Jump to content

User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page


Welcome!

Hello, Versageek/Talk/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Jay(Reply) 01:45, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Closure on "insufficient context"for The Yogurt Connection

"The introduction to this article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject matter."

On your advice I have added context to paragraph-1. I'd like to finalize this phase of editing. Are you satisfied with the way the article reads? Can you remove the commennts at the head of the page?

Thank you very much.

Question

Hey. I understand why the external links on Penis were deleted, but why was the section on Stretchers and Extenders removed from the Penis Enlargement page? They are methods of self-treatment just like pills and pumps, and the reference link led to a site containing more information about extenders, not selling them. Aside from that, there is already a reference link on the page leading to a site that actually does sell things like penis pumps - why is that one allowed? May I reinstate my edits, or will they be deleted again? Olichiv 00:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

That article already has a section on Stretchers and Extenders. Your site is about a specific brand of extender, the other site is more generic. Both sites really don't meet the criteria defined in the reliable sources guideline. I suggest you post your information on the talk page and see if others agree that it can be added to the article. Looking at the talk page myself, I think there is at least one other person who would like to see information on these devices added.. but if you add it again without getting a consensus on the talk page, it is likely to be reverted by someone (not necessarily me) as spam. --Versageek 01:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. My fault, I didn't read through the stretching and hanging section thoroughly - I assumed it only covered weight-hanging. For the record, the site I linked to covers three different brands of extenders, and many other methods of PE. I just linked straight to a full review of a single extender brand. A link to the main review page comparing the three together would probably be more appropriate, if I understand correctly. Thank you for the quick reply! Olichiv 01:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Message to 147.91.1.43

Hello. This is jut to tell you that this 147.91.1.43 is a public university domain. As a consequence a lot of user would have access to this IP, and considering low behavoural standars of people who use this computers I am not one bit supprised that this happened. This is just for your info. Bye--147.91.1.35 09:49, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice

Work on wikiHow - I've never really known what to do with that article :) - Estel (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the welcome, hopefully I will figure things out and get started, just like on the other wiki... Shaiaqua 03:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


Anon warning

Thanks for not biting me. I'm a relative newcomer. I didn't really know what to do. What should I do in the future? --Umalee 03:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

All right. Message received. Again, thanks. --Umalee 17:18, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Spam

Do u really understand difference betwen spam and informative links?It seems just to show ur seniority, u keep on doing such acts.If the links added by me are spam then kindly have a look at other links. thank u —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.163.81.249 (talk • contribs).

Spam

You do not know any difference between spam and informative links. You just like to show off your intellectual superiority that only you believe you possess. Modellooks 03:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —— Eagle101 Need help? 03:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I have found a site that has rights to, and is showing some bollywood movies/songs/clips/trailers free. And this will be worth a watch for any eastern / middle eastern movie/cinema/theater lovers because Indian cinema is very popular in easter/middelesastern countries. There is a lot of free legal content and info provided on the site MovieDesi.com You had reverted the page back on bollywood and sent me a message.

Spamstar of Glory

  • actual award moved to user page*

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 07:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Versageek 05:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Versageek! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk 13:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Versageek - Creative Writing

I don't know how you managed to revert the linkspam, which has been polluting the Creative_Writing article, and make the revert stick. I am grateful as I removed, undid or reverted on a daily basis and had steeled my resolve to continue. But you did something to make it stick. What was that? Thanks. Porthugh 01:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it was just by chance that I was the last person to revert, User:Muchness's spam warnings on the IP's talk page probably had more to do with it not coming back than I did. :) --Versageek 04:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Complex systems

Thank you for your contribution to the complex system article in the past. Currently there is a Call for Deletion for the associated Category:Complex systems covering this interdisplinary scientific field. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 14:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Vocabulary Wiki

Hi, I placed a link to the new Vocabulry Wiki on the TOEFL article. You removed the link. I am aware that links are nofollow and this link was not placed for SEO purposes. The vocabulary wiki is a free site that has been created with the intention of being a valuable resource - especially for people interested in TOEFL.

I will not change your edit at this stage. However, I would appreciate it if you could consider reversing this deletion.

Also, I would appreciate it if you could consider contributing to the vocabulary wiki yourself. As it's just starting out we are in need of experienced editors such as yourself getting involved.

Thanks Marc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.206.38.135 (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC).

Please see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, in particular #3 & #12. I have a friend who would be very interested in your project, I'll pass along the URL next time I chat with him. --Versageek 05:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Tripura

No I cant, but I thought it was just me! I changed the image because the previous map gave used a city locater for the state. i'll change it back for now, but we should really get a proper Sate map. --WoodElf 15:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: payroll tax

Hi, i put the link on the payroll tax because it was a good explanation of what payroll taxes are used for, but upon thinking about it more, its really only applied to the US and the wiki article on payroll taxes cover other countries so I guess it doesn't totally apply. Thanks for clearing that up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mibs (talk • contribs).

User:71.91.43.232

Haha yeah. I saw that someone else had warned him/her.. then I went to look at the warning and saw that it was identical to the first. I figured you had just used the option from the [1] menu instead of the [2] menu so I replaced it with a copyvio warning from the [2] menu.. meaning, I think, second offense? Apparently first and second offenses are identical. But no, I wasn't just trying to have my name on there.. I wanted the warning to be a little harsher. For what its worth, I reverted it to your signature -- drumguy8800 C T 04:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Ranahki

Hi Versageek, Thank you for your tireless effort in keeping Wikipedia clean. I placed a link to the Cross-Cultural Terminology on some articles as I thought that it would be a good and valuable auxiliary resource. I'm a newcomer at Wikipedia and I'm sorry that my good intentions has been seen as advertising, which I have no intentions of doing. Besides, Wikipedia visitors using the terminology does not serve any other purpose than giving satisfaction that my work might be of use to anyone who is interested. Thanks__ RanahkiRanahki 16:11, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia - question about links

I see on a lot of pages, the links are listed as references. If I had added links to resources at the end of the freelance page and labeled them references, would they still have been deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tsflynn (talk • contribs) 14:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Yes, they would be deleted. References are the outside sources used to support specific points/statements in the article. The links you added were "general interest" topics. --Versageek 15:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Is it appropiate to post those links anywhere? Thanks for your help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.243.23.36 (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC).
probably not, while they may have information related to the topic, they don't contribute to or supplement the encyclopedic content of the article. --Versageek 02:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Blanketing

What I wrote wasn't nonsense. It actually happened. At least the Carl Day part, maybe not the Sacremento, California part. 130.126.67.198 20:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)Chartreuse

I don't doubt it happened, but it really isn't encyclopedic material. (anymore than the Sacremento stuff was), which is why I removed both paragraphs. Sounds like you guys had a fun party though :) --Versageek 20:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OTRS

Just in case you aren't aware, a policy was recently implemented by the Wikimedia Foundation, regarding access to nonpublic data (see [1]) Please note if you do not comply with these rules you should remove yourself from OTRS volunteering where your name is listed. Otherwise, please ignore this message :) Kind regards, Majorly (hot!) 18:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Changes to Continuity of Care Record

Just a quick comment to say that I think your last edit (where you removed a bunch of links) was more consistent than the original edit where you had removed just one of the links - for no apparent reason.

Some of the links you removed, however, maybe should be reconsidered, such as the www.ccrstandard.com link which I believe is sponsored by the AAFP.

MHO 146.243.4.157 21:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, The ccrstandard.com site is almost devoid of content, it has an "under construction" notice on the main page. If you try a few of the links, it eventually takes you to one of the 'solution providers' that has an online demo. I found a link on the CHiT site that lists all of the providers, I (just) added that as a separate link & removed an ASTM link that went to a generic health category rather than the CCR standard. Hopefully this will give our readers a collection of useful things, without crossing over into being a directory or collection of links. Thanks for helping to keep this article accurate & helpful. :) --Versageek 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. The CHiT link you added seems to solve all the problems we were getting into with the multiple links. Thanks! 146.243.4.157 17:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks2

so nice of you to erase all of my hard efforts and work to further expand the site you fuck up youve nothing better to do than sit around all day glued to the computer and shit like that i hope you choke on a potato chip —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Poevermore (talk • contribs).

Excuse you

That user deleted my article when I did it just like it suppoed to be in wikipeida so he had it comming.

--Muriness 00:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That user can't delete pages, only admins can delete pages. She nominated it for deletion, and the admin who actually deleted it agreed that it should be deleted. As I mentioned on Umalee's talk page, you should communicate with the admin who actually did the deletion. The best course would be to file a formal request for deletion review. --Versageek 00:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

www.addictinggames247.com

You took down my link which was in "miniclip". My site contains games from miniclip.... it is not spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.16.135.167 (talk) 20:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

You spammed the link onto 7 different pages. Even on the miniclip page, the site is only remotely related to the subject of the article. This type of linking is normally to be avoided (#13). Wikipedia is not a collection of links nor a directory. --Versageek 20:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting my article on page ranking?

Could u please explain me why u delete my article from "Page Ranking"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dimitar petrov (talk • contribs) 11:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

I did not delete anything. A well written & referenced article on that subject already exists at PageRank. It appears that you already knew that when you blanked that page and then overwrote the redirect from Page ranking to PageRank with your own content. Please don't do that sort of thing, it will certainly be reverted every time. --Versageek 13:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


Acctualy you are not right. I was not deleting anything before someone delete mine and redirect my page (Page Ranking) to Page Rank. That's sux And btw probably it's prefered for you but not for me... So how do u know that the people does not like my article where there are a lot of examples?

Oops

Just got your talk page message. I had no idea I edited Sandbox instead of Wikipedia:Sandbox. How embarrassing! Thanks for the heads up.

BTW, your WP user page is nice. See you over on wikiHow. As you can see I don't check talk here often. :) --JackHerrick 15:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Web traffic do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Versageek 22:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.65.207 (talk • contribs)

Very funny, but that still doesn't change the fact that your blog is A) a blog, and B) contains an objectionable amount of advertising - not to mention that it adds no encyclopedic value to the pages you put it on. Please read the our External Links guideline. --Versageek 03:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahmoi.com Vandalism

Thanks for your help to revert the article to the accurate one. However, this user, Quinnling keep coming back to edit the content, is that anyway to block him/her? (As I am not a very tech savvy guy). Pls help. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brandonlimwf (talk • contribs) 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

outside opinion as asked for: they say it isn't prefiltered; But they also they they will remove illegal content, and they are in Malaysia, which I believe is relatively restrictive about the internet. The house rules are flexible enough for them to interpret it as they please. so they'd have to be judged by what they actually do--Finding that out for ourselves is OR, so you'd need to find opinions to quote. Based on a quick look they are very tame by US standards. Tho blogs don't prove notability, I think they can be used for something like this, but not everyone agrees with me about it. Based on the material available on google, they're in my opinion not particularly notable outside malaysia, & Im not even sure about there. It would be possible to write an article, but only if someone really worked at it. It's not a speedy. I am not sure it would survive AfD without much more work. No point in a prod--someone will certainly remove it & then you'd have to go to AfD anyway.

As I see it , the usefulness of prod is when you think that nobody is paying attention to the site, or that nobody will bother to defend it. Hope this helps. DGG 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with nasty IP vandal

Thank you for helping with the cleanup. This fellow has gone through three different IP addresses tonight. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 05:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

How come you removed the link to Tim King Electronics (www.timkingelectronics.com)? I've had this happen to me serveral times now and I noticed you were the one who removed it most recently.

I assure you, this is not a spam link. It's a perfectly legitimate link to a relevent page for the article on Fischertechnik. If you clicked on the link you would have been able to verify this. There are other pages on there that are resellers, but those links are not removed, so why is our singled out?

Any advice you can offer to prevent this in the future is greatly appreciated.

Keith

Please read our policies and guidelines for external links, conflict of interest and what Wikipedia is not.
Usually, unless the article is overrun with links, the folks that remove links which appear to be contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines only remove the ones they see being posted. Thanks for pointing out that there was another reseller listed on the article.. after looking at the site, I have removed that link for the same reason I had removed your link.
A suggestion: that article looks like it could use some more photos, if you could take some pictures of the more interesting aspects of Fischertechniks which are mentioned in the article and upload them to http://commons.wikimedia.org under our GFDL license, it would be completely appropriate to include a link to your site in the credits/contributor information on the image page. These images could then be included in the Wikipedia article. --Versageek 18:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahmoi

How can I request protection for this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonlimwf (talk • contribs)

This page was deleted because it met our criteria for speedy deletion. If you think it should have a page, I suggest taking some time to put together a properly sourced/referenced article which meets the notability criteria. Hopefully during the time it takes to put this together, the vandal will lose interest. You should also be mindful of our guidelines on conflict of interest. --Versageek 04:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: 4.239.234.9

It seems User:4.239.234.9 had made a constructive edit to the article Web conferencing but added an offensive edit summary. Your revert of his edit has added useless content back into the article. You can find the diff here: [2]. Please be more careful in the future by actually looking at the edit made. Rather than reverting, you could leave a note describing the importance of factual edit summaries. Thank you. :) Wikiscope 03:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

doh! that was pretty dumb of me.. :( --Versageek 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnail Gallery Post "cleanup"

Can you see the difference between spam and relevant references? Of course, how you can see this, if you don't understand mean of TGP. All that you have done - you removed references to really helpful resources and articles.

Ajmer

Versageek, the two links under Geography in the article on Ajmer are irrelevant. They are religious websites. Their links certainly don't belong under Geography. If you agree with me, would you please consider removing them? Thanks.Kanchanamala 04:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

removed, they certainly don't belong in the body of the article. --Versageek 04:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad we concurred. Thanks.Kanchanamala 05:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Just curious why you allow http://www.execubrand.com/ to be part of the external link and not its competitors. I read the anti-spam and self promotions rule and I agree with this but to allow 1 and not its competitors doesn't seem fair. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.111.27 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing out that other spammed link, it has been removed also. --Versageek 08:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Video Professor

Hi Thanks for your help. looks like video professor has hired somebody to manipulate its wikipedia entry. Video professor is trying to turn it into an advertisement. 68.85.146.34 07:35, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Added context to first paragraph - The Yogurt Connection

"What makes The Yogurt Connection different from other drug smugglers is the size of their operations for its time, and the high public profile and social influence of its principals." Versageek, is this what you have in mind? --I3142p168 04:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not quite, but it helps.. I was thinking that there should be an introductory paragraph in front of the biography section that explains what The Yogurt Connection was. You'd have to juggle around some text to make that happen without repeating the same material later on in the article.. ps. I turned that other/old title you created into a redirect to the main article. --Versageek 04:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

bad image on Sabotage (album)

Thank you for noticing that the image at Sabotage (album) was a fake. I found a good version of the album cover and added it to the article. --Eastmain 22:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Dzi bead article

You removed two links from the external links on the Dzi bead article, just before I realized what they were and was about to do the same. Actually there seems to be a large edit war going on to have (what appear to me, at any rate) spam links in the article. Possibly the article should be protected for a while. FlowerpotmaN (t · c) 05:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, only full protection would help as the user adding most of the junk is a registered user, the IPs have been removing the junk. Let's see how they react to the changes that we made tonight.. if the warring continues, I'll request full protection. -- Versageek 05:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Great Wall of China

Hi. The information I am adding is actually factually accurate. I am currently searching for sources to verify this, but once I have located them I shall post you a link here, and then restore my version of said article. Thanks--Emperor Tony X. Liu 19:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here's the source: http://www.wereallneighbours.co.uk/idlechat/message.php?id=19306&start= --Emperor Tony X. Liu 19:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

i got your message that some of external links additions are advertising something. See quote below

"but some of your recent contributions seem to be advertising or for promotional purposes."

I am not advertising a sale or anything. I am just informing people. How can one tell if i was promoting something? I am just informing people of a new website they might or might not be interested in. I think my links are eligible because they dont involve anything that is bias or otherwise.

Vanshizzle 02:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What the links are promoting is the website. The page they link to is merely a sign up form and doesn't include any information that adds encyclopedic value. Please read the external links policy. In particular Links normally to be avoided --Versageek 02:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well it is that the website is not finished yet. Just make people aware that it exists is not advertising. And it doesnt force you to sign up anywhere.Vanshizzle 00:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Versageek, I appreciate very much the work you do to keep spam off wikipedia. I am writing to you because I believe you made an error in deleting the external links on the [opinion] page. I compiled a list of three web sites that are focused on users opinions on a variety of subjects and are prominent sites with opinion driven content, though I know opinions are ubiquitous on web pages. In wikipedia's search to find everything fact, I think it imperative to have these sites as the fact remains that they are web sites all about opinions on the web. Further more the first site on the list opnation.com is trying to be a site that wants to take users opinions of every topic imaginable and then have a digg style ranking algorithm that would order the opinions in terms of what the general public agrees upon. This site would replace traditional style public polling, which is easy biased and not a good indicator of true public opinion. I will be adding these links back to the opinion page and I hope my words to you here have persuaded you to understand that they are hardly spam.

Peace —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Micfri (talk • contribs).

Rather than adding them as external links, why not created a section in the article about websites that gather and rank opinions/opinion driven content, and use these as references or examples, your explanation to me of why they should be included would a good start for that section. --Versageek 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I did put in a link at the index fund page. You over zealously took it away. The page lacks information about index fund clubs I added one http://indexfund.se. I could not just add the text because of copy right issues.

Sincerely, David Winther — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.231.81.35 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps you could add a note to the talk page that the article should have information about investment clubs and see what others think. The content of the linked site is a sales pitch trying to get the reader to sign up for that particular investment club, links to sites with that sort of content really aren't permitted under our external links guidelines. --Versageek 01:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

itemsoft.com

Hello,

I see that you have been deleting our links... we understand. However, there are other companies listed that appear to be keeping their links ... t-cubed, and bqr. Why are they remaining?

Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnqtodd (talk • contribs) 14:01, 5 July 2007.

I missed a few of those - they have now been removed, as well as links to polimore.com which also appears to be a software company. --Versageek 14:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a link exists in an article doesn't prove that the link in question should also exist.--Hu12 14:20, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Cortes Island (Hansen Airfield) Airport

Thanks for catching that. I can't believe that I got it right in the box and the rest of it wrong. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't take credit for finding it, a resident of Cortes Island emailed OTRS about it. I just verified the proper spelling, did the move, cleaned up the double redirects and thanked the gentleman for letting us know :) . --Versageek 07:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Well if you can send them my apologies for making the error in the first place. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

i think this is the information site for the best hosting so i add up in the external links if it is not appropriate then i will not add it up but tell me what is the defect in this information site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.189.96.14 (talk • contribs).

Please select one or two pages where the links might be most helpful and ask on the discussion pages if others agree that your links should be added. Adding the links to multiple pages will usually result in them being removed as spam. Also, please read our External Links guidelines, and know that Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links. --Versageek 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I saw you removed a link from the Handmade Jewelry page. Not that it matters that much in this particular case and I won't place the link back, although it has been placed there by several different editors and admins in the last year or so. More importantly however: I *would* like to draw your attention to the fact this page is part of the wikipedia jewelry/gemology project and we use a number of sources for different pages, as well as monitor the pages. Whilst it is very much appreciated spam is removed, I would appreciate it if you could leave a message before doing so (unless it's clearly a commercial link) to one of us... after all we're all trying to build the best possible encyclopedia here, and so always helpful to coordinate things. Thanks

Gem-fanat 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, looking at that site now - it's clear I wasn't as diligent as I usually am with my cleaning efforts. It's good to know that the Jewelry/Gemology project will help clean up pages. I was in the middle of an edit war between two users over external links on Dzi bead back in June. I'm still not sure if the blogspot link that is there is worthwhile since blogspot isn't considered a reliable source. I have re-added the long-standing link that I removed from Handmade jewelry. --Versageek 18:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
no problem, I appreciate the fast and kind answer. Let me check the blogspot, because unless it is an expert in the field (and there are a few gem-dealers who would qualify as such (but this means they published books in the area, and are decade-long experts with links to gemlabs etc.). It would definitely not qualify as such. If you have more problems.. don't hesistate to "call".

Gem-fanat 18:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I see what you mean. For lack of a better resource, and it being quite educational (in terms of explanations and counterfeit images etc.. and not really pushing a commercial agenda here (some at the top, but I have seen much worse as wikipedia reference) I would suggest to keep the blogspot in. Although I do remember a rule somewhere about blogs/discussion groups not acceptable. I think such a rule is a bit too harsh considering everyone and all makes use of a blog and there;s a difference between an educational blog (also for lack of better resources) and a teenager high school blog. I WOULD suggest however to take the other link out, since it has already been mentioned in the referencs and would like to stick to one link per page policy.

spam issues

hello.

i have seen that you notifyed me about some spam issues. I don't intend to spam, please tell me where is the exact problem in order to make all the necessary corrections.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Googleboy.live (talk • contribs).

I replied on your talk page. Also, please sign your comments with --~~~~ , Thanks --Versageek 02:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking of Cais-soas.com

Hi!

On Meta talk:Spam Blacklist you said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit
This discussion moved to here, please continue discussion there. --Versageek 21:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

..I don't understand what you mean with the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red&action=submit (unless it's not by you? Or just a mis-paste?), or why cais-soas.com is to be blocked (I found some useful archeological references there!) - could you elaborate? Thanks! flammifertalk 07:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See my reply on meta. --Versageek 07:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Albania's page

Thank you for your support and cleaning the vandalism.Cheers Taulant23☻

sorry about...

Hello, sorry about external links added to the page Free software. What I can do, that my link will be add to the page Free software, because my page only about free software.

thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sokrato (talk • contribs).

I really can't think of anywhere on Wikipedia that your link would be appropriate. Wikipedia is not a directory or collection of links.--Versageek 03:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you the same one?

Hi. I am a part time wikiPedian and A full time wikiHowian. Are you the same Versageek that's on WikiHow? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blabla96 (talk • contribs).

yep, that's me :) --Versageek 03:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Trademark registration...

Australian TM Reg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude4012 (talk • contribs).

Yes, I'm aware of this. I left your note at the top of the article about the Australian Trademark, as well as your link at the top of the products list. While Wikimedia isn't interested in challenging your Australian trademark, it should be noted that attempts by others to trademark this phrase as a wordmark (without stylized text or a design) in the US, EU and Germany have been rejected as too generic.. --Versageek 02:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Trademark..

I dont want to debate trademarks, there is a whole industry which does this.. Suffice to say that as long as we have a registered trademark, I expect it to be acknowledged and not used as a generic term.

Australia has by-lateral and multi-lateral agreements/treaties in place which provide for mutual recongnition of trademakes within the countries you mention.

Australia, is not like the USA, and has a strong IP process; there has been very little success with any appeals against an Australian trademark issued by IP Australia..

In particular we have recently forced Google to stop infinging our trademark, and will defend it against any current and future infingment..

Bottom line, please ensure that at a minimium the acknolwedgement, and reference with the registered trademark symbol are included within this entry..

Otherwise we request that this entry be removed from Wilkipedia as it voliates our registered trademark in both form and intent.

Thanks.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude4012 (talk • contribs).

alright

Looking for a second opinion

Hi. You might remember me from the Dzi bead article last month :O)

I was just looking for a second opinion (or just a second set of eyes) on the Title IX article. I removed a link last night (my time) that I came across when I was watching Recent Changes. Now I have no real problem with that, and you can see my reasoning on my talk page, but the user that posted that link, although he didn't repost his link, removed another link on the same grounds, which I think probably is a legitimate link. (If you can follow my tortured prose at this stage.)

I have restored that link, but if you have a chance, can you look at the Title IX article history and the conversation on my talk page? FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be a good faith addition, however linking to the main page of the law firm rather than directly to the slide show would have led me to remove the link as well. Apart from that, the slide show seems to give undue weight to the 'athletics' aspect of Title IX, as that is all it covers.. it doesn't even mention other things. The .info site covers the athletics and many other aspects of education that have been impacted by Title IX. It has more than enough quality information to offset the annoyance of a small fund-raiser advert. --Versageek 06:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
(A bit late), but thanks for that. FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Stuff

Hi Versageek,

I love your contributions and think your broad knowledge is impressive. You police the sites very well and is something I am trying to learn more about.

I would like to know how you do it and how (if possible) shed some light on what I could to better. My sites are all start ups and we focus mainly on the Australian online market.

I would really appreciate any help you may be able to give on content writting and how to link from Wiki without coming across as a spammer, our websites do have advertising banners but this is not our goal or what the sites are built to deliver. We provide good content and comparisons on financial services, an independant reviewer if you like.

I would love to chat and if you have time my email address is *snip* alternatively I can contact you or just talk here.

I look forward to hopefully chatting soon

Kind Regards

Peter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.111.71.63 (talk • contribs).

AmerinRio

I was just wondering how an organization gets recognized or mentioned in WikiPedia articles? Or adding external links or Organizations and Campaigns. I was not aware of the rules and nobody bothered to inform me that WikiPedia had rules and regulations that pertained to editing pages. When I created a user name I didn't know that it had to be something other than the company or organization you represent. I apologize for inadvertently stepping out of bounds. But I think that everyone that is an administrator or other should use a little diplomacy and infrom someone that they are out of bounds when editing. I do not beleive that undoing someones edit without explaining the reason is totally unjust. I would have gladly followed procedures had I known about them. It would appear to an outsider that Wikipedians that keep a vigilant eye on WikiPedia could be bought. I am not saying that anyone at WikiPedia would do that but for an outsider it seems kind of peculiar that someone puts an external link to a web page that might be of interest to the general public and then all of a sudden it is undone without any explantion why. Yet at the same time organizations remain with links to their websites. It makes me wonder why and who placed the link there. Help me and other newbys understand why their edits are being undone. Please don't consider it a star under your belt for undoing an edit. I am not concerned with what goes on here at WikiPedia but I am concerned with the millions of people that die every day from the causes of poverty, whether it is HIV/AIDS, starvation, lack of medical facilities, or what ever the cause is that leads someone to die in poverty. I have seen men, women and children die becasue of this epidemic. I have seen millions of dollars spent doing studies and research, but what I don't see is anyone doing anything about it. Oh I see the media doing their thing to boost their ratings and movie stars doing the same. Again what I don't see is anyone doing anything about it. I see a lot of talk but very little action. Our organization will be in the news and we will make a difference. We have no boundaries at Global Poverty Minimization. People are dying everyday and all we ask is that we are mentioned somewhere in WikiPedia someday. When I travel to other countries and I meet the people I am truly amazed at the hope that I see in their eyes. Again I apologize for not knowing the rules here, but I really don't have time to sit down and learn the ropes and this is probably the last thing I will ever contribute at WikiPedia unless someone wishes to ask me, How we plan to minimize poverty? Or Why can't poverty be eradicated? Eradicate poverty, or End poverty forever are only pipe dreams and people have not done any real homework on the subject. Ask me how to minimize poverty and I will tell you. Developing countries account for 90 percent of the world’s disease burden (Gottret and Schieber, 2006). Roughly, 16 million deaths in 1998 were directly attributable to communicable diseases such as HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, and maternal and prenatal conditions, childhood infections, tobacco-related illnesses and nutritional deficiencies (WHO, 2006). Let's put that into real perspective here. That is the total population of at least 4 major US cities. Imagine the headlines Miami, Los Angels, New York and Chicago Ghost Towns becasue of Poverty or the effects of Poverty.Italic text donald918—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Donald 918 (talk • contribs).

GM'S BOT

Hey, sorry it took me so long to respond, I was speaking of User:GeorgeMoneyBot --danielfolsom 01:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Shoot I guess I missed you - well whenever you can I would really appreciate the attempt - thanks for all your help! --danielfolsom 02:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GMBot-status

Dont suppose there's any way to convince the bot to unban me from #GeorgeMoney-status, accidently joined before I was registered and the bot banned me :-( Q T C 14:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Sorry for all the bot troubles, I'll come on IRC soon and will give instructions for when something happens again. Thank you for the hosting and all the help :) GeorgeMoney (talk) 16:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Emailed ya

I have emailed you via this user page, enthusiastically accepting your specific offer to help resolve what has needlessly become a huge mess. I sent it privately, because BLP disputes aren't supposed to be discussed in detail on Talk Pages and User Pages, for obvious reasons. I need sleep, so if you need to communicate with me before or after proceeding, there may be silence on my part for the next few hours. Thanks again for your help. Serious username 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


Arnold Murray and the Unencyclopedic Comment

You censors seem to want it both ways, there is an article on 'soldiers of the cross' which is unrelated to arnold murray's organization. When an entry for 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is created, it is deleted with the comment that it is of no significance. However, the book, 'the encyclopedia of white power', one of the premier books on white racism, felt it was significant enough to include it. When the article was created, the external link was included to avoid this kind of issue.

However, I can see that you and the other person who deleted that article are insensitive to racial issues. On the one hand, the article is deleted, on the other hand, no comment can be made that further information is not allowed.

Keep up the good work.65.87.185.73 01:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments go on the talk page, not in the article. Feel free to add your comment there.. however, I suggest you limit it to information about how the other organization is not related to Murray. --Versageek 01:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
How the other organization is not related is only half the issue, the other issue is people like yourself will not allow more information about it. If I read a comment that a wikipedia article is not related, then my next question would be, why not create a new entry which is related? By including the comment that an article about arnold murray's organization, 'soldiers of the cross - colorado' is not allowed, it prevents duplication of work and you or someone like yourself will not have to delete it again. It was my mistake to think that articles about white racist organizations are allowed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.185.73 (talk) 02:33, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
At this point, it is unimportant, I've marked the relevant articles with a note that wikipedia considers the topic insignificant. This is a process I do not intend to go through again. It is a waste of time trying to convince uninterested, 'I am only following procedure' type people to include something. I can see one of wikipedia's main weak points. Too bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.185.73 (talk) 06:18, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
I never realized that this is a major weak point of the wikipedia. Trying to get an article past someone's scrutiny who:
1. Has no knowledge of the subject material and is therefore completely unqualified to weigh the importance or unimportance of an article/subject.
2. Does not care about it, and expresses no interest in it, as stated by the person who deleted it.
3. Has responses like, I have a headache, troll, 'go away'.
4. Uses the ultimate excuse of, 'I am only following orders' but in the form of, 'I am only following the sysop guidelines'.
. . . is actually a ridiculous situation and answers my question why there are so many holes in the content of Wikipedia.65.87.185.73 13:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you assist? New GFDL*. article publisher needs your help! Additional pages omitted

A history of dental restorations and the advances that have been made in recent years, by Judy Johnson DDS

Traditionally, metallurgical materials were used for restorations. This was a very well established practice for the best part of 150 years. In the case of fillings, silver amalgams were used to a large extent worldwide. These amalgams are 50 percent powder - composed of silver, tin, copper and a trace amount of zinc, and 50 percent liquid - which is pure mercury - amalgamated to form a paste, which is placed into the cavity. The silver amalgamates by reacting with the free mercury, while the copper interacts with the tin to create a cupric-tin complex strengthening/hardening interphase and the zinc acts like a scavenger to rid any unreacted metallic oxide residue. This material is not very technique sensitive, with near zero handling/manipulation error characteristics, so it’s advantageous to the clinician due to the fact that it can be placed in a slightly moist environment, forgiving to isolation technique acuity, in lieu of deleterious effects to its tooth-margin interfacial integrity. However, there are serious disadvantages to this type of silver amalgam material in comparison to the modern poly-ceram composite fillings.

The importance and advantages of using optimum materials and products with high aesthetic quality and state of- the-art materials in modern restorative dentistry. Firstly, they are easier to use, secondly, they require less machinery and equipment in the laboratory and thirdly, chair-side time is significantly reduced. There are other advantages of modern restorative materials, if we look at a dental restoration in a chronological manner from infancy to adulthood, from pediatric dentistry to geriatric dentistry. We start out with a little tiny one-surface cavity, that escalates to a two-surface filling, then possibly leaks and has to be repaired and becomes a pin-retented three - or four-surface silver amalgam filling undermining the surrounding enamel, and then onward to a crown (usually poorly adapted or sealed), followed by endodontic treatment and a post/core build-up encapsulated by a crown prosthesis and possibly an extraction, even a bridge, usually non precious alloy (porcelain fused to metal), subsequent alveolar bone resorption and then possibly a removable prosthesis; partial or denture followed by ridge augmentation and possibly an implant.

The main disadvantages to this more sophisticated material is that it requires a dry field of operation during the momentary placement procedure, however, I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages due to the fact that one has a material that is functional, aesthetic, matches tooth color, that is serviceable and is biocompatible, healthier overall compared to the traditional silver amalgam fillings and the standard crown and bridge alloys; nickel chrome, chrome-cobalt and silver-palladium products. With traditional materials it takes two to three days and an innumerable amount of equipment, instruments and adjunct materials before a crown or a bridge is fabricated, whereas with our materials one is able to fabricate a rather vast or large restoration in less than one hour. So from a time, effort and equipment perspective, this is the preferred methodology for the laboratory.Judy Johnson DDS, (www.dentalvisits.com) 01:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC) I must admit, as much as it pains me to engage you, buy I need your assistance. Thank you! Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 06:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) Would you mind advising me about posting my article or would you prefer for me to post the content of the entire article here for your review? (Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 04:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs)

I suggest you request assistance at WikiProject Dentistry, they can help figure out where your content fits into the overall Dentistry coverage on Wikipedia. One thing you may want to make note of is that you need to steer away from using phrases like with our materials. Encyclopedic tone is usually "in the third person", and generally doesn't include the our, us or I perspective. --Versageek 01:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you most kindly for all your assistance so far! By my estimation, you've certainly earned that Wiki Ribbon posted on the next thread. I wanted to post the remainder of my article in this talk forum, but I hesitated and decided that I would post the link here, http://www.dentalvisits.com/blog/ so as not to offend or violate any spam rules. I also took note of your few mentioned corrections and was wondering perhaps, if you could review just this article on my blog and further comment on its presentation before I submit it for publication on Wikipedia. Thank you kindly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs) 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Defender of the Wiki Ribbon

Defender of the Wiki Well earned!--Hu12 23:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- Versageek 00:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, under "Web Hosting Service", I was attempting to leave a link for "http://www.gogetithosting.com/wiki/tiki-index.php" which is a Web Hosting Service Wiki. It may be beneficial to your users and does not promote any hosting website as it is in its own frame with no links promoting anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.194.223.118 (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems like the instruction page for a specific wiki hosting service. The site provides very little content to an unregistered user such as myself, it may provide more info if you register, but I'm not going to register to find out.. --Versageek 19:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Versageek for dedication in fighting spam on Wikipedia.--A. B. (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Versageek. I noticed that you listed yourself as a participant of WP:WPEL and was wondering if you were still interested. I really want to revive the project from it's current semi-inactive state, so your contributions would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 02:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you have anything in particular in mind? Most of my External Links work is done in conjunction with anti-spam efforts. If I happen to find a linkfarm when removing obvious spam, I'll usually clear it using WP:EL guidelines, unless it's a page that has a clear group of active editors who know the subject well - then I'll tag it & let them clear it. I do agree that this is an important project that shouldn't be dormant.. there are a lot of not-so-great links out there that fall short of blatant spam, but really add nothing of value to the articles. --Versageek 13:39, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, we have a to-do list with a good deal of work to be done, or you could check out Category:Wikipedia external links cleanup. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 21:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Tram

Hi, I appreciate your work on this article. It's disturbing that we're having to fight off attempts to insert blatantly commercial sites, with potentially bad medical ramifications (not to mention legal ones). I'm keeping a watch on it. Worth mentioning at a higher level, or is this a well-established issue? Tony (talk) 03:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to help out. :) That domain has been blacklisted on the AntiSpamBot, they've spammed a bunch of other medication articles as well. If they continue spamming - we'll add it to the local or meta Mediawiki Spam Blacklists. --Versageek 01:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

making wiki more useful (re: currenttimeindia.com)

Hello VersaGeek, It is good to see that you are a dedicated contributor to Wikipedia. I appreciate your work here. I just disagree with you on one point. Information about any particular place is equally important to its time. Local time of a place is as attached to a place as you are to Wikipedia ! Information about a place is incomplete if the information about its local time is not given. I remember adding this link to Jodhpur wiki about its local time (along with restaurant and their famous cuisine), and next thing i see is that local time information is removed. anyone looking at information of Jodhpur is equally likely to check its local time than he is to know what are famous restaurants in the area. If you think that local restaurant information is necessary, local time is equally important. Please do not remove this link from a places wiki. Thank you for your cooperation here. Regards, MD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.26.3 (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory or travel guide, adding the same link to 80+ articles is spamming and since all of India is GMT+5:30 it is sufficient to state this in the article(s) with an internal wikilink to Indian Standard Time, rather than linking to an outside source. Your domain has been blacklisted because it was aggressively spammed. Best Regards, --Versageek 16:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

You agree that time information is important for information along with information of a place. Having the user go to wiki for IST (Indian Standard Time) first, does not tell him the time of the place. How does it help ? All India is in in GMT+5.30 is something you know, not everyone. That is exactly what the purpose of the link is. Still do not understand the logic of removing local time information from wiki. Please do not remove this link. Kindly reply and confirm. Regards, MD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.214.26.3 (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe this link meets our External Links Guidelines, and as such - it shouldn't be in articles. In addition, placing the link in 80+ articles is a clear violation of our rules. Nevertheless, I have requested that members of our External Links Project consider the issue. Please continue the discussion here. --Versageek 23:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to remove external links i post then remove all external links, lets be fair

The links i post are not spam because they are on topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.175.104 (talk) 23:14, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The link you post is promoting a commercial product, not providing encyclopedic information. I have removed all of the commercial external links from that article, including yours. --Versageek 23:26, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

u missed one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.175.104 (talk) 00:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


Dental editing question

Please respond to a prior posting, which has now become somewhat passover, or old news. It concerns the fact that I'm very new to posting. Mostly I'm concerned about violating spamming rules on Wikipedia, so I've posted the article to my http://www.dentalvisits.com/blog and I'm very much hoping that you would review it and advise me as to the correct manner to proceed for future reference. Dr. Judy Johnson (www.dentalvisits.com) 05:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dentalvisits (talk • contribs)

I think your content could be integrated into existing pages on dentistry, but I'm not a dental expert, so I'm not sure which page(s) it would be best in. I suggest you leave a message on the WikiProject Dentistry talk page, asking where it would be best to integrate the content. When you do add the material, you'll want to pay close attention to the tone of your writing, it should be Expository writing, in the Third person. --Versageek 12:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thank You Note from Jehochman

Ready to swab the decks!   
Another motley scallawag has joined the crew.
Thanks for your comments at my RFA. Arrrgh!

- - Jehochman Talk 05:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New user

Versageek,

I'm a new user to Wikipedia and have been working on an article for free machining. I would appreciate if you could take a look at the article and provide some feedback or suggestions to make the article better.

Thanks, Blapcewi 04:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)


Warning:Javascript security issue

Hi! I need to inform you that I've protected Wikipedia:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Add_LI_link because it allows users to add code to the javascript of other users. If you are an admin, you are still able to edit it, but if you are not an admin, please copy and paste it into your userspace to continue modifying it. We can set up a message at the old javascript page telling users to change their links. If you need help, please contact me or User:Eagle_101. Thanks, --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs 00:44, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


If you are going to remove some external links then remove all external links, lets try to be fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.11.163.40 (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Not a Spam

Hello, I added http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance one external link emaxhealth.com/72/

Just wanted to let you know that this is not a promotion, and advertisement, but has nationwide health insurance news coverage state by state.

Thank you. Armen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.168.174 (talk) 03:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

FamousAmericans.net -- Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography

Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography, edited by James Grant Wilson, John Fiske and Stanley L. Klos Six volumes, New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1887-1889 is not spam. We went through this before in May and it passed the muster. Appleton's Cyclopedia of American Biography and its edits are a legitament reference for many of the bio's on Wikipedia (quite a few of them taken directly from the Virtualology Project itself as evidenced by the pages including Virtualology Edits to the original work). So would you please explain what the problem is now referencing this historic biographical work? ---Damselerset —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damslerset (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's a fine reference when used as such. I'm not arguing it's value as a reference, but rather that you seem to be adding it (mainly as an external link) to most if not every article that Wikipedia has in common with Appleton's. That is considered spamming. It would be better to enhance the quality/content of the Wikipedia articles using the content from the Virtualology project and reference that material with a link. In cases where the content is largely from Virtualology already, then using it as a reference for that content is fine. If you don't have time to make the article improvements yourself, then offer the link on the article talk page, or perhaps on the WikiProject Biography page as a source for additional information. --Versageek 23:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow, Versageek, you've done so much on this issue. Please feel free to join in this WP:AN discussion of Virtualology and Wikipedia.
--A. B. (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA

I considered not spamming talk pages but not saying "thanks" just isn't me. The support was remarkable and appreciated. I only hope that I am able to help a little on here. Please let me know if I can help you or equally if you find any of my actions questionable. Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1).

As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki.

I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me.

Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Rezon8 Living

I notice that you expressed interest[3] in this on November 6th. Therefore I guess that you might also want to weigh in with your opinion on the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rezon8_Living#Rezon8_Living. If not, sorry for bothering you. In any case, cheers. SaltyBoatr 01:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Medical Billing

Hi, I noticed that you removed my edit that I added to Medical Billing. After further review I came across the link guidlines,something I should have noticed at first (does not jump right out at you either haha :) ) I would like to have the site www.medbillingforum.com added somewhere to medical billing if possible. Now that I understand that a site rep should not add their own site it will not happen again. (Sorry) I will post the site on the discussion page and ask that you reconsider as it is a information site that requires no fee or membership. Membership is required to take part in discussions but NOT to read and benifit from them. It is a new site and tons of free and correct information is forthcoming that will benifit medical billing professionals.

Thanks for your time and reconsidering this.

Joe Burton Medbilling www.medbillngforum.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medbilling (talk • contribs) 17:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for adminship

Hi Versageek,

I have nominated you to be an administrator at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Versageek. Please go there to accept and answer the questions. And, of course, good luck. :-) Dmcdevit·t 03:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Really, really bad haikus from a new admin

Setting new lows in thank-you spam:

Click there for my RfA spam haikus! → → →

Janitor's new tools
Spam must stop -- will new mop act?
Ooops, .com blocked







New admin, new tools
Earnest newbie furrows brow
Fare thee well Main Page










New mess all about
Sorcerer's Apprentice mop
Not supporter's fault










A. B. so grateful
Wikipedia trembles
Watch out DRV






A. B. wonders why
Copyright always confused
Fair use, farewell, bye







Qatar is blocked
Shucks those range blocks are tricky!
Will get it straight soon.






Colbert's elephants
stampede Wikipedia
Must protect, protect








Wiki fortress not.
Open gates, knowledge wings free
But fiends are about













Dear RfA friend,
I will learn, chaos will fade
Thanks so much ... A. B.

This RfA thank you card is based on a card originally done by Phaedriel

Thanks for your strong support.

It's pretty exciting about your own RfA -- I'm very pleased and I know you'll do an outstanding job.

Enjoy your haikus! --A. B. (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh

What the? I didnt right anything to that cancer article and nothing appeared in history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.32.139.178 (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

That warning was from June, and you are on a DSL Pool IP, it's likely that someone else had the IP address at that time.. --Versageek 01:40, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Happy Holidays and >> >> >>
Have a great time editing!
Thank you for all your contributions to Wikipedia! Cheers!
Send a E-card to someone else
Credits: This card was inspired by Macy's123, assistant of V's Shop
Good luck with your RfA! Midorihana(talk)(contribs) 05:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You are now an administrator

Congratulations, I have just closed your RfA as successful and made you an administrator. Take a look at the administrators' how-to guide and the administrators' reading list if you haven't read those already. Also, the practice exercises at the new admin school may be useful. If you have any questions drop me a message at my talk page. Best wishes, WjBscribe 12:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations! --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks to all who participated in my RfA. I will make the rounds eventually with personal thank-you spam, probably not anywhere near as creative as some of the recent ones I've seen - but personal none-the-less :) --Versageek 17:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! And don't worry, you can be creative by not being creative! I think... >_> Master of Puppets Care to share? 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Congrats! Way over due. As tempting as it may be, try to resist blocking yourself. LOL;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations indeed. I can't think of anyone more deserving :) - Estel (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

List of animals in The Simpsons

aren't you suppose to protect it in the current version Ctjf83 talk 18:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

you are suppose to keep it in current version...in fact, you reverting it, and the protecting it seems pretty unethical to me. plus, i don't care how they anti-image people interpretating the policy, unless it officially states "no pics in lists" that i'm not listening to them Ctjf83 talk 18:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
policy and consensus override your complaint, since you will not read what I link to there is no point in attempting to explain it. versageek did the right thing. βcommand 19:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
of course it is the right thing, when it agrees with you, policy says he is suppose to protect it in the current version, not what version he wants. but i doubt i'll get a valid response from him Ctjf83 talk 19:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I protected it at the version that complies with current practices regarding the use of images in lists. Even featured lists have had all their fair use images removed. That said, I too am looking for a centralized page where this practice is defined and explained, at the moment one isn't readily locatable. Rather it seems likely that the relevant discussion is spread out among many article discussion pages. I think that being able to link to a centralized page would make situations like this much less confrontational. ..and Ctjf83, I'm really quite reasonable, so go easy on the personal jabs. --Versageek 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

all i see at WP:PP is current version, nothing about it saying so for images in lists Ctjf83 talk 19:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to start a topic regarding List of animals in The Simpsons, but since there seems to be one going at present, I'll say my piece here:
There are grammar errors in the article (apostrophes where there shouldn't be), and a ref-list in the middle of 'Minor Animals' which is duplicated in 'References'. ... Dlae│here 19:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Ctjf83, your point about protection is noted - I should have either reverted or protected, but not both. I will make note of that for the future. The article is protected for 24hrs. If you dispute the interpretation of policy or current practices that dictate no fair-use in lists, please do so on discussion pages. Edit warring won't get either changed - and just leads to frustration on both sides. Dlae, I'm not adverse to dropping to semi-protected before 24hrs is up.. if Ctjf83 will agree not to start adding images again. --Versageek 20:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Just tell me do i need to remove that stuff there or i can clean my talk page--Faraz Ahmad (talk) 06:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you would strike the line about court on the article talk page. You may archive your talk page if you wish. Sometimes it doesn't appear proper to remove warnings and/or block notices so soon after the events transpired, but I personally don't have a problem with it. --Versageek 06:55, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Faraz Ahmad

Just so you know, he's declared a cyber crusade against Wikipedia over at Talk:Muhammad, and will refuse to accept admin decisions if they're not muslim. Zazaban (talk) 08:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_handles

Hello

I added a link removelovehandles.com to the external links page of the above wikipedia webpage. I am not affiliated with that linked website, but it contains solid information.

I do not know why it was rejected, nor overly care, but I know it will benefit Wikipedia readers. The other two links, Daily Telegraph, and BBC News, are totally useless on the subject of Love Handles, and I do not understand why are they are there, after I removed them both. Take a look to see what I mean.

If you agree, I suggest re-adding the changes.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.178.175 (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/1&oldid=1157225951"