empty page Wikipedia listing for Moondance Magazine with Google. All my thanks again. -Lys Anzia
That was indeed me, I listed the page up for community discussion. It has some issues that can be resolved, and I think that is the best place to do so. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
All my thanks... Working hard to improve the page now. --Lysanzia 06:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
This sounds rather serious. Would you be able to take a look at it and decide what needs doing? I've posted to the talk pages of some of the arbitrators and one of the clerks as well, but not any further. Thanks. Carcharoth 23:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my absence. I will look into it, but I hope it was resolved before now. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eagle 101... Could you check this new version for Moondance magazine? It now has a completely new format and text that matches wik standards much more closely. Can ADF designation be lifted if this is appropriate? Thanks for taking the time to review. --Lysanzia 16:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Just let it run its course, the point of it is to allow the community to decide. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... The page is definitely off the Main Page; the next day's SA is already on, as the day has already changed (as of 15 minutes ago) in UTC. I'm not sure why the bot says it's still on - perhaps the bot didn't read the purged version of the page? (Try clearing the cache as well, and the "new" page should be on.) For now, though, I'll leave the page protected to be conservative and drop Shadow1 a note about this. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:16, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I've unprotected after a discussion with Shadow1; it appears that his bot hadn't purged the Main Page and was still detecting the old version. (See his talk page for details.) Thanks again! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:33, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Eagle! Looks like you're busy. I was just checking the films that are also novels list subpage & wondering whether I should revive that...is anyone else interested? If not, feel free to delete the page & I will focus my efforts elsewhere. Cheers! Her Pegship (tis herself) 23:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
If you want me to, I am more then willing to do so. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, Eagle 101, I wanted to let you know that I have edited your monobook file because it was incorrectly appearing in Category:AfD debates (Not yet sorted). This should not cause any problems for you, but if it should for some reason please make sure that you do not reinsert yourself in the category when you fix it. Thanks, Prodegotalk 17:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh gee, no worries! Thanks for fixing! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
heya eagle: i was looking around User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom recently. i noticed Elaragirl's section about deletion and deletionism and Budgiekiller's on vandalism. i think you would make a really rockin' external links - do's, don'ts and linkspam. really, you know more about policy surrounding this than most anyone i know. also, it'll get some educated folk out there treating an EL section right, as well as maybe a person or two in the channel working on reverting. i really think you should kick around the idea of doing one. JoeSmackTalk 05:12, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
p.s. if you think writing skills are a problem, don't - i will help you all the way with diction and prose; it's your knowledge that is the most valuable anyhow. JoeSmackTalk 05:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
hey ho. regarding today's conversation, after dinner i made this little rough guide on linkspam. love any additions (esp. policy citing and wording) or comments on its talkpage. i'm also going to pass it to Danny and Anthere for use/info soon. cheers! JoeSmackTalk 09:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I added more material to the response better addressing the part of your question about the issues involved in using links to youtube, myspace, etc. Thanks again for the inquiry. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
F.Y.I You warned User:66.185.164.2 not to add spam links and right after you warned him... he added them again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.156.162.26 (talk • contribs) 01:13, January 4, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for your question on my RfA; I would appreciate it if you review my response. I'd like to take the opportunity to thank you now for your comments on #wikipedia-spam, they helped me have a better understanding for a problem I am intellectually aware of but not really considered. Irrespective of how my RfA goes, you can expect to see me in that channel from time to time helping with that onerous task :)--Nilfanion (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VII - December 2006
The January 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Happy New Year Eagle....just wanted to let you know that I reverted back an article you changed Fly Fishing. I believe you thought there was vandalism but in actuality, I though, a well written contribution by Mike. Once again "Happy New Year". Shoessss 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I reverted because I am and was patrolling for spam. Adding 4 links to website forums, seems to qualify to me as extra fluff that takes away from the quality of the article. I would advise that most if not all of those should be removed, per our guidelines on external links. If any of them are useful, please include them as citations, just remember to check and make sure that they are reliable sources. I am sorry that I had reverted the rest of an otherwise good edit. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Note this message is also on the talk page of Fly fishing
I did see your comments on Mike's page about the links....I'll go an clean them up. Just wanted to give you a heads up on what was going on. Shoessss 21:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, no worries! and Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for you question about linkspam on my RFA. I just thought I'd let you know I'd submitted a response there. Cheers for your interest in my RFA! Budgiekiller 21:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Please help me understand why you've reverted my edits and additions to External Links on Wiki entries dealing with CNBC.com. I've read the External Links Wiki Policies and see nothing that that I'm in violation of.
I fixed the above issue by adding an "External Links" section and added the correct location for the Michelle_Caruso-Cabrera bio here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/15838214/
Please let me know why you've done this. I've spent a lot of time helping with Wiki and feel like this is totally un-called for. Please advise.
Mmm, if that is the case, then remove the old link, and replace it with the new link and it should all be good. I am sorry if I made an error. If you are just changing one outdated link for another, please don't let me get in the way. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Stacks77 22:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Ok, thanks. But I'm also adding useful External Links that make perfect sense. Now that CNBC is no longer affiliated with MSN Money, there are new pages under CNBC.com for every show, anchor, etc that can and should be linked to (I would think?)...For example:
Be careful with excessive External links. Make sure that they really belong there before adding them. It may be best to use the links as citations. Just make sure that they are Reliable sources. So, I would argue against the external links section, and instead do proper citations. If you need help doing the citations, I would be glad to show you how. Cheers —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
But is what I'm doing adding "excessive links"? For example, here is something I did, that you haven't reverted. I simply added "External Links" to this page, providing a link to the official Fast Money home at CNBC.com, which wasn't there before:
Is this incorrect? Should it have been a citation? I thought citations were meant for the person who actually wrote the article, citing sources? Stacks77 22:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You can always use citations. Most of our articles are in need of citations. Just because you are not the original author, does not mean you can't do citations. Citations where there are none, would vastly help wikipedia more then a simple external links section. Again if you want me to help you out with some citations, feel free to ask. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Could you edit that Fast Money Wiki page so I can get a grasp on how to do it correctly moving forward? My goal was to clean all the CNBC related Wiki pages up, since they just re-launched the site, and moved from MSN Money.Stacks77 22:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
You say, "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia." I have been linking largely unsourced articles to their entries at the Japanese Film Database (JMDB). These articles are regularly brought up for AfD because of poor sourcing, yet you have removed all of these references. Since when are links to a filmography in an article about actress considered inappropriate? You say, "Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product." These links fall under none of these categories. So why did you remove them? Are you also removing IMDB links at articles on American actors? Because this is the Japanese equivalent. Dekkappai 22:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm that would be my error. I am sorry, I saw a bunch of links being added, and that threw a red flag in my mind. I will revert myself. I am sorry. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
No problem, Eagle. You startled me a little there, though. I thought I was doing good work digging through a good Japanese filmography source, and next time I log on, I see I've been reverted and gotten my hand slapped... No hard feelings. Thanks for cleaning up the reverts. Now I'll forge ahead. Dekkappai 23:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Just a quick note to let you know that your AfD nomination is incomplete - if you gave any reasons for listing the article, they didn't make it through to the debate. It's probably a good idea for you to edit this and add your reasons. Tevildo 00:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry about that! :S I fixed it! :D —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 05:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete my addition of a link to a relevant source of material? The site to which I linked is entirely relevant to the subject matter, and has value to add to the article. Please review. user - milomind —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milomind (talk • contribs) 04:07, January 5, 2007 (UTC)
Would you please show me which article it was in? I can't help you without that much information. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
A good start would be Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you., which was given to you by User:JoeSmack. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm a little confused about a message from Eagle 101 telling me that I'm putting "advertising or promotional stuff" on my last edits. I have been adding information about passenger Thomas Byles to the RMS Titanic page. Since when is adding information about a famous passenger who hadn't been mentioned supposed to be promotional stuff? I just happened to notice Byles hadn't been mentioned. And by the way, I'm not a new contributor, I just don't contribute a lot. -- Scholastica547
I saw that you took out the POV and bunch of other things on the above item, rather than just taking out the link. Your comments did not jive with your actions, it will be appreciated if you would spend a few minutes before wiping out whole paragraphs. I am sure Wikipedia policy does not allow for whole scale delitions by anyone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.203.99 (talk • contribs) 05:11, January 5, 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry, I intended to revert only the link, I was patrolling for spam. That was my error, I have undone myself. I am sorry for messing that up. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 05:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Eagle. Wikipedia states that external links can be a service to its readers, and should be kept to a minimum. The links I have been adding are not mend to be spam, but Thailand has 76 provinces and I have been adding a link on each province to a detailed map of that province, also with a postal stamp with a place of interest in that province and a provincial coat of arms... If you check the links you would see that the site linked to is not commercial. Links placed by myself are therefor just 'meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article', I would think. Please your reaction. As I would like to finish the job, but don't want to spam. So, if ok with you I would like to continue, but if considered otherwise by you (or others) feel free to take the links off again - as I do not want to be denied access or cause problems with anyone - although it would deprive many readers of the additional info retalet to the topic. Cheers. Tao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.128.30 (talk • contribs) 06:00, January 6, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for bringing this up! I removed them as adding bare links to wikipedia is not as much a service as you would think. What would happen if every website similar to that one had a link on wikipedia? Would that not diminish the value of wikipedia's article? As the content of the page is primarily images, perhaps they could be uploaded to the wikipedia article proper. (As long as all of our image policy is followed). Just some thoughts. If I may ask, what was your reason for adding that link, and not another? This is just pure curiosity of mine, and I would appreciate a reply. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 06:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, so that is why you picked this link and not any other? Interesting... may I inquire as to who owns the website? Also, what is the copyright status on those images? Public domain, or a free license? Cheers! and thanks for inquiring. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 06:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
There was an editing conflict so I lost my previous answer, but below you find my discussion with JoeSmack on the topic:
JoeSmack: There must be a more reliable place to find a detailed map of the province other than an online travel dictionary (not usually regarded as a reliable source as much as say a government site). Is there any other more reliable, verifiable source with this information you know of? JoeSmack Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Not that I know of. Also, the links I had placed are to interactive maps whci can be changed into the Thai language - an intersting item as upcountry roadsign are often not in Latin script and could therefor be compared with the Thai script.
Also: the site is listed number 7 out of 3,630,000 hits when you type 'thailand travel info' in Google and first out of 1,180,000 when you type in 'thailand travel dictionary' - so I don't think it needs to spam... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.128.29 (talk • contribs).
If the images are what are important, can you upload them? I bet other articles would like to be able to use em, and I bet the website doesn't like wikipedia leeching their bandwidth... JoeSmack Talk 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Misunderstanding? I think if Thailand had had just three provinces the adding of the link wouldn't have been considered as Spam, but since it has 76 provinces and I was adding a link to each one of them the links are misinterpreted as spam. I don't know how to upload pictures, but besides of that the interactive use of the map would go lost, and that is a pitty.
Besides that the author is Yves Masure (as stated on each page). So, that's about it. May I know your final answer/decission so you/someone can put the links back on and I or someone else can continue with the rest or, if decided otherwise- we all can go on with other things. Cheers, Tao.
Personally I would not re-add them, with the google hits, what if the other 6 sites above that site wanted a link? How about the other 3,600,000? Best to stick to what is already there, then to invite that potential spam well. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 08:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thx for keeping Wiki clean and informative. My links may have been removed, but they are for a historical site relavent to the communities I have posted on. It is non-commercial and simply a hobby project of railroad history. Thx! 216.23.21.93 23:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello Eagle, I appreciate your work in expuragating wikipedia and understand your reasoning for maintaining this great public database however, I do not believe that my article 'PLINY'S GRUS' in any way, shape, or form undermines the standard by which all wikipedia articles adhere, and would like to understand your reasoning behind deleting it. Maybe I am wrong in my reasoning, and it would be beneficial to me for future purpose in writing if you would describe to me what it is you disagree about so that I may plead otherwise or agree. Thank You, Crazylegs100. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2007 69.19.14.17 (talk • contribs) January 6, (UTC)
Hey! No worries, I would love to look into it, if I only knew where to look. Can you elaborate on what article it was that I deleted? 'PLINY'S GRUS' does not exist, and never did exist. You can see this by looking at the deletion log. I can try to help you out if I knew where the article is. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 23:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your vigilance in dealing with vandalism by 75.15.203.99. The user at this IP address appears to be systematically vandalizing articles relating to minority Muslim sects or ethnic groups. The vandal adds untrue statements, distorts facts and spams the articles with links to web-sites that contain lies about the targeted groups. Your many reverts of today's mess are much appreciated! -- Aylahs(talk) 00:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Agha Khani. None of the statements I added were untrue. The Agha Khanis are a cult. The facts added are true so stop making up stuff. Under Wikipedia policy, the statments should not be taken out but rather discussed first, so I have asked for discussion and the cult members keep on taking out the facts. like user Aylahs, so is apparently a cult member who believes that Aga Khan is God on Earth, so I think before deleting what I wrote independent reserach should be done. Look forward to your answer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.204.215 (talk • contribs) 00:58, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
I don't doubt if what you added were true or not, that is up to fellow editors of the articles that you are editing. What I did do was revert the mass insertion of links into many articles. This is viewed as spam. I would highly suggest that you double check that the link you wanted to add meets our link guidelines. If it was indeed a good link, I would suggest using citations, using reliable sources, instead of using a bare external link. Sources help wikipedia more then bare links do. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion, I will use references from now on. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.15.204.215 (talk • contribs) 03:04, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
Please explain why you have pulled me up for advertising or for promotional purposes type of thing. I am only trying to be consistent that is why I was trying to put the Antwerp art school link in all relevant places. I have no link with this institution, I have never even been to belgium. Cutting edge fashion is under-represented / non-existent on wikipedia!
88.109.152.209 02:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
& WHAT 'inappropriate external links ' ?
88.109.152.209 02:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! I undid the link addition here, and in one other article. I would suggest reading our guidelines on external links. Just a question, what is "all relevant places"? Please remember that we are a link repository. I would also like to ask, why that link, and not another? Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello : < please see 'antwerp six' article. This antwerp royal academy fashion dept link is extremely relevent to all these designers! Plus there are links all over the place that link to a non-existant Royal Academy of Fine Arts page. The least you can do is have an external link. Maybe you would prefer this one: [4] >click inroduction ?
Secondly the vogue link is a basic one for pictures of what the man does. I cant think of any reason why that has disappeared.88.109.152.209 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
ie. relevant places = members of the antwerp six + martin margiela + citations of Royal Academy of Fine Arts (antwerp, belgium)88.109.152.209 03:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
(editconflict) OK interesting. The pictures should not be linked to, but uploaded to Wikipedia. Just make sure they match WP:IMAGE, and all will be well. :) On the external links, I am not so sure about a link per designer, but a link on the main page is appropriate. Try to make sure that all the designers are actually notable, and then just use a wikilink to the company page. As far as writing things about what these designers do. (I am a physics and mathematics major, so I have no clue on what they would do :D) I would use citations, from reliable sources. Hope I am helpful! Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 03:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
game over I don't have time88.109.152.209 03:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, as lots of work has been done of working through this list, would you be able to do that in the next day or two. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Not want to hastle you but we do need to find a way to get these refreshed - ideally without causing you too much aggravation. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Thanks for the clarification. I added some information to pages dealing with community organizing, tried to be neutral and add what I knew about the organization I know. Not meant to be selling anything. Are you sure that all of these should be taken out. Thanks, --User:gwhitman
Hello! As far as those links go, yeah I think they should be taken out per our external link guidelines. What would be better for Wikipedia would be some added sections about the topic, unrelated to any company or group. Hope I am of assistance! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 03:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I got a note that you seemed to think some of my added links in a knitting article were ?self-serving? spam? I totally don't get it. Your article on casting-on in knitting has lots of text, but no diagrams or pictures. It'd be impossible to actually cast on without some sort of pictures (I've been teaching knitting for decades--I know whereof I speak). I run a totally public-service blogsite which shows how to do 4 differnt kinds of casting-on. I receive no credit for this, no payment, nothing. My name isn't even on it--it's totally anonymous. So how does it harm your viewers to be directed to a page of pictures of how to do the casting on--pictures which only compliment your text? And how does my links differ from a different link (in the *same* article) showing how to do a fifth kind of casting-on? What is the distinction being made here? I would appreciate being set straight, because the fact is, I've always admired wikipedia...
76.210.72.122 04:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)TECHknitter
Hello! I would read our guidelines on external links. It is not recommended for site owners to add links to websites they own. Of course the site you own is useful! What I think would be of most use, is if you could upload the images to Wikipedia, and include them in the articles themselves. Just make sure the images are properly tagged ect, according to our image policy. I hope I was of assistance, and Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yup--I did read those guidelines b/4 I added links. The images would take up a real lot of space--they are large line drawings--for long-tail casting-on there is a series of 7--with accompanying text. I think it would take 8 or 10 screen shots to cover them all-- I think you'd have to have a whole separate article for each kind of casting-on. That's why I put them in as links. But, if you want your readers to struggle along with words and no pix--then just keep on doing what you're doing now--a lot of dense text--PC, perhaps, but useless. Cheers--
PS--And yes, I do get it that you might think it self-serving to link to one's own site, but how that apply to an anonymous public-service site?
Ok, I think I get what you are getting at now, but it would probably be best for the images to be uploaded to wikipedia, we have over 100,000, 7 or so more won't hurt ;). As far as having separate articles, wikipedia can handle it, we have over 1,500,000 articles currently, a few more won't hurt. Please do remember that we are not a self help or howto guide, we are an encyclopedia Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Nope--now I'm totally confused. You tell me that it would be best if I put my long-tail cast-on pictures on Wikipedia--all 7, with text, showing every nuance of how to cast on? Go ahead and add the pix? add another article? Wikipedia can handle it? BUT--you're NOT a how-to guide, so... what? don't bother? Seems to me, if you're going to have information on knitted casting-on, you'd want it to be useful. And if you really don't want to be a how-to guide, then ... Wouldn't it be easier to go back to plan A--walk the middle path--have all the dense encylopedic text you want, with a link to the more detailed pictures?
76.210.72.122 05:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Techknitter
well this is a WP:COI as you are part of that website and per WP:SPAM and WP:EL you shouldn't link to your site. If you believe that this should be included on Wikipedia in an encyclopedic manor may I suggest creating a section that covers the material in an encyclopedic manor and not a "how-to" way, or an alternate is leaving a note about it on the talk page of the article? Betacommand(talk • contribs • Bot) 05:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
One mo' time--how can it be a COI to link to AN ANONYMOUS PUBLIC SERVICE SITE? And--you're assuming that your specialized computer jargon is generally comprehensible--but it isn't, or at least not to me. So please, have pity.. what's a "manor?" Last I checked, it's a kind of building... or an olde English-style adminstrative unit.
Let me take my line of logic from the top, one LAST TIME...
You don't want to be a how-to site, fine. But by having an article on casting-on knitting, you've already crossed that line. The text of the casting-on knitting article does, in fact, attempt to explain HOW TO CAST ON KNITTING. What you have there is ALREADY A HOW-TO article, albeit a rather useless one.
The reason the article is useless is because it does not have any illustrations--the words are insufficient to describe the actions of casting-on knitting. Specifically, a person stuck on a desert island with your encyclopedia and no other reference would not be able to understand what is being discussed--they'd literally have no idea.
The addition of illustrations to encyclopedias and dictionaries during the last half of the last century was generally regarded a being a big step forward. This point is demonstrated by the *very article* to which I am trying to add links (but rapidly losing interest in trying...) Yes, that very article to HAS A LINK to a certain kind of casting on called "magic cast-on." In the case of magic cast-on, as in the case of the other kinds of cast-on, a picture is literally worth a thousand words--folks--you HAVE a THOUSAND words already, but no pix.
So, in order to make your wonderful, valuable encyclopedia MORE valuable, I'd like for there to BE pictures. How to do that?
1. There could be more pictures added to the site as it is now.
2. There could be links to pictures on a different site.
So, where do we go from here? I've offered to add links to pictures on a different site, Eagle 101 told me to put my illustrations directly on wikipedia, and s/he and Betacommand also (and contradictorily) told me (I think) not to bother because Wikipedia is not a how-to, although the site in question clearly IS a how-to. Does anyone else want to try to offer some clarity here?
76.210.72.122 05:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)TECHknitter
OOPS, forgot to say--the Wikipedia entries on knitting are a PURE how-to play--how to knit, how to purl, in English AND continental style, with photo series... So...what gives with the "we are not a how-to?" Wikipedia entries demonstrably ARE a how-to, at least in the knitting entries....76.210.72.122 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)TECHknitter
Later, the next day...
HELLO?
76.210.72.122 19:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)Techknitter
And, yet later...
Dear Eagle 101. Is there another process I can invoke in this situation? Is there another body of, perhaps, arbitrators? Betacommand indicated that I might want to try the "talk page," but I can't see that there is one for the article on casting on knitting. Being ignored here is feeling pretty bad, and I have to go out of town Mon night for 2 weeks (no web contact) and would like to a) be taken seriously and b) get to some sort of resolution.
76.210.72.122 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)TECHknitter
Oh I am sorry! If you object with what I have said, I would suggest taking the matter to the talk page. Though it is a serious Conflict of Interest for you to be adding a link to a site that you own and or maintain. (hence why you need to talk it over, and have someone else add it for you.) Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Heya, am curious why my links were deleted as the External links I'm linking to are very relevant to each article I've appended them too. Each External Link was to a magazine site (Mess+Noise) that has many indepth articles on the local (Australian) bands I've been adding them too. Understood it may look like SPAM as it mentions the site Mess+Noise a lot. On the last link I added I noticed people referencing the source as "Article Link Here in MySpace", MySpace being an internal Wiki link, I think this may be a better idea for me. Creating a Mess+Noise Wiki entry, then referencing each Article on Mess+Noise by title and adding "in Mess+Noise". Will that help? Messandnoise 04:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! May I ask one question before I reply to yours? Why are you adding this particular link? Why not another? Please read our external link guidelines. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Good question. I think the articles I'm linking to are indeed relevant as they're separate to the Wiki articles themselves as far as their direction and model of the interviews or opinions expressed with the respective artists. The articles on Mess+Noise are never simply reviews, but indepth pieces with the respective artists that delve deeper than a normal "bio" or "press release" would. I've got a few other pieces to add to each article also, byt Mess+Noise pieces seemed a good place to start as I've read them each to check for relevance. It seems to fall under (4.Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.) Thanks again E101 and keep up the good work. Messandnoise 05:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
May I ask you not to edit or delete my the references or citations that I place after some of the individual entries. I'm have been adding references to the individual "Nickname" entries so readers, researchers or wikipedians can click on the links to read further and hopefully enhance other contributions in Wikipedia. rajofcanada —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rajofcanada (talk • contribs) 07:25, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I am sorry I at one time mistaked a few of them for WP:SPAM. Though I am a bit concerned by the sheer number of external links you are adding, I did attempt to revert myself. Though I do want to note that this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and that your contributions are lisenesed to the GDFL. I thought I undid everything I reverted, I may have missed one. One question I do have is why do we need all these external links, if I may so ask? I mean in a list like that, aren't the wikipedia links enough? The articles themselves are what need citations, by reliable sources, not a list. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 07:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
In the "External links" section of this article I added a link to the
Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ.
For some reason you seem to think this is advertising or for promotional
purposes. Ambisonics has existed for about 30 years. I do not have any
commercial interest in it. I don't know anybody who does; the patents all
expired years ago. The Ambisonic Surround Sound FAQ, which I created and
maintain, is one of the major resources for Ambisonics. It should be; most
of the people who created Ambisonics have contributed to the FAQ (they
are listed in section 24). The Ambisonics FAQ deserves to be on the
Ambisonic page. Please reconsider your decision. Martin.leese 07:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Please read our external link guidelines on what is suggested to be included and what should not be. Also as you maintain that webpage, it is a conflict of interest for you to add your own link to Wikipedia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 07:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
The conflict of interest article suggests that, in these circumstances, the proposed addition should be discussed on the article's "Talk" page. I have therefore started such a discussion. Martin.leese 08:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday, on my IP comment page, you wrote something about advertisement, some warning that I am not allowed to remove and then you reversed my edit on Tornerò. That edit included a video proof of my edit. If you bothered to listen to the original song and to the video link I gave, you could hear Anna Vissi singing the very song that you never heard. Sometimes you don't have the slightest idea what you're editing, but hell, no, you are a spam fighter, writing warnings.
Unfortunately, I am not really used with warning templates, and I bet you will remove this right away. I will come back (Tornerò) from time to time and reverse it; there should be a policy preventing you from removing warnings. Even an "anonymous" IP can request arbitration. People like you made me give up logging in. Keep up the good work! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.229.23 (talk • contribs) 15:36, January 7, 2007 (UTC)
Hi! may I ask what i reverted, and what warnings you refer to? Thanks! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 17:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't left a note about which page you were referring to, so I could just leave in dark, as you did. The truth is that I already wrote: it's Tornerò. If you don't read these discussions carefully, it could be that, when you reversed my edit, you weren't paying attention either. Should you take a break from "spam fighting" until ADHD slows down, it's up to you.
This is your last warning. If you continue to make personal attacks, you will be blocked for disruption. . Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that you read our external link guidelines. I reverted back again the addition of this. Links are normally only useful if they add to the value of the article itself. Also make sure that the link is not causing any copyright problems Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
You didn't even bother to read my messages. Would you be kind to stick to the facts and point me why is Anna Vissi not singing Tornero although the video shows her doing exactly that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.229.23 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
Here's a bit of background on the links you presumably removed. The target of those links contains thousands of photos of several hundred memorials located in the Washington D.C. area. The creation of that site was a reaction to my own frustration at the lack of a *centralized* web resource with *lots of* photos of individual monuments, memorials & other outdoor art in D.C. Readers of an article about Joe HistoryDude are likely to have an interest in photos of the memorial to Mr. HistoryDude in this nation's capital. It's puzzling to me why you object to facilitating that reader's interest. http://www.dcMemorials.com is not a "commercial site" by any reasonable definition of the phrase. Yes, it has a few google ads. Best wishes, mrmdog. 7 Jan 2007 4:32pm EST
Hi, Any good images can be uploaded directly to Wikipedia. Just make sure that they follow our image policy. If a user wants to see more images, they can always use a search engine. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
A user interested in the outdoor sculpture of D.C. would have to do far too many searches than are practical. A **centralized** directory of photos is called for. The purpose of external links is to make extra relevant info available that's not practical to include in the article itself. A work of art can't be adequately represented by a single photograph. What does it look like from the other side? What are its surroundings? How does it appear in a different light or at a different time of year? It wouldn't be practical or acceptable to upload the multiple images necessary to do justice to the piece.
Google "george thomas memorial,d.c." and compare http://www.kittytours.org/thatman2/search.asp?subject=53 (hit #4 -- the 1st one with any photos) to http://www.dcmemorials.com/index_indiv0001722.htm. The top ten google hits *together* feature total of 3 photos of the memorial. The dcMemorials page displays 9 photos of the statue plus 4 more closeups of inscriptions. Notice the church in the background? The statue of Martin Luther faintly visible (& a link to more photos of that one)? I know you're busy doing good work eliminating true spam, but please humor me by comparing the two pages cited above.
Of course, I'd prefer to put links in the "Outdoor sculpture in Washington, D.C." article itself, but that's spam by someone's definition. Alas.
If I were you, I would upload the best images to wikipedia. All that is, is a gallery of images. I don't see how that is much benefit to wikipedia. May I ask why that link? Why not assume the users are able to use google image search? Please read our spam guidelines, as to what is and is not spam. Having a link on each of Wikipedia's pages does not really help, we are an encyclopedia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
<<Why not assume the users are able to use google image search?>> Because to do so short changes them. The same search criteria from the "images" link at google yields 36 hits ... ZERO of which yield anything about Civil War general George Thomas, much less his memorial in Washington! The closest is for George Thomas Condrey -- a WW2 era Army pilot. This is exactly why dcMemorials.com exists & is a valuable resource that should be readily available to researchers.
<<May I ask why that link?>> Yes, certainly. I think you're asking why I used the Thomas link in particular as an example. Because the results of the Thomas search are representative of the very reason for dcMemorials.com's existence. It's difficult to find a site with the multiplicity of photos necessary to adequately portray these works of art & history. That particular subject (Thomas) is just one of many good examples of how dcMemorials.com shows far more detail including the context of the memorial (surrounding scenery, other memorials, etc) & the inscriptions. And how other sites fall short. Not to say those other sites are bad, just that they don't provide the detail that serious researchers require.
<<Please read our spam guidelines>> Before my first reply I did read the guidelines [again]. You might wish to re-read them with an open mind, imagining that you're someone doing research on a specific person. Here are a few phrases you may have overlooked.
specific links may be allowed under some circumstances
A link to pictures of the George Thomas memorial is specifically relevant to an article about George Thomas.
Adding external links ... for the purpose of promoting a website
The purpose of my external links is to facilitate research. Anyone researching a memorial in D.C. will want to see what the memorial looks like.
<<Having a link on each of Wikipedia's pages does not really help>>
"Each" page? On the page for (for example) Joe HistoryDude I placed a single link to the memorial honoring Mr. HistoryDude.
<<we are an encyclopedia>>
Indeed Wikipedia is an ONLINE encyclopedia. Hypertext links to relevant additional information are, I would say, the fundamental difference between print & online encyclopedias.
<<All that is, is a gallery of images>>
Yep, that's "all" it is. A large gallery of images focused on a very specific subject of interest to a significant number of people. Does your encyclopedia exclude what one would normally find in an encyclopedia of art? The only reason that print encyclopedias of art don't have more pictures is because they can't -- it would be prohibitively expensive. That's the beauty of the web. BTW, I'll probably eventually get around to uploading a single picture to as many Wiki articles lacking such pictures as time permits. But, again, researchers want to see more than one & I'd like them to have access in the mean time.
And finally ... May I ask: Do you ever reconsider your positions in light of new information? I hope so. Best wishes, mrmdog 7 Jan 2007 6:50pm EST
Yes I do, but what you are saying is only part of the problem. When I went to that site, yes I look! I did not see anything but a page of photos. A few of the pictures were awesome if I may say myself, hence why I suggest that these pictures be uploaded to wikipeda. Use the images in the full text of the article. That improves the encyclopedia. Do you have any reservations against uploading the images? If you were to add this link to a ton of pages, do you know how many? Also, if a user wants to find images, all they have to do is search for "<insert title here> pictures" or "<insert title here> images". What would we do when the next guy comes along with this "awesome" image site? I really do think uploading the best images is the best choice to make. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your good work on anti-spam duty. I must confess, though, that I cannot understand your problem with the external links that a newbie editor, user 87.60.236.175, has been making to several naval history articles. The sites he or she is linking, The Battleship Bismarck, and The Heavy Cruiser Prinz Eugen are not spam; they are serious and authoritative contributions to the study of their respective subjects. Have you actually followed up the links to see for yourself defore deleting them? I have to say that I would consider an Wikipedia article relating to either of these vessels to be incomplete. Or have I got my wires crossed somewhere?
I'm adding this page to my watchlist, since I understand you prefer to post your replies here.
Yeah I followed through, but User:87.60.236.175, has added over 23 some links, and nothing else, which smacks of spam to me. I am willing to revert myself if need be though. A better suggestion is to show him/her how to use citations. These are badly needed in many of our articles and are not as plentiful as we would like them to be. I also forgot to welcome the user, as is my custom! I will remedy that after this post. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for this. I take your point about the user's spammer-like behaviour, but appearances can be deceptive, and this is a case in point. I have checked User:87.60.236.175's edit history, which is, as you say, mostly adding links, plus a few cases of adding categories, and can confirm that
Most of his or her (hereinafter his) additions are encyclopaedic and add value;
All of them appear to be in good faith;
None of them is spam.
This being the case, I was suprised that you chose to welcome him with the "Welcomespam" template, particularly since you have already hit his Talk page with two spam warnings, one of them a final warning. To my mind, an apology would have been more to the point. I do agree, though, that he needs some advice; in particular, he never writes edit summaries, which is a shame. It would be good if we could induce him to communicate - I have tried.
I am sorry, I have gotten IPs mixed up, I thought I had not welcomed or warned. I am sorry, and if I can I will revert myself. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:21, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I honestly thought I did not welcome or warn him. :S I am really confused now. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I have rolled back my edits, I welcomed him with the welcome spam as I thought I did not warn him, so I thought it would be best to show him the guidelines on that. Again it was really bad of me, especially since I apparently warned him already. I am not exactly sure what I can do to improve things, but I have really made a mess here haven't I? Anyway, confused as heck, Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
sorry about the redirect double edit. I though I had hit a wrong key. Did not mean to un do your revertsObina 21:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I thought I made a mistake. So I undid myself. Cheers! (your redirect looked ok to me, but at first glance I thought it was a page blanking). —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
THERE IS NO TALK PAGE FOR CASTING-ON KNITTING. Maybe I should START ONE, have a TALK with MYSELF, AGREE its a fine idea to add some links to the four illustrations I tried to link to before, and then do it?
Actually, on second thought, dear Eagle 101, I give up. I don't care enough about this for there to be illustrations or links to illustrations. Let the Wikipedia entry on knitted casting-on be forever pure, forever link-less (and... forever useless, because... *There are no illustrations*)
Goodbye, and good luck! 76.210.72.122 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)TECHknitter
You deleted my Peter Cusack article on December 5, 2006 since you felt Peter Cusack was not sufficiently notable. I have revised it a bit and it appears at User:Filll/Peter Cusack. I will also point out that there are 6 articles with red wikilinks pointing to Peter Cusack now, with no article (there is a sports Peter Cusack, but not the same guy). So is he still nonnotable? Or can this be put out on WP?--Filll 01:34, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me. Like I said a couple days ago, I give you a more concrete thank you over the coming days and weeks by assisting on the spam channel.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't find the discussion on blacklisting at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist but you had warned User_talk:75.24.244.162 for the spamming the .net address yesterday, so I thought you might have been involved and would be able to decide whether the .com address needed similar action. -- Siobhan Hansa 04:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.
I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)
Hiya, you are the clerk on the ArbCom Naming Conventions case, correct? One of the arbitrators had asked that I inform you about something: [5]. Basically, even though voting has already started, I had not yet finished supplying my evidence. My wiki-time was interrupted by the holidays, and being stuck in a New Mexico snowstorm. Now that I am back, I will resume with supplying evidence. When I am finished, I'll let the arbitrators know, so that they can decide how to proceed at that point. Thanks, Elonka 21:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
My name is Corey Tronchin ceo of professionalrockstars.com. I was blocked from adding interview video content of artist that is copyrighted to my media company . My media kit is http://www.professionalrockstars.com/mediakit.pdf. I would like to please have the block deleted. Reason, my video content is copyrighted to ProfessionalRockstars.com and i have full disclosure rights in entirety for all artist of video content we have attained.My IP adress is 68.198.208.111 Please feel free to contact me at corey@professionalrockstars.com
Hello Eagle 101, I recently reported User:I Certainly DONT Love Jesus! on AIV but I am a bit surprised that the account has not been blocked yet after remaining on the page for quite awhile. Could you take a look at it please? Thank you.¤~Persian Poet Gal(talk) 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Greetings, I noticed that either you or your bot have removed external links from several articles. On one article, Lillix, you removed several from "blog.myspace.com" which were part of the references. The External links guideline does not apply to these, when they are from an official source, and the blog on a band's official myspace page counts as such, as they are a direct voice from the musicians. You might consider rechecking those pages that were edited to make sure other such references weren't damaged as well. Thanks! -- HuntsterT • @ • C 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Think about that again...wouldn't words direct from the article subject be considered (loosely) a primary document? "Self-published sources" seems to back this up. -- HuntsterT • @ • C 21:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I came to inquire about this as well. While the source is a blog, it is (at least in the case I was going to comment on, The Exit) it is the word of the subject of the article. I personally would hold that an an exception to the rule. Shuckiduck 09:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As they said below, you have to be careful not to cross the line into advertising, but if it is highly relevant to the article, then there shouldn't be a problem with using words "from the horse's mouth". -- HuntsterT • @ • C 10:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Likewise, I have reverted a change to the article on Reichen Lehmkuhl, where a citation to the subject's blog on MySpace was directly relevant to the article. The WP:EL guidelines include this exception: "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject [...]". In this case, it was Reichen's own blog, and the context was that Reichen claimed that rumors printed about him in People magazine were untrue. --ΨΦorg 10:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You are fortunate, then, as someone has now added MySpace blogs to the wikipedia blacklist for links. Very poorly considered move, in my opinion. -- HuntsterT • @ • C 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Please specify what is violation on Nazanin Fatehi page that you are referring to before deleting SO MUCH of this page at the same time!! Please be specfic and paste the specific codes. She is facing a sentencing this week and it is important to have all references intact since many (including media) refer to this page for information as this wikipedia page shows up first when one search for her name. Thank you. --LiveLIfe 07:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Looks like I got beat to the punch. :P The only thing that I removed was links to myspace blogs. These do not normally meet our reliable source requirememnts. While I know blogs are easy to find and to cite, they don't generally represent an authoritative point of view. The need for authoritative citations is especially great now that she is going to be in sentencing. As you asked, the specific guideline is this. There has to be better sources out there for what is said in that article. Blogs are not normally verifiable sources. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
I am part of savenazanin campaign. I also initiated and maintained this page on wikipedia. I am also founder of the myspace page that you are referring to. All info on blog and the myspace page were based on the campaign info and VERIFIED NEWS. The parts which were referenced were all news and not opinions. The only reason it was on myspace was to gain attention and awareness. This page was major source of info through this campaign. Some of the web pages that you left on wikipedia obtained their info though myspace such as the the video collage on Nazanin Fatehi that I made. Please undo the change as it is removing many crucial references and info on the subject. In time I will try to substitute resouces vs myspace where possible. We can not globally presume if on myspace is wrong :-) Thank you kindly. --LiveLIfe 20:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
What is my interest in this. I am one like you and have no financial interest, nor anything to gain from this. My ONLY INTEREST was informing piublic with facts and campaign are independent individuals, just like those who have interest in wikipedia to raise awareness to a case. If that defines interest, then your interest in accuracy in wikipedia is a conflict too. It is amazing that how a year of work on wikipedia suddenly gets trashed by few without any respect for what went in to all this. Best :( --LiveLIfe 21:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
We can only take your word that the information on your site in correct and impartial, and at Wikipedia, we prefer to directly source references and information directly from news agencies we know are unlikely to be biased, wrong or falsely reporting information. Whilst in no way am I accusing you of such actions, we normally have no way to confirm the reliability of what is on your site or any blog site and because of this, we can't normally use these sites for reference purposes. --Kind Regards - Heligoland(Talk)(Contribs) 22:21, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
with all due respect can any of those who are making this objection tell me what is the difference between few of the websites that are NOW on the page such as www.helpnazanin.com, www.nazaninfatehi.com and the one on myspace? Except the web address. They were ALL made by same group of people and they all have same info. This site was ONLY singled out because its web address had the word myspace on it. I am 100% for neutrality and accuracy of wikipedia but being stuck with addresses versus content is not the way to go. the myspace site was the news source. Help Nazanin was made much after. See the sites and the info on them. myspace was the news source that NEWS agencies used. So again I did say that we will try to get the original source, except when the original source was myspace. IF I translated an article, aren't I the source of the English translation? do you want me to make up the source? If I created the video aren't I the source? All I am saying is instead of suddenly removing everything and hurting the reference, lets leave intact and gradually improve if the page conflicts with anything. It is sooo easy to show up suddenly and criticize and ruin one year worth of work. Breaking is easy. Building and fixing is not. I have much respect for wikipedia and its rules. If I am in violation, have me blocked but until then I will commit to accuracy of the info on this page within wikipedia scope. Thank you kindly, lets take thsi talk to the page than crowding Eagles page here... :-) --LiveLIfe 22:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If the other sources you have used don't satisfy our criteria for impartial, unbiased sources, they will have to be changed to more suitable references in line with WP:EL and WP:CITE. Sites like BBC News Online, CNN etc are perfect. http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/makeref.php is an excellent way to quickly generate references for inclusion. --Kind Regards - Heligoland(Talk)(Contribs) 23:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
best wishes finding ABC news in Iran! and good luck with the page. It is sad what is being done, but I hope some of those who only critisize, start doing research, ASK questions do TALKS first and CONTRIBUTE before just clicking delete. Today I learned that www.blahblah.com is more reliable than www.myspace.com/blahblah and if it is not covered by ABC and alike, it does not exist even we are looking at IT!! Good Bye... --LiveLIfe 00:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, if I could just ask where you sourced the information on your various websites from. Did this not come from reliable sources in and around Iran / the Middle East, and if so, they can be used freely. We don't force contributors to use pro-Western media, any reliable source (per WP:RS) is absolutely fine. --Kind Regards - Heligoland(Talk)(Contribs) 00:08, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I just wanted to relay my apologies for using the good faith warning template. I've since been corrected on its usage and I apologize. That said, I believe your edits to the Darren Hayes article were unsubstantiated. Also, why don't you use the discussion page to precisely list your reasoning for the removal? SERSeanCrane 05:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Have you read the discussion page of the article from which you removed material? Check User:Wizardry Dragon for more on reasoning, and to add your thoughts...I understand why a typical blog is not credible, but this is an "official" blog by the artist. I believe your intentions are good, but you aren't adjusting to current marketing trends. Artists, as well was movie directors and feature films, are using myspace at an increasing rate to communicate with the public...it's a new form of press release. Dane Cook and a recent movie about dance, whose title currently escapes me, are good examples of this trend. SERSeanCrane 05:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
You backed your removal of the external link at Darren Hayes with WP:EL. I'd like to remind you that the section title is "Links normally to be avoided". The blog is not a typical blog from MySpace; there is authority behind it, as accepted at WP:EL: "Links to blogs and personal web-pages, except those written by a recognized authority." Please do not dismiss links to Myspace blogs entirely - the cases with Darren Hayes and Iron Man are clearly exceptions to the rule. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 05:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Talk about buzz-words you were just waiting jump on, huh? =) Yes, I agree that marketing is no place for wikipedia. You're twisting the intent of reply. An artist can comunicate with his/her fans as a form of "marketing" - it creates buzz and enlarges the fan base. That doesn't exempt the source. If an artist says something on his official blog, it's from the horses mouth, a direct authority on the subject...why discount that? SERSeanCrane 06:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should rely on reliable, third-party sources for it's information - this is how we maintain the integrity of Wikipedia. If a claim is legit, than it should be easily referenced by a neutral third-party. If that is the case, use that source, otherwise, you need to serious re-evaluate whether you should be adding this information. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
But as mentioned before, WP:RS and WP:EL allows for reliable, primary sources such that it can be verified and is disseminated by an authority figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SERSeanCane (talk • contribs)
Such an allowance is an exception, not the rule. Care should be taken when doing so, as by doing so you are weakining the integrety of Wikipedia's sourcing. Such a step should only be taken if the link is really genuinely adding something of great value to the article, otherwise the tradeoff in integrity is undesirable and usually unneccesary. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"Such a step should only be taken if the link is really genuinely adding something of great value to the article, otherwise the tradeoff in integrity is undesirable and usually unneccesary." This statement is highly subjective, but I see your point and yield. That said, determining the value of a piece of information is subject to a concensus of contributing editors, and not that of a single person. Please assess the value of removing such sources before editing. SERSeanCrane 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. Consensus has been reached among several editors that blogs are generally bad references - as reflected in the policy. It is up to someone that wants to add one as an "exception" to prove that it is really worth such exceptional consideration. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:31, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
So to clarify, if I were to be bold and add a quote from an official blog, written by the subject for which the wikiarticle is about, another editor can blindly remove it based on the fact that the reference is from a red-flagged source under current policy --> a blog. However, if I subsequently prove that the quote satisfies criteria for exception per WP:RS, it's acceptable. Quick question, where does one prove exceptional consideration? Furthermore, how does one insure that the reference won't be removed again editors that blindly remove myspace links? SERSeanCrane 07:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
If someone is automatically reverting a link for which consensus has been reached should stay, just revert, and leave them a friendly note that the link is accepted with consensus. Temper frustration with a some good faith and keep in mind that people doing such removals aren't trying to disrupt or damage Wikipedia. In my case, for example, I removed over 120 bad links, of which maybe 10 were good - so, which is easier, to just readd those ten good links, or to manually remove the 100+ bad ones? Sometimes when we use such tools there will be those few exceptions. Don't take it personally, as such automated removals are very INpersonal - just readd them and confer with the person doing them so they know to pass over that link next time. In short, the important thing to remember is that we're all valued and respected contributors, and we are all here to improve Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:00, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. All the best! SERSeanCrane 08:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I was just wondering as to why you deleted this article. As I see it, the article documented an upcoming single release from a notable artist and CSD A7 didn't apply to it in this case at all. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 23:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
As part of the Association of Members' Advocates, I have recently taken your case with regards to the Darren Hayes article. This case was brought to the AMA's attention by SERSeanCrane and it concerns you and Wizardry Dragon. I have a minor request, please post all comments concerning this dispute on the case page, found here, I believe that given how isolated your case is now it will make everyone's life easier if we keep it in one place. I will ask SERSeanCrane to post his accusations under the Discussion section, and then I would like you and Wizardry Dragon to each briefly respond once. This will give me enought time to read up on the case. I look foward to working with you to solve this dispute, and just so you know, I am always availible from 11p.m. US Eastern time to 4 or 5 a.m. --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 09:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the AMA request, I think the matter has already been settled on my talk page here, and on Wizardry Dragons talk page here. I am not quite sure if the AMA thing needs to continue. If SERSeanCrane thinks it does, I don't mind commenting at all ;). I don't want to leave anyone upset here! As far as the blog.myspace.com link, I think that got placed to the meta-blacklist here. I believe it was adjusted here to correctly match. Agian, if SERSeanCrane wants to go through with the AMA request I am willing to, but I think the conflict has been resolved on my (and Wizardry Dragon's) talk page. Just drop me a message letting me know if the AMA thing is still needed :D. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 12:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)`
Actually SERSeanCrane would like to continue the subject, so I'd appreciate it if you stayed in the conversation - if you could provide a brief (2-3 sentences max) response to his summarized accusation under the discussion section, that'd be great! --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 18:48, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
IGNORE THAT - ahh I'm so sorry, the begining to his section sounded like he wanted to continue it (I didn't think he would post accusations if it was resolved), but then at the end he said he wanted it resolved. Extremely sorry for the mixup, --Daniel()Folsom T|C|U 18:51, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Girlfriend (Avril Lavigne song). Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kurt Shaped Box 22:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, pending any request for specific reasoning, I will let me deletion reason stand for itself, cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
your edit summary contained a error that makes it difficult to determine the reason for the redirect.
the AfD closure provided no rationale or basis for the decision
the AfD debate does not appear to me to constitute a consensus for the decision made
It's troubling for WikiProject members who are very dedicated and passionate about their topic of choice get the feeling that they are being ambushed by "drive-by deletionists". I will assume that all participants in the AfD contributed in good faith, but thier contributions do not give active Project memebers the sense that they understand or are sensitive to the larger issues that are triggered by thier actions. These larger issues were clearly stated in the AfD discussion and do not appear to be acknowleged or addressed in the discussion or conclusion.--G1076 06:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Ok, I guess I should have elaborated more in my statement on the top, but when I read the arguments, I noticed a few things, first off, we have two duplicate lists. Nothing else withstanding, that needs fixing. So I had several choices one, I could just delete the page. But doing this would probably cause loss of information. In addition it would be a redlink, and plenty of stuff is linked to this list. Next, I could have kept the page. The only problem with that is that we have duplicate lists. As that AFD was on one article, and one article only, I considered the merits based on that. I finally chose to make it a redirect, as all the list information is contained in the history, so that will permit a merge, or use of that information elsewhere. The wikiproject has not lost anything. It is left up to the wikiproject to decide on a merge, or perhaps to take the second list and merge to List of United States Representatives from Minnesota, instead of having it redirect. As far as mistakes I have made (edit summaries ), I am sorry. I hope that what I wrote above helps out a bit. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 12:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
They were not dupilicate lists. They had different information. Someone passing by the article thought they were the same. Although there was some overlap, that's where the similarity ended. —Markles 22:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to list on Deletion Review if you have concerns with how I closed this. Thats what its for ;). Cheers! Also so it is clear, I did not delete and redirect, I simply redirected. This means the edit history has all the information. You can always merge that information into the remaining list. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
First off - thank you for your insight and understanding of the situation. I will be bringing up the topic on the Deletion Review since User:Markles has reverted your decision. Feel free to weigh in. --Appraiser 23:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I appreciate your response and clarification of the AfD closure. I invite you to participate in the further discussion of this issue and the wider context of the Project Congresslist articles at the new Project Congress WikiList Workgroup. All wikipedians are invited to provide input on the best organization method and new software applications to Congress related articles.--G1076 00:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
While you're explaining that one deletion, you might be explaining the long list of deletions of links to scientific articles you've been making, without glancing at their contents. --Wetman 19:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, thanks for your concern, that link was mass spammed by Scilit (talk·contribs). I was simply undoing the damage done. If there is a legitimate use of the link as a reliable source, feel free to re-insert the link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
What is the issue with this site? Specifically, the link you removed from Norman Borlaug was to an interview they did with him. Whatever that site's opinion is, the interview with Borlaug is all that matters for that article, so the link should've been kept. — BRIAN0918 •:18Z
I undid myself, but I would verify that is a reliable source. What happened was one user spammed that site about 130 times. I was simply undoing the damage ;) Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 21:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Eagle101. I am just wondering about the person who is as famous as Angela Beesley(As mush as I know), and Jimbo Wales(Founder of Wikipedia). But I don't know about Florence Devouard. Is she really Jimbo's assistant as Danny? Or Is she founder of Wikimedia? In my opinion, She is also one who founder of Wikipedia, and has her own account like Angela and Jimbo Wales. Does Florence Devouard really have her account in Wikipedia? Hope you can understand my questions. Please reply my questions in my talk page. Thanks in advance, and Cheers! Daniel5127<Talk> 04:56, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, she is the current chair of the wikimedia foundation. You can find her page at m:User:Anthere. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Atticus Clothing. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. kollision 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for notifying me, I will allow my actions to speak for themselves. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Your deletion of link under "Code Coverage" to Semantic Designs test coverage tools
I have read the article on links. I don't understand how IBM Rational's
link to their tools is different than a link to our tools,
and therefore why you did not also delete that link, if you
deleted ours.
We consider our tools to be significant because they cover
a broader range of languages than any other vendor of which we
know.
I'm curious as to your reason on why the article was deleted. The article was nominated for deletion before and survived, so I don't see why it was speedy deleted instead of nominated again. Also, none of the other pages relating to Thomas merchandise was touched, as you can see from Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends models. The last time I saw the page, just about everything but the background info was edited out. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 07:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! someone tagged that article for speedy deletion as a CSD G11, I agreed with the nominator. My summary can be found here. If you would like I can give you the last version of the page, (in your userspace) for you to look over. Cheers!
Ok, I can do that, look at User:Wirbelwind/Take Along Thomas and Friends. Also, if those other pages have issues, perhaps they need resolved, but the existance of those pages does not give a good reason as to why this page should exist, at least in the state that it was in. I looks to me like a list of products for a company, and needs to be fundamentally rewritten to become more then that. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:23, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I understand, I don't have any special attachment to the page, but it is unfair to delete one and letting many other pages which are roughly the same product listings exist. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You might want to take those pages to an AFD. Or tag them with {{db-g11}} tags. Cheers —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I do not understand why my addition yesterday of one of the most famous and widely-used articles online to the Austrian School article on Wikipedia has been deleted. It appears to have been classified as some kind of spam. The External Link was to http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianEconomics.html
in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics at Econlib. Econlib, which includes the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, has been online since the late 1990s. The Encyclopedia is used internationally. Authors include Nobel Prize winners and hundreds of famous economists. Econlib, EconTalk, and EconLog are not spam entries to Wikipedia External Links.--laurenjf —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laurenjf (talk • contribs) 12:43, January 19, 2007 (UTC)
What article are you refering to? Generally it is desirable to have one link to the official site. We really don't need links to sub-pages of the official site. You might want to read up on our external link guidelines and our reliable sourcing guidelines. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Eagle101. Thanks for your excellent response! I really appreciate your time.
The official Econlib site is a renowned re-publisher of hundreds of famous books and articles on economics from all points of view, online since 1999, with tens of thousands of official pages! Econlib is so massive that it would be inappropriate to link to the "official site" (econlib.org) from specific Wikipedia articles.
Asking that External Links from Wikipedia to Econlib all link only to the Econlib.org home page--the "official site"--would be like asking Project Gutenberg to link only to their Home Page at Gutenberg.org, when what matters to a specific Wikipedia article is some particular book Project Gutenberg happens to carry. No one going to Project Gutenberg's home page could easily find quickly a book or article within a book cited as being of relevance to a particular Wikipedia article if only the Home page is linked to!
I've read several times through Wikipedia's External Link Guidelines. The most relevant guideline in this case that I can understand is this: "Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail...".
The links I added last week were to Econlib's republication of the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, which is under copyright but freely accessible to read, etc. The content of the work cannot be republished on Wikipedia, but it contains recent material written by Nobel Prize winners and famous economists, material that is directly relevant to a few Wikipedia articles and is available online and widely used in high schools, colleges, and grad schools.
You asked "What article are you refering to?" If you meant which Wikipedia article: Wikipedia's Austrian Economics article! If you meant which outside article: I've since added back the external link to the Wikipedia Austrian Economics article on the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/AustrianEconomics.html). I appreciate that it's been allowed to persist after it was deleted last week!
The links I've tried to add to Wikipedia to the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics have been very specific and directly relevant to a few of the most famous articles carried by econlib.org at their Concise Encyclopedia of Economics.
I apologize if the external links I added last week seemed to be spam. I only have a few hours every six months to think about external links! I may have added too many links in a too short a period. I've tried hard to not violate any of Wikipedia's guidelines! I'm still a novice here, and I appreciate your consideration. Thank you again for your time!~~laurenjf
Thanks so much, JoeSmack. I've just tried to follow up on your suggestion, but I'm just completely baffled about where I can write anything to contribute to the threads you suggest. I clicked the links to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Double_linking and to JoeSmack and to Talk. For starters, I don't understand what double linking means to Wikipedia, or how it came to be that Econlib or the Encyclopedia came to be classed as "double-linking". I certainly do care, though, about spam and I understand how Wikipedia wants to eliminate spam! But secondly, I also cannot figure out how to contribute anything to the thread or generally where to contribute formally on Wikipedia. (I can't even figure out if my response here is readable or syntactically correct! I think people must be being very patient with me here!) I noticed that econlib was mentioned in the double_linking thread. But then, when I tried to figure out how to reply without getting involved in what most of the rest of the discussion was about, I was perplexed. I deeply respect what the Wikipedia editors are doing and how hard their job is. I'm merely a novice trying to contribute to Wikipedia in my free time, to the best of my ability, but I'm pretty wasted after this last week. I will do my best to read and follow up soon. I appreciate knowing about this other wikiproject_spam#double_linking thread! Best~~laurenjf
Oh! Hi, again, JoeSmack! I think I have figured out what you mean by double linking and how it came to be that Econlib suddenly got classified as spam!
I thought I was doing Wikipedia a favor when I entered a few links last week in Wikipedia's External Links! Each time I entered an external link, I tried to provide a source. If the source itself was listed in Wikipedia, I used what I thought was Wikipedia's syntax to refer back to the source of the External Link--a Wikipedia entry! (So, if I linked to an article in a book that appears on Econlib, I cited Econlib as the external source and linked to Wikipedia's entry on Econlib!)
Is it better when entering an External Link to not link to an existing Wikipedia entry, even if that entry describes the primary source? I'm so sorry if I did that incorrectly!
Fly on over to my userpage and add your sig to my list of Favorite Admins and make yourself a copy of my toolbox while visiting. Martial Law 21:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I see that you removed the external link to Maxwell Atoms's MySpace because of the external links guideline. So even if its a link to an official blog (I've read what links should be avoided), it can still be removed? Squirepants101 01:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, That link blog.myspace.com has been placed on the meta blacklist. This means that as long as that link is on the page it cannot be saved. I was removing it as a convince to everyone, to save others from having to figure out why the page would not save ;). Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Being an infrequent wikipedia contributor, and rarely going outside the relm of editing the english in an article, I was unaware of the discouraging of myspace links. However, I don't understand why you removed the accompanying text detailing the crew member's explination. If you could tell me how to include the information I came across without causing linkage troubles, it would be most appreciated.Doctor yellow 02:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! blog.myspace.com has been blacklisted. If the information you came across is more then just a rumor, it should be in a reliable source. Try a google (or other search engine) search for the proper information, and a place to reference it to. Cheers!
Wikipedia's verifiability policy clearly states articles should be sourced from reliable, third-party source. Even if the link is reliable, it is not a secondary source, it is a primary source. Therefore it is unacceptable as a reference on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Qutezuce, a workaround to this Wikipedia-harmful policy is to only include most of the URL in the reference... remove the "http://" from the beginning of the URL, and then the blacklist filter will not be invoked. For example, to refer to Weird Al Yankovic's official blog, you could include this in your reference:
blog.myspace.com/weirdal
It's an annoyance to the reader to have to copy and paste the URL, but at least it lets you cite your reliable sources, even though Wikipedia doesn't think that's a good idea. --ΨΦorg 11:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
You should realize that blog.myspace.com has been permanently blacklisted from all Wikimedia projects, because it is an unacceptable source. This doesn't mean you should try to work around the blacklist, it means you should find somewhere more appropriate to cite your statements. Shadow1(talk) 20:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Working around Wikipedia's safeguards is disruptive and malicious, and will be strongly dealt with. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
"Strongly dealt with"? What does that mean? Guess I will find out soon enough. Qutezuce 06:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
People who willfully circumvent Wikipedia's safeguards are acting in extremely bad faith and are generally blocked on sight. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 06:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Uh oh. I guess my this will be one of my last edits. Good luck in the future. Qutezuce 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
If you were trying to add the link back in on the advice given to you, I don't think that there would be sanctions on you, although the person who suggested it is another matter. My best suggestion would be to revert the addition. If you want to discuss the merits of the link that should be done here, as Eagle and I are in contact with the people that can have this link whitelisted if in our discretion it is, indeed, a good link. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, check out the link yourself, its still in the page history of the page in question, and tell me if you think it should be allowed. Qutezuce 08:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I have more than a few things I'm juggling at the moment. It would be gracious of you if you could indulge me with the link, or, barring that, the diff in which the link occurs. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 08:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, wanted to alert you that user:Laurenjf recently filed this request with AMA. Perhaps the two of you could have a discussion and perhaps come to some sort of agreement. This appears to be a legitimate novice user interested in working within the system and her material may possibly be more legitimate than it may have first appeared to you. Perhaps some may prove to be appropriate. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Eagle101. First, I apologize if my syntax for talking with you on Wikipedia is not the best! I looked for you on IRC after finding a note that you were available there, but I couldn't find you on IRC. I'm so old that IRC was easier for me try to find you as a talk medium than Wikipedia!
I believe I may have accidentally triggered your spam filter late last week when I entered a clump of suggestions to a few of Wikipedia's External Links.
I absolutely do not mean to impose on Wikipedia or to spam Wikipedia! I'm a Ph.D. economist. I'm not a spammer!
I only have a few hours every five or six months that I can allocate to looking into Wikipedia's recent materials and how they might be improved. Last week I entered a whole lot of related external links in the course of a day because they were the ones I thought might be helpful to several Wikipedia articles on economics that I looked at in that few-hour work allocation!
Because I'm so new to Wikipedia, the external links I focused on entering were mostly to one of the most internationally respected encyclopedias of economics, the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, a renowned encyclopedia of economics published in the early 1990s. I know the work reasonably well because I'm the Editor to the only website where it's been available free online. It's available there online for many years (with permission even though it's under copyright) as one of hundreds of books re-published on the website. I thought it might be of value to Wikipedia to link to some of its articles.
I also thought it would be inappropriate of me to leap into editing the Wikipedia articles themselves just to reference these articles. I thought it would be more respectful to simply start with suggesting a few External Links. Perhaps I was wrong in that judgment?
I can understand since your deleting the spurt of links as if they were spam, if you have a filter that may have suggested the spurt of links was spam. They were all to one overall URL, though at a respected site that is free to the public! I apologize again, and I hope you will respond. It is not my intention to spam Wikipedia or impose on its standards in any way.
It is only my intention to improve Wikipedia by offering occasional links I'm aware of that relate directly to a few Wikipedia articles. Directly is the key word!
Sure you want to talk on IRC, just have a look in #wikipedia-spam-t (on the freenode network). Barring that what set me off was the mass insertation of a domain to related articles. The best way to help out is not to add external links but to add citations. Giving a reference helps more then just putting a link at the bottom of the page, as putting links at the bottom of the page in mass numbers looks like Search Engine Optimization. If you have questions about how to cite, or other questions feel free to ask me here or on IRC. Most likely you caught me while I was sleeping, or otherwise not around. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Eagle101. I quite understand that I possibly caught you while you weren't around on IRC! Thanks for responding now.
I've done my best to always supply all references, citations, sources, and links according to Wikipedia's guidelines every time I've entered any external links in any Wikipedia entries.
A Wikipedia editor named JoeSmack has this morning (Jan. 22, 2007) helped me figure out what I may have accidentally done to call Wikipedia's attention to Econlib as if it were spam--perhaps because I actually cited and also linked to primary sources, including those on Wikipedia! I used Wikipedia's own syntax to link back to Wikipedia's own articles describing those same primary sources! Another Wikipedia Editor, UBeR, has previously been extremely helpful on the same matter.
I have a question. You deleted a link I inserted at the external links on the summation article. Can I ask you the reason for your deletion? I think the link I am suggesting is adecuate.
I have remove the majority of the links in my site to amazon.com. The one remaining I think are useful to people visiting the site and are more for bibliografical purpose than advertizing. Hopefully that is agreeable to you.
I am also curius about what you consider spamming since I notice that you left there another link by http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=6361 and that link contain advertizing on the front page on the top right corner.
Are you applying the same standard to everyone or some are more equal than others?
One more thing I was just checking this article {http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis] that contain a direct external link to [6] (It was founded by Jimmy Wales ) and from that site thru Silvias picture only two click away you can get to this [7] and to a lot of porn directly tied to wikipedia.
Hopefully you will not dare to delete any of those links.
Look at it, they are plain and simple advertizing! and I am betting nobody will dare to delete it either. In direct violation of the rules I read under your link above
here is the first paragraph
There are three types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.
So what happend to equality?
I guess some people are more equal than others, then?
futhermore I found this direct advertizing links on wikipedia
[8][9] are you planing to delete them too?
I have contribute a lot of my free time to wikipedia and by placing the links to my site I think I am contributing a lot to wikipedia now so do you care to discuss all of the above? Some how this is briging to my memory
I have added the links back to wikipedia after I deleted from my site most of the advertizing. The one remaining as I explained are more for bibliografical purpose.
Hi, if there are still spam links around... that just means we have not gotten around to them. Feel free to help out and remove them yourself. Wikipedia is not for advertising in any form. Cheers! (Also what did I remove? What link?) —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
From the external links on [10] you remove links to an instructional video podcast from http://www.isallaboutmath.com As I mentioned before I remove from my site most of the links that can be considered spam. I am glad to see that you seem to be a reasonable person. SilentVoice 19:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello agian, do you own the site? Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Also a second question... If I may ask... why that link? Why not another link? Thanks and Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes I own the site I work on it on any spared time I have. I also produced and create all the video podcasts to the last details from animations, 3D animations to the music. My objective is to provide free educational videos and software that teachers and students can use. I may eventually produce some programs for money so that I can expand to provide bigger free services and with better quality. I am also thinking in ways some other people could contribute to my project if you have any good Ideas please let me know.
As to the second question you asked I am not sure I understand what you are asking. So please clarify and I will answer. Thanks
SilentVoice 22:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
I think you are asking why the summation link and no other link. If that is the question? then look at the video podcast I am linking to ... is about summation and is explaining the summation notation. So that is why. Was that the answer to your question?
Do you have any particular reason for linking to your own site? Rather then linking to any other site. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 00:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I am not sure I still understand what your asking but as I explained the link to my site directly relates to the article and it is a nice addition to wikipedia in my oppinion and I am sure many other wikipedians will agree with me. I am not sure if that answers what you are asking.
If your objection is about me placing a link to my own site in wikipedia?
considered kind of like selfserving is that what you are thinking?
I said is not. Because it is adding to wikipedia something that wikipedia does not have. Nor any other place. Obviusly not all additions should be welcome otherwise it will be dificult to wade thru them.
I am a bit surprise from your coments above it seems to me you did not even check the content of the links you deleted. Would you said that is a fair assumption? If you have not look at it how will you know if is a good addition and what is all about?
SilentVoice 01:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes adding a link to a site that you own is a conflict of interest. My suggestion to you is to request a comment on the article's talk page. This will allow some 3rd parties to judge if your link is really useful or not. cheers! (yes I did look) —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I have done what you requested I place a notice in the articles talk page. Thanks for your suggestion. Regards SilentVoice 02:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Are any links to your site in wikipedia now? If so I suggest you take them out and ask if someone else would add them. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I notice that some one else categorize my site links as spam and I see links from other sites like cut-the-knot and "Summation". PlanetMath. not being remove and they are also in direct violation of the above stated rules. They both contain advertizing. So rules don't apply to them?
SilentVoice 03:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I removed links to podcasts on your site as they clearly don't meet the accessibility requirements of the site and there's a lack of copyright information. I also dislike the conflict of interest that exists here, why not ask at WT:EL if your site is suitable for Wikipedia if you wish for a more impartial comment on your site. --Kind Regards - Heligoland 03:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
An article that you have been involved in editing, Danny Graham, has been listed by me at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Graham. Please look there to see why this is, if you are interested in whether it should be deleted. Thank you. --Jerry lavoie 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Jerry lavoie 05:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, but be careful with the number of people you talk page spam about an issue (here. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmmm odd, I don't think I have ever edited that page (here). How ever you are alerting people you might want to double check its functions. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, couldyou please help me with vandal proof as you are a moderator. Sometimes when I'm on vandal proof a message comes up on screen and says object variable with block variable not set and closes it down and I don't know what to do to correct it, although this does not happen always, its really annoying when it does. Please help soon. I'm using vandal proof 1.3 - Is this bug fixable at all?
Tellyaddict 18:34, 21 January 2007 (UTC) and please reply on my talk page.
Oh thats an unfixed bug. What version are you using? Basically you just clicked on an area of the program where it was not expecting you to click... and crashed because of it. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The blog link you removed at Iron Man to a myspace blog was replaced after review by an admin and whitelisted as a reliable source, as it was the director's own production blog. Please replace it as soon as you can, thank you. ThuranX 12:42, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I talked to Raul654 (see User talk:Raul654#Myspace), and he said that valid Myspace blogs could be whitelisted. I am working with an admin to get this accomplished. Please stop blindly removing valid links unless you want Round Two of the previous discussion regarding link validity. Cheers. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Was that a threat? In any case, the link should be removed until it's whitelisted, as other users making legitimate content edits can't save the page with a blacklisted site in place. If it's whitelisted, then of course it should be readded, but you could make note of this a little more kindly, as ThuranX above. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 18:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no need to be upset about such a thing. Just try to be patient and hopefully the white-listing procedure will work out. Best, SERSeanCrane 21:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad to see somebody else notices Vincent Wolanin's effort to promote his business interests, and his daughter. This kind of stuff is a pain. Wake 02:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
The message board is relevant to the subject (as it involves the high school). If this is autoblocked, I will use the nowiki tag :) WhisperToMe 04:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
This reads links "normally" to be avoided. There is no hard and fast rule. The message boards are linked from an alumni site anyway. WhisperToMe 04:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Please state which particular reason in the guidelines you are deleting the link for. Was this one due to copyright violations or what? Thanks. KP Botany 15:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thats right, links to lyrics are copyviolations; undoubtedly the band copyrighted their own work. See WP:COPYVIO for more about policy in this kind of thing. Hope this helps! Cheers. JoeSmackTalk 16:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. Do try to put something in the edit summary so it's obvious, this is one of those contentious pages, and it is much easier when it's clear what was done. I recognized your user name as a contributor in good standing, so wasn't too concerned, but it would have saved me a look at all with your user name and "copyvio" in the edit summary. Thanks. KP Botany 01:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you deleted a link to http://www.lyricsdir.com/neil-diamond-lyrics.html on the Neil Diamond page. You directed us to Wikipedia:External links. I have no problem with the deletion of this link (although it had been there since September 23, 2005), but if you could direct me to the exact portion of Wikipedia:External links that gave you the guidance to delete this link, I'd greatly appreciate it. This is as a learning experience for me, not as a way to criticize the actions of others.
I spend way too much time working on Neil Diamond-related Wikipedia entries, but I wonder if you can help me with something concerning the page for his song "Sweet Caroline". Someone added this song's lyrics on January 13 of this year. In the 11 or 12 days since (to me, it's still January 24 - Neil's birthday - but in Wikipedia's eyes, it's January 25), not only has no one deleted the lyrics from here, but others have made additions and corrections to them. I got the impression somewhere that song entries on Wikipedia were not supposed to contain the full lyrics of the songs. I have been tempted to delete this lyrics section, but I don't recall where I read (if I indeed read this) that complete lyrics don't belong in a song entry. Please let me know if I should (or give me your opinion as to whether I should) delete this section.
On October 18, 2006, someone (not you) also removed a link to http://www.lyricsfreak.com/u/ub40/141681.html from the entry for another song written by Neil Diamond, "Red Red Wine". This had dated back to the original appearance of this article on May 6, 2005. RSLitman 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
It's all to do with copyright status, as song lyrics are protected under copyright; Wikipedia cannot include or link to material which violates any other parties copyright. In the case of Wikipedia, we know we don't have the necessary licence to reprint song lyrics, with these third party sites, we are unable to confirm if this site does have the necessary licence. The case of lyricsdir is more clear cut, with this page [11] which shows they have a history of breaching copyright, and the prudent course of action is to remove links both to protect Wikipedia from litigation and to try and protect and enhance Wikipedia's reputation with readers in general, and especially with artists and record companies, where good relations can prevent litigation, complaints over biographies and help persuade them to donate free images to the project. If you wish to include a link to lyrics, it really needs to be an officially sanctioned website, such as the artist or an official fanclub, and we only need one or two links per page, so please don't link to lyrics for every song on the artists main entry. -- Heligoland 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to Heligoland for coming here to Eagle 101's page and attempting to answer my question. While I appreciate the long paragraph you gave in response, what I'm seeking now is just a Yes or No answer as to whether or not I should delete the "Sweet Caroline" lyrics without feeling like I'm undoing some work a few other people have done for this page, since it's possible that the presence of the lyrics is contrary to Wikipedia's policies. RSLitman 04:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Lyrics tend to be copyrighted by the band. Therefore having lyrics on a page would be a violation of WP:COPYVIO, our copyright policy. Linking to them is bad... having them in the article is worse yet... as they don't fit under the free license of Wikipedia. I am sure that having the lyrics would help the page tremendously, there are legal issues. So in short... I would recommend removing the song lyrics. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks again to everyone who responded on this. I went over to the "Sweet Caroline" page on Thursday night to delete the lyrics only to find that someone else had beaten me to this. No problem. If I run across more such lyrics, I'll know it's okay to delete them. RSLitman 17:28, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I'm a relatively new contributer to Wikipedia, and recently stumbled across an article that interested me about the Revolutionary War. I looked up more sources on the subject and posted them, along with the facts stated in those sources. The article is now tagged as a possible hoax, and I am searching for objective analysis of it from multiple users. If you could please take a look, and urge others to take a look as well, I'd be very grateful.
I think that the only geneaology source I used was to verify a marriage. The other sources come from the U.S. National Guard, Army, and Navy; the Pittsburgh Gazette; and Sons and Daughters of the American Revolution; among others. Please take an in-depth look at this article and then give me your best judgement.
I don't understand how Fermat is different than DMS.
DMS is an industrial strength tool for implementing program transformations.
There are extremely few of these on the planet. I'll agree
that Fermat is one. DMS is also one.
The ability of DMS is well documented in an International Conference
on Software Engineering 2004 paper, and a Working Conference on Reverse
Engineering paper.
If you are deleting links because they appear to be commercially-related,
then you should know that Fermat is the basis of the work done
by Software Migrations, Ltd. However, I do not sure I believe
that deleting links simply because they appear to be related to some
commercial activity.
I have read the Conflict of Interest page. I will agree that
I have a conflict of interest as defined by that page,
as now noted in my user page.
So I will refrain from further additions of that type, in spite
of the fact that I believe the set of additions I have made
were factual and useful contributions to Wikipedia,
even if they had the appearance of being self-serving.
I think this policy provides a significant bias against "small players"
and "rare topics", however. Well-known entities will get written
about regardless of quality of such entities, precisely because
with a large audience, somebody will likely write authoritatively
about such well-known entities. Less-well known entities won't
get documented because it is far less likely that there is some
soul that do that. Yet it strikes me that the value of Wikipedia
is in documenting the rarer items rather than the well known ones.
The well-known ones are already well-known.
It would be perhaps better if somebody posting something
for which he had a conflict of interest might request a validation
from a third party as to accuracy and utility of content.
Then "small players" could have accurate entries in Wikipedia.
I don't see such a mechanism.
~~idbaxter
There is such a mechanism, it is the talk page of the article where you want to add the link. in your case that would be well I don't know what article it is you are talking about ;). But it would be Talk:ARTICLENAME HERE. Hope that helps, and could you please tell me what article this is? Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 06:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Excusing_my_typing:_broken_spacebar.__What's_wrong_with_the_links_to_Flickr_at_the_Bunsfield_fire
page?__I_looked_at_the_guidelines_you_referred_to_in_the_edit_summary...what_specific_bit_is
relevant?----bodnotbod 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Try browsing through the links for any good free images that you could then upload to commons. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I was wondering which exactly rule of the external linking guidelines prohibits links to Flickr.com pages (in this case, a flickr.com "group")? Is it considered "social networking" or what? I've put the link in because it seems to be the next best thing to a Wiki Commons category for this topic (which, unfortunately, does not exist). Regards, --Vladimir. Vmenkov 01:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, why not work on making a commons category? And yes, social networking would fit, as well as the fact that those images may not be free. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, I won't argue about policies or copyright issues (I assume that the photos on Flicker are mostly copyrighted by indvidual contributors there; as long as we link to the entire group, and not directly to *.jpg files, we aren't violating anything, as far as I know); but, anyhow, I've put that link and your suggestion into Talk:Buzkashi, so those with interest and expertise in the matter can work with the Flickr contribitors on licencing some of their images for inclusion into the Commons. I hope *that* does not violate anything! :-) Vmenkov
Sounds good! Get most of the images onto wikipedia as free images, so that we can use them directly in the articles! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I don't think all your Flickr removals are for the best. For example, the Flickr link is a useful addition to National Cryptologic Museum. — Matt Crypto 01:56, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Um what is the copyright status of most flickr images? How do we know that what is on there is not an infringment of copyright? That just looks like some random gallery. If any of those images are any good, why not upload them? Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
1) Did you look? They are freely licensed. Even if they are not freely licensed, it's entirely valid to link to non-free content. 99% of the websites we link to are not free content. 2) Have you any reason to doubt they are the photographer's original work? 3) It's a "random" gallery showing the entire museum. I have uploaded many of them, but I'm not going to stick a hundred images into one article. — Matt Crypto 09:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Why not upload 1 or 2 of the best images to wikipedia? Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 18:26, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
In this edit to NASCRAG you deleted a valid link that acted as a citation for the expansion of NASCRAG as National Society of Crazed Gamers. I think you've made a mistake in deleting the link. In the process, you also broke the cite-web template, breaking one of the articles references. I've reverted your change. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no need to be condescending. The link isn't a great citation, but it's far better than nothing. At the least it's a starting point. Wikipedia needs more citations from reliable sources, but it's not there now. Far too many facts lack any citation at all. Deleting low quality citations is a step backward. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: "(You could always upload the image as a Fair use image at the very least.)" as part of your comment on my talk page: The image is linked as a citation, not for illustration or explanation. It's a primary, erm, secondary source. As such I don't think it's appropriate to directly include on Wikipedia. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Mmm, I did not intend to be condescending. :P But really that source is not reliable. Anyone can put anything on flickr. I don't have any clue if that is authoritative or not. If you could please show me. The quality of the sources does matter. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 03:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that the quality of sources matters. I'd love if every citation on Wikipedia was to a highly reliable source. However at this time I lack such a source. The flickr link, while a far less trustworthy source, is better than nothing, which is the current alternate option. Perhaps a "This source does not meet Wikipedia's reliable source guidelines." warning on the link is appropriate, but simple deletion only hurts the article. (Thanks for the heads up on my talk page, but I'm watching this page for the next few days, so no need to trouble yourself.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
A tangential note: even if a given link should be deleted, some of your deletes appear to overlook other changes necessary after the deletion. In the edit I originally complained about, you left the <ref> in place, even though without the link it was useless (and it broke the template). In this edit you deleted the only external link, but left the "External links" section empty and in place. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok I am sorry I made a mistake. But back to the point of the link to flickr.com, if the article can't be cited with reliable sources, it probably needs to go to Articles for Deletion, for discussion over the merits of the topic. If there are no good sources, the article has verifiability issues. Try to see if there are any better sources, when I did a google search for that group, I came up with 3 hits... Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 04:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the article needs to be deleted, so be it. That's tangential to the usefulness of a less reliable citation. That the citations an article has aren't highly reliable may be grounds for deletion, but aren't grounds to delete the citation. Ultimately the citation in question was acting as a reference for the expansion of an acronym, nothing more. (3 hits? What sort of search are you doing? A simple search turned up about 828 hits for me. Mostly non-RS obviously, and indicitive of a group with very low web presence, but hardly 3.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more concerned I am about your bulk flickr-link deletions. The vast majority are correct, but based on your speed-of-editting it's pretty clear you're doing it with heavy automation. The broken template and Force&diff=prev&oldid=103730982 empty section reinforce this belief. I'm in favor automatic tools to help editing, but software shouldn't replace actual human consideration of deletion of contributed content. For example, Center on Public Diplomacy&diff=prev&oldid=103730342 this edit. You editted five articles during the minute you made that change. I find it unlikely you followed the link to see where it lead and considered the validity of the link. Clearly not all flickr links are invalid, as that particular link goes to the USC Center on Public Diplomacy's Flickr account (see [12]). While it's not a reliable source, it's potentially valid in much the same way that the USC-CoPD's home page is (which also potentially suffers from being a non-RS). Upon consideration the link is probably wrong; you can easily get there from the USC-CoPD's home page and the images aren't a useful resource on their own. But I'm concerned you're not giving the links the consideration they deserve, instead turning the decision over to an automated tool. — Alan De Smet | Talk 04:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
If the images are really useful, they can and should be uploaded to wikipedia. Perhaps I was going to fast, I will make sure to slow down a bit. On the automation bit, I am the person that is clicking save. If I screw up, its my fault, and I am sorry. I am using a script to remove these, and I do look at each of them, but I am probably clicking save to fast. You can edit very fast using FireFox :D Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 05:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Re: uploading useful images to Wikipedia. If you're just talking about the USC-CoPD images, agreed. Indeed, in that case, as I mentioned, the link was probably best deleted. If you're talking about uploading images always being superior to linking to Flickr the all cases, I disagree. True, the overwhelming majority of Flickr links are probably not good enough for Wikipedia. But it is possible for a Flickr gallery to be as valid as, say, the official site for a person or organization. Specifically, if the gallery is an official part of the person or organization, it might be valid. The most obvious hypothetical example would be an otherwise noteworthy photographer who choses to put their portfolio on Flickr instead of on their own web site to save money. Indeed, a link to their Flickr gallery may be a more valuable resource than the link to his home page. The images (beyond perhaps one or two exemplary cases) shouldn't be uploaded to Wikipedia, in much the same way we don't copy entire articles up from a noteworthy author. It's certainly no more or less reliable than his home page (as they control the content of both). As sites like flickr become more pervasive, I expect this to become increasingly common. So while links to flickr are certainly suspect, a blanket condemnation is a bad idea. (It's late here too. Probably time for both of us to get some sleep. Good night.) — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As far as the reference, I did not realize it was a reference, (I don't see multiple line references very often), so that was my own human error. I just did not blank correctly the whole thing. The other one, thats my fault for not seeing that it was the only link. It is late where I am and I probably should not be editing this late anyway. :D. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 05:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Alan. These links are being deleted with too little thought. How many hundreds have already gone?--bodnotbod
note - modified this... so that the _ don't appear.
I know that apparently what I did here was not a good thing, but I have stopped for now. I have only removed about 200 - 300 of them, most of them were correct, Please don't make broad statements. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 23:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
How about this for a proposal. Eagle has been automatically removing links. Currently of 200-300, maybe 20 were bad. At most, thats 10%. Instead of stopping over the 10% that are bad, why not compile a list of the good ones, for Eagle, so he knows which ones to avoid? Removing all the bad ones as fast is a good thing, and if we can also avoid nuking the good ones, the collateral, so to speak, then Eagle would be doing a service to Wikipedia. How about that? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
You removed a link on the Cheri Gaulke page to her images on Flickr. I don't see anything in the guidelines that would prevent that type of link. It is not a violation of copyright since the artist herself created the Flickr account. On the contrary, it seems a good way to provide links to images which are copyrighted. Sue Maberry 01:37, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
hey! How do we know she owns the images? —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
I believe flickr.,com -- or any other reputable web hosting / image hosting service -- has a policy that requires its users to warrant that they have the right to upload whatever they upload; and if anyone detects a copyright violation, they can report it and the image will be removed (and probably the customer may be kicked out to). They pretty much have to have a policy like this in order not to be sued the hell out of them. So linking to them is no different to linking to any person's or an organization's personal/institutional page: if they say they don't violate copyright rule, and we don't see obvious violations, there is no reason to assume that they do. Vmenkov 19:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Owns as in "has the right to display them on Flickr?" Irrelevant, it's not Wikipedia's job to enforce copyright on other sites. If the Cheri Gaulke the article is about maintains the gallery, it is potentially a valid link. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant. Did you mean "how do we know that the gallery is Gaulke's?" A reasonable concern, but how do we know that any given website attributed to Gaulke is or isn't hers? That someone paid for and put a site up at cherigaulke.com is hardly more trustworthy than putting up a gallery at Flickr. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Excusing my typing: broken spacebar. What's wrong with the links to Flickr at the Bunsfield fire page? I looked at the guidelines you referred to in the edit summary...what specific bit is relevant?----bodnotbod 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Howdy! Try browsing through the links for any good free images that you could then upload to commons. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 23:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
You have not answered my question. What part of the external link guidelines
led you to remove the Flickr links? Perhaps you should slow down on your culling
until we can establish a firm policy which shows a consensus, because it
appears from your talk page you are upsetting editors of good faith.--bodnotbod 18:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Note: I am replying at Eagle 101's request; I am not some sort of sock. The problem is that external images are prone to being taken down/modified at a moments notice, and if they can't justifiably be uploaded to commons due to copyright issues, we probably don't want to link to them anyway (see WP:COPYVIO). Veinor(talk to me) 18:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Consider the following statement: "web pages are prone to being taken down/modified at a moment's
notice"... so are we to now delete the vast majority of external links of all kinds?
Re. copyright: it appears most Flickr users prefer to place a copyright on their snaps.
This may be because it's the default setting (is it?). Or it may be because the average
Flickr user thinks "oh,yeah...I'd better put copyright on it, I don't want
some newspaper picking up my snap and not paying me". They would not first
think of a project like WP.
We must have hundreds of thousands of links to web pages where we could ask "how
do we know this text wasn't copied from a book". Why are Flickr users being seen
as less trustworthy than anyone who uploads a text webpage?
Flickr links should be taken as assuming good faith, as other edits are. I
have scoured Flickr for free images in the past. I have also contacted Flickr
users to request use of their images. However, sometimes a gallery of 30+
images is not suitable for inclusion in an article, but is very interesting to
people visiting it.
I would like to see this Flickr cull halted until these issues are thrashed out and
voted upon by the community. Hopefully, at a time I have a working
keyboard :o) --bodnotbod 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Err... I don't think I have removed very many in the last day :P. Though I am still going to say that most of the stuff on flickr could simply be uploaded under a free license, or if that is not possible, we could use under fair use. But don't worry I am not going to remove anymore, though I don't think images in an external link really help the article, content does. Most external links should be used as reliable sources. We are not a link farm. Also the onus for showing that an addition to an article is good is on the person who adds the link, not on the person who removes the link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
'Consider the following statement: "web pages are prone to being taken down/modified at a moment's notice"... so are we to now delete the vast majority of external links of all kinds?'. That's why we don't allow (as a rule) links to personal sites; I find it unlikely that (say) nytimes.com would go down for a substantial amount of time. Veinor(talk to me) 23:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for calling a halt for now. I just think it would be good to have a community
discussion and come up with a specific Flickr policy.
I disagree with the points you make. Even uploaded as free or fair use, an article can
only take on board so many images. Linking to galleries is a way of leading
others to visual resources that would appear overkill on an article.
I agree, too many links can spoil an article. This does not mean Flickr links
cannot be amongst the most useful links as opposed to being automatically
deemed "cruft" or unworthy en masse. I often remove linkspam and links to
sites purporting to be about famous people that are, on inspection, appallingly
poor.
I agree that there's an onus on people contributing links to ensure that they are good.
However, I think there's equal duty on the part of removers to be able to
explain why they did it. A blanket cull of Flickr links strikes me as very
unreasonable. In many ways, Flickr is a community Wikipedians should respect.
It supports Creative Commons to some degree, it fosters community spirit,
and it allows people to share in a passion.
I'd happily start up a wider debate on this but, frankly, it's damn tedious
typing like this and not a little embarrassing. However, a new keyboard is
on its way, so I am happy to do it then.
Of course, if you wish to start a discussion on this issue somewhere, please do, and
I'd be grateful if you would link to the location so I can follow it.
We really don't need a "specific" policy to say... thats just instruction creep. But what we do need is some selective removal of excess links. If you would like to open up a broader disscussion feel free, as for now, I will work on something else. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 23:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, if you did not notice... I um... took the liberty of refactoring your comment, so it does not have the "_"'s in it. If I screwed it up somewhere, feel free to beat me on the head :D. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 23:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, I've reverted your removal of an external link to blogspot from the article Paul Staines, on the grounds that the link is both directly and symmetrically related to the article. Paul Staines is himself one of Britain's most notable political bloggers, obtaining reams of third-party coverage, and the link was to his own blog so its inclusion is entirely appropriate under WP:EL. It might be worth double-checking more carefully before removing appropriate links. Cheers, DWaterson 23:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Erm... sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear. The blog that the link led to is the reason for the subject of the article's notability. Therefore the link is appropriate: WP:EL#What should be linked1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any. That is precisely what it is. Just because it's a blog doesn't make it any less of an official site. It was not being cited as a source and its reliability and verifiability is irrelevant in this case; it was being linked as an official site. In any case, the article already contains multiple references to verifiable media - please check the context in which links are being used before deleting on sight. Anyway, I see another user has already reverted, so never mind. DWaterson 00:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Um... so the only reason this guy is in wikipedia is because of that blog? —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Amongst other things in his earlier life. If you actually read the article, you will see that there is strong assertion of notability, given that the guy's blog (under the pseudonym "Guido Fawkes") has won a number of awards (eg [13]) and received third-party comment in reputable media sources (eg. [14], or [15] from just yesterday). I don't think his notability is in any dispute. Cheers, DWaterson 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in that case, could the link be placed in a better location in the article? When I read it (first time, when I removed the link), very briefly mind you, the blog did not appear to be the central thing with that article. If that is what he has done, perhaps somewhere it should be cited, in a ref tag somewhere? Otherwise, I might go in there later and do something to make it more distinct. Just do something other then have it in the further reading location, where it looks to me as just another link ;) Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah, fair point. I've created a new section for that external link only, so it doesn't appear to be part of the further reading or references section. The blog is mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article, which seems sufficient to me for the time being, but if you've any suggestions be bold. :) DWaterson 02:30, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why are you removing NNDB links from pages and leaving IMDB links? Quatloo 01:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello! Please see this. I agree with jimbo, so I was removing some of the 'worst' cases. If you noticed I did not remove anything that was actively being used as a citation, even though I feel it should not be used in any case. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Any complaint he has with NNDB is equally the same with IMDB. Specifically removing one without the other is an error and I would contend motivated by agenda. I don't think NNDB pages are copied out of Wikipedia. It seems to have a wealth of information that is not present in Wikipedia or even in any other place on the internet (I know a lot of it is obtained from offline sources). I suspect Jimbo is displeased because it has a fact about him on his NNDB page, a fact also appearing in the London Times -- his birthdate. Quatloo 01:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you ask jimbo about that. His talk page is here. As far as IMDB links, one thing at a time :D. Cheers! here :D —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you posted the spam template in the occupational therapy article, and subsequent users deleted tons of links. While I agree that many links weren't necessary, I think that far too many links were deleted. Linking to state associations definitely adds to the usefulness of the article. I don't think that they should have been deleted. If you can please look at it and reconsider. Thanks --aishel 06:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You think everyone who uses wikipedia is from the US? Make sure to use a neutral point-of-view when editing. JoeSmackTalk 13:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
JoeSmack, there were links to associations in Australia and Canada as well. Additionally, there were lists of universities from all over the world, including the US, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK, Philippines, and Iran. By removing most of the links, the only thing we accomplished was to deglobalize it. --aishel 14:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi! Please realize that we are not a linkfarm, the number of links in that page alone, were too many. Secondly, take the issue up with the person that actually removed the links, I don't have control over who removed what. I know it feels like some information is being lost, but please do realize that if someone wanted to go to an organization, they probably would do a direct Google (or other search engine) search. We are an encyclopedia. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 19:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that you removed the NNDB external link from Laura Ingraham - I checked WP:EL and didn't see NNDB specifically mentioned - was there a consensus reached somewhere else? The most recent discussion on NNDB that I'm aware of is here. Wanted to check in with you before reverting your ed. - RJASE1 15:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Jimbo Wales himself has stated that we shouldn't use NNDB links - I don't know for sure, but that's probably what Eagle is going on. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:59, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hello, Peter has it right, I was going off of what Jimbo said. I saw this post, and agreed with what jimbo said in that case. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 20:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
He didn't say not to include the links, he said not to use them as a source - there's a difference. If you read the reference above, it looks like enough Wikipedia users want the links to have defeated a proposed deletion (twice). I think your unilateral mass deletions are controversial and should be discussed on the affected article's talk page. - RJASE1 21:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to misunderstand the separation, then. Allow me to explain. References are sources for specific claims in the article. External links are sources for the general subject matter. Both are subject to WP:V, WP:EL, and WP:RS. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
(shrug) I don't care much one way or the other, but judging from the debate in the NNDB template talk some people are probably going to be sore at you. I'm out of it... - RJASE1 21:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I see you've blocked Isarig for 3RR on Steven Plaut. As far as I can tell he only reverted the article 3 times in 24 hours; would you mind taking a look again? Jayjg (talk) 02:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No, you have to revert 4 times to violate 3RR. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I count 4 reverts, let me know if I am looking at this wrong.
(cur) (last) 23:40, January 31, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104698977 by Isarig (talk)Restoring link -- see Talk) [rollback]4
(cur) (last) 22:58, January 31, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs | block) (these are not footnotes - see Talk.)4
(cur) (last) 20:28, January 31, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104636966 by Isarig (talk)See talk, where I list the 32 separate articles footnoted)3
(cur) (last) 18:48, January 31, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs | block) (rv. There are no footnotes there. Please use Talk)3
(cur) (last) 16:10, January 31, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104505839 by Isarig (talk)No, I won't do your work for you. Use your eyes!)2
(cur) (last) 04:23, January 31, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs | block) (we must be looking at different pages, then. Please list these "footnotes" on Talk.)2
(cur) (last) 09:33, January 30, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104247303 by Isarig (talk)That's nonsense! In the first half alone, I have counted 30 footnotes, to 18 distinct articles)1
(cur) (last) 03:16, January 30, 2007 Isarig (Talk | contribs | block) (No, there is a single footnote, not by F, which is in the original , as well.)1
(cur) (last) 01:59, January 30, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104230030 by Isarig (talk) The Finkelstein link is footnoted from beginning to end with his responses)start here
(cur) (last) 01:53, January 30, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104231151 by RolandR (talk)Sorry, self-revert as just noticed Isarig's self-revert)
(cur) (last) 01:50, January 30, 2007 RolandR (Talk | contribs | block) (Undid revision 104225318 by Isarig (talk)
Does that make sense? If I goofed that up let me know ASAP! (Please check out the bold numbers) —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 02:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Errm, now that i pasted that, and looked back here agian, I see where I goofed, its over 48 hours, not 24. I made a mistake thinking they were on the same day. I am sorry for any confusion/damage/hurt feelings this has caused. :(. —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 03:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for fixing it. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I hate being a problem, so I am glad this is ending well :P —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 03:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for quickly fixing your mistake. No offense taken :) Isarig 04:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Does Shadowbot miss some of the links it's programmed for or is that just my impression? Even if it does, I think it's still worth adding them to Shadowbot.
Per WP:LEGAL,[16][17] I think the accounts should also be blocked:
Thanks again for your help, --A. B.(talk) 18:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked the accounts. I have also posted a message to ANI about the IP, and the legal threat. The start of it can be found here. Cheers! —— Eagle 101(Need help?) 19:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks -- I see the registered accounts are blocked. What about the IP? It doesn't look like he's blocked. Note that this appears to be a static IP since they have their server on it (see the domains tools section labeled "server data")-- this means that IP address is probably one of Comcast's business accounts. --A. B.(talk) 19:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading Image:WikiVoter Beta 0.5.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gman124 15:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
