User:Nixeagle/Talk/Archive/10
|
Talk Archive: November 2006
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. Archives |
 Table of Contents
|
Spamming isn't allowed
[edit]Hi there. You deleted the draft I was writing on a fashion model called Zuzanna Buchwald, the reason being that "spam is not allowed on wikipedia". Though I read carefully the criteria CSD G11 of the general deletion policy that describes blatant advertising, I don't understand how my draft was concerned. I have no connections with the websites nor the the modelling agencies agencies I was mentionning in the draft and I don't feel that I was promoting any company or group. The relevancy of a page on Zuzanna Buchwald can be questionned here but her full name appears in the Wikipedia article on Buche (onomastics) and this entry certainly refers to the fashion model. I'm not related to the fashion industry but I was planning to write a few drafts on some other missing fashion models like Anja Rubik and Coco Rocha (btw, the article on canadian fashion models contains a reference on models.com too). I would also have been keen on contributing on the Heath-Jarrow-Morton Interest Rate model or "Floating Clouds" (Ukigomo) by Mikio Naruse for instance but considering my draft was deleted so quickly, I've lost my motivation. Best regards though, User:ZuzannaBuchwald
Please see the Manual of Style regarding your sources. Several of them do not meet the expectations for weblinks on Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
United OneHeart Foundation, again
[edit]Hi! I asked you a while ago to undelete the article United OneHeart Foundation. It was an article by a newbie that got speedied and you graciously undeleted it on my request so that it could be improved. Well it has, quite a bit. I've moved it back into the main article space, and its a decent little article now. I'm letting you know, since that seems like the fair thing to do :) Look it over and let me know if your opinon has changed. Cheers! Oskar 00:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
- Looks good, though the number of external links worries me, as that is only asking for spam. But that article does look better then the original. I am not quite sure the subject matter is worth an article, but you have it cited with good sources and following our guidelines with good sources... and actually citing it makes me impressed!. Cheers! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 17:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- Wasn't actually me who wrote it :) I first found the page on RC patrol and I improved it a little and helped the guy who wrote it with some stuff. When it got deleted, he contacted me for help, I talked to you, and got the article to my userspace where he improved it (I helped a little), and here we are. Well, cheers anyhow! Thanks for undeleting it! Oskar 00:59, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
[edit]
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
Re:Warning
[edit]Greetings Eagle 101 This is in regards to your message about inappropriate Wikipedia edits. I assure you my edits to the article on Intentional Programming were accurate. Please contact Meta Education if you are in need of any help with your schooling. He'll teach you what you need to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.237.98.91 (talk • contribs)
Signpost
[edit]You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Vandal problem
[edit]Hey, long time no see! It's me, Luigifan! I'm bearing bad news; some jerk at User talk:67.181.116.68 has been wrecking Sally's page nonstop! Please, you've got to stop him! I've already summoned additional support, but I can't help in person, as it's 11:13 or so and I've got to go to bed. I'll check up on Wikipedia next morning, but, for now, I've got to get some rest. --Luigifan 03:17, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see that you've imposed a block on him. Thank you! Unfortunately, he's been using other aliases... but they're all recognized as vandals, and as such, have been blocked. Also, they created the Angel the Cat page, and it's currently under heavy criticism. Maybe you could join in? --Luigifan 11:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for participating in my recent RfA. Unfortunately consensus was not reached, and the nomination was not successful. I appreciate that you took the time to comment, as I do find it a valuable thing to understand how I am perceived by others in the Wikipedia community. If there is anything that I can do in the future to help further address your concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. --Elonka 09:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Burt Kearns
[edit]Why did you delete this author, journalist, screenwetier and producer from Wikipedia?
- I restored... but don't removed the {{db-spam}} tag. (allow another admin to review) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
CaleyThistleOnline.com Links
[edit]I understand you asked someone to remove links I had added relating to the website CaleyThistleOnline.com as they were irrelevant and considered Spam - I would just like to point out that if someone had taken the time to look at the site they would have realised that it was very relevant to the pages which I had added it too. I have been told that as it contains a fans forum it is considered non-encyclopedic, however again, if someone had taken the time to look they would have found a VAST amount of information on this site including photo galleries, news articles spanning the 12 years of the clubs existence, statisitcs of the club since it's formation and also noted the fact that this is THE Official Fans site which until recently was also the official Club site until we split it for practical reasons. If the volume of data and information on our site cannot be considered encyclopedic then I fail to see what would constitute such criteria. I was questioned as to why if the site had been in existence for 12 years the links had not been added before...I fail to see how that is relevant...is it only new sites which can be added as links to Wikipedia? The fact that we have since the start of this year built the site into an archive for all things realted to our football club is the reason it is only now practical for us to add this link, a link which HAS been on Wikipedia for many years under it's various forms.
It upsets me that this decision was made without first consulting myself or without anyone taking a look at the site properly to guage it's suitability and instead I am instantly labelled a spammer for adding the link to the profiles of club players.
I trust someone will now take a look at the site I am adding the link for and confirm that I am quite entitled to add it and that it offers THE MOST COMPREHENSIVE source of online information for Inverness Caledonian Thistle FC and it's players.
If required I can produce a copy of a letter from the club proving that we hold the position of Official Online Fanzine and have all the rights and permissions required for the use of the logo and all information, statistics etc etc.
Regards - CaleyThistleOnline 15:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this and tell me if there is anything you don't understand in it. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 30th.
[edit]|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Internet2 article reversion?
[edit]Just curious why you reverted the edits to the Internet2 article. (Sorry that was anonymous. I thought my login was cached) Did you think that the upgrade of the network is irrelevant as a useful link? -Chrobb 02:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this link and tell me if you understand it. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Your edit on aviation archaeology
[edit]Hi I am new to Wikipedia, but did read the welcome page. I do not think linking to my site is spam. Not only is my site web address the subject http://www.aviationarchaeology.com I have tons of information on the subject and helpful hints for people interested on aviation archaeology, including how to get involved: http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/involved.htm
What avaition archaeology is: http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/aair.htm
A searchable database of over 80,000 accident, and 250,000 names: http://www.aviationarchaeology.com/src/db.asp
We were one of the first aviation archaeology sites on the internet and have consistently have had a top google ranking. I will argue we have one of the most informative web sites on the internet about the subject. It would actually be a diservice for anyone trying to learn about the subject to not know about our site.
Yes we do sell reports on the site, but so do the other sites listed. I mentioned we were a commercial supplier of reports, and would be more than willing to leave that out of the descrition. If I am doing anything else wrong please let me know what i need to do to have this be acceptible. Thanks You,
Craig Fuller
- Please read this link and tell me if you understand. If you own the site, it is not best for you to go ahead and add it. If your site is truly useful someone else will add it to Wikipedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
Point taken.
Craig Fuller
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue VI - November 2006
[edit]The November 2006 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 21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
post
[edit]its not commercial, its a non profit volunteer organisation teaching lok hup. and as one of the few resources for lok hup in america it deserves mention. just for the record, I am not a member.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.222.59.190 (talk • contribs) 22:41, November 1, 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this and this. Thanks—— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
re:
[edit]I apologize. I thought that I was adding useful and relevant links. -kristindorsett —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kristindorsett (talk • contribs) 21:53, November 2, 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, if you want to contribute, try checking out the Community Portal for things to do. Trust me there is plenty of things that need done. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey there, I'm curious why you reverted my work on the above. What was I doing that even looked like vandalism? No worries though I reverted back and moved on. -MrFizyx 22:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- You added an external link that looked like WP:SPAM to me. I simply reverted because of that. I looked back and it looks like you are expanding the article, I am sorry for reverting you. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Due Process
[edit]Hi Eagle 101. I recently made an edit at the Due Process article, and explained the edit at the due process "Discussion" page. You then reverted the edit, but did not explain, or put anything in the "Discussion" page. So, I'm curious why you reverted the edit. Thanks in advance for any explanation.69.183.187.206 22:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- The link you referenced to (the site, is commonly used in spam on wikipedia). I reverted on the basis of that. If your intent was to cite a source or something with that link, I would suggest that you read WP:CITE and WP:RS thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to make sure I understand which link you're referring to. Is the following the link you're referring to? http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/dred-scott-and-kelo.html The reason I'm confused is that you not only reverted the edit in which I used this link, but also you reverted my previous edit in which I did not add any new links at all. Thanks in advance for clarification.69.183.187.206 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I appologize, it is the link that I intended to revert, please read WP:CITE and WP:RS Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- I just want to make sure I understand which link you're referring to. Is the following the link you're referring to? http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/08/dred-scott-and-kelo.html The reason I'm confused is that you not only reverted the edit in which I used this link, but also you reverted my previous edit in which I did not add any new links at all. Thanks in advance for clarification.69.183.187.206 23:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I'll get rid of that link, and restore the previous edit.69.183.187.206 23:10, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam?
[edit]I didn't add Spam? I linked to a website for the person listed under 'Deadpan'. How does that qualify as spam?
63.196.82.44 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
J.R. Murdock jay@ofgnomesanddwarves.com
- No one else on that list has a website linked, why does that person need it. We are not a web directory. Please read this, Thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
I was inserting links which give more information about my career. None of them were links to my own sites, and none were to commercial content. I wasn't aware that that was a violation of Wikipedia policy, but if it is, I will of course refrain in the future. Best regards, Ray Beckerman —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.110.5 (talk • contribs) 04:20, November 3, 2006 (UTC)
- Correct, that is promoting yourself. Please do not add those kinds of links to wikipedia again, thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:09, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and I removed the link again, please do not add it again. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Sorry. Appreciate the explanation. Best regards,Ray 20:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
VP Ongoing Issue
[edit]For some reason my name has been removed from the list of authorized users. I was added by Betacommand here [1], and he welcommed me here[2]. I had difficulties using it, did everything I could myself, was unable to, so I requested assistance here [3]. Instead of assistance, I was removed from the list. Because I have had difficulties on wikipedia recieving help from administrators when requested, this message is in essence a generic template I am writing on all moderators' talk pages and discussion boards in the hopes of recieving if nothing else a response - ideally, however, a solution. Thank you very much and apologies for my impatience. Gregorof/(T) 05:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I doubt removing your name was anything intentional. What were your problems? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh and I recommend you get onto IRC and get WP:VP2 —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam warning
[edit]You gave me a warning for inserting a link to a website relevant for the HVSC collection. I made a mistake and wrote a wrong link who I tried to correct only seconds afterwards. Everyone does mistakes but please let me get a chance to fix my mistakes before labeling me as a spamer. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.212.63.80 (talk • contribs) 00:36, November 4, 2006 (UTC)
- I looked, have you read this? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:38, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes I have read that. The link I submitted is not to a commercial website, and the main intent was not to increase pagerank for that site. As you may or may not know the HVSC is a archive of music available for the Commodore 64 computers in a special format that require software players. These software players have problems reproducing 100% authentic soundquality and many times the software players are actually far off. The link that I submitted was to a person who is working on recording the entire HVSC with real Commodre 64 computers for the most accurate sound and authentic experience. As I mentioned this is not a commercial project and as I se it this is highly relevant to the HVSC since it's a subproject based on it. To emphasize the importance of this project it have allready in just a few days surpased another recordings archive that use a different hardware setup (not Genuine Commodore 64 computers).
- Also the spam warning was pretty harsh (...this is the only warning...). I think this was unfair since the mistake I did was to enter a dead link that didn't redirect anywhere.
- I hope you se the relevance of my link. If however this is unapropriate I would really appreciate if you could take the time to explain why so that I can try to avoid doing simmilar mistakes again. :) Thanks 80.212.63.80 11:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to suggest that you discuss the addition of the link on the article's talk page. Sorry about the warning, but spam is a major problem on wikipedia.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- No hard feelings ;) - I understand that spam is a major problem. Don't get me wrong - it's great that people like yourself is using their time to clean up such garbage and making Wikipedia the nice place it is. The only problem was that you was perhaps a bit to effective this time :) Keep up the good work 80.212.63.80 20:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to suggest that you discuss the addition of the link on the article's talk page. Sorry about the warning, but spam is a major problem on wikipedia.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Spam warning
[edit]You gave me a warning for inserting a back link to a website you deemed commerical or personal. It's obvious that you had no time to review my post as you have given me a warning within 1 minute of me posting a link. I hope that after you had time to review, you will agree that the article is of direct relevance to the place where it was inserted. Please don't just assume that all links are spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.54.198 (talk • contribs) 02:23, November 4, 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this and let me know what you think after you have done so. If you don't understand that feel free to ask me questions. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:36, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
>> OK. At your request, I have re-read the SPAM definition and I acknowledge that you are free to qualify some/any external links as SPAM. However, MySQL article that I was editing has "Articles and guides" sections with two external links already. Why did not you consider these articles SPAM and just focused on the link I have added? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.222.54.198 (talk • contribs) 02:38, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
- Ok sure, sorry about that, give me a link to the section and I will remove them all. Then it is equal. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
status
[edit]Hi, I don't know how it is on other browsers, but I though I'd let you know that when viewing you page in Opera your status is just through the top of the text; it would be OK if you move it up by 10-20 pix in User:Eagle_101/StatusDiv. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah I know that it is problamatic... I just may remove all togather in favor of a status box somewhere in the talk page text... right now it is not working in IE or Opera (as of now) but it works in FF (though not that good) go figure. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:25, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Bot request
[edit]I saw the work that your bot had done in tagging the airports. Can it make another run through Category:Canadian airport stubs and the subcategories and tag all the unassessed "Water Aerodromes" and the ones that have no importance currently listed. They are all stubs and they are all "Low" on the importance scale. There are only two water aerodromes that are of "Mid" scale and I tagged them. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
- The bot was working on that stub cat as you posted this message. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Redeemer (album)
[edit]Why did you delete this page, Redeemer (album), without even nominating? It's a commerical album, set for release worldwide, hardly spam. ¬rehevkor¬ 19:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- yes, and what was your intention on creating the article? Was it to get attention to it? To spread the word about the album? In that case I would suggest that you read this. Ask me any questions if you don't understand. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am well aware of what spam is. The page was create to catalogue the Machinae Supremacy albums as per WP:ALBUM. If you felt it was worded as an advertisement then there were other avenues to take other than deleting it out-right without give people a chance to correct any mistake. If you doubt the notability, the band are signed to a major record label and the album is set for a worldwide release tomorrow. [4] What you did was on a similar level to deleteing an article on a Nightwish album simple because it might help promote an album (and I did not in any way create this page to promote the album). Would you be so kind as to please undelete the article, as I spent a lot of time creating it and would hate to start from scratch? What made you believe it was spam in the first place? Thank you. ¬rehevkor¬ 01:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wait until the album is released, and to see if it is even notable. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm assuming this is in response to me. If you're suddenly saying the album isn't notable rather than spam, it doesn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion, please undelete the article and follow the proper channels. Or give proper reason why you think it was spam, as I requested. You suggested asking questions, why say so if you won't answer them? Thank you. ¬rehevkor¬ 05:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh no, I still think it is spamming, as the album is still not out. That page had external links on it that make me wonder the purpose of the article.
Please do tell why those sites are bragging about this Wikipedia article? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:51, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am sorry for confusing you, I had two different convocations in my mind at one time. Now will you respond to my questions? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- The album has been out for some time (March). It's only the retail version that is out tomorrow either way, wikipeida is known to document future albums. As for musicbrainz, what has that got to do with wikipeida? I'm nothing to do with it, but as far as I can see it's MB policy to link to any respective wikipedia pages i.e. [5]. Why do you consider that bragging? And why, just because it's linked on the wiki page, does a MB link constitute doom for an entire article as spam? If you had cause to worry over the links, you could have simply deleted them, rather than the entire article. Either way, it no way allows the article to be open for speedly deletion, but rather a nominated deletion. If this is a futile attempt at getting the article undeleted just tell me know, as there are other avenues I can go. Thank you. ¬rehevkor¬ 14:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those sites aren't bragging (actually it's one site). They are links to MusicBrainz which collects and organizes metadata about artists, albums, and their relationships. It's a registered non-profit, all volunteer, and licenses the data under the creative commons license. Those links are added as part of the MusicBrainz WikiProject. Please see WP:BRAINZ for more info. As for the album not being out yet, that's no excuse. Articles are created for movies, TV shows, and albums before their release date all the time. --Mperry 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for listening, I have nominated this article for undeletion; Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 November 9#Redeemer_.28album.29. ¬rehevkor¬ 15:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
About reparing links
[edit]Dear Eagle 101
I didn't add link. I just updated links that didn't work. After divorce Dr. Drexler left Foresight Institute, so they does not host his book any more. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fmlee (talk • contribs) 01:07, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
- Can you give me a link to the article and to the diff. Also are the links compliant with this? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
tobacco
[edit]I do think that you edit the page before you research the information...Please look into this, as I will not stop trying to get people towards the truth. Tobacco is now being prescribed by physicians in Germany as the cure-all for asthma and other kinds of bronchial disorders. The basis for their prescriptions is the research shown here. http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm As well as the research shown here http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm ...American doctors are ignorant of this information, and your American prescribed asthma drugs are little more than steroids which result in serious hormonal imbalances (i.e. ugly nasty woman with hair on their arms, men that start developing female physical qualities) Tobacco is the real cure to all bronchial disease, and the B-vitamin niacin (nicotine) which is derived from it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin) has also been shown to cure many diseases. Becoming oneself familiar with this knowlege, one understands why the worlds most beautiful (celebrities) and oldest living people all smoke. 02:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)~
About tobacco
[edit]I do think that you edit the page before you research the information...Please look into this, as I will not stop trying to get people towards the truth. Tobacco is now being prescribed by physicians in Germany as the cure-all for asthma and other kinds of bronchial disorders. The basis for their prescriptions is the research shown here. http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm As well as the research shown here http://www.forces.org/evidence/hamilton/other/oldest.htm ...American doctors are ignorant of this information, and your American prescribed asthma drugs are little more than steroids which result in serious hormonal imbalances (i.e. ugly nasty woman with hair on their arms, men that start developing female physical qualities) Tobacco is the real cure to all bronchial disease, and the B-vitamin niacin (nicotine) which is derived from it (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin) has also been shown to cure many diseases. Becoming oneself familiar with this knowlege, one understands why the worlds most beautiful (celebrities) and oldest living people all smoke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.36.185 (talk • contribs) 02:29, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
- Read our guideline on spam, and on reliable sources. Also, this is not an American site. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Hey Eagle 101. I see that you've deleted this article on a popular U2 song. I think you probably mistook the article's vandalism as a newly created page and deleted it on the spot, but as you can see, the talk page's history shows that the article has legitimately existed for a while, so I'm not so sure that this is the case. Could you please check to see if the page really has legitimately existed, and if so, could you undelete the page? Thank you! —Mr. Strong Bad/talk 02:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Err yeah... sorry! I was and am reverting spam, it is coming in so fast, I did not get a chance to do my proper research. I apologize. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hehe, it's okay.. thanks for undeleting the page! :) —Mr. Strong Bad/talk 02:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 6th.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Re: Undeleted the wr templates
[edit]I am sorry, but I undeleted these templates according to restoring ... speedy not in sych with this discussion. I don't think CSD was the proper avenue to get these deleted. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not going to delete them again, I'll just let my reasoning stand for itself and someone else can act if they like. I've done my best to explain my reasons here and here (including why I disregarded the outcomes of the TfD debates). How do you respond to those reasons? --bainer (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Er, he responded by un-deleting them. :) Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Antispamhammer
[edit]For your tireless efforts in fighting spam on Wikipedia, I hereby give you this handy antispamhammer. Cheers! -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC) User:Wizardry Dragon/Awards/antispamhammer
deletion of snakes and suits
[edit]Snakes and Suits is the comeback of LLR Recordings it is most definately not spam! --Russ is the sex 08:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this. That article existed only to promote the 3 myspace links on that page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, so I will only post a mention of it on the LLR Recordings article. However, when more information is released about Snakes and Suits, I will make the article again. I have no intention of spamming, and I am sorry you thought that. --Russ is the sex 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, when and if it is ever something important (as in worthy of an encyclopedia article) you may recreate. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, so I will only post a mention of it on the LLR Recordings article. However, when more information is released about Snakes and Suits, I will make the article again. I have no intention of spamming, and I am sorry you thought that. --Russ is the sex 08:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi. What happened to this article please? I notice you deleted it on 6th October 2006. Thanks, --User:Rebroad 16:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- There were 7 total edits to that page, and all versions fit CSD G11. Basically the article was spam for a company or product and was not a valid article because of it. If and only if you can recreate it without making it look like spam should it be recreated. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
[edit]
|
The Barnstar of Diligence | |
| For all your hard work and diligence in making Wikipedia a better place. –- kungming·2 | (Talk·Contact) 01:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC) |
The Films
[edit]I'm not entirely sure why you've deleted the article I was working on, but I guess I can't argue with the existence of the policy. However, how would an article such as that "assert the importance or significance of its subject"? I'm new to wikipedia, by the way. Mooseofshadows 02:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- What article do we refer to here? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Travelwire Inc info - Quick question
[edit]Hi, I apologize if my entry travelalerts.ca was seen as advertising. I noticed you have a section for Travel Websites (kayak.com, sidestep.com, etc.) and thought we could be included there as well as long as the comments were objective and without using any type of marketing in it. Would appreciate if you could let me know what I would need to have the article accepted. Thanks Ed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.203.233.209 (talk • contribs) 04:15, November 9, 2006 (UTC)
- Well you do know that we are not a place to be used for advertising right? We require verifiable articles. Also is your company important in the sense of an encyclopedia? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 04:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Please restore my edits to the California Pacific University page. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davewagner (talk • contribs) 06:21, November 9, 2006 (UTC)
- I have not reverted any of your edits to that page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 08:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Rapparees Links
[edit]Hello, you deleted my external links on the Enniscorthy and Rapparee pages. I feel the links were justified and do not breach the rules as detailed. Certainly the link is more relevant than other links (many commercial) which remain on the Enniscorthy page. You also deleted an accurate correction I made to the text in the Enniscorthy article (and which I referenced and explained in the talk page).
I understand and respect the work you do and understand that I may have triggered an alarm by entering the same link twice but I am not a spammer.
Regards
- Which links are less relevant then yours? Please relize we are not a link farm. I will be glad to remove the offending links from the Enniscorthy page. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
spammy spammy
[edit]
Per your request, this is the only warning you will receive. Your recent posting of blatant advertising in the IRC channel #wikipedia-en-admins will not be tolerated. The next time you blatantly advertise your awesome spam-catching IRC channel into a channel, you will be blockenated. JDtalk 22:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Hehe :D —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
You deleted the link to a 501(c)(3) organization whose intent is to educate others about the prevalance of abuse in teenage relationships. As there is no other organization listed within this article whose focus is on teenage relationships it is unclear as to why you felt it should be deleted.
Additionally your deletion came one minute after the entry was added. Within that minute did you have the opportunity to review the external link and determine if it was relevant to the article?
While I do not question the importance of keeping irrelevant links out of articles I suggest that in this instance you erred and should re-evaluate your position.
As you requested, rather than "undo" your deletion, I've added my concern to the "Discussion" page of the article.
Drew30319 22:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Have you read this yet?. We are not a link farm to every "relevant" subject. Please remember this is an encyclopedia. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I read the above information when you posted a link. I wanted to understand your rationale for removing the link within the index. Some noteworthy excerpts:
1) "However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." 2) "We usually recommend that editors be bold in adding directly to articles."
It is unclear to me how WP:SPAM can be construed to have existed in my one simple and single link within an index on domestic violence to a verifiable, legitimate and active charity. A charity whose focus is on an area that no other charity in said index focuses.
Additionally, you have not answered my question: ... your deletion came one minute after the entry was added. Within that minute did you have the opportunity to review the external link and determine if it was relevant to the article?
If you review the website you should realize that this is a topic that is not well-known or covered in the media. As such the requirement that this charity be indexed by others is a bit of a Catch-22. The purpose of this charity is to educate others about (1) the prevalance of this abuse, (2) the warning signs of potential abuse and (3) information on how to extricate yourself from said abuse.
Right now we are still struggling with #1 from above. As such it would be unlikely to have others include this link. But is the intrinsic value of the information less valid simply because it comes from a principal of the organization?
By extension, would Newton have been forbidden to place a link to a website discussing his Laws of Motion? Is the act of linking to a site in and of itself enough to taint the site in question?
As I politely asked earlier Within that minute did you have the opportunity to review the external link and determine if it was relevant to the article? I would appreciate that review now and a determination if the charity is indeed pertinent and relevant. Somebody else has been kind enough to provide a link to a newspaper article written about Jennifer Ann's Group.
I should note that it's surprising (and discouraging) that legitimacy is being defined as coverage from the "popular media."
Insinuating that my intention to use Wikipedia as a "link farm" appears to be an act of attack against a fellow editor based on assumptions about motive. As I imagine you are aware, this is against policy (see WP:AGF and WP:NPA).
But, since you did mention "link farm" I hope you realize that this link would not enhance the visibility of the website (from an SEO perspective). The purpose instead is to identify individuals that are already seeking out information on domestic abuse and provide them with an organization that has identified an under-recognized niche.
If you are familiar with SEO (which is my assumption as you're using the term "link farm" with some degree of authority) then you should realize that a link labelled "Jennifer Ann's Group" that then links to that organization's website would only increase visibility for the search term "Jennifer Ann's Group." Google that term now and the organization is #1. Additionally you can Google "Jennifer Ann Crecente," "Jennifer Crecente" and "Jennifer Ann." The website is within the top 3 or 5 (depending on Google Shifting) already. Obviously if the intention is to use Wikipedia as a "link farm" I'm wasting my time. The organization already has its name at the top of the Google heap.
The only remaining motive is one of education and altruism by including it in the index to add relevance to the article on Domestic Violence.
If you would achieve a sufficient comfort level by instead having an internal link rather than an external link then so be it. My goal is simple: to get this information into the hands and hearts of the people that need it. How it gets there is a non-issue and non-event to me.
ps. Adding commentary to the "talk" section of Domestic Violence elicited no comments either "pro" or "con." Does that leave us at a stalemate?
Drew30319 02:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your intention of adding that link is to promote your site or your interests. Hence why we do not want it. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 02:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- This user has added an article on Jennifer Ann's Group, the 501(c)3 in question. An article by the grieving father about the memorial group he founded is eminently deletable, and possibly even a candidate for speedy deletion. On the other hand, he is a grieving father and a newbie, and he feels bitten already, especially by me.
- Your opinion and suggestions will be appreciated. Responding here is fine. Thanks! Robert A.West (Talk) 15:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
2 dickinson street coop deletion
[edit]I wanted to draw your attention back to your incorrect deletion of 2 dickinson street coop
your deletion was uncalled for. it is a new article, thus its content has not had time to develop. please visit the discussion page for that article, and make your reasons clear. 2D is a vibrant subculture of Princeton that helps define the larger social dynamics of the place. Aaron.michels 20:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- No, please read our speedy criteria. Basically you have not showed me why that article is important in the sense of an encyclopedia article. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 20:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- reading the content in the discussion page, there are numerous testimonials (seemingly as anonymous postings) as to the special importance of 2 Dickinson in the social scheme of princeton.
- From my point of view, 2 Dickenson is important to a clear picture of Princeton, as the university is often disparaged not for its quality of education, but for its social history and country club atmosphere. As 2 Dickinson street has often been a center for opposition to conservativism at Princeton, understanding the presence/location/size/atmosphere of 2 Dickinson Street Coop is essential to understanding the political and social atmosphere of the princeton campus.
- It is also noteworthy in the social dynamics that surround student dining options at Princeton. The oddity of these social dynamics have often been explored in national magazines and newspapers, and are one of the most commented aspects of attending Princeton University.
- unfortunately, there was no opportunity to develop the contents of the page... please undelete.Aaron.michels 21:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- What makes it important? In the sense of an encyclopedia. We don't have a page for every club in the world. If you want free web-hosting check out Myspace or usenet. Also anonymous postings do not make a topic notable or important. Thanks! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
It was already determined by a sysop that speed deletion was not appropriate here. Unfortunately, I can no longer find that comment or identify the admin who stated that it should not be speedily deleted, because the history page is gone! We had a notice on the last version before you deleted it that it would be deleted in five days if it were not updated to comply with the notability and sourcing guidelines. Please give us adequate time to add the necessary content. It seems that the action you took was in direct contradiction to the warning posted there. Ajkessel 20:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)ajkessel
- Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. See this. —— Eagle (ask me for help)
- I understand that Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. Why is this a case of self promotion? I am not a current member of the group in question -- I was involved 10 years ago. In any case, I'm not here to get into a discussion on the merits of the deletion, but rather the process. The entry was flagged by a sysop as not being an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. You deleted the article, and you deleted the discussion regarding the deletion of the article. There was a nomination for deletion that was supposed to give five days for updating the article and discussion, and you deleted it, so that we no longer even have the record of it being marked as not appropriate for speedy deletion. If you can restore the article, we can have a legitimate debate on the merits, but first we need to agree on the process. —— Ajkessel 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)ajkessel
- What was on it was a {{prod}} tag. I came by and as an admin saw that it fit the speedy criteria of a group that failed to say why it was important. hence the CSD A7. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- But didn't you see there was already a discussion as to whether or not it fit the speedy deletion criteria and it was determined not to be appropriate for speedy deletion, but rather appropriate for deletion debate? We can have the debate as to whether it should be speedy-deleted all over again, but I feel like I'm in quicksand here. Part of the {{prod}} tag says "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days." Instead, the article has been deleted four times in less than a day, which would be understandable if it were spam or vandalism, but there is at least a live debate in which at least one sysop weighed in already that it shouldn't be speedily deleted. Ajkessel | Talk 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC):::
- I will read the discussion, but I will note that you have been warned for removing the speedy tag yourself. Let me read the discussion and if I feel it is appropriate I will undelete and stick in an AfD.
- Just a note about the warning: that was a misunderstanding, as noted by admin User:Dcandeto on my talk page (he said the vandalism tag was improper). I wasn't trying to remove the speedy deletion tag, I had hit back and tried to add a {{holdon}} tag. It was done in good faith. Ultimately, another sysop/admin removed both the speedy deletion and holdon tags, noting that it was not appropriate for speedy deletion.Ajkessel | Talk 22:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I will read the discussion, but I will note that you have been warned for removing the speedy tag yourself. Let me read the discussion and if I feel it is appropriate I will undelete and stick in an AfD.
- But didn't you see there was already a discussion as to whether or not it fit the speedy deletion criteria and it was determined not to be appropriate for speedy deletion, but rather appropriate for deletion debate? We can have the debate as to whether it should be speedy-deleted all over again, but I feel like I'm in quicksand here. Part of the {{prod}} tag says "The article may be deleted if this message remains in place for five days." Instead, the article has been deleted four times in less than a day, which would be understandable if it were spam or vandalism, but there is at least a live debate in which at least one sysop weighed in already that it shouldn't be speedily deleted. Ajkessel | Talk 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC):::
- What was on it was a {{prod}} tag. I came by and as an admin saw that it fit the speedy criteria of a group that failed to say why it was important. hence the CSD A7. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- I understand that Wikipedia should not be used for self promotion. Why is this a case of self promotion? I am not a current member of the group in question -- I was involved 10 years ago. In any case, I'm not here to get into a discussion on the merits of the deletion, but rather the process. The entry was flagged by a sysop as not being an appropriate candidate for speedy deletion. You deleted the article, and you deleted the discussion regarding the deletion of the article. There was a nomination for deletion that was supposed to give five days for updating the article and discussion, and you deleted it, so that we no longer even have the record of it being marked as not appropriate for speedy deletion. If you can restore the article, we can have a legitimate debate on the merits, but first we need to agree on the process. —— Ajkessel 21:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)ajkessel
- i never even saw the deletion topic, only the discussion page:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Two_Dickinson_Street_Co-op
- Aaron.michels 22:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
[Talk:Two_Dickinson_Street_Co-op|the talk is here]]. Now for now I will not undelete as I don't see an administrator on that talk page. Also the talk is primarily you talking. Show me a Reliable source that is not from Princeton showing that the group has importance off of Princeton university campus. We are not a web-host for university clubs. That is what myspace, usenet, ect are for.—— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, the administrator in question was not on the talk page, but rather in the comments in the history on the main page. Can you look through that history and at least identify the administrator who said it should not be speedily deleted? On the substance issue, as I've noted, there are Wikipedia entries for every other Eating club. I understand what you're saying about myspace etc. but this entry relates to an important part of the history of both the national student cooperative movement and Princeton University. If we can keep the entry for a few days, we will add sources to non-university publications, newspapers, books, etc.. Ajkessel | Talk 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Find me something that is a reliable source that shows me this. I don't care that other eating clubs exist. Show my why this one is important. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and who is this "we" that you refer to? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- "We" would be the three or four people who were editing the page. I'm close to throwing in the towel on this, though, it seems like it's not worth the time to participate in Wikipedia.Ajkessel | Talk 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- All I am asking for is one reliable source that shows me that this topic is important outside of that university. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- "We" would be the three or four people who were editing the page. I'm close to throwing in the towel on this, though, it seems like it's not worth the time to participate in Wikipedia.Ajkessel | Talk 22:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, and who is this "we" that you refer to? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Find me something that is a reliable source that shows me this. I don't care that other eating clubs exist. Show my why this one is important. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 22:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Ajkessel, et al. the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. As such, there are certain guidelines about notability and verifiablity that must be met to merit the inclusion of an article in Wikipedia. Your article does not meet these guidelines, and therefore was deleted. If you feel this was incorrect, then you can alway open a deletion review request at WP:DRV. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) ((My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Iraq Body Count project
[edit]Could you stop by the talk page for Iraq Body Count project, and read the section titled "Discussion about anonymous blanking."
I did some reading of the page you recommended: Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. --Timeshifter 20:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- The anonymous editor does not seem to be engaging in any real discussion on the talk page. He just keeps repeating the same stuff. He does not acknowledge my points. In the meantime every time lately that I try to add more material he blanks it, and a large section of other well-sourced material. The same large section. Over and over. And he keeps using the exact same edit comment. He also blanked out an edit change by another editor. I keep adding more stuff. But he keeps deleting it. So half the day it shows up. And the other part of the day it isn't in the article. I don't know what else to do. Earlier I let him move the stuff around from section to section. Now he just deletes it. What is the next recommended step in the resolution process? Isn't anonymous blanking considered vandalism? --Timeshifter 00:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If someone is just blanking content without providing reasons it is vandalism. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- I think he may finally be engaging slightly more in the discussion page just now. He accused me of deleting a paragraph about IBC replies to criticism. I just pointed out that it is still in my revisions, and that it is he that keeps deleting it. --Timeshifter 00:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- If someone is just blanking content without providing reasons it is vandalism. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Link
[edit]Hello Eagle,
I honestly was not aware of the ease regarding editing wikipedia pages until today. I must admit that I was a bit gung ho to get a link of a few relevant pages, but I hope it wouldn't be considered spamming. I selected topics that are extremely relevant to my websites content matter, and I honestly feel as though people will find my web page a valuable resource. I appreciate your warning, and I plan to start writing quality contributions to wikipedia to support my source links. I just wanted to state that I have been very carefully selecting only topics where I felt my link could be of value. Thanks for the heads up! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.202.136.253 (talk • contribs) 23:09, November 11, 2006 (UTC)
- I replied on your page. It is not acceptable for you to be adding links to your own site, that is self-promotion. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 23:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
links
[edit]i added the link for hondajet because last time i said honda sold 130 of them someone deleted it saying add citation. I will add it without sitation then.--Anais1983 00:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Add it with a citation to a reliable source please. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:13, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- but where is citation for the other jets? I cannot find one site that says any of the ATG Javelin has been sold, let alone 100 of them --Anais1983 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you have yourself a little project. Go ahead and try to find sources for them... else they can meet the trash can per this policy. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 00:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- but where is citation for the other jets? I cannot find one site that says any of the ATG Javelin has been sold, let alone 100 of them --Anais1983 00:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
phera
[edit]could you just point out exactly what i did wrong instead of listing boring details about your rules? I was just listing all the thing outthere in the world that have the word phera in it. Phera could be derived from pheromones. I am not a fan of phera-plex just thought i should mention it. Also..what's wrong with the fact there is a movie with the name phera? It's made in 1988 how could i promote that? Isn't that art form too? Do you even think i got time to read ur super long rules? I was just contributing to your database. Ur behaviour is rude.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by George smth (talk • contribs) 05:01, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Well this is an Encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate list of stuff. Also we don't need links to stuff unless you are using it to cite your sources for things. We are a serious encyclopedia here. Also you might want to open a dictionary. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Inappropriate links
[edit]You said "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"
Could you tell me than what is this doing in wikipedia website? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandient
Isn't it obvious that it's an ad?
- Thanks for telling me, I will look into it. If it is an ad, it will be removed. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
A Networked Site
[edit]The following site
http://kingdomhearts.rpgplanet.gamespy.com
has been removed from many different Kingdom Hearts Wiki pages, because it has been considered a fan-site. The Kingdom Key is part of the GameSpy Network and is sponsered by them. The site is a valued research material, when looking for a specific detail or even help in a Kingdom Hearts game. Ths site was even removed from the GameSpy Wiki itself. I would like to know why this site cannot be added, yet http://kh2.co.uk can be added as "KHUltimainia" when it is clearly a fan-site as well.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.108.5 (talk • contribs) 09:49, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Let me know where the other site is and I will be glad to remove it. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:51, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hearts_II is one, there are others http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_Hearts such as this. it is under Kingdom Hearts Ultimania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.182.108.5 (talk • contribs) 09:54, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
- All gone, please see to it that none of those links re-appear. Thanks!! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:00, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not feel that this is an innappropriate link for the Ubud article. The Sacred Monkey Forest is a major temple complex and the site was put up by the the local banjar (village government). They probably should have used .org. As the talk page is inactive, there is no one to talk to about this there. I'm going to re-add the link and hope you will talk to me before simply removing it again. --Moby 09:53, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Moby Dick I am going to trust you here. But you must know that I am merely reverting suspicious links. Sorry if you got caught up with the rest of the spam. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I understand that link spam is a problem. I was there last year and just noticed the site the other day (it is brand new). --Moby 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello, From Nabbobhai - About Cialis (Cialis Drug History)
[edit]I'm new to Wikipedia, and I recently added a paragraph to wikipedia about Cialis. I just checked the wikipedia and saw that the contribution I made to the wikipedia requires citation. I'm not sure how to site my contribution properly because I tried a numerous times to add the link to the source, but someone always removes it, probably you. So, could you please help me in properly citing the paragraph, or maybe you could add the source for me. I acquired the information from the following website, (www.buydrugs247.com). Thank you for your help. Oh yeah, my name is Nabeel Rahman, and I'm looking forward to learn how to properly use wikipedia.
- Err.. you can find a better source then buydrugs247.com. That site exists to sell something. Try to find an academic source to add. Try using a search engine, you can and should find better and more reliable sources —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC) `
RE: Links
[edit]The ext. link I added is from an extremely respectable source. It fits none of the characteristics of a spam-link. --Kitrus 10:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- What is the link and what is the page? —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
John Thomson (composer) Link removed
[edit]olliedrake 10:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)Sorry, but I am new at this, and have just had the link removed to Sibelius Music, which stores some of the scores by John Thomson. These scores are free to use by anyone, and I really cannot see why this should be in breach of your user guidelines. Please advise!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olliedrake (talk • contribs) 10:23, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Try perhaps uploading this free stuff to wikipedia! Wikipedia has rules on External links. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 10:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Meta education
[edit]Greetings Eagle 101 This is in regards to your message about inappropriate Wikipedia edits I assure you my edits to the article on Intentional Programming were accurate. Please contact Meta Education if you are in need of any help with your schooling He'll teach you what you need to know.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.237.98.91 (talk • contribs) 18:49, November 12, 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry but the links that you added did not conform to our external link rules. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 01:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Popeye links
[edit]I supplied links to Vintage ToonCast, a podcast offering the three Popeye color cartoons in formats other than those listed in the external links already placed in the three popeye color features. I believe iPod playable downloads are of as much or more use to visitors than WMV or RM formats, and the Vintage ToonCast page is cleaner than the pdcomedy.com page linked in all three Popeye Color Specials.
- what article is this? we really don't need links to non-free stuff. Please read our stuff on external link and on spam. Thanks. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 07:23, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- The link to the Popeye page from Vintage ToonCast (a free podcast) is:
- http://www.renmenven.org/tooncast/popeye.html
- These links aren't spam, the content is free and available in flash or iPod/Quicktime download.
- 71.58.83.62
- We are not a linkfarm. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Then justify why pdcomedy.com is linked in all three shorts. If WEkipedia is open to anyone for editing, I'm goign to remove those links as I am offended by them.
- 71.58.83.62 16:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Page deletion
[edit]Why did you delte the page i wrote on Anthony Gesualdi? All the information was true and was backed up by external links to his record label's web page as well as his former bands' web page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.58.83.62 (talk • contribs) 08:22, November 13, 2006 (UTC)
- Please read this. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 09:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I am at a loss to explain why you reverted two and a half months worth of edits on this page. Please justify your actions. -- StAkAr Karnak 15:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a Star Trek fansite. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you are a sockpuppet or not, but if someone felt strongly enough about this, why not nominate that page for deletion instead of vandalizing it? -- StAkAr Karnak 16:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Don't call people sockpuppets without proof. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 16:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Eagle did not vandalise the page. He deleted unencyclopedic content. You should consider yourself luck the page is still there. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 16:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Since Dragon was apparently not involved in the decision to revert, it appeared to me that he might be the same person. No insult was intended.
Please specify how the last 2.5 months of edits to that page were "unencyclopedic content" as opposed to what was already there. The revert went to the point of reinserting content that had been split into a seperate page, thereby introducing redundancy. Further, the content no longer matches the page title, as it is now beyond the scope of what the page is designed to cover. I do not understand how the revert was an improvement, so I do not believe it has yet been justified.
"Luck" has nothing to do with anything; if anyone asserts that the page does not belong on Wikipedia, as Dragon seems to imply, why not nominate it (and its sister pages - see table) for deletion? Otherwise, the page should be the best it can be, with all of its edits justified. How is the page different than any other article consisting of episode lists? Is this whole category "unencyclopedic"? -- StAkAr Karnak 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
{{Star Trek stories}}
- Ah the good old Pokemon argument. Simply because other bad pages exist is no reason why one bad page should exist. The existance of one bad page does not validate another one. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)