User talk:CliffC/Archive 2

Mafia wannabe

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye to see if any other editor responds. Why this crime family would appoint a seventeen-year old British kid to their ranks is indeed interesting! pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Long Term Care Insurance

This article has misinformation. There are "References" that directly promote an agent's website, which you are telling me is not allowed. I understand that this site is not for self-promotion, but you need to enforce the rules across the board, not just us newbies. I plan to re-write portions of the article correcting the errors, and giving references. The public needs to be correctly informed. --Auburnchika37

I don't think anyone will have a problem with additions of the type you made in your second edit here, assuming they are backed by a WP:RS. I reverted your two edits on the spot because as a new editor the first thing you did was post an external link to a commercial site. That's something that will set off most reviewers' spam alert. It's never a defense to say "there are other commercial links here, why not mine?" I assume you are referring to the link for agis.com, which I have just now removed, thank you for bringing it to my attention. If there are others, please point them out on the article's discussion page so somebody can take a look at them.

For the future, here are some guidelines on external links:

• WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 1 in this guideline)
• WP:EL External Links guidelines
• WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines

--CliffC 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am new to this site and I should have read more of your help articles before making changes. You did remove the link to the agent's site. I just posted an article "LTC Insurance Features", and I hope I referenced it correctly. Auburnchika37 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Your EAR

Hello,

Recently, you sought request for editor assistance (subject: "Someone at 65.160.57.101 requested my password") and your post has generated a handful of responses. Were these of any help to you? When you receive this message, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page regarding this matter.

If you prefer, you could update the request with the latest information you have on the issue. Cheers, --Aarktica 13:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert

I hope you don't mind, I reverted some vandalism to your user page. Bearian 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thank you. This is the first time the honey-roasted peanut boys have paid me a personal visit. The admins haven't been able to do much about them yet. --CliffC 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Spyware

Sorry about forgetting to sign my comments on Talk:Spyware. I can't offer a good excuse... it simply slipped my mind. Perhaps I need to be scanned by AdAware or rebooted. :-) I fixed the page. --DevinCook 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, no biggie. Instead of AdAware, you might register for one of those free Panda scans, Panda will send an email to remind you of who you are every day.  :) CliffC 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel Faulkner

My attempt to resize the images to equal proportions failed. I left them as they were with reasoning as per my talk. Both images warrant inclusion being that the deceased policeman's notability hinges upon the acts alleged of the person convicted of murdering him.NonlisteningFriend 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried resizing them too. The reason I asked you to think about removing the Mumia photo is because you're the one who added it -- nobody ever complained about not having a Mumia photo in the Faulkner article before. Actually, I don't think either party's article needs the other party's picture to make the article more complete -- the link to the other article is there to click on if they want a picture. The Faulkner photo in its current size is a WP:NPOV problem, it makes him look like an inconsequential pinhead by comparison to the majestic Mumia. How about removing the Mumia photo and I'll ask at the Faulkner talk page if anyone can upload a larger one? --CliffC 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Media Wiki Guru

Hi Cliff. We get such wonderful people on WP:EAR as you know. There was an artist who tried to reverse an Afd decision through Ea/R (!), so I created a new article for her on Art Wiki (the bit that pays for Jimbos flights). She was very pleased despite the fact that Art Wiki only has 5 real articles.

My goal (mad crazy lunatic) is to get to 1000 articles by New Year. Hopefully as I write new articles or find new unknown artists it might create an interest. 1=2=4=8=16=32 etc. (hopeless dream?)

All I want and there is no hurry is a welcome template (three simple links, help, about and 1000 article project), a don't be naughty template (nobody is going to get blocked or told off), copyright template for images saying that they must be cc2.5 (+/- attrib compatable), and a barnstar for every 10 stubs/articles an editor creates.

There is no hurry if you are interested. I probably won't start anything major until term starts anyway. One great thing that you can do though is that if you see any artists (fine art, film, dance, sculpture etc) going through Afd or articles for creation can you pass them along to me. (Falling on the floor laughing, oh and I'll give you a barnstar and make you no1 admin).

Cheers cliff see you later Mike33 - t@lk 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Mumia Abu Jamal

Hi Cliff Thanks for your intervention and note re " Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to Mumia Abu-Jamal. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. - especially by placing two ads in the same article." I understand , however let me put my case. The article has two footnote references to "HBO Special, A Case For Reasonable Doubt". The references are unhelpful to anyone wishing to follow up the information.Crucially they fail to give the full title of the documentary ("Mumia : A case for reasonable Doubt?") which makes it almost useless to search for. And all I wish to do is add information that I contend is purely objective and non-promotional . With a book you have the title, author and publisher. With a documentary it is standard practice to provide the title, filmmaker and production company or DVD producer. That information enables a user to find the documentary without too much difficulty.

The DVD information is made available with many docs on many entries in Wikipedia. In this case, the film was made by an independent production company, not HBO , who showed the film once in 1996. I rest my case for your consideration.Thanks. SeabreamSeabream 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those two citations ("The 1996 HBO Special, Mumia: A Case For Reasonable Doubt, directed by John Edginton of Otmoor Productions - director's cut on DVD through Winstar/Genius Products 1997") seemed overly detailed, and when I looked at your edit history here I saw other edits leaning toward the promotional such as this one. I agree with you that "HBO Special, A Case For Reasonable Doubt" is an insufficient citation. Wikipedia has approved formats for citing article sources including videos and DVDs here. Since these are a little hairy, I'll add them to the article for you, although the format will not allow them to contain all the information you might wish. In the future if you need multiple citations of the same work, it's best to give the first citation a name, then simply refer to the name on subsequent citations, no need to repeat the information. This has the added advantage of listing the cited work in the footnotes only once. Hope this helps, CliffC 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Magritte pop culture section

Thanks for the note! Feel free to put that message into any article that may benefit from it. It may be effective, maybe not -- the Silverchair fan club has been pretty relentless about publicizing the band in as many articles as possible; I think this is their 3rd time on the Magritte page. Ewulp 04:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

An apology

Hey Cliff, I just wanted to apologise for any disruption I might have caused with the blanking. I hope you can understand the reason for my actions however. If something like that comes up again just revert to a non-vio version or blank the copyvio parts. Again, no disruption intended. Cheers—Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, those instructions need to be expanded.

Do be aware that the Guillain-Barré syndrome edit you reverted[1] earlier today was made by the same idiot who poured copyright violations into the article for months. I don't see how he can show his face, especially in that article. --CliffC 03:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Define well known at Spyware

What makes those anti-spyware software more notable or 'known' than others that are not included? Many pieces of anti-spyware software is already included and lists just look bad in any article.--The Negotiator 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just now cleaned up and reordered that list, including only products where both the company and the product have Wikipedia articles. That left the list one product shorter, at five. Not everyone would agree that lists "look bad in any article" -- if that were so Wikipedia would not contain the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lists that it has. This particular list, "Other well-known anti-spyware products include", presents information pertinent to the article, Spyware. The term "well known" of course does not mean that the average man on the street would have heard of it, it means well-known to those involved in computer security. As to "more notable" than others, the article doesn't say that, it simply lists some well-known products. You should feel free to add to the list any well-known products that you think have gotten the short end of the stick. --CliffC 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Stop wasting your time all that crap will be reverted

Wow, you surely are the most rude editor I have yet to encounter. I hardly consider adding an outside link to an vetted article from a reputable source about Medicaid on the Medicaid page to be vandalism. While disagreement about what is or is not relevant is welcome, your response just goes to show that you don't have much respect for other people's contributions. Martha p 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, what I said was very rude, and I apologize. I should have simply left the warning template on your talk page without a header, especially that nasty one. Trust me when I say it's very much out of character for me to leave that sort of message for another editor. I was in a bad mood because of how things were going that day, and I childishly took it out on you. --CliffC 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 01:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Glad to do it, I'll just comment here if that's okay. I took a look at the picture as it sits right now in Richmond Medical Center, and also viewed it full size. In my opinion any picture used to illustrate an article here should (a) tell a story, and (b) be visually pleasing. No disrespect to anyone involved, but I don't think the picture does either of these things. I have not read the article but I think the point of the picture, which seems to be that the center is expanding through construction, could be better made by simply adding a sentence or two to the article. --CliffC 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Primalist's

Thanks for the sojourn. I did get in touch with the creator of the article. It's still a bit too cool for school for 14 article art wiki (not in mainspace yet Primalists). (OT Strictly speaking as there is no word only "new" as Primalist, it wouldn't have to follow the conventions of English grammer, so they can do what they like with the apostrophe.) I do think that it should have been spd on its first day though. Mike33 - t@lk 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The program is not spyware

source code is here sf.net/projects/wssecure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.132.229 (talk) 11:46, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was spyware, I said it was spam. Please read the warning on your user page, read the material it links to, and be careful not to get blocked or get your site product blacklisted. --CliffC 12:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. - this has nothing to do with the spamming aspects of just plunking a mention of a product into the middle of an article, but note that wssecure was regarded here as non-notable when its article was deleted last year. Discusson at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wssecure

Ellis Island, rejected changes, no citation

Sorry I don't have a URL. I was watching the History channel when they showed a picture of the chalk chart used by the inspectors. It had the word "Favus", which I've never seen -- so I decided to look it up. Well it turns out to be one of the specific diseases they were looking for, which generally appears on the Scalp, but not always. If you google Favus and Ellis Island you'll find many references. Also all the 2 letter codes for a single word used a lower case letter as the second letter. The History channel program had photos of people with multiple codes on their lapel. It seems important to distinguish between "Pg" and "PG". Also "EC" seems to be simply the codes "E" and "C, probably a common combination, but not a unique code itself. CliffC, I'll let you decide whether to change the page to match the photos from that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lattyak (talk • contribs) 19:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Lattyak, I undid my reversion, so your edits are back in. Sorry to make things so difficult, but if you look at the History tab at the top of the Ells Island page you'll see it seems to draw a lot of test edits, and I saw this was your first edit. Thanks for the explanation. I put a "Welcome" template on your user page. Happy editing! CliffC 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's cool. I'm newbie -- can you suggest the best way to add some info for the editor that's not to be included in the article. Lattyak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lattyak (talk • contribs) 06:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

When you say "for the editor" I can think of two things, one is to include the information as comments, between HTML tags <!-- and -->, these will only appear in the editing window and of course to those that have the article on their watch list. Or maybe you're referring to putting something on the talk page via the 'discussion' tab, not many casual viewers will look here either, and it's a good place to discuss an edit that might be contentious beforehand. P.S. it's a good idea to sign your postings with four tildes ~~~~ like I wlll here. CliffC 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

1request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? [2]Cholga^talK! 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		Acknowledging editorial contributions assisting Mumia Abu-Jamal toward WP:GA status. TruthHider 11:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Lead Capture Page

I would like to how you consider this page spam. I am a new user and would like some feed back please. User 11 05:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. The smoking gun here was the inclusion in Lead capture page of a link to to your own web site, which leads off "With Your Own Personalized Lead Capture Page, Generate The Absolute Highest Quality Of Prospect For YOUR Business!", and goes on to say "Allow Me and My Knowledgeable Team of Web Developers to Assist You in Creating Your Own Customized Lead Capture System."

Reviewing your first ten edits here, I see a sequence that seems to do little more than establish a place to house a link to your own site.

• Your first four edits create the Lead capture page article, including an in-line external link to your own web site. (Changing an in-line link to an external one doesn't make any difference.)

• Over here you change an existing link in Landing page to point to your article Lead capture page.

• The changes to the Pay per click article here seem designed solely to lead "savvy internet marketers" over to Lead capture page.

• Over here you redirect existing article "Lead Capture Page System" (earlier version here) to simply point to your new article. Admittedly, "Lead Capture Page System" was brief, but it seemed to cover the same points.

I have placed a {{welcomespam}} template on your talk page. Please follow its links to policy and guidelines on advertising in articles. Thank you. --CliffC 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: copyvio you caught

Do you think a request for checkuser would be in order? I'm a bit confused with the user's behavior, since he seems to more or less complying with policy now (after a few very strong warnings, that is). I was originally thinking of AGF-ing, since he seems to be recreating the article without copyvio, per policy. But your link does sort of suggest otherwise. Any ideas, or should we just wait and see what develops, then act accordingly? Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I must confess I don't know, exactly, what a checkuser does, but if it's something that will keep the Guillain-Barré syndrome copy-violator off Wikipedia forever, assuming this is the same person, I'm all for it. He poured copyvios into that article (and others) for two months before anyone noticed, and of course once it was all reverted the honest edits other people had made were lost as well. --CliffC 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Basically it's a place where we can request that an admin break out a tool that'll look at the ip of a user, and see if they're a sockpuppet, or have been banned before. However, after reading about it for a bit, I think we'd need more proof of vandalism before they'd approve such a request. As much as I dislike it, I think the best bet is to keep an eye on his contrib's, and if he starts being a vandal, to flag him as such. (There's probably a more proactive solution, but I'm still kinda new here, so I don't know what it would be). best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: the above refers to an IP user who introduced a stream of undetected copyright violations to Guillain-Barré syndrome and other medical articles over three months from May 18, 2007 to August 18, 2007, creating such a tangled mess that three months of edits by every contributor to the article had to be purged. For the record, that user was 208.101.102.186, WHOIS shows this user to be in the Ontario area. A similar copyright violation was posted to the article yesterday by 208.101.116.108, also in the Ontario area. Let's all keep our eyes peeled for this person to avoid losing our edits again. --CliffC (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

13-digit ISBNs

{{helpme}} 13-digit ISBNs are not working for me. For example, none of the 13-digit ISBNs under the three cover images from ...for Dummies work for me. Each results in an Amazon.com 404 ("We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site ") error. If I substitute the equivalent 10-digit ISBN, the Amazon.com page comes up fine. Example below. Is this some personal setup problem, a Wikipedia one, or Amazon's? Any guesses would be appreciated. My monobook.js is HERE; I've tried a more vanilla version with no better results. FWIW, pasting the 13-digit ISBN straight into Amazon's search box works fine. --CliffC 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

13-digit ISBN not working, ISBN 9780470043998

10-digit ISBN works fine, ISBN 0470043997

Hi, I've clicked on the ISBN there to go to Wikipedia's ISBN page, gone down to the "Find this book on Amazon.com" link, and clicked there, and it found the book, both for the ISBN13 as well as the ISBN10. So I'm not having the problem. Are you still experiencing an issue? — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

hang on, I just realised you mean using the code to avoid going to Special:Booksources. Let me check. — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can reproduce the problem, but not sure why. I suggest you report it to the author of the code. His comments suggest the best place would be User_talk:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js  — Timotab ^{Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!)} 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that. Glad it's not just me! --CliffC 11:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey CliffC, I responded to you over here. Lunchboxhero 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I changed that one line in my monobook.js to read

var magicURL = "http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=MAGICNUMBER";

and now it works fine for both types of ISBN. I tried appending the "/wikipedia08-20" string that's supposed to give Wikipedia some sort of Amazon referral credit – for ISBN13s Amazon doesn't understand the string (gives an error), but it still works for ISBN10s. Well, I'm off to order the entire "For Dummies" catalog. --CliffC 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes, the quote function is excellent, you can pack in extra information. I always add the lede paragraph from news articles. It helps find the article later, if a weblink dies. People keep linking to yahoo news for Associated Press reports and they go dead after a few weeks. Its hard to find the correct article if all you had was "John Smith dead at 85", but if you have the full lede, you can always find it again at CNN, or USA today. turn on your email, I can email you any NYT pay articles you may need. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"But wouldn't that be wrong?" (just kidding) Thanks, but I subscribe to that puppy already. I've been burning up my most recent 100 freebies digging up cites for George Metesky. If the guy who just today asked for citations at Green-Wood doesn't clean them up within a week I'll do it myself, and embellish the NY Times one with a quote. --CliffC 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

TerminArtors external link removal from Thomas Hart Benton (painter)

Dear CliffC,

We have acknowledged your warning. We have carefully read the external link guidelines and do not think that we violated it in any way. Would you, please, explain why our external link qualified for deletion? Some points to consider:

- terminartors.com is a rather large and very carefully designed project

- presently its database counts some 22,000 paintings, 500+ artists and 1000+ museums, increasing every day. I suppose you agree that it is not a small gallery

- all items are indexed in a very structured pattern so the whole database is searchable in very advanced ways

- the external links we put in Wikipedia all go to exact hits, no further search is needed (e.g. if you click our link under Leonardo, the link will point to Leonardo's page at TerminArtors)

- Many other galleries, mostly much smaller and less advanced, count a very large number of external links to their website. This is of course not an argument but indeed confuses us with regard of your guideline policy.

Please, reconsider your standpoint and lift the warning.

Sincerely Yours

Lynu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynu Eng (talk • contribs)

Lynu, the quality and content of your site isn't the question. Please understand that there are so many online galleries that it's not possible to have a link for every gallery on every artist's page, for then who would decide which ones to allow. That's one reason we have the guidelines in WP:EL.

Under Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL we see "Links mainly intended to promote a website."

Under Conflicts of Interest in WP:EL we also see "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."

I sympathize with you because I know how hard it is to get a website "out there" at the beginning. As far as adding your link to any article, Wikipedia rules are clear on this, "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". However, take a look at item 6 in Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. Wikipedia needs content, not links. I hope you'll stay and be a content contributor. --CliffC 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is understood, I will be more careful in the future. However, I have some further points to be considered:

- I do not see why a larger number of relevant links would harm the article or the Wiki ideology. For example in a quality bookshop, there are many books about e.g. Caravaggio and these books, of course, have 80-90% similar content. Some books you will like more because of any reason and you will have the choice to take one or more according to your preference. Similarly, having many galleries does not make much harm here they merely increase the sortiment you can choose from.

- You are of course right in claiming that we want to use Wiki as one of the tools making our project fly. But this self-motivated intention of ours should, I think, be measured against the added value, if any, our linked site provides to the visitors. At this point I disagree with you and really think that the quality and content of our site, and of any site, does matter. We strongly believe that our site provides unique content (not the paintings of course but the searchability and the community functions avalable) and also strongly believe that this content will be appreciated by certain segment of the visitors. Again, these two factors should be considered together.

- I still maintain, and it is easy to check, that there are many galleries which put in extarnal link to e.g. painters like we did. How does your policy concern their external links?

Best Regards, Lynu Eng 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your only contributions to that date (39) consisted of adding that link. Wikipedia defines spam also in terms of the rate of link addition: I notice that the spamminess of a link is proportional to the number of times it was added and the number of warnings ignored. MER-C 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying us. We realized that we were in a rush and we slowed down. However,

- Technically, and this is for a certain extent also a material difference, we added DIFFERENT links which pointed to sub-pages to our site. The links were chosen to be exact hits to the Wiki page we insterted them in as an external link.

- Your reasoning, while making sense, does not address the points we raised above in our latest entry before. Those points, we think, are to be considered.

- We did not ingore any warning intentionally, we just did not notice that someone had sent anything to us. This was our mistake and we make sure we will check out for messages in the future...You see, we are learning our lessons...:)

Best Regards, Lynu Eng 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lynu, I agree you didn't ignore any warnings, I think all your links had been added before I noticed the one in Thomas Hart Benton, reverted it and posted the first warning on your user page. Normally I revert spam links manually, but when I saw how many articles had been hit, I posted your site name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. User MER-C, who possesses automated cleanup tools, saw the posting and cleaned up the rest.

I hear what you are saying about other galleries having promotional links in Wikipedia. These are an ongoing problem. Editors here are volunteers and can't always keep up. If you report any you see, they will be looked at, and deleted if they fail WP:EL. Your argument is mentioned indirectly at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I'm sorry is not a convincing one. --CliffC 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for removal of links to YouTube illegal downloads

Hi Cliff A few weeks back we communicated about a reference to a documentary "Mumia:A Case for reasonable doubt" in the entry about Mumia Abu Jamal. You considered that one reference citation was sufficient and I agreed. Now I see that two new references have been put up that actually link the reader directly to two seperate YouTube downloads of sections of the film. See refs 39 and 41. These Youtube playouts are entirely illegal as they totally breach copyright. Lawyers have been in contact with YouTube requesting they are taken down. I am writing to you to seek your agreement that these links should be removed immediately.Thanks.User:SeabreamSeabream 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 11 October 2007

Thanks, I have copied your message to the Mumia Abu Jamal talk page and I'll be removing the YouTube links to your copyrighted work in a few minutes. --CliffC 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Mumia Abu-Jamal

Dangerously close to FA standard, wouldn't you agree? There already, IMO. IchiNiSan 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, kudos to us all. --CliffC 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

assata

responded.Savidan 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Rasputin's Penis

I was just making the text of the article agree with the reference. I would hardly think this requires a description in the change log, but I appreciate you making me both waste my time writing this and realize once again what a pointless endeavor Wikipedia is. 70.173.50.153 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

After you are around Wikipedia a little longer you'll realize that it's infested with people who like to make joke edits, and the first indication of a joke edit is the lack of an edit summary. It's a courtesy that keeps other editors from having to spend time deciding whether an edit is constructive or not. I personally have not committed to memory the length of Rasputin's penis, so I checked the length as given in the article a few versions back and so assumed your edit was vandalism. Some editors won't spend even the small amount of time I spent, they will just revert such unexplained edits automatically. I see you have now corrected the article again, but without an edit summary your changes will always look questionable and waste other people's time. Looking at your other contributions so far, which seem to be limited to removing article tags, you are headed for a vandalism block.

I see from your note to me that you know how to write a sentence, so why not stick around and contribute? I'm adding a {{welcome}} template below, not to break your chops but because I see no one has done so yet; these links are good reading to understand how Wikipedia works. Best, --CliffC 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Related links

I just wanted to know why you would not want to include a link to a site with consumer content on reverse mortgages [3]. The link is included here only to have you take a look at the content and realize that the website has a similar goal to that of wikipedia. The Investor Education Fund was established in 2000 by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), Ontario's investment industry regulator and is funded through OSC enforcement settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investored (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On almost any topic, there are web sites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article. However, we try to encourage more content to be added to Wikipedia while keeping external links to a minimum. To do this, volunteers regularly review articles and prune external links.

One method we use to determine whether a link should stay or go is how it was added to the article. In this case, your link was added "bare" (no additional content was added to the article), across many articles. This approach always raises a red flag; if I had not noticed and removed those links, someone else likely would have.

Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external web site is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. See WP:COPY for your copyright considerations. I'm hoping that you or someone in your organization will contribute more to Wikipedia.

I hope this explains what happened and doesn't leave you with any bad feelings. I can see that your site is not a commercial one. To help avoid problems like this in the future, here are some guidelines on external links:

• WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer information regarding link spamming (in particular, see point number 2 in this guideline)
• WP:EL External Links guidelines
• WP:CITE Wikipedia citation guidelines

--CliffC 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Escitalopram

I really don't think it was a good idea to respond to that woman on the talk page. There have been instances on other medication pages where advice like this has been given and it has turned ugly... I hope that doesn't happen here. All the best, l'aqúatique ^talktome 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I simply repeated some generally-known information and pointed her to a footnote in the article. --CliffC (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. I wasn't criticizing you! You're allowed to respond any way you want, I merely worry that you might inadvertantly open the flood gates, in a manner of speaking. l'aqúatique ^talktome 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Journal Author

Cliffc - I see that you are busy on wikipedia. I am a physician who deals with bppv and am one of the authors of the recently published paper dealing with the treatment of BPPV. I am also a member of the company that now manufactures it. I object to the tone and implications in your recent post.

The device in question was developed with the support and supervision of our local university. This was 2-3 years ago. Since that time it has proved to work very well for a number of patients who have now apparently been posting it on Wikipedia, and had it removed by you, it seems. There are a number of other publications in press from research conducted over the past few years but this was the first to make it to print. As the local demand for the device grew it became necessary to find a way to make them in larger quantities - hence the formation of a company which has only now begun production.

There is always the question of conflict of interest when medical products move from research to market. However, the research referenced and the other pending publications have all been completed prior to the marketing of the device. While I cannot comment for those who have been debating/adding/moving the reference - in my opinion the device does provide a real medical benefit to those suffering from BPPV. As much as Epley should be referenced on the page I ask two things from you 1) Be careful what you imply as you may not have the whole story and 2) that you find some way or suggest some way that this device can be referenced on the page as the patients who have tried it seem to want to see on wikipedia. I have no interest in debating this but rather I reference "edslee" and "mdwyer" who suggest the external links tab.

Thank you for your dedicated policing of wikipedia. As I have in the past I will endeavor to continue submitting relevant and useful commentary on BPPV and other ENT topics. Mabromwich (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to have the device mentioned in BPPV and other encyclopedia articles discussing vertigo, but "to find some way or suggest some way that this device can be referenced on the page as the patients who have tried it seem to want to see on wikipedia" is to put the cart before the horse. Once a person or place or product becomes notable, someone may wish to mention it in the encyclopedia, not the other way round. Once the product is mentioned by a Wikipedia:reliable source, someone can paraphrase or quote that source directly, perhaps something similar to "One method of treating BPPV at home that has shown some success is the DizzyFIX", followed by a <ref>...</ref> source citation.

I have spent considerable time reading about the DizzyFIX at the company web site and viewing the how-to video. The product is very interesting, in the most positive sense of that word, and seems promising. Having said the above regarding in-text mentions, if someone were to again add the external link I would not object.

Rambling here... you have likely thought of this already, but beyond sending out brochures to doctors, I wonder if getting a placement in AARP or some other geriatric magazine, or in the WebMD magazine I see in so many doctors' offices, would help get things kickstarted. (Would it need to say "prescription required in USA"? That might actually be a plus in today's ask-your-doctor advertising culture.) The product's unusual appearance would, I think, be an advertising plus. All the best, CliffC (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. We expect that the device will continue to help our long suffering population of dizzy patients. I wonder if you would also kindly revise or amend your recent post on the discussion page of the BPPV article to reflect our resolution of events. Kind regards, Mabromwich (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

What would you say to my simply copying to the talk page your original note above along with my reply? If that doesn't work for you, I'll try to think of something else. --CliffC (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed.Mabromwich (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Jane Alpert

I really appreciate all the informationt hat you were able to add to the Jane Alpert entry. What you had to add clearly helped fill her page with valid and cited information. I believe that Jane Alpert should deserve her own page and therefore on the entry section I think it would be best if it was left for her, and not include Sam Melville. Let me know what you think! Thanks! jjs8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs8 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the cited material you had adds to the article and should be restored, however I do believe it fits better somewhere else in the article and not the lead. As it stands right now, I feel the lead should be only about Jane Alpert and her contributions to Weathermen, SDS, and anything else she has accomplished throughout her life. Her involvements with Sam Melville seems more appropriate in the body of the article. I do believe that Jane Alpert warrants an article by herself, she has done/acheived notable things without the assistance of Melville or anyone else that the lead of the article should acknowledge that. It is my suggestion that the article be reverted to a previous change by Jjs8 and have the lead be only about Jane Alpert.76.104.201.83 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page edits using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), indent comments using ":" and add new sections at the bottom.

I'm sorry, but as to taking Melville out of the lead I must disagree. As I said over at Talk:Jane Alpert, Alpert's bombings and life on the run are what she is mainly notable for; I see few press reports of her good works in prison or after her release. Had she never met Melville this would be a very different article, if there were an article at all. But there was a Melville, and he was her co-conspirator, that's the reality. I won't repeat myself by explaining why a lead section is built the way it is, but please review WP:LEAD. It might help to study some Wikipedia articles outside the domain of Weathermen/SDS/other militant groups, many of which seem to rely heavily on autobiographies and personal recollections, to get an idea how good articles are constructed. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Work Permit CopyVio question

Hi, this is 67.168.65.207 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering if it's ok to remove the copyvio tag on Work Permit or if an admin has to do that?

Thanks a ton!

Hi, I saw your question over on the article's talk page but figured I'd wait for the complainant, if that's the right term, to answer you. Copyright complaints don't seem to have a high priority, but when and if this one gets to the top of the pile I think when an admin reviews the pertinent histories it will be thrown out, especially considering that the complainant was the original contributor of the material. I have no objection to removing the notice (they sure are ugly), maybe with 'remove stale tag' or such. Best, CliffC (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is there a way to raise the priority of a copyright complaint? Thanks, 67.168.65.207 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know - you might try asking at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. The wheels seem to grind very slowly on these. --CliffC 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Star-Banner

I have to question your tagging of this article. While I am not the original author (she has a definite CoI), I have worked on wikifying and expanding the article, and a daily newspaper with a circulation of almost 43,000 people (which is cited in both the text and the infobox; it's close to 50,000 on Sundays) is clearly notable. It is the local daily newspaper for a metropolitan area of 316,183 people (2006 Census Bureau estimate). As to published sources, it's a newspaper. Newspapers generally do not write about other newspapers unless there is a big scandal of some sort. Papers try to be the source of the news, not the subject. Horologium (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the tag. Thanks for pointing out the above facts and for your work heading up the article. (If the Boca Raton News rates an article here, the Star-Banner certainly does.) --CliffC 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Biofeedback

Talk:Biofeedback#Modification_in_head_psychology -Biofeedback —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I have posted a response on that page, sorry to take so long. Cheers, CliffC 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. It's a been right pain! Do you think we should nominate the article for FA if the image issues (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Image:Gov Ed Rendell.jpg) are resolved? I can't decide whether it would kill off one of his outlets or spur him into even more disruption. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cliff

1.) I DID address the copywright issue and wrote an article on Nelson Lauver in my own words. 2.) Externial Links - I have placed several external Links to Radio News Stories on various subject, and you have complained of said links. I am an entusiast in Radio Storytelling, The only way to apreciate these stories is to hear them. The stories are very, very well done. This is not spam or promotion... this is an art form. I am not affiliated with The American Storyteller. There is nothing wrong with these links, please let them alone. I emailed Mr. Lauver and asked him about the sale of CD's on his site. He wrote back that it is simply a customer service thing (he sells about 5 per month) to satify people who still want a CD eventhough the stories are free on line. He said it's much more of a pain than a money maker. Again please let my Links standm as the stories are in relation to the article, very well done and NOT promotion or spam. Would you delete an NPR link? Mr Lauver runs on many public station and he doesn't even charge them! User:Trgwilson (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007

On the copyright issue, I was just trying to help you keep the article from being deleted – you had added nothing to your talk page to indicate that you had taken any of the suggested steps to correct the problem. Rewriting the article in your own words of course solves it. On your question about deleting NPR links, yes I certainly would delete them on an individual basis if the editor adding them followed any of the patterns advised against in WP:EL, in particular WP:EL#How not to be a spammer. Your additions of Lauver's name to two lists of "famous residents" will be removed, as Google suggests he fails WP:NOTE. Your article on producer Jane George will most likely be removed as failing WP:NOTE as well. Please don't feel singled out, the way Wikipedia works is that a person, place or thing needs to be notable to rate an article or a mention here as notable. I'm copying this note to your user page and adding a "welcome" template below it so you can familiarize yourself with how the encyclopedia works. --CliffC (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cliff Napoleon, God of Wikipedia. Do what ever you want but you are wrong. Some of us (including me)who are blind or sight impared appreciate the oral storytelling and you are standing infront of and blocking our inclusion to Wikipedia. You are placing a roadblock in front of us.... SHAME ON YOU! Your parents must be very proud of you. TrgWilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgwilson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The blind or sight-impaired won't be sitting around in silence simply because Lauver's and his producer's names are not sprinkled around in Wikipedia. Google shows me 2,700 hits for just one search variation for the spoken word, "recorded radio programs"; there are dozens if not hundreds more possibilities. Rules and guidelines are necessary in any community – I hope you will review the links placed on your talk page and contribute material within the same framework as everyone else. I suggest you also review WP:Conflict of interest to see whether you have a conflict, you probably should not edit articles where one exists. One other acronym you should be aware of, WP:CIV, civility. Finally, please don't bring anyone's family into discussions here. --CliffC (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Civility?! You are a bully! Nobody but Nobody can paint a picture for the blind like Nelson Lauver. You are so arogant to sugest to us to search elsewhere...I rep a group of blind internet users in my area AND WE WANT TO USE WIKIPEDIA, again, shame on you.

There is no conflict of interest here! We reviewed other links and they are filled with ads. The American Storyteller does not have ONE AD on Thier story download page (the page we link to)...AGAIN This is not promotion or Spam... no one is making a cent from these links. The Links are relevent. AND it adds an element that the blind, LD, Visualy impared can participate in... I'll give you something to review - Review the ADA. I wonder how everyone who is giving money to WiKi thru the ONLINE PROMOTION would feel if they knew there was a bully like you out there excluding people with disabilities. Get down off your high horse and get a bit of humanity. I don't think Lauver give a rats *** if the links are here or not... but we do because we want to participate in Wikipedia! Go ahead be a bully and open this can of worms... It won't hurt you but it will hurt us and that will hurt wikipedia... shame shame shame on you! It's time to call the press! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgwilson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC) --Trgwilson (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm just letting you know that Trgwilson has taken the above to the helpdesk in an attempt to get you to stop helping them with their copyvio and external link issues. I've attempted to set them straight, but if the civility issues continue, may I suggest WP:ANI? NF24^{(happy holidays!)} 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. As I received your message I had just finished dinner and discovered all this, and had just begun a post for WP:EAR because I've found the folks over there helpful in the past. It seems unlikely that this editor is willing to listen to anything further from me. I've never needed WP:ANI and I'd rather not get involved in any back-and-forth with this person, but if I need to after giving WP:EAR a shot I will. Thanks you. --CliffC (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thanks for helping wikipedians not get banned and telling them how they can stay out of trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipop-3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"Apparent advertisement"

I have no particular interest in promoting visits to the 5 Frank Lloyd Wright homes I detailed in my edit. I think it's noteworthy that people admire him to the point where a market has developed to stay at homes he designed, a fact that came to my attention in an article on page 42 of the current print version of National Geographic Traveler. I would suggest that any unintended commercial/advertising effect would be eliminated if you simply eliminate the websites, rather than rv the entire text, as you did. I would suggest you reconsider. Thanks.Pr4ever (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - the web addressees set off my spam alarm and I didn't notice you were a regular user. My knee jerked, and there it went. I'll re-add your edit without the addresses. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ...and Happy Holidays!Pr4ever (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Biofeedback, commercial link

My link is not a commercial link http://openemg.free.fr Paul 31 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My French isn't very good but other than the Amazon referral tags, a minor thing, I would agree. I probably overreacted when someone inserted their commercial link ahead of the Mayo Clinic link.

I'm not sure how many English speakers will spend sufficient time on your site to find hidden gems like the build-your-own EKG plans; maybe a translation would help one day. Happy 2008. --CliffC (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Find A Grave link at Nicole duFresne article

Where did you get the idea that a link to Find A Grave does nothing if the burial location is unknown? A lot of burial locations on Find A Grave are unknown, but that does not necessarily invalidate the link. People might want to read Nicole's bio at Find A Grave, peruse the offerings, and then leave their own note for her. To say that the her link to Find A Grave does nothing is ridiculous and absurd. One of the main problems with Wikipedia is the fact that it is too easy for people to make destructive edits. Anthony22 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia's Find A Grave article,

"Find A Grave is an online database of over 20 million burial records. ... he could not find an existing site that catered to his hobby of visiting the graves of famous people so he decided to create Find A Grave."

What is "ridiculous and absurd", to use your phrase, is to add a link that doesn't deliver what it promises: the location of a burial site. Beyond this lack, if there is indeed material at Find A Grave not already included in the Wikipedia Nicole duFresne article (I don't see any), I encourage you to improve Wikipedia by finding citations for the material and adding it to the Wikipedia article, rather than sending readers off to a commercial site with pop-up, banner and other ads. I'm assuming good faith but poor judgment in the adding of such links. As I run across others that add little value to the host article, I'll remove them as well. --CliffC (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

regarding your opinion of Laurence Caruana

Recently you have shown unusual and dogged concern regarding the article I wrote on Laurence Caruana. First you criticized the lack of references. Fine - I fixed that. Now you have invoked the "notability" clause. Is Laurence Caruana a notable artist? How do we judge this? What criteria have you used to call this into question? After the large contribution he has made to visionary art (recognized by such notable artists as Ernst Fuchs, Alex Grey and Robert Venosa - or are these also not notable in your opinion?), I find your remarks show a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. Do you know anything about Visionary art? Do you know of the artists mentioned on the Visionary Art entry, such as Andrew Gonzalez and Amanda Sage, among others? If you don't, are you now going to go on a witch hunt and question the notability of their pages as well? Given the large amount of people above who have called your judgement into question, I'm relieved to discover that I am not alone in disagreeing with you. Perhaps your actions were well-intended. But, if you have no expertise in a subject, I suggest you leave it alone.

Florence Menard (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. First off, what you call my "unusual and dogged concern" is limited to two edits, (1) adding a {{notability}} tag to the article; (2) a few minutes later, modifying that too-general tag to be more specific, i.e. {{notability|biography}}. I can see that you are new to Wikipedia so I'll simply suggest that you click on the 'history' tab at the top of the page and carefully inspect the history of who has made changes to an article before you leave anyone the above sort of message. Secondly, I do not have an "opinion of Laurence Caruana", as your title above puts it; I only have an opinion of the Wikipedia article about Laurence Caruana; and that opinion is that the author has (so far) failed to ensure that, in the words of WP:Verifiability, "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Self-published documents are not reliable sources. Caruana may well be the most notable artist visionary or otherwise since Michaelangelo, but to establish that notability you have to quote reliable sources that say so.

Assuming you are the same Florence Menard mentioned in the article in the text "In 1996, he met Florence Ménard (b. May 24, 1972 in Le Mans, France) and the couple moved to Paris", you have a conflict of interest. When you review the material at that last link, you will see that you probably should not directly create or edit Wikipedia articles related to Laurence Caruana or to artists with a relationship to him.

Earlier today I left a 'welcome' template on your user page with links to some helpful information about editing Wikipedia. Right now, I've spent more time on this than I intended, so I'll just restore the tags you removed, add a {{COI}} tag, and copy this section to the talk page so that other interested editors can be informed. Please don't remove the tags. Any further discussion should take place on the article talk page. It's likely that another editor will see the discussion and help get the article back on track. --CliffC (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I can now see that there has been a huge misunderstanding. First of all, when I made the above posting, I did not realize that you were an editor for Wikipedia. (I wish that you had stated that clearly at the beginning of your user page). I assumed you were an anonymous contributor to wikipedia, putting an annoying banner across an article that cost me three days' work. So, I was angry and wrote it in an angry tone. That was a mistake and I apologize.

I also made a mistake assuming that it was you who asked that references be added. I now see that it was another editor. Again - my mistake; my apologies.

Now I find that the the whole issue has gotten entirely out of hand. In response to my (mistaken) angry tone, you have acted in ways that have harmed me deeply. It was wrong for you move the above posting to the discussion section of the article on Laurence Caruana - without even consulting me first. I admit here that I made mistakes. I do not appreciate having those mistakes transferred to a larger forum. Quite simply, it's embarrassing. I also found your subsequent actions a further embarrassment to both Laurence Caruana and myself.

By profession, I am a press attaché. I promote exhibitions in museums here in Paris to all forms of the media - newspapers, magazines, tv, radio, and also the internet. I decided to use my skills to write an article about someone whose work I strongly believe in. Again, I have discovered that this was a mistake on my part. As you clearly pointed out on the discussion page, I am the Florence Menard who is married to Laurence Caruana. So, there is a conflict of interest because I am not a disinterested third party. In other words, I can use my skills to write articles about people I do NOT know, but not about people who I DO know. (What logic!) If I had hidden my identity behind a pseudonym (like thousands of others, including yourself), rather than being honest and putting my name to my work - you would never have made your point in the first place! Your actions of transferring the posting you made here to the discussion page of Laurence Caruana only served to make me feel further embarrassed.

I have removed the article because, according to you

• 1. The subject lacks sufficient notoreity
• 2. The author is not an unbiased third party
• 3. The citations do not come from published sources.

But, to be honest, I have removed both the article and the discussion because I want to save Laurence Caruana and myself from any further public shame. I strongly regret I ever acted on such good intentions, without reading all the rules and regulations first. Seeing the banners over the articles and the misunderstandings on the discussion page have only led to a lot of frustration, lost sleep and lost time. I want to erase everything I did and try to forget it.

Personally, I believe the internet is an open forum where we can find all kinds of information. Its up to the reader, not some higher authority, to use his or her own judgement concerning its veracity. (By the way, everything I wrote about Laurence Caruana is true and even verifiable - though not according to your standards). The benefit of an open forum is that we have access to all kinds of information that we wouldn't normally find in print. I disagree with your opinion that people mentioned in wikipedia must be 'notorious', and that citations must come from 'published' sources. You're only enforcing certain institutions' claims to be an authority. We already have Who's Who, Dictionaries of Proper Names etc. to tell us - authoritatively - who has made an impact on culture. Soon we'll have Knowl as well - written only by 'experts'. What makes wikipedia unique is that it is an open forum, where we can find lesser known, contemporary people making an impact on culture now. At least, that is what I believed when I wrote this article. Your actions have taught me to think differently. It seems that only the notorious, with their sources in print, are to be found in wikipedia (at least according to you). I disagree. But I have removed the article nevertheless.

Signed with my true name.

Florence Menard

82.231.42.43 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your first assumption, that I am "an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia", was correct, as is your later realization that I am "an editor for Wikipedia". All contributors here are editors, and have no particular standing except by reputation and past contributions. Some editors are also administrators who have the power to enforce the rules, block users from editing the encyclopedia, delete articles, and more. If you ever need the intervention or expert opinion of an administrator, editor assistance requests is a good place to start. I am not an administrator; I am just a contributor here who is interested in making a good online encyclopedia, and I sometimes rub up against other contributors who have their own agenda or are promoting a product or person. You commented earlier on the number of people who have posted to this page calling my judgment into question; in my opinion if no one was arguing at least occasionally against some of my edits I would be doing a poor job of helping to keep the encyclopedia a place for unbiased information, and not a collection of business listings or myspace-like personal profiles.

It is standard practice to conduct discussion of an article's content out in the open air, on its talk page where any interested party can comment. You and your husband have no reason to be embarrassed; you jumped right in and started editing without being familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, something that happens every day. I was going to suggest at this point a way to make the article and its talk page disappear until someone writes a new Laurence Caruana article within the guidelines (where you have written 'notorious' above I have assumed you mean 'notable'). It appears that your blanking (as the original author) of the page has caused the article to disappear automatically, so nothing need be done. You write well, and I have absolutely no doubt that your husband has accomplished all that you have written. I wish you both the best. --CliffC (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

---

I will not be returning to this page, so don't bother writing a response. In fact, I don't think I ever want to look at a wikipedia article again. Your last piece of writing left me with a very sick feeling in my gut. It is sad that on the internet and at wikipedia we can run across people like you. I'm sure, by the way you write, that you think you are doing good - running around like a self-appointed policeman, quoting rules while slicing left and right with a razor blade, cutting down other people's contributions. Did it feel good - to destroy three days' work? Do you think wikipedia is now a better place because of your actions? Maybe one day you will realize that through the web we have the opportunity to spread positive energy and good thoughts. I had the misfortune of coming across someone who harmed me deeply. And I don't even know who this person is...

Florence Menard (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion has been as upsetting and distasteful to me as to Ms. Menard, who came to Wikipedia with an agenda and a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Although spreading "positive energy and good thoughts" are wonderful personal goals, they won't make for a very good encyclopedia. Wikipedia policies will not change merely because they might seem illogical to a new editor.

Based on what I have read about Mr. Caruana, I would welcome a fresh article about him, and not involve myself with it in any way. I have tried to be WP:CIVIL through all this, in the face of derogatory comments. Anything I could add here would just repeat something already said above, and perhaps also be deemed as hurtful, so I'll say no more. --CliffC (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Assata Shakur

Re This edit: can I see the source you found for the claim that neither side was allowed to question jurors and that the judge did? The source previously cited substantiates the claim that you removed. Savidan 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have to dig a bit though, it's been a while since I found that out (probably from digging through NY Times PDFs). The Wikipedia article's statement "Shakur's defense attorneys were not allowed to question prospective jurors" is what inspired me to ask for a copy of Kirsta's article, because it seemed so implausible. That is indeed what Kirsta says in her article, a statement that is technically true, but only a half-truth. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Here we go, all from the NY Times.

• 10/16/73 Murder Suspects Criticize Judge on Screening Jury Kunstler et al. request "broader" questions suggested by the defendants
• 10/21/73 VENUE PLEA DUE IN JERSEY TRIAL "Judge Bachman asks all of the questions rather than the lawyers..."
• 2/16/77 Chesimard Murder Trial Opens in New Brunswick mentions that 408 jurors were questioned

IMO, Kirsta does some other fact spinning that could stand a closer look. --CliffC (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Reading those, it doesnt appear that Kirsta is correct, but (as you mention) not the whole story. It does seem like the dispute over the questioning of the jurors deserves some mention in the article. I'll consult your sources, look for others, and see if something more balanced can be added. Thanks. Savidan 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the NY Times in the second cite above describes the questioning as "wide-ranging" and says that both sides agree it has been "searching", so I don't know that the initial dispute even deserves a mention without having to burn up a lot of wiki-ink to explain how it went away. The four or five example questions asked by the judge, given further down the column, seem the right things to be asking white potential jurors. I view Ray Brown's proposed additional questions as just something he threw against the wall as possible grounds for a future appeal, knowing they would be rejected. --CliffC (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

EAR

Along those lines, do you want rollback? :) Justin^Contribs_{User page} 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would normally get rid of such writings on my own, but my homeowner's policy has a specific exclusion for lawsuits brought by the Astors. So, yes, please do. :-> Cheers, CliffC (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

+Rollbacker. However, I realized you wanted someone else to do it. Well, the option's open to you. But first, those look like good faith edits, even though they have a COI. What's wrong with them? Justin^Contribs_{User page} 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I think we have confused each other. I did not click on your "those" link above; I assumed you were talking about my EAR edit to subject "my mother, charlotte fisk", not the nearby subject "Matthew Crane" that your "those" link points to. My EAR edit pointed to these edits which seem poorly formed, unencyclopedic, possibly a violation of BLP and probably an ad for a forthcoming book. If it turns out that we are indeed talking about the same edits, what next? --CliffC (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the edits in question were cleaned out, but not by me. I'd rather not get involved where a user is threatening legal action, I'll let the admins handle the touchy stuff.

J-stan, thanks for the privilege, I'll try not to go nuts with it. --CliffC (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

J-stan, you might want to fix your link at the top of this section. It links to the most recent diff, not the diff you probably intended.

CliffC, I replied to your assistance request. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

phishing

I added an important global tool to the set of technical solutions for phishing, which you have taken out. There is nothing there that constitutes advertising! Every browser now day s has a built in password manger that all consumers can benefit from. My analysis is completely academic with references. ZEUHUD (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ZEUHUD

Sorry, but most editors here are good at recognizing edits like this, where the main goal seems to be to provide bedding for a product mention or link. Please take a couple of days to review WP:EL and the other Wikipedia links I put on your user page. If you happen to know User:E8MXNX, who seems to be editing article password manager with a similar goal of publicizing SignupShield, please pass the word that Wikipedia is not a free billboard. You might have a conflict of interest as far as SignupShield goes, are you associated in any way with the company? Meanwhile, I have reverted your latest edits to Phishing, please take it up on that article's talk page and get consensus before adding the link again. --CliffC (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Just a thought...

Whoops! Made a mistake there. I undid that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Landing Page Optimization

Cliff, did you read either page? The link is highly relevant to Landing page optimization. Nowheres on your user page do you even claim to have any experience with Internet Marketing. What are you basing the below statement on?

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Landing page optimization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)"

Its not used for advertising or promotion. I'm not affiliated with the site. The site promotes nothing but Internet Marketing best practices

The Wikipedia page is about landing page optimization and the external link is about how to go about it. I read the article found it useful and I believe others will to.

Granted the first time I put the link up it was on Landing Page which may have not been the best place for it, however it does belong on landing page optimization.

Question about Revision to "Intuit" page

Cliff, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell you made an edit to the "Intuit" page to remove a section on an Intuit product called "Billing Manager" (Revision date: 16:08 20 February 2008). Could you explain why it was removed? I'd like to have a description for this Intuit product on this page, so if you could provide me with any feedback about a better way that I can describe the product I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I had just removed a spam link from the article and noticed the "Billing Manager" addition (this one) through the narrow "recent changes" window on the history page. Its wording and the mention of IMS made it sound like an outside company, my mistake for not reading closely. I see that someone has already rewritten and re-added the entry. My apologies. --CliffC (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cliff, it's not a problem. Like I said, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I just wanted to make sure I was doing things correctly. Thanks for your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about Baby Boomer Page

The Boomer Capssule www.boomercapsule.com is an important legacy site for the Baby Boom generation. It is far more important than other external links you have at Baby Boomer. Why is my contribution edited out? Bagori (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading closely the messages left on your user page and following the links provided, especially those to WP:EL and "promotional links"; and also WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #9, as the site seems to require Flash.

Please add content to Wikipedia, not links. --CliffC (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Boomer Show Link

I take great exception to your categorization of The Boomer Show link as SPAM.

The Boomer Show is a television show specifically geared towards Baby Boomer family, health, fitness, finances, relationships, retirement, lifestyle, work, changing careers, travel, music, movies and celebrity guests including Ed McMahon, Rita Coolidge, Mike Love of the Beach Boys, Jocko from Sha-Na-Na and other celebrities of interest to Baby Boomers.

It’s a TV show seen by millions of people who use cable or satellite services

The Boomer Show is the #1 Google search result for “Boomer Show” legitimatizing its stance as a site of interest to Baby Boomers.

The Boomer Show webpage/s has NO BANNER ADS The Boomer Show webpage/s have NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SPAM SITES The Video on the webpage can be viewed for free and HAS NO ADVERTISEMENTS All the content on the webpage BELONGS TO THE SITE OWNER The link was ADDED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LINKS QUEUE

If the above standards were set to all the other links in the article we would be the only one left! I’m sure you have made many legitimate corrections in the past but with that comes a percentage of false positives.

I will thank you in advance for rectifying your oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScholarlyInSoCal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Message copied to Talk:Baby boomer and replied to there. --CliffC (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

D'oh!

After all the work I did to determine that Rene And Georgette Magritte With Their Dog After The War shouldn't have an accent mark and that all the words should be capitalized I went and spelled it wrong! Thanks for noticing. --House of Scandal (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks!

Jccort (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External links

I would like to discuss why you removed my external links. The website I am adding is an educational resource for teachers and students and is very helpful and relevant to the pages I'm adding it to.ArtandSocialIssues (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm or a free promotional medium, even for non-profit organizations. I suggest you spend a couple of days reviewing the material at the links placed today on User talk:ArtandSocialIssues and User talk:CMAOhio, then come back and propose adding your link one-at-a-time on each article's talk page. Wikipedia needs content , not links. Please help improve Wikipedia by adding content, even though that may be harder to do. --18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently saw an addition by CMAOhio and a revert by OrangeMike on the Paul Cadmus page, which is on my watchlist. I liked the link, restored it and told OrangeMike I'd look over CMAOhio's additions and will consider adding them back, but in each case, I'll look at the link and see if it seemed appropriate to the article. That should remove spam & COI issues and improve the encyclopedia. I'm not criticizing anyone here, and thanks for your work. Noroton (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but the link is part of the official Columbus Museum of Art site, and at least one of the articles it was added to was the Museum's article. For what it's worth. Postdlf (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion of this museum spam continues at User talk:ArtandSocialIssues and User talk:CMAOhio.) --CliffC (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Image:FistFinger800.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FistFinger800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)