User talk:CliffC/Archive 3

Network monitoring

It has been suggested that Deep packet capture be merged into Network monitoring. I need you to discuss this here: Talk:Network_monitoring. Kgrr (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help - I have no interest in Network monitoring per se, the article happens to be on my watchlist because it draws a lot of spam. --CliffC (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Removing External Links from subject: Enhanced External Counterpulsation

I understand your external link policy and why my link was removed. But I don't understand why you allow 2 dead links to remain and a link from our competator. I guess it's OK for some businesses to adverstise on Wikipedia but not others. If you're going to apply this rule I think it should be applied evenly and fairly.

Topic: eecp

Dead links:

EECP & Heart Health, Piyavate Hospital EECP, Non-Invasive Method for Curing Coronary Vessels written by Ershad Sharifahmadian, (The comprehensive explanation about Enhanced external counterpulsation in Persian)

Comeptator link:

EECP

Regards, acsholter

Acsholter (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. Most editors, myself included, only look at links when they are added. If no one notices that a new link violates the guidelines, it will stick around until someone does notice, as you have. This can take a while for articles like this one, perhaps not widely read or followed. For discussion, I have temporarily copied and numbered the external links from the current version of Enhanced external counterpulsation below.

1 *EECP & Heart Health, Piyavate Hospital

2 *Enhanced external counterpulsation at SurgeryEncyclopedia.com

3 *EECP, Non-Invasive Method for Curing Coronary Vessels written by Ershad Sharifahmadian, (The comprehensive explanation about Enhanced external counterpulsation in Persian)

4 *EECP

5 *[1], (An explanation of EECP for non-medical types, plus observation data for one coronary disease sufferer)

1 - isn't dead as I type this. I have noticed that sites on the other side of the globe (this one is in Thailand) sometimes seem to be off the air or unreachable for whatever reason during the wee small hours over there. This site seems to add value to the article

2 - seems to add value to the article

3 - is indeed dead, I have removed it

4 - is indeed a promotional link, I have removed it

5 - is a blog link, blogs fail WP:EL unless "by a recognized authority" demonstrably a Wikipedia reliable source. Google shows few hits for blog author "HP Masher", I have removed it.

Again, thanks for pointing these out, and I hope you will enjoy editing here. --CliffC (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Tangoterms external website

You deleted the www.tangoterms.com external link in the several articles where it showed up and you chastised the anon IP editor for spamming the link. What complaint do you have with the link itself? I found it to be totally absent of commercialism or advertising. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If the anon IP editor takes time to follow the links placed on his talk page, he'll see that his edits violate WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website".

I have no objection to the site itself, in fact it looks pretty good. If the IP will take a look at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer ("Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to"), he'll see ideas on how to add his link without setting off everyone's spam alert. One way is to contribute actual content to the articles and not just a bare link. I'll copy this section to his talk page. Regards, CliffC (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Obs

LOL. Thanks. I promise to try to avoid all future prentense. I see you've got some good observations of your own on your user page. Some of them are damn funny; there's plenty more to be written about around here! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Apology - Red Robin Page

After reading both your and my comments on the Talk:Red Robin page, I feel the need to apologize. I didn't mean to offend you by my questions. Sometimes when I troubleshoot problems, my questions can sound insulting or demeaning, and that was not my intent. I also didn't mean to offend you by asking if you notified Red Robin of the issue. I didn't mean that I thought you were that type of person. I misinterpreted what you had saying about "hoping they watch wikipedia", and I apologize for that. I don't doubt that you and your friend have been able to reproduce the problem. I'm baffled as to what is happening to cause the problem. I think your assessment that there's some sort of cookie issue is probably correct. Like you, I will continue to watch for the problem. Anyways, my tone was short with you and I want to apologize for that. -- Jwinters | Talk 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, and no apology really necessary. I could have been more complete in my problem description, at least to make it clear that I had contacted Red Robin without getting a response. I was probably weary from trying the sequence various ways to reproduce the failure, then writing down all the required steps. In my own troubleshooting experience I got flamed once or twice for asking the basic "have you got it plugged in" type questions straight out, so I began asking indirectly with "well, assuming it's plugged in, ha ha..." then moving on from there. Regards, CliffC (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:EAR

copied from your request on WP:EAR re: Pentyrch

Seeing that no one has replied, there probably are not many people who watch this page who are familiar with the topic. I have asked someone who knows the topic (or at least where to look for correct info) to have a look. You may also want to file a request for comment. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any actual interest in the subject, I came across it when following a vandal from another article. It seemed unlikely that "the villagers of Irish descent were rounded up and marched into the sea" in 1962, so I removed that claim, but I think some other imaginative writing may still exist. Your approach of asking someone in-the-know to take a look sounds like the right one. Feel free to close the request. --CliffC (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

About adding "Definition" section...

Hi, CliffC! Thanks a lot for your remark! I should take a look at WP:LEAD more often and for more specific issues (not only definitions, of course). Of course, I'll look for all my "Definition" sections added, so as to delete them. If you have any other comments, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards from Mexico City. Gustavo--correogsk (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gustavo. Best regards to you also. CliffC (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Contrived see also

Hello Cliff, at first your removal annoyed me, but then i realised i might have been a bit too zealous in de-orphaning. Still, as therapy for stress fractures aquajogging could've been added... Anyway, it's a matter of definition. Shoombooly (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, sometimes it's a pain to try to find a connection for an article marked as an orphan. Maybe in Sports medicine or Physical exercise, or one of the articles they link to? Best, CliffC (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. Most Recent Thomas Kinkade Edit

Hi Cliff,

I was planning to add refs this week to the portion of the article you deleted. I've just gotten sidetracked and haven't had a chance to take care of it. Do you mind if I undo your edits once I have the refs in place?

Mmt2008 (talk) 04:38, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll copy your note to Talk:Thomas Kinkade and reply over there tomorrow. --CliffC (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

GAR: Movieland

I've proposed a good article reassessment for Movieland, to which you may want to contribute. It's my first GAR proposal, so apologies if I'm doing this out of order. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I have been remiss on this. I've had an update on my to-do list since the case settled out of court way back in August. Perhaps I've been bummed out because (IMO) the settlement didn't really force them to change the way they do business, only to limit the number and frequency of popup demands for payment. I'll try to get an update done over the next week, thanks for the reminder. I'll copy this reply to the GAR page. --CliffC (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

assata

Can you leave a note on the talk page from now on if you think that an article completely does not match the content it is cited with? The one that you recently removed, most definitely was on point. I have my doubts about the accuracy of the nyt archives, especially for minor things like the "Notes on People". Also, please mind the access dates if you are going to add any new links. Other than that, I thought most of your edits were justified. Savidan 05:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll do that. On the Krebs article, an error I made in my online search sent me to the wrong article. Upon not seeing Chesimard's name and noting that your cite didn't support anything that wasn't already supported I removed it, assuming, with no disrespect intended, that you had simply made a mistake. --CliffC (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links Removed

Hi, wonder why I cannot add Furosemide.com to the external links. Sorry, I don't want to spam. I thought that was useful info. This site has complete information and news articles about the product. (Rmrr (talk) 11:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

Replying on user's talk page, where he has asked a more complex question about his links. --CliffC (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

spam.

Please note that my intentions of using the nordstrom link was not intended as you said a "vehicle for advertising". A lot of users are strict when it comes to sourcing information, therefore I was simply giving a source to where I found the information on exact future opening dates. Thank you for your concern, but I hope you will understand my intentions were good.Cashjrmy (talk) 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I hear you, but when editors here see the same link added to eight articles over 25 minutes, it's going to set off their spam alarm. Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to, please take a look at how not to be a spammer. --CliffC (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OH, I'm very sorry for making wikipedia look bad. I didn't know they only worried about people that truly try to help make the site more factual. I'll be sure to put less input in, due to lack of control of serious spam issues elsewhere on this site.Cashjrmy (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There are millions of articles in the English Wikipedia and many of them attract spam. The editors here, all volunteers, are certain to miss some of it. If you see serious spam issues anywhere in Wikipedia you can help by reporting them, or you can clean it up yourself – I have added a template of helpful editing links to your user talk page. Since most of your edits so far seem to add the Nordstrom link or some other commercial link, I recommend again you take a look at the helpful advice in how not to be a spammer if you have not done so already. I like Nordstom, they are a classy outfit and I shop there, and I doubt they would endorse the widespread addition of their links to Wikipedia, whether factual or not. --CliffC (talk) 16:50, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for your assistance. However, I have edited / created more articles that do not relate to Nordstrom, but I'll spare you the bragging. Thanks againCashjrmy (talk) 02:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Search engine optimization

Hi, this is a featured article. I am concerned that you are making lots of bold changes without any sort of discussion. Would you mind discussing things a bit before moving sections around? There's a report pending at WP:COIN about another editor who has been damaging this article. If things get moved around, it will be harder to sort out that report, and also, there's a chance any edits you make might get reverted in the course of sorting out the other problem. Please see WP:COIN#Search engine optimization for further details. Jehochman ^Talk 03:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Sorry, didn't realize this was going on the front page soon and what all else was afoot with WP:COIN. The new paragraph about the patent office looked out of place in the lead and I tried to find a home for it, and took along the preceding paragraph which also seemed not to belong in the lead. I hadn't planned any other changes. Feel free to revert or repair my edit. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That paragraph about the patent office urgently needs to be deleted because it is unsourced, and because the IP editor who added it has been spinning the article to support themselves in a lawsuit. I am on the other side of the suit, so I am not going to revert them, not even once. Could you do me a favor? Please check this version of the article and see if it reads better, and if you think so, consider reverting to that version and editing from there. Feel free to do whatever you think is best for the article. I can see that you are an experience contributor and I trust your judgement. (This ran on the front page a year ago. Featured articles are eligible to run on the front page, but sometimes it takes a while for them to get there.) Jehochman ^Talk 04:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Marked as Advertisement

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

Hi, I must admit I put up a lot of text onto the page quickly and utilised product data sheets for some content. However I thought I had taken out all the usual marketing blurb, surprising how much is in there! I played around with the page a little before placing it on Wikipedia and tried to emulate other pages similar to the one I wanted to post. However you have marked it as an advertisement, just as you had correctly marked a couple of my links on other pages (sorry new boy mistake) Until this week I had only been a Wikipedia reader. I have edited the page somewhat this evening removing what may have been deemed as advert like text, rephrasing and also removed an external link to the company page. I think it looks Ok now (I still have to sort the copy write out on the images before the deadline next week)- if not please could you provide a little advice on my talk page. Thank you in advance Mike A Quinn (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I wish I had more time so I could help you a bit more, I'm sorry if the following suggestions, not a complete list, might seem a little terse. I took another look at DriveSentry after your new changes.

• IMO the article is much too long and although improved still seems worded in parts more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article. Look over the articles for your competitors with an eye for writing style, and also for what categories they list themselves in.
• A clear statement in the first sentence/s about what line of business your product is in will help, I don't see that and that's what will be sought by readers; the developer name and company location can go further down.
• It might be a good idea to keep a low profile by not adding any internal links to the article until you work on it some more, that's what draws editors like flies and could get your article tagged for other issues before it's done, one thing you should think of is the issue of how you will demonstrate WP:Notability, that's something that's picked on right away.
• There's nothing wrong with having an external link to the company site, in fact I think it would be expected in an article about the company.
• If you spend some time learning to use the <ref>...</ref> citation/footnote constructs it will save you a lot of work whenever you want to add something new or move a paragraph around.
• Editors at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests are pretty helpful with new contributors; maybe put it on your watch list and watch what goes on there for a while, then ask.

Hope this helps, and just my opinion. Regards, CliffC (talk) 03:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers CliffC, I have drastically reduced article ( I think the numerous screen shots also attributed to the data sheet look and feel), I think I have given a clear statement, I have removed several links and improved my references <ref>, The company link is just at the bottom and next to Website as suggested and I will check the assistance page going forward. Thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike A Quinn (talk • contribs) 17:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Mike, it looks pretty good now except for the "Reception" section still looking a bit salesy, again IMO. I made a few changes to honor/honour the manual of style and took off the 'advert' tag. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input,assistance,changes and advice - I will look at the sales aspect of the reception section tomorrow. It has been a busy weekend for me.... 90.192.179.138 (talk) 21:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC) ooops Mike A Quinn (talk) 21:44, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

DriveSentry redux

Hi CliffC, Looks like I have a bit further editing to do, I have been working on a revised version of the page for sometime as DriveSentry have a new encryption feature that I think should get a mention on their page, as I place this new information up on the page I will reduce the overall product section as it does look a little wordy! Is there a time limit that this editing needs to be done by so as to remove the ad banner only I am without a computer for a while from tomorrow! Mike A Quinn (talk) 20:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone recently placed a 'speedy delete' template on DriveSentry. I removed it because I think the article is salvageable. The article still carries an {{advertisement}} template encouraging a rewrite to a neutral point of view. I don't think there's a time limit, but IMO it would behoove you to take drastic steps very quickly , before someone decides to nominate the article for deletion and draw more editorial attention to it. Again IMO, the 'DriveSentry products' section should be about 20% of its present size. It wouldn't hurt to take a look at articles here for similar software companies.

There's still a lot of glossy-brochure talk - picking a couple of examples near the bottom of the article, "It is clear that DriveSentry is becoming a major player in the vast antivirus market and their technologies may become “the future of antivirus software”.[13]" is pure fluff, as is "DriveSentry also has a high user rating on freeware and shareware sites, averaging at 4.5 stars out of 5.[16]". The second statement has the disadvantage (to DriveSentry) of linking to an article with reviews that are less than complimentary. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

DriveSentry revision

Hi There,

My friend and i have made some revisions to the DriveSentry page. can you let me know if these are enought to keep it from being deleted.

thanks,

BlooBar (talk) 10:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That pretty much depends on what other editors here think about the totality of the changes over the last few days – IMO they are halfway measures that still leave the article in danger of WP:AfD, nomination for deletion, then the article would go up for comments of support/opposition by anyone interested. I'm going to take a hands-off approach to the article from now on, as I don't see that I can provide any more or different advice than I already have. If it's nominated for AfD, not a certainty of course, I probably won't participate in the deletion discussion. Regards, CliffC (talk) 12:28, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

CliffC, I understand, thank you for all your guidance in the past, removing input that we have previously created is harder to do than we thought! Anyway I think between us we have finally reduced the products section to less than 20% of what it was previously. I'm now going back to my holiday... Mike A Quinn (talk) 15:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike A Quinn (talk • contribs)

Cloud Computing

rv collection of unhelpful edits, sorry if anything good was lost - spam, damaged paragraph, removal of apparently valid links, tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken

• How were my edits unhelpful? They were accurate and well referenced, unlike the rest of the article which is a regurgitation of some random paper which differs substantially from what the industry and its analysts have to say.
• Why are you apologising on my behalf, or making edits that would result in anything good [being] lost?
• What was spam?
• What paragraph was damaged (I had added a new paragraph)
• What 'apparently valid' link was removed (except for Redundant Array of Inexpensive Servers, a term referenced once by a paper over a decade old which is likely to be deleted soon and which has very little to do with the topic?
• How do you determine no work undertaken when the tag had just been added and should not be removed unless there have been no edits for several days per Template:Underconstruction?

samj (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually I was just thinking that these edits may indeed seem out of context with the rest of the article. There has been much discussion on this topic recently, and I have spent the last few days working on a consensus definition which you can read about here: The Cloud and Cloud Computing consensus definition?. Maybe you can read through this, and the references at the bottom as well as the Forrester and Gartner reports if you are really interested in this topic.

samj (talk) 06:36, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Samj. Before I made the reverts with the edit summary you mention above, I reverted two edits by your account (the diff here shows the before and after of my revert). I should have left an edit summary, but my reasoning was that your edits added an apparent promotional link to ebizq.net. Promotional links violate WP:EL. In addition the link is to a blog, also against WP:EL, unless the author is notable.

Next, the collection of edits I reverted with the edit summary you mention (diff here), edits made by you and several other editors, seemed intertwined and not worth reverting separately.

"...spam, damaged paragraph, removal of apparently valid links, tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken"

• spam - the misplaced link to gridbus.org has the appearance of spam bacause it was inserted in the wrong place. May not be spam, but the paper linked may not be a WP:RS either. I didn't bother to read it because of the link placement.
• damaged paragraph - IMO at that moment replacing the lead sentences

Cloud computing is a style of computing where IT-related capabilities are provided “as a service” using Internet technologies to multiple external customers. Resources being accessed which are typically owned and operated by a third-party provider on a consolidated basis in datacenter locations

with

Cloud computing refers to computing resources being accessed which are typically owned and operated by a third-party provider on a consolidated basis in Data Center locations.

- appeared to damage the paragraph, that assessment was perhaps incorrect and simply a matter of editing style/taste. Perhaps I had become impatient with the number of edits over the past weeks that seem to come from someone with something to sell. But I did use the phrase "sorry if anything good was lost", and I do apologize for this one.

• removal of apparently valid links - links to cloud articles in businessweek.com and infoworld.com
• tag indicating work underway but no work undertaken - tag {{underconstruction}} added to article with the summary "article's a mess - needs an overhaul" by an editor with zero edits in the past except for three AfD votes for his favorite singer and musical group. Without a contribution to the article this looks more like vandalism than a constructive edit. I have no objection to the tag (which may be argued against by the article's regular editors), only to its source.

I have too much going on in the non-wiki world to read and comment on the consensus document at your web site, but I encourage you to mention it on the talk page so that you have a chance at a true consensus. --CliffC (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Question - do you think it would be helpful to all concerned if this entire section were copied to Talk:Cloud computing? --CliffC (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Good work on the Joe Arpio article!

Just thought I'd say good work on the Joe Arpio article. That is full of a lot of POV! Thanks! :) Strawberry Island (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! That's just the tip of the wiki-berg. These articles, of which there are many, really angry up the blood; that's why I don't do more. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Administrator?

Have you ever considered becoming an administrator? If you are interested, I can offer a bit of coaching. Jehochman ^Talk 00:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about it in the past. Probably not, but I'll think again about what would be involved. I travel far and wide here, and it might limit my play time. Thanks for the vote of confidence. CliffC (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Townhouse

I will support the reversion back to the author's names and the quote parameters if you want to revert. The problem with no quote, is you have to read a lengthy article all the way through to see if it actually supports the text, in a book, its ok, someone checks it once and its good to print. In Wikipedia, anyone can change a word, insert a word, or delete a word to change the meaning completely, and once again someone has to go to the original source document and see if it still is supported. No one wants to read a 5 page article again in the New York Times magazine again, and in some cases pay for it again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that quotes belong in some form. You have probably seen the talk page comments I made when the uncivil Mr Hurmata first appeared. I was unable then to get my policy questions answered (for an organization with lots of rules, there are very few people who wish to take a stand on how they work in a given situation), and I had too many other things going on in real life to spend more time pursuing it. As to the removal of author names, IMO that was just a mean-spirited impulse he acted on one day without thinking it through, and now he's forced to defend it as best he can because he's a person unable to admit to an error. I don't want to get involved with the article right now because I'm leaving on a week's vacation tomorrow and will be unplugged and unable to defend myself. Best regards, CliffC (talk) 13:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

EWTN

Thank you for your edits on EWTN, both now and in the past. I can't help but notice, however, that your user page contains multiple warnings of your apathy towards vandalism. I suspect that despite your best efforts not to care, in fact, you do. =D Have an excellent day! Korossyl (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

(unfortunately, it appears that Capone didn't found the BBB, despite what the page said...)

Oh, my pleasure. Thinking more about it, perhaps my apathy only extends to the most obvious and least harmful acts of vandalism. Some of the Capone/BBB discussion can be seen up above. Today I might just smile and let it slide. Regards, CliffC (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well now, beat me to the punch. I has just re-written and cited the quote, typed a pithy edit summary ("Ask and ye shall receive"), hit "save page", and found that my services were no longer needed. Ah well, you fleshed out the quote more than I had known to, and used a more neutral source than Raymond Arroyo's biography. So: thanks! Korossyl (talk) 03:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I hate when that happens too, sorry. Some of mankind's greatest thoughts have surely been lost to Wikipedia edit conflicts. --CliffC (talk) 03:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

It will be interesting to see your proof that Canty is right. I am thinking of evidence of the secret intentions of the four youths other than Canty's sole word. You have not replied to my remarks about the difficulty of robbing video machines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.246.75 (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have responded to your comments on the talk page when I reverted. I think there's a misunderstanding here; I'm not saying that Canty is "right", or truthful, he's a garden-variety thug like the rest and I have little doubt that the screwdrivers were for use or display as weapons. You changed "...on a stated mission" to "...on an alleged mission". Generally defendants "state", prosecutors "allege", that's why I changed it. The article at GOETZ SHOOTING VICTIM SAYS YOUTHS WEREN'T THREATENING says "The three screwdrivers found in the clothing of Mr. Cabey and Mr. Ramseur were to be used to break into the machines and not as weapons, Mr. Canty said." He said, that's his testimony and where the "stated" comes in.

Arcade coin box break-ins were not rare in 1984 and make a good excuse for carrying screwdrivers. I don't think video surveillance of the arcade would likely have existed in 1984, and even now people do crazy stuff in places where there are sure to be cameras running. --CliffC (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

New "Other eras' infobox needs repair

What version are you using? I view it in firefox and it looks fine. J. D. Redding 01:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

3.0.1 - just installed it maybe three days ago when it was offered at startup. Guess that will teach me to be an early adopter. :( ... I have not noticed any other problems, though; and in fact had forgotten I had a new version. Not a biggie if I'm the only one seeing it. Best, CliffC (talk) 01:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Message from "a Kaspersky guy"

Don't dare to call me like that anymore. If you don't know a shit about things when other people know more than you and try to remove blatant advertising from articles then just STFU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emperordarius (talk • contribs)

Message

AGREED —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.151.206 (talk • contribs)

Mel Gussow

What a mess. I asked for help at WP:ANI, here. Don't waste a revert on these latest IP edits - wait and see if the page is protected and then clean it up. I'd do it myself but I think I've pretty much used up my 3RRs - JohnInDC (talk) 04:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a mess indeed. Things did settle down last month. We'd still need Egussow to behave, though. --CliffC (talk) 04:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

They're unmoved at WP:ANI. I'm not sure why the reluctance to protect the page from IP edits when this is so plainly the re-emergence of a problem that required it before - but there it is. I will revert the latest edit and see what happens. JohnInDC (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saw the response at ANI and I'll keep an eye out, perhaps Alansohn will as well. --CliffC (talk) 11:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God

I'm a bit concerned about the edit summary in this diff. The diff itself is fine; somehow in the editing the actual source for that sentence had been removed from the article and a different one left on. Probably somebody's innocent mistake - maybe even mine. Searching back through the history, I found this to have been the actual source. And even given that source, the content you removed was not appropriate. You did a good job with the edit - but mucked it up a bit with the edit summary. Please keep an eye on this aspect of your editing also. GRBerry 17:43, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that is a constructive criticism and one I accept. I try to be as careful in rethinking and revising my edit summaries as with the edits themselves, but this time I let my anger show through. I thought the text I removed was an outrageously over-the-top smear by association (wow, Palin belongs to a really crazy church!}, and half expected it to go on to describe the weekly snake handling. Additionally, the text had been out there for over 24 hours. I don't usually follow Wikipedia political articles because I find their IMO all-too-predictable tilt to be maddening; I'm not even sure how I came to the WAG article as the only related item on my watchlist is the Palin dab page that I edited to apply a bit of WP:MOSDAB to an early version. --CliffC (talk) 21:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand that feeling. I've lost track of how I got sucked into the Palin mess; I'd chosen to stay out - but then it started spreading into the church/pastor articles, and I got sucked in. Then I found out the primary editors trying to keep things under control didn't think there was enough admin activity. And here I am, watching a significant fraction of them. GRBerry 21:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I'm trying to get that relisted. I ironically, came across this article when I saw Movieland mentioned in a article we had to "copyedit" in my Business class at school (editing a Word document to have the formatting of a document we were given, with "instructions" on it), and I wondered if it was fictitous or not, so I fired up Wikipedia, and then found that article :)

ViperSnake151 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Palin08

I had already warned Palin08 for the same edit to the same article using uw-vandalism1. When dealing with vandalism in the future, please:

1. Check the user's previous contributions.
2. Confirm whether the user has already been warned for the contribution in question.
3. I can't confirm if this is general practice, however I was under the impression that warnings should start with warning level 1 and increment. Jumping in at level 3 for a first offense is potentially a WP:BITE breach.

I haven't removed your comments from User talk:Palin08; whether you'd like to do so is up to you. —  X  S  G  05:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't trying to trump your warning, but I didn't believe a uw-vandalism1 was the right template, or a high enough warning level, for this apparently pre-planned (based on username) defamation, (not vandalism), of a public figure by a first-time "contributor". I consider content and other factors before I choose a warning, and for particularly egregious offenses, I think a single strong warning is more likely to bring about quick reform than a weak one.

WP:BITE says "he or she most likely wants to help out"; that seems doubtful here. It also rightfully worries about scaring away "potentially valuable contributors". I see little potential value today in Palin08. But there's always hope for a reform and return with a clean slate under another username. --CliffC (talk) 16:08, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Good luck :)

Hey, saw your edit to Kambalda. I understand it's being edited by a class of kids, I tried to fix it before and most of my changes got undone. Part of the article isn't even about that town but a different one. Orderinchaos 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

After watching a bit I guessed it might be a class project. Just trying to bring, uh, a little order to chaos myself, :-> and maybe play the kindly uncle. I liked where they listed the newer buildings, not sure which town, and added "many of which are still standing today." I want to meet the kid that wrote that. Your whole area is new to me, I'm in the US and got interested when I saw a stylized photo of Lake Lefroy in Harpers Magazine a few months back (link here, tiny and not very useful if you're not a subscriber) and went to Google Earth to try to figure out what the heck I was looking at. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Opt-out page

Cliff the video you removed from the Opt-out page is not a promotional link, it is obviously a public service announcement for the greater good of the public at large. I am wondering if you or other editors of this page have a special interest in this page due to the removal of this video (maybe working for the DMA) and how fast you made the edit??? I make this comment not to offend but being a privacy advocate I definitely noticed that the information included on the opt-out page is remarkably scant and is muddled by references to UK resources. Kindly reconsider the video and tell me what part of the video you consider a promotional link. I will be editing this page further to include all relevant steps to opt-out.

Thank you much. Open Information (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Gee, I've never been accused of working for the DMA before, whichever one of them it might be. One of the guidelines here is assume good faith, and it would behoove you to not assume that I or other editors here have some "special interest" in the pages we edit. The Opt-out article, like many in Wikipedia, is occasionally targeted by people trying to promote a web site; that's why it's on my watch list. When I saw this edit to Opt-out, including a link to www.insideidtheft.info, I took a look at the site rather than click on a video of unknown parentage. As most editors on change-patrol will do, I next looked at your history of edits to see whether the edit was likely to be a constructive one. Reviewing the changes to the three articles you've edited so far, I came across this edit to Credit freeze that includes citation of www.insideidtheft.info as a reference for the text added. Next, I tried to establish the site as a reliable source suitable for use as references but unfortunately Google let us down there, finding few mentions of the site in mainstream media. I reverted the 'Credit freeze' edits.

Wikipedia needs content, not links, so any content improvements to Opt-out you can contribute are certainly welcome, assuming they are supported by citations from reliable sources.

I see that you have already restored the MSNBC video to Opt-out. I'll leave it as a public service announcement, but I don't see any value to the article in footnoting the video caption to your site, especially since the site is not its creator and it's not hosted there. I'll copy this section to Talk:Opt-out and perhaps another editor will ring in on the subject. --CliffC (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Opt-out page link followup

Cliff - As I wrote, I do not mean to offend. In any event I wanted to respond to your concerns and ask for your assistance.

In response to your comment about establishing the web site www.insideIDtheft.info as a reliable source; granted the web site is of newer lineage but the people behind the web site (Rob Douglas & Bob Sullivan) are long time veterans of privacy rights (see www.PrivacyToday.com and RedTape.MSNBC.com respectively). You may also note that there are no products or services for sale (e.g., credit reports, credit monitoring). The web sites purpose is to increase public awareness about ID Theft related topics.

A “credit freeze” is indeed called a “security freeze” by the big three credit bureaus as pointed out by Rob Douglas here: http://www.insideidtheft.info/creditfreeze.aspx in the first paragraph & supported by the links to the big 3 credit bureaus, which have links lower on the page. Click on the links to Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion and you will see that each refers to what the general public calls a “Credit Freeze” as a “Security Freeze.”

All of the above being said, I have reinstated the “security freeze” term and reference to the source (which I hope you now agree is reliable) and would appreciate your assistance to help us promote accurate information to the public, through Wikipedia. Open Information (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed your link from Credit freeze, the full explanation is in the edit summary here, and will look at your other link(s) later as time permits. The short version is that your company cannot be considered a reliable source to be cited in support of statements made in the encyclopedia. --CliffC (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

For similar reasons, I've removed the insideidtheft.info link you added to Credit card fraud with this edit. The video you footnoted speaks for itself, and is well-supported by the text in the "Skimming" section alongside it. The link to your site adds no value. --CliffC (talk) 18:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Opt-out page link followup

Cliff - You wrote "The link to your site adds no value." Is the reputable source of such material typically not referenced? For example if the video had been produced by the FTC rather than www.insideIDtheft.info would it be referenced? I am sorry to trouble you but I am certainly still learning what is appropriate. Please note that my goal is to increase public awareness about identity theft related topics. BTW - the opt-out page looks far better than when I originally viewed it, if you contributed to its improvements, thank you very much! Open Information (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You ask whether the source of such material (the Credit card fraud video itself) should properly get a reference. To be honest, I hadn't noticed that the video was uploaded to Wikipedia Commons from your account. I don't know if the rules here require that a contributor get some kind of credit, direct or indirect, alongside Wikipedia's use of his contribution, but at first blush that might seem fair. Next, something of a conflict is raised in my mind because if the source site cannot be considered a reliable source, should the video be included in the article at all? I personally have no objection to the video staying, but I'm going to ask one of the administrators here to ring in with an opinion on keeping the video and/or the link to its source site. --CliffC (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

thank you

'Mousing over'

Someone above mentioned mousing over links. To make that work for you, you'll need to click on 'my preferences' at the top of the page, click the 'Gadgets' tab, check the box next to 'Navigation popups', then click the 'Save' button at the bottom of the page. Now when you mouse over (actually you need to hover over, for a second or two) a blue link you'll get a preview of what the link leads to. Have fun. --CliffC (talk) 22:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I followed these instructions exactly and they worked great. Thanks kay sieverding (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Another thank you

For this edit [2]. It got to the heart of the matter. Cheers, JNW (talk) 00:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was kind of a cold-hearted edit and it shorted out a lot of your good repair work too, sorry. But, like Yogi says, it ain't over till it's over, and I think our friend still wants his link in. --CliffC (talk) 03:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. You merely took what I was attempting to its logical and cleanly worded conclusion. Who knew that the topic could be so fraught with conflict? JNW (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dim Mak

In this article there are 2 parts, one explaining what the art is and another the scepticism about it. Still, you are keen to place scepticism throughout the entire article. Why? If there are references for any lemma, place them. If the degree of evidence is discussed by experts or general public, create a paragraph about that. This is done in the Dim Mak article. Showing 2 sides of the story. What you are doing is letting people think you are showing 2 sides of the story while in fact you are very subtle manipulating readers with words like "supposedly", I seriously cannot believe you deem it neutral. Furthermore, the reference I had provided, how was it promotional? I only found information there on how Dim Mak works. I hope you are not doing this just because you think Dim Mak is fraud or something. Mallerd (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not keen to place skepticism anywhere, but as my edit summary said, "without proof in a reliable source, practitioners are only 'supposedly' capable; this form parallels the 'is said to' construct in the first paragraph". My own opinion of the art of Dim Mak doesn't matter. "Supposedly" wasn't my own word, it was the word you deleted without leaving an edit summary and I simply restored it. However, looking at article Touch of Death, we see "The Touch of Death refers to any martial arts move that can hypothetically kill a person..." and "In Chinese martial arts, the Dim Mak techniques are said by adherents to allow execution of the touch of death." In contrast to how these statements are worded, I agree that "supposedly" could be seen as a bit of subtle POV, and I have changed "is supposedly capable" to "is said by adherents to be capable".

IMO the citation to www.dimmak.net fails WP:SOURCES, which says "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", but I don't see any reason the site wouldn't be okay as an external link. Regards, CliffC (talk) 00:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but the current setup of the article almost implies that there cannot be "reliable" sources, since there is this section about the serious doubts. If there was a reliable source (at least according to WP:SOURCES), there wouldn't be serious doubts/sceptism. So there might be a slight problem there. About my deletion without edit summary, I reckoned that anyone would see that "supposedly" was POV. I shall place the website under external links. Ciao Mallerd (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

About that external link, I just saw it was already used as a reference. It referenced to the book, however. I believe that is okay, right. Mallerd (talk) 09:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment by Justme89

uhh, who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justme89 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)