User talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 6

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cumbrowski. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

User:Cumbrowski  -

Current Talk Page  .oOo.

< Archive 5

Archive 6

All Pages:

1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)

Revenue sharing citation

Hey, thanks for adding a citation to the revenue sharing article. I was about to delete it as wikipedia:link spam but I see you're a reputable editor so as a courtesy I'm just leaving you a note here. The problem with the reference is that it links to an external site that is in business to sell its consulting / informational services, which seems to be highly disfavored on Wikipedia. The danger is that if that's allowed, everybody is going to want to insert a lot of links to their particular business metrics company and try to generate web traffic and revenue dollars from that. Even a very reputable source, say a Nielsen Ratings or a music chart, is best not to link directly. You want to link to an authoritative article that mentions the research. So if you do have a more reliable citation that would be great. Wikidemo 09:24, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me. I agree with you to a certain extend. There is a dilemma though when it comes to articles related to the subject of internet marketing. It is not part of traditional research yet, heck universities don't even teach the subject yet (for the most part). They slowly started with it in the recent years, but what exists today can be considered rudimentary IMO. That means that you have to rely on trusted and reliable sources within the industry for reference. The problem with those references is that they are always commercial in nature. I had an editor who did not know anything about affiliate marketing complain about the reference and that it had Ads and affiliate links on its site. Da.. it's what they do of course. I have not met many butchers who are vegan. Just a little comparison hehe. All this does not change the need to check "who is the source" and what are their motivations. What are the possible gains from a statistic that favors certain aspects and neglects others. Etc. Here is an example of a statistic that is not a good reference. It's not the statistic, but a blog post by another blogger about it and me adding a long comment to it. [1]. With regards to AffStat. That is one of the few industry specific statistics that are available and where I also know the process of data collection to know that it is not skewed. I know the guy who publishes it (okay everybody in the affiliate marketing industry knows this guy) and he is so nice and sent me a free copy and also an email with a link to a publication where numbers are made public to be able to reference to that in addition to the inaccessible (commercial) report and actual source. That is my take on this. I hope it makes sense. Let me know what you think. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That makes sense. I'm wondering if there's a guideline page or something one can refer to on this specific situation, so people can consider what makes a good reference and what doesn't. It must come up all the time. Wikidemo 22:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of covered by existing guidelines, but they often don't spell things out exactly (which would also not make sense). Multiple guidelines touch on the subject WP:CITE, WP:RELY, WP:V etc. Specifics can be found here, which also refers to Statistical survey, Opinion poll and Misuse of statistics. IMO does this says it all:

What matters is WHO is the source AND also FOR WHAT. Quote: "trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" ... and ... "use the most reliable and appropriate published sources to cover all majority and significant-minority published views, in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view".

This means that a reliable sources is not a source that produces skewed and self serving statistics. It also means (that was a debate a while earlier) that it does not matter, which medium is being used for the publication, a book, a print magazine, a web site, a blog, a piece of toilet paper. This are all things that are irrelevant for the specification, if it is a reliable source within the context it is used for or not. That is how I see it. I hope that makes sense. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My translation of it for the average Joe would be:

1. Who is the guy who wrote it? #Does he have a clue about the subject?
2. What is the motivation for him to write this? What's in it for him? What does he gain?
3. Is he fair and thorough in his collection and evaluation of available data? Is he prejudges? Is he sloppy?

The questions seem simple, but to know the right answer is not. You need reliable sources to proof a number of them, which makes the whole thing circular :), the hen and the egg problem. The alternative is that you are so deep involved and know the guy personally in and out to be able to answer the questions without the need of other reliable sources that you as editor at Wikipedia would be a text book example for WP:COI. Tricky, isn't it?! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing

Hi Roy — I have placed the article Affiliate marketing on GA hold, to give it a chance to improve the style, please see the suggestions on the talk page. The style is still too informal , and has quite a few grammar errors. GB 02:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi GB, thanks for taking the time to look at the article. Do you have an idea how I could get some other editors who are strong in those areas to have a look at the article and help improving it? English is my second language. I get better at it, but it is not my strength and core competency. If you could point me somewhere or provide some tips, I would appreciate that. Thanks a lot. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems that you get a lot of spammers adding link, but these people probably have no interest in improving the article. Unfortunately I don't know much about the business topic writing side of Wikipedia. What you may be able to do is find a project that this could belong to. A project will have members interested or knowlegable in a topic. I could fix the grammer and make some rearrangements myself, but I am not a high quality writer, and then I will have to disqualify myself on the GA assessment. I think there is enough good material here to get to a GA with some more improvements. If you have a look at the history of the article you might find more interested writers. GB 04:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The Category:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics_participants has a big list of names. You could nominate in Collaboration of the Month (Beta version) section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics, or list it in the cleanup section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Business_and_Economics. GB 04:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I did not know about the Beta for the collaboration of the month. I suggested the article there and made a detailed plea, which will hopefully attract some other editors and encourage them to help. The article saw a lot of changes and expansions over the past 15 months. Unfortunately did most editors that used to work on it with me leave Wikipedia, discouraged. I tried to win them back, but failed so far in my efforts. I invested during the last 1-2 months a significant amount of time for it, after it failed the first and premature nomination for GA back in March and after User:Jehochman was able to get the article to search engine optimization featured, an article I also worked on. That was a strong encouragement, because the subject is a bit touchy and some Wikipedians don't like it at all (to say it mildly). The article to SEO was shown this Monday on the English Wikipedia homepage :). Thanks again for your time and your help. Happy 4th of July. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:52, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

p.s. here is the diff between the version from March when it was first nominated and the currect version of the article. Thought that it might helps you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

and here is the diff to the version Insert non-formatted text herefrom February 26, 2006 when I made my first edit in that article. hehe.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 16:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Cleaning up Affiliate marketing

Hi Roy - thanks for your message requesting my help in copy-editing affiliate marketing. I am away for the weekend, but will take a look at it early next week and do what I can. Fortunately I know something about the subject too. Barnabypage 13:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks a lot.. that will be great. I also talked somebody else "soft" who is not a Wikipedian, but a professional editor (with degree and all). I might be able to turn that someone into a Wikipedian along the way. That would be even better hehe. I only got a little promise though, but I hope that someone keeps also the little ones :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Roy, if you're still recruiting editors, I'd be happy to work with you and Barnabypage on editing this article. I don't know much about affiliate marketing, but I'm a writer and editor. I'll take a look at making some of the "easy fixes" mentioned on the talk page first. Flowanda | Talk 23:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That would be great Flowanda. Thank you. User:Graeme_Bartlett who reviewed the article as part of the good article nomination said that the scope and coverage of the subject seem to be okay. I fixed already a number of other issues. There was a long quote in the article, which was removed and replaced by text written by me that included the important information from within the quote. I also fixed the references formating and image and covered as much spelling and grammar problems as I could. What was left and not fixed satisfactory were the style and grammar problems. Things that are not me strength and were any help is most welcome and appreciated. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 03:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to read your link

Couldn't pull it up through your SEL post. Could you give it to me again?

...und deine Geschichte is sehr interessant. Ich hab' Berlin besucht am ende des Mauerns. Tag! Durova^Charge! 05:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Yeah, I noticed that the link was not working. That happens some times at SEL for whatever reason. I link to the resources from my user page and even from this talk page. Here it is once more... Regarding my past, yeah, I had a very 'interesting' life so far, kind of a roller coaster ride, but then I love roller coasters (especially the big drops), so not a problem to cope with it hehe. It made me more persistent, if I think something is right or wrong. That's why am I also one of the too few internet marketers who were able to stick around here at Wikipedia and did not throw the towel like most. I am completely open about who I am and what I do. I even flagged the articles I edited and WP:COI applies on my user page :). I also wrote about how I ended up here, because I was asked that a couple times :).[2]. You can also find on my user page links to my blog posts that are Wikipedia related, if you are interested. I like especially this one [3] :). See you around. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I like what I see. Jehochman and I have been brainstorming ideas for some venue - possibly a new WikiProject - to facilitate white hat contributions. For instance, we're used to asking COI editors to post suggested edits to article talk pages. Suppose there were a central location where they could register these requests for review? You might have some good ideas toward that.

Also, since you're on editor review, I'll offer to give you some admin coaching. I'm always looking for extra hands to man WP:SSP and WP:COIN. You'd probably be great in both areas. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 06:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Durova, my time is limited. Okay, what's new, which entrepreneur isn't, but there are some things that are a bit special in my case. They are related to my very much delayed immigration process (guess what, I wrote about that too hehe [4]). However, I would be interested in the coaching, because I am interested in learning more about how Wikipedia works. It saves me time and headaches, because you can do stuff the hard way or do it the right way. The right way is not always the most obvious one so it is always good to lean about it before you have to decide which way to go.

I hear you loud and clear regarding the COI issue. I remember the ISTIA mess for example. I believe you were also involved (which admin wasn't. It ended pretty "bloody"), a bit later did somebody try to get the article about Superior Art Creations deleted because of COI, even though I did not create the article myself, but fixed and extended it. I always made it clear who I am and what my involvement was. I started also thinking about the general problem of COI. My blog post about how I became a Wikipedian touches that subject as well. I also had some debates here at Wikipedia. See this discussion at my talk page archive, which also points to debates elsewhere.

I don't think a central place for submitting COI content will work, unless something is added to the Mediawiki software for Wikipedia, which contains a reference on every article in the main space. Something like a disclaimer e.g. "If you are directly involved with the subject of this article and therefore likely to be seen as biased or prejudice by other editors of Wikipedia, but believe or know that there are factual errors in the article, please do not edit the article yourself and correct the error, but GO HERE and follow the instruction to get it corrected after your claims were reviewed and validated by another editor who is not personally involved with the subject." You get the idea. It would probably enough to have a visible disclaimer if you press "edit" and not if you just view the article, but if you make it visible to everybody, then it can serve two purposes at the same time. Most people are too afraid to press the "edit" button, so they will go elsewhere and complain and write about it. It also implies to the casual reader that Wikipedia might not be 100% accurate and that errors are being made. Its sad that it is necessary sometimes to remind them to verify information elsewhere via a second or third source before acting on them. Only because it is written somewhere in Wikipedia does not mean that it is always correct. Those are my thoughts. What do you think? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

p.s. I requested the Editor review not because I have the ambition to become a Wikipedia admin (If it happens anyway, then it happens). Funny, my other friend who is also a Wikipedia admin asked me the same thing. I actually requested it, because I honestly want to know, what other editors think about the mess, which I created so far here at Wikipedia and migth provide some suggestions and comments. Comments and suggestions to what I did and do good and where I suck (except from my grammar, I know about that myself hehe). I thought it to be a good idea to learn where I am today in the eyes of others, after over one year of editing hundreds of articles and making a couple thousand edits. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we close the eComXpo report at WP:COIN?

Hello Carsten. There has been no action on your COI report for some time. I proposed a deal, and there was a mixed response. Cerejota has apparently stopped raising the question for the moment. The current form of the article looks OK to me, and the COI tag has been removed. I would like to close the report to free up space on the noticeboard. If you have thoughts, you are welcome to add them there. Thanks, EdJohnston 02:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ed, I thought the item was closed already, because somebody removed the COI template from the article. Btw. If you want to see how your proposed deal would have looked like, check the edit history of the eComXpo article. See the 3 edits before the last ones that were done by me? :( I agree with you that the article looks okay now. The stuff that should be in there, is in there again (was re-added), some stuff was rephrased and some stuff was kept out of it. There is some stuff I would like to see in there, but I understand why someone would not want it in there. It's interesting and helpful, but not entirely encyclopedic. I mentioned it at the articles talk page. It's about reports how different people experienced the virtual event and how they compare it to a real-life one. I think it would be helpful, but I did not re-add it, because of valid objections.

You can close the report if whoever has to make a decision, did it (what I thought happened already). There is obviously no COI as outlined in WP:COI. If I am mistaken and a decision was not made, then the case has to remain open until either a decision is made and/or the WP:COI guideline was adjusted to state clearly that cases like mine are considered COI. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 17:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

COI in Affiliate marketing

I just noticed these: [5] [6] --Ronz 03:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So? What has this to do with COI? Did you also read this? [7] --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to give you a Template:Uw-coi because of your long editing experience, but I think this needs to be brought up at WP:COIN. --Ronz 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I wrote up a COIN report here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Cumbrowski. --Ronz 18:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I posted a very detailed response at the notice board, which is all I have to say in this matter. Happy reading :) Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments to me here and on COIN. I was completely unaware of the EComXpo‎ dispute when I started this discussion. I'm not going to include it as an article of concern. Sorry that it has come up again. --Ronz 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

cumbrowski.de as a US immigration resource

Hello Carsten. I saw your posting at WP:RS/N about the usefulness of some links to your personal websites you had added. So far, my comment is that http://www.cumbrowski.de/CarstenC/Immigration-Resources.asp doesn't display correctly with the Safari web browser on my Mac Powerbook. The lines shown on each page have about six times the normal spacing between lines. This problem doesn't occur with Firefox on the Mac looking at the same site. Also under Safari the vertical row of buttons under 'Der Familien Navigator' show up as blank (without labels). EdJohnston 03:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Another small problem of a different kind: on User talk:Cumbrowski the bottom comment on the page seems to get hidden behind the banner "This is a Wikipedia user page." For example what I am typing now may not appear until someone adds a new comment below it. EdJohnston 03:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I checked with Safari for Windows and it renders perfectly fine, same with Firefox and Internet Explorer (on Windows). So much for "its the same rendering engine" for developers to be able to test compatebilty without the need of owning a MAC. Could you send me a screen shot of the page how you see it in PNG or JPG format? All my contact information are available at [8], including the option to upload it to sendspace rather than sending it via email. I would like to see the extend of the problem and get some idea what the cause might be. Its messed up that I can't test it anymore and the site I used in the past that was creating snapshots of a URL on a MAC is not up anymore. Thanks for your help. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the code for the userpage frame. The "this is a wikipedia user page" DIV has now a fixed height. It's positioned absolute at the bottom of the page and the other DIV with the main page content has a bottom padding of the same value as the other div is high. I hope that does the trick here. Let me know. Thanks. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that fixes the display of this User talk. Regarding the Safari issue, I sent you an email. I forgot to say that Safari has the same problem throughout your site. EdJohnston 02:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I sent you two responses to your email. Did you get them? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:49, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Carsten. Yes, I got your two emails. Based on your comment, I upgraded to Safari 3 for the Mac and your immigration page now looks OK! EdJohnston 03:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

SyncTERM Article

Just wanted to let you know that your edits and the creation of the page never irritated me or had anything do to with my temper tantrum. Sorry for anything I did that I should be apologizing for. -- Stephen Hurd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.31.211.11 (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SyncTERM

SyncTERM, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that SyncTERM satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SyncTERM and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of SyncTERM during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.

AfD nomination of ZEDO

An article that you have been involved in editing, ZEDO, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZEDO. Thank you. 69.68.125.6 (talk) 15:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

This User

Codes Fortran Igor Berger (talk) 22:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC) I tried to post a relevent comment on SEJ, but it told me I am Spamming them. Does Searchengineland.com treats commentors as Spammers? Please take a look at my comment and tell me why it is Spam. The comment has a WkiPedia link, PHSDL anti Spam project link, and my Travel in Asia forum link with Adam Lasnik story.

What is Spam in this comment? And the article I was commenting on is about Spam on Google! SEJ Google Spam article story, Igor The Troll Google Spam article story...relevent comments!

Sory to bring this to you, but you on Article about Wikipedia at SearchEngineJournal.com on Jehochman (talk) page asked for comments. Now when a WikiPedian comes to comment on SEJ, you call him a Spammer! Igor Berger (talk) 00:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor, No, it does not. Comments are welcome and appreciated, trust me on that one. There are were three comments for the post so far and 1 was spam (advertisement for "Louis Vitton handbag Cherry Bucket" which has nothing to do with the subject). Comments with links in it might be held back for manual review. I did not see any comment that was on hold. I know that the owner of the blog did setup some new additional stuff recently against the flood of spam the blog is exposed to every day (I am only an editor with limited permissions).

He did that as a reaction to a flood of spam that was able to pass the existing spam filters and bombarded everybody who was commenting on those posts with emails that where junk (Search Engine Journal sends out email notifications about new comments to everybody who is engaged in the conversation for a post). I need to check with him, what he installed.

Based on what you are saying does it look like as if he configured the spam blocking tools to be too tight, but there could also be a different reason.

Without having exact details about what he installed, I would guess that the link to travilinasia.net could be the cause of the problem. The site is sharing the IP with over 400 other sites. If SEJ employs a black list kind of filtering, similar to how many email spam filter work, and if the IP is on such black list because one of the 400+ sites on that IP was engaging in spam, your comment would be flagged as spam. I would looking into that. Shared hosting is never good, because your site can get penalized for things that other sites that you share hosting with do.

I would suggest to try to comment again without the link to travelinasia.net. Just mention the thread and may be link to another site (e.g. Google Groups) that contains the link to your thread already. If that comment goes through, then you will now that you have a problem with your hosting and should move your forum site somewhere else. That is my suggestion and worth a test IMO.

btw. SearchEngineLand.com is Danny Sullivans site, SearchEngineJournal.com where I write for is Loren Bakers. You mixed them up in your comment here although you did not in your post at travelinasia.net. Just FYI.

Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on SEJ Spam Filter. I talked to Loren, and he has fixed it. Take a look the test that I conducted on SEJ here. User_talk:Igorberger#SEJ_Comment_Spam Igor Berger (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiResources

I do not joke, or play games, I perform forensic investigations of SEO. Igor Berger 02:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Next time let me know about your forensic investigations. I used my own user pages for experiments in the past too and that is not a problem, but if you move the experiments somewhere else, tell somebody about it. :) So what is your experiment about and why on my WikiResources page? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC) ok Igor Berger 03:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

nofollow

roy<sac> ^Talk! being that you contributed to both articles you should reconsile the differences to make them fluent and Authoritative.

• Note that the article to nofollow does mention the difference to the Robots exclusion standard via the META Elements. See the paragraph Introduction and support. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 23:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nofollow rel="nofollow"

nofollow is a non-standard HTML attribute value used to instruct (Should read rel="nofollow" is a non standard search engine robots exclussion protocol)

• That is incorrect. See the W3C site for the definition. "rel" did exist as a non-standard HTML attribute before the search engines (Google for the most part) adopted it and introduced a new possible value for the existing attribute, the the value "nofollow". --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

search engines that a hyperlink should not influence the link target's ranking in the search engine's index. It is intended to reduce the effectiveness of certain types of spamdexing, thereby improving the quality of search engine results and preventing spamdexing from occurring in the first place.

Contradictory statement or hyporbolical at least!

• what do you mean? It reduces effectiveness (links don't count) = spam will not rank high and if spam will not rank anymore, spammers might get discouraged to do it at all. I did not phrase the sentence in the article that way, but that is how I understand it. How are you understanding it? Question on the side. Is English your first language or did you learn it later. For me it is the second language (I am German by birth). We had in another case a debate about how something is phrased and realized that people who's mother tongue is English understood it one way and people who learned English as second language did understand it a different way. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Meta_element NOFOLLOW

NOFOLLOW tag tells a search engine not to follow the links on a specific page.

The rel="nofollow" statment the way it is authored now, is contary to Googel Quality Guidelines(GQG) serving as a violation to the guidelines, that a Webmaster should not atempt to influence Google Search Ebgine results.

This needs to be examined and reconsiled to make it Authoritative.Igor Berger (talk) 18:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

• As stated above. NOFOLLOW is no meta-element. It's a value for a non-standard HTML attibute (rel) for the HTML element (a). If you read the article to NOFOLLOW, you will also notice that it does not mean "not to follow the links on a specific page". Wait, now you are talking about the Meta-Element "robots" and the value "nofollow", right? Sorry, my bad. Your statement would belong into the NOFOLLOW article, which talks about REL=NOFOLLOW. The Meta Element ROBOTS and value NOFOLLOW is part of the appendix of the HTML 4.01 definition. The rel=nofollow is proprietary. If it violates Google's Quality Guidelines is arguable, because the same could be said to the ROBOTS meta element, the robots.txt exclusion protocol, the NOODP and NOYDIR values and Yahoo!'s "Robots-NoContent" class. The original intention to use it for not trusted links that were not editorial reviewed was okay in my opinion. I have a problem with Google's abuse of it for paid links. I bitched about that several times in posts at SEJ and ReveNews. My latest one was this one, which also refers to some of my older posts to the subject. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:17, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Roy, can I give you a suggestion to follow the nofollow and Google PR algorithm talk on SeoMoz.org, I think you will find it educational and interesting. Igor Berger (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

are you referring to the post of Rand grandfather or do you have any other discussion in mind. There is a lot of talk about PR lateley due to the recent PR updates in the Google toolbar. I have to admit that I also joined that discussion. Which reminds me that I have a follow up post on my to-do list :). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the grandpa post, but I like rand's post better. Read the comments also, very educational. Igor Berger (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Roy, take alook what Andy Beard has to say abot robots.txt, meta tag index, nofollow, and rel="nofollow" He even critisizes Wikipedia nofollow article for having problems. exclussions and page rank by Andy Beard Please examine this. Igor Berger (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I left a comment with the request to elaborate on his statement. Thanks for the info. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again

Sorry for my disappearance -- I've been so caught up in other areas of the 'pedia I forgot to revisit affiliate marketing and the like. I noticed that the second GA nomination didn't make it, unfortunately. I don't know how much help I could be with finding citations, but I'll do my best to copyedit the prose and possible reorganize some of what you and other editors have written. Hopefully it'll make GA status on the third try. :-)

All the best,

— xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it. We will get there. Did you see the notes from the reviewer? I already addressed a number of the things he noted. Well, there is still more left to do :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I have a few questions about affiliate marketing. Is advertising considered affiliated marketing if a merchant and publisher arrange an advertising program, but the industries are dissimilar? For example, if a dating service negotiates with an online gaming site to put ads on the game's website? Or perhaps this is a blurry/gray-area issue, like the issue of whether contextual advertising counts as affiliate marketing? Thanks for your help! — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 03:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Daniel. No, advertising is not affiliate marketing. If ads are placed as a result of a link exchange or if you pay for an ad on a CPM (paying for impressions/display of the ad) or flat fee basis it is display advertising or a sponsorship deal. If the compensation would be pay per click, then we move into the gray area of things. The same is true with CPA compensation within display advertising, which will exceed CPC and CPM deals this year.

Contextual advertising causes also debate whether or not it is affiliate marketing. I'd say it is not. I consider it to be a part of display advertising that is also available to smaller publishers (which are for the most part also affiliates). I make the differentiation when it comes to the control the publisher has over the ads and the compensation method used. I'd say if it is not CPA or Revenue Share and if the publisher has not control over which offers/ads will be shown to visitors on his site, it is not affiliate marketing. CPC was used by advertisers in affiliate marketing in the past but became over the years somewhat like a novelty. I have seen only a handful program during the last couple years that pay on a CPC basis.

I probably confused you even more :).

Let’s take a step back here and look at CPM, CPC, CPA and Revenue Share from a different perspective. Each of those methods can be used to compensate a publisher to show an advertisers ad on a publishers website (I exclude search affiliates for the simplicity sake right now).

Who assumes how much of the risk in each cases?

Revenue share and CPA shift the risk almost entirely to the publisher. With revenue share most of time even more than with CPA, if the action that is commissionable is only a generated lead and not a sale. If the publisher shows an ad to 1,000,000 people and many even click on the ad to the advertisers website, does this not mean that the publisher gets anything in return, unless the visitors do something that is wanted by the advertiser. So if the advertiser’s site sucks or simply breaks and is offline, the publisher loses money, while the advertiser does not.

With CPC moves the risk towards the advertiser. In this case the risk is roughly equally shared between the two.

With CPM the risk moves entirely to the advertiser. The publisher gets paid no matter what, as long as he displays an advertisers Ad on his website. It does not matter if the ad sucks and nobody clicks on it or if the ad is not really target well and the people who see it are not the right audience. The advertiser has to worry about that in the case of CPM. For this reason larger sites often switching from affiliate or CPA/Rev share deals to CPC or better CPM deals if possible. CPA and revenue share was pretty much the only deal a small publisher could get.

But there are advantages for the publisher too. A publisher who knows his audience well and has affiliations with merchants that carry items where the publisher’s audience is perfect, CPA and rev share can outperform any CPC and CPM deal the publisher could get. But this does not only sound like work for the publisher, it actually is exactly that. Display advertising has the increase in CPA offers, because their technology improved over the years to allow improved targeting. The methods used raise some eyebrows here and there because of privacy concerns that are more or less warranted. I am not sure if the CPA deal is only between the advertiser and the ad network while the ad network still continues to pay CPM to the publisher. I am not very much involved in display advertising, but that is a good question that just came into my mind. I will investigate that :)

I hope this helps your understanding of the subject matter a bit more. Let me know if something is not clear and requires further clarification. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your detailed explanation, Roy. :-) I think I understand better now. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 02:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this image and tell me what you think? I used your customer image by the way -- thanks for that. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 07:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

• Nice image. I replaced the one in the article with yours :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 21:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I nominate Wikipedia to adopt You follow We follow policy

I nominate Wikipedia to adopt You follow We follow policy.

That is when we link to an authoritative reference and that reference links clean to children, we follow that reference, but if that reference does not link out to a community or uses nofollow to hoard power we link to it with nofolow atribute.

Lots of work for Wiki, but if adopted will preserve the original democratic PR algorithm. This will culminate green piece effect of recycling power. Igor Berger (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Igor! It's funny that you contact me about this.

• Wikipedia NOFOLLOW Argumentation - A View Back
• All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW (comments are important here too)
• Fixing Google Web 2.0 Style
• PageRank is dead and NOFOLLOW will NOT Save it!
• A Link Is Not A Vote, It’s A Pointer
• Is Google Thinking That Affiliates Are Worthless
• Nofollow Leverages Mistrust Among People

You will find the answers in all those posts. You will also see a development, a shift in attitude over the time. Enjoy! :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest at United States Permanent Resident Card

You should not be adding links to your own advertisement-laden commercial site. Please stop doing it. Regardless of whether the US immigration process is "broken" as you say, I don't feel that your personal site meets reliable sources criteria in addition to being a WP:COI violation. I'll be happy to file an WP:RFC if you'd like. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I support Ohnoitsjamie's removal of the links. The argument that Carsten offers in their defence on the article's Talk page is, in my view, way too long and excessively personal. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and links to personal sites are still normally to be avoided. A bad experience with US immigration is not a reason to bend our link policy. Consider seeking publication of your concerns about immigration in other forums. EdJohnston (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

See my response to both of your comments here. Thank you. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 18:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you help a new brother out?

Roy, see what you can do for a new WiKiMedia project. Maybe you can do to a plug on SEJ....do an article on fifferent WiKis, I am sure the readors do not know how big and useful our community is. WikiAsianTravel I think I will ask Durova and see what she recommends. These guys are just born and they need GooGoo juice to get of the ground! Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't write about that kind of stuff and it would be inappropriate for SEJ, unless maybe, if it would be part of a travel search related post that I don't see on the horizon for me at the moment. Sorry, but that is my honest answers. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if you do an article about different wikis you can put it in. Or maybe how does a project become a certified WikiMediaFondation project. I mean make a story work, right? Anyway when you have a chance, I would not want you to go out of your way..:)Igor Berger (talk) 22:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Paidonresultsgradient.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Paidonresultsgradient.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:P45x45.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:P45x45.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. Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Roy can you help me build Andy Beard

I have been trying to build Andy Beard but getting no wear. Maybe you can help me make it notable before it is deleted. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Andy_Beard. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

See my comments at the discussion, in particular the two links to references at The Guardian and The Age. The other comments are also important though. They contain some tips for you. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s. nobody prevents you from editing the article during the AfD, because it could show the other editors and especially the closing admin that the article is not the same anymore as it was during the beginning of the AfD debate (for the better of course). --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Roy thank you for the resources. If you have time to pitch in in writing the article that would greatly help. You know better than me how to wikify an article. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would love to, but I have unfortunately not the time to do so. You are lucky that I was checking Wikipedia just now. I was not able to do much over the past few weeks. Keep in mind that you can add the article again, if it was deleted, but make sure that the article is solid, especially regarding reliable sources, which by definition imply notability as well. Make a copy of the article that you don't loose anything and then create a new and clean version in your user space, just in case the AfD is successful (which seems to be very likely at the moment, unless you are able to get the article up to meet Wikipedia standards quickly). I have a few of those articles myself. I also had the AfD go through and will not add a new article unless I make sure that it is able to widthstand any scruteny that will probably follow.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I think I found a caveat! Jimbo Wales knows Andy. Igor Berger (talk) 12:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Low cost reference

Here's the stats you requested and a link to the reference:

"E-mail returned a whopping $57.25 for every dollar spent on it in 2005, according to the DMA’s Power of Direct economic-impact study released last week. This compares to $7.09 for every dollar spent on print catalogs and $22.52 for every dollar spent on non-e-mail Internet marketing."

http://directmag.com/disciplines/email/email-roi-crushes/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.11.2 (talk) 20:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CRo Logo WWW.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CRo Logo WWW.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CRO-logo-by-fli7e.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CRO-logo-by-fli7e.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:CRO-logo-by-msx.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:CRO-logo-by-msx.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Chemical Reaction (artscene group)

A tag has been placed on Chemical Reaction (artscene group), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

doesn't show the importance of the subject and no WP:RS seem to exist

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Sticky Parkin 15:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured article review

Search engine optimization has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 23:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MediatrustLogo.jpg)

You've uploaded File:MediatrustLogo.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of TheDraw

An article that you have been involved in editing, TheDraw, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheDraw. Thank you. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 07:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

thanks for letting me know.. I left a vote and some notes at the AfD. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 00:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Search Engine Strategies

I have nominated Search Engine Strategies, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Search Engine Strategies. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:34, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Clickbooth.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Clickbooth.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 04:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

a prankster replaced my image with a fake logo (with the intention of making a joke). I replaced the fake image with my image again in the article about the company. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 07:49, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Social network aggregation

Roy, when you have time can you contribute to this article. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 02:58, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Roy, you removed quite a bit from what I wrote. I know it may looks as WP:OR, but don't you think it is useful information? Can we rewrite it some how to make it notable? Igor Berger (talk) 11:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I reinserted the part you deleted and referenced it per WP:V. If you think it should be tweeked, please do, but do not delete it entirely. Igor Berger (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Branded Asset Management

This is another new article that you may find interesting. Please check how Branded Asset Management and Brand management fit together. Igor Berger (talk) 12:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

What's with your userpage vandalism?

Don't have much time to talk, but whatever you're doing, you can take off "adding userboxes to my page" off, for a change. I hope you get what you did... --Jw21/PenaltyKillah^{CANUCKLEHEAD?} 02:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize to you. There was obviously a misunderstanding. It seemed to me that it would be okay to add additional userboxes, since you had already a big list to various subjects. I didn't know that you created it all by yourself and hand-picked them. I will remove the changes to your page, if you have not already done so yourself. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

add use of nofollow for control of PR flow within your own website

Very important and highly recommended to page that go supplementary like affiliate pages. Igor Berger (talk) 06:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I mentioned earlier already that it was on my to-do list to add something to the nofollow article regarding the use of it to control internal PR flow on a website. It just happened that this came up earlier today again. I added a small paragraph to the article that refers to the Matt Cutts interview with Eric Engel where this was discussed. But what has this to do with affiliate pages that go supplemental? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiPedia cononical redirects

You may want to chime in on this being it consernce WikiPedia SEO bugzilla foo/ redirect to foo request Igor Berger (talk) 10:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

What? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Go to bugzilla and read the story, I am sure you will understand what I am talking about, being that SEJ did a post on this a years or so back. Igor Berger (talk) 10:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the post SEJ protect yourself against canonical triggers Igor Berger (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

That's old stuff. I put even source code up on my site to fix this problem programmatically in classic ASP, if you don't have an ISAPI filter for rewrites installed on your MS IIS webserver. [9]. If you use Apache, simply use a simple mod-rewrite statement to 301 one version to the other. I mentioned that in several posts of mine at SEJ as well. What is your point? --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 10:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought it as a bug to bugzilla, maybe it will get traction..:) Igor Berger (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I still don't get what you are talking about. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 11:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a bug User:Cumbrowski/ no such page right? it should point to User:Cumbrowski blog editors will add a trailing slash to the end of the directory. Igor Berger (talk) 11:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

no, it's a different URL, thus you get the screen to create a page. There is no duplication. There is a duplication though, which has to do with Wikipedia and not the MediaWiki software. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cumbrowski is the normal URL as created by the MediaWiki, but Wikipedia does a mod-rewrite to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cumbrowski. The same is true for articles and other pages, such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Affiliate_marketing and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affiliate_marketing. Wikipedia does not have a rewrite rule that changes the /w/index.php?title= URL to /wiki/. They also have to be careful, because if additional parameters are added, such as &action=edit then a rewrite would cause a problem (probably). It is overall not such a big deal, because Wikipedia does a good job with making sure that the /wiki/ URL is used everywhere. Also some bot parse through the Wiki and correct internal linking. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Germany Invitation

Hello, Cumbrowski! I'd like to call your attention to the WikiProject Germany and the German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board. I hope their links, sub-projects and discussions are interesting and even helpful to you. If not, I hope that new ones will be. Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany | finger on pulse Wikipedia:German-speaking Wikipedians' notice board | finger on pulse

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info and invite. I joined the project and ported some of the content from the German Wikipedia over to the article about East German mark. :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that Google does not index Talk: pages

Hello, I was investigating a problem with the {{Google custom}} template: it doesn't find any results in the Talk: namespace, even though it does appear to work for the Wikipedia talk: namespace. This confused me until I Googled for clues and found your All Wikipedia Links Are Now NOFOLLOW posting which includes your comment that says "Google excluded the talk pages from the index". Thanks for helping me find the answer to this problem. Do you know of any other search engine that indexes Wikipedia's Talk: namespace? That would be useful for allowing searches on some of the lengthy talk page archives (when a talk page becomes very long, and Wikipedia users program a bot to archive it off to subpages). --Teratornis (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oops, I overlooked your message. I was also very busy lately and did only little amount of time at Wikipedia. I reduced it primarily to check some of the most important things in a "semi automated" way. Regarding your question about alternative ways to search user talk pages. I am not aware of any, but the advanced search options provided by the wiki itself (standard Media-Wiki option) does help a little bit. You know what I am referring to, right? The screen where you can specify which name spaces to search and which not? I hope that somebody will do something one day with the Wikipedia database dumps in that direction. It would not be something that allows searches for new comments that were recently added, but would be good to find past discussions.--roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing) GAN review question

Regarding your question: In terms of not having references...I honestly can't help you. I have encountered the same problems myself when editing articles about obscure articles. There is a desire to add information, but also the knowledge that you need to add reliable citations as well. And it's very, very frustrating when there are no references for something you know' is true.

I'm afraid to say that the simple truth is that some articles simply can't become Good Articles, because they have no references for them. It's rather disappointing, but you just have to deal with it.

Hope that helps.

Noble Story (talk) 03:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and kind words. You obviously know what I am talking about, because you know the same pain.

Regarding references, I am currently experimenting and testing a custom search engine for reliable sources. You can find it here [10]. You can play around with it and see, if it is useful for your research. It helped me already a lot, but I am not 100% happy with it yet. If you have any suggestions let me know.

With Internet marketing is the problem that it is just emerging. I also contributed to articles that are about subjects that are fading away. My editing at Wikipedia made this more obvious than it would have otherwise and lead me to start working on or support preservation efforts. There are not only bad examples though. I am glad that the article to nofollow earned the GA status. The article to affiliate marketing is also a good candidate, which only lacks some fine tuning to be ready. Well, there is plenty of stuff left to do. :) --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 04:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

nofollow

Hi after a glass of wine (or two!) I have added some comments to the nofollow talk page, see what you think (make allowances for the wine!). All the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.173.86.208 (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing)

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

Absolutely no independent, third-party, objective reporting cited or found to support the majority of information added by a WP:COI editor.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Flowanda | Talk 04:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Flowanda, I removed the deletion template that you added. Did you not notice that the article has the status of "Good Article" WP:GA? It was reviewed by at least one other and highly reputable editor. During the evaluation process as part of the article nomination, changes and improvements were made to it, to follow best practices and standards of Wikipedia. Check out the articles talk page to see the discussion about that. And regarding your claim of WP:COI.... In what sense? How does that apply to this particular article? What could I possible gain from anything that is said in the article and why do you think that I cannot be subjective about it? I was not involved in the process of the establishment of the Code of Conduct or its addemdums. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 09:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

I am very sorry, Roy, but the article is not, and never was, a good article, unless I am missing something important on the talk page. I understand your frustration with affiliate marketing being considered a legitimate business, but Wikipedia is not going to help establish credibility, only reflect it in the legitimate sources it cites. I also understand your willingness and ability to defend the articles you care about, but please, if others agree with the AfD, I ask that you use your formidable talents to then help look for the sources that will keep the article. Flowanda | Talk 00:14, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake. I mixed up that article with the one to nofollow. You are right, it was not a GA, I nominated it, but it wasn't good enough yet. Well, now it will never be. I merged it into the article to affiliate marketing as per AfD. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 08:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

And I reverted your edits that basically copied the entire text of the deleted article into Affiliate marketing. Your blatant disregard of Wikipedia policy and breezy disrespect for other editors is unconscionable and wearing thin. By now, you should have a crystal clear working understanding of WP:RS, WP:SPAM and WP:COI, so please edit accordingly. Flowanda | Talk 12:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

??? What do you mean? That you and the other editors believe that the subject does not warrant its own article is one thing. The article was created to keep the affiliate marketing article on subject without drifting off too much. Well, that was not meant to be, so I merged the content back into the article again. The redirect in the article page to the aff.mkt. article does not cover the subject. What good is a redirect to a page that does not contain the information that were requested in the first place? Since you are pushing the WP:COI thing. I believe I know what is getting you going here. The link to Cumbrowski.com. An older version of the article did not have that link. That was added because of the suggestions of the editor who did the GA review. See this old version of the conversation of the article's talk page. Quote: "Please summarize the Code, rather than putting the whole thing in the article. Provide a link to the full text, perhaps in the external links section.".... if you check a bit more in detail, then you will also find out why this made sense. The other comments during the AfD were not very helpful and IMO biased. Since when are the details about the establishment of a code of conduct for self regulation of an industry that used to be known for lawlessness and having no ethics an advertisement or promotional (except for the fact that it is something positive)? Maybe taking the time to check the facts in more detail would help a little bit to avoid those missinterpretations. I saw the reports here. Good material to start a witch-hunt. Geez! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 22:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing)

I have nominated Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Code of Conduct (affiliate marketing). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Flowanda | Talk 23:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

Hello, Cumbrowski. Based on the templates on your talk page, please consider joining the Article Rescue Squadron. Rescue Squadron members are focused on rescuing articles from deletion, that might otherwise be lost forever. I think you will find our project matches your vision of Wikipedia. You can join >> here <<. Ikip (talk) 14:30, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!

	WELCOME	from a Article Rescue Squad member
	Welcome to Article Rescue Squadron Cumbrowski/Archive 6, a dynamic list of articles needing to be rescued, which changes with new updates, can be found here: Articles tagged for deletion and rescue Category Articles tagged for deletion and rescue not found I look forward to working with you in the future. Ikip (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Promotional editing

Hello, I became aware of your website through your borderline disruptive blog post here in which you implied that it was ok to insert spam links onto Wikipedia by asking experienced editors to slip them in. The policies and guidelines that you are advocating breaking are (as you know) WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. I consider this to be very serious as Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, nor is it a linkfarm or a place to post your resume. I also found over 40 occurances of your site link on Wikipedia, most of which were planted by you to seemingly affect your site's traffic. This is your warning, stop using Wikipedia for promotional purposes by dropping your link wherever you see fit. It's hard to assume good faith when you've admitted to being interested in personal promotion of websites. Many policies apply here. Themfromspace (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not intend to imply what you are saying. It is also the first time that I heard from somebody that he interpreted this way. Of course it is not okay to insert spam links into Wikipedia and I also consider it unethical, if an experienced editor would agree to "slip in" questionable content and links into Wikipedia. An experienced editor can help however to determine notability of a subject, ensure that claims are backed up be reliable sources and with the wording of content in general. I don't see how this could be considered a bad idea, especially because there is still plenty of noticeable information missing in Wikipedia. Only because somebody asks for help with content does not automatically mean that the editor should just add it to Wikipedia without disregard of any guidelines and rules that were put in place to help people to contribute in a positive and wanted way to Wikipedia and the cause it represents.

I posted the information about me here on Wikipedia to be transparent to other editors, if they take the time to do their due diligence. I made public which subjects I am interested in, personally and professionally. I made clear about the specific subjects where COI could be applied to some extend and in those case I also always seek out the opinions and reviews by other editors... not only "friendly editors", but editors with whom I have my differences as well. Most of the link you are referring to are located in the user-space and thus not exposed to regular Wikipedia users, unless they specifically include the user space in their research. I never "slipped in" or "sneaked in" any content or links.

I am getting (at least did so in the past), satisfaction from contributing something to my environment and society where I am living in. I maintain a website without any commercial value at all, for the same reasons. Shutting it down would save me money and time, just like it would the many supporters of Wikipedia, if Wikipedia is being shut down, but the money "lost" and time spent are not the factors by which we decide to shutdown those kind of projects. I don't know about your motivation, but now you know my motivations. I consider the stuff that you implied in your message to me, about me and my motives, to be an insult that is not warranted at all. If you think otherwise, please provide details about what you consider "evidence" for you’re made up claims to analyze them in greater detail. I might be wrong about you, but I have the feeling that you are not the kind of person who likes details and specifics very much. Well, written words can be understood differently than if we would hear the same words spoken to us. This might be the case here. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 15:43, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Nobody has called you out on this before? You've also been brought up at COIN. You've even been a part of a RFAR. Clearly I'm not the first to see this pattern of borderline advertising and gaming the system. I'm not gonna do anything about it if I have your word that you'll stop posting your personal links on here. ThemFromSpace 18:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I was not called out on it before, at least not the way I got called out now, because I was always open about what it did and why I did it. I also was always trying to have other editors review the stuff that I did in Wikipedia. I noted the COIN incident on my user page myself. See the section Other Wikipedia Stuff. That incident had actually a different cause than the issue that you seem to have. If you are interessted in the full detail of that story, check out this page. Btw. you will find on my user page also a link to my request for review, which I aked for in addition to what I was already doing in the past on article and user talk pages. Regarding links from Wikipedia. If I have so much commercial interest in links from Wikipedia, why would I have spent hours and hours trying to convince people that the "nofollow" attribute should be used for all external links in Wikipedia. I consolidated several debates about this subject and put it on my personal blog here (I did it again, a link to a site of mine, which I hope at least one user will click on... you! :))

I will not and cannot give you my word that I won't post any links to sites under my control. If it makes sense, then I will add it and/or suggest adding it. I did that in the past, where I posted my suggestions on article talk pages where I announced what edits I am going to do, asking for feedback, comments and objections. I am aware that some folks don't check the talk pages and only act, if they see activities on the article pages as well. In those cases I always refer to my statements at the talk page, where I posted the reasoning behind it. In some cases things where removed with my approval, in other cases were changes made and in other cases my changes were accepted. It does not make sense to me to sacrifice quality and usefulness over a principle whos definition is very subjective at best. COI is a term that is very vague and mushy. COI can be a good and a bad thing IMO.

COI motivates people to contribute, COI also means usually inside and indepth knowledge. Details and sources might be unearthed that would not have been discovered otherwise. However, COI has a catch-twenty-two. COI makes it hard and in some cases impossible to be objective. For that reason is it benefitial for somebody where COI does or may be applies to work together with other editors without the same bias. An example for this is my work on the article to nofollow where I admit to be somewhat biased. However, I knew a lot about the subject and there was not much in Wikipedia about it. I worked together with another editor, who I would hardly consider to be a "friend" of mine (on the contrary) and got it together with him to the status of GA. I hope this makes sense. As I also mentioned already, COI is a strong motivator for people to contribute. It was actually in my case the trigger why I pressed "edit" for the first time to fix an error in an article about a subject where COI definitely applies. I also wrote about that publically. I dare to claim that many, if not most editors of Wikipedia started out with a COI edit. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 02:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to ARS!

Hi, Cumbrowski, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron WikiProject! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles and content that have been nominated for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable, and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles and content to quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated! If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again — Welcome! Addbot (talk) 00:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Looking for feedback

Hey, Cumbrowski! My name is Ks64q2, and I noticed you're in the Article Rescue Squadron as well- with a vastly more extensive editing pedigree than I! Anyway, I've got an article I wrote in the scope of the WP:BLOG project, and it got sent to AfD- it's a pretty heated debate. The article was deleted initially, and was recreated with improvements and notations to where the original AfD consensus was failed, but we have some very motivated deletionists working to kill it- I think to kill it would be easier than them being wrong the first go round! Nonetheless, the feedback I was seeking was on the arguments I'm making in that forum to save the article, to see if they're well founded and make sense, because some people are either ignoring them or just don't care- but it could be I'm not making the right points. The forum is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Motley_Moose. If you get time, take a look and let me know. Danke! Ks64q2 (talk) 18:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Fiore frank c.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Fiore frank c.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frank Fiore

Hi, in response to your message, I've placed the article in your userspace, at User:Cumbrowski/Frank Fiore, so that you can address the notability concerns. Please ensure that you include sources to verify the information in the article before moving it into the mainspace again - unsourced biographies are often the victims of libellous vandalism, as unmaintained targets. Best, – Toon^(talk) 18:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I will take a look at the article. It was one of my first ones, so I wouldn't be surprised, if it fells short in quality in one or more aspects. Nobody ever had a problem with the article until now, so I never went back to see, if I can improve on it or not. Cheers! --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I just went through the article. It's horrible. I was thinking "I wrote that?" and are not so sure about it to be honest. I would have checked the article history to find out, but maybe it is better this way that I cannot do that. Now I can say to myself that it was changed by somebody else and that my original article was much better (even if that might not be true :)). I do remember though that I had a hard time to find any personal information about him, such as his birth date and location. He seems to be the private kind of guy.. writing useful and good stuff, but does not brag about it. I read a book he wrote and wanted to find out more about him here at WP to find out that there is no entry.. so I decided to create one. Memories come back to me hehe. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 19:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

No such excuse possible. Toon05 used move so the article in your space has the complete edit history on it. Cool of him by the way, I will move that way next time I return content to someone. --BozMo talk 12:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

AFD

An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TundraDraw. Joe Chill (talk) 21:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:DDR Mark Rueckseite 5Pfennig kl.jpg

File:DDR Mark Rueckseite 5Pfennig kl.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:DDR Mark Rueckseite 5Pfennig kl.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:DDR Mark Rueckseite 5Pfennig kl.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

File:DDR Mark Vorderseite 5Mark 20JahreDDR.jpg is now available as Commons:File:DDR Mark Vorderseite 5Mark 20JahreDDR.jpg. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

AFD

An article of yours is in AFD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tetradraw. Joe Chill (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Tetradrawlogo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:File:Tetradrawlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:File:Tundradrawlogo.png)

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:File:Tundradrawlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Joe Chill (talk) 14:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Chronology of Star Wars

An AFD discussion that you have previously participated in has been reignited. See here for the new discussion.--chaser (talk) 17:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Chemical Reaction (artscene group)

I have nominated Chemical Reaction (artscene group), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chemical Reaction (artscene group) (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CRo Logo WWW.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CRo Logo WWW.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CRO-logo-by-fli7e.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CRO-logo-by-fli7e.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CRO-logo-by-msx.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CRO-logo-by-msx.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ZooFari 03:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue | Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

• News items and announcements
• Contest

• Featured editor: Teeninvestor
• Featured administrator: WereSpielChequers

• Want ads
• Feature: FeydHuxtable: Search Techniques

GA reassessment of Nofollow

An article that you have been involved in editing, Nofollow has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. BelovedFreak 12:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

legand's artworks

[[File: legands artworks means the new edition of artwork series.we are presented by any types of art works. eg; sculptures ,R eleifes , grotos , landscapings , garden decorative arts , handmade waterfalls , hardscapings ,design paintings e.t.c... more; contact;......-legand's artworks- chalakkudy town-kerala-india/ more details= contact,,, legandsulptures@gmail.com , mobile/9846607141. thak you.] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.83.53.90 (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Rescue

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Armageddon theology WritersCramp (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Webmasterworld.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Webmasterworld.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Webmasterworld.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Webmasterworld.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of MediaTrust

The article MediaTrust has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unambiguous advertisement (brings together direct response advertisers and affiliate publishers with the purpose of generating campaigns that deliver leads and sales) for a non-notable online business. Another page designed to look plausible by a PR pro, the "references" are to Facebook and Twitter accounts, PR sources, Top 500 lists, and the like. GNews finds a busy PR department, but nothing better.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:31, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Advaliant

The article Advaliant has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable online publicity business. "References" are to press releases or minor trade awards. Google News finds only routine announcements and press releases.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Advaliant.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Advaliant.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 07:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Performics.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Performics.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Xing openbc logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xing openbc logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of EComXpo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article EComXpo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EComXpo(3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cerejota ^{If you reply, please place a {{talkback}} in my talk page if I do not reply soon.} 10:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Pcboard300xXXX.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Pcboard300xXXX.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Xing openbc logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Xing openbc logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Webmasterworld.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Webmasterworld.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter Volume I, Issue III February 2012 Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page. ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

A Link to Include in ASCII Art

• ASCII Art Dictionary

I'd really like to see Andrea's site added to the Wiki guide. It's not maintained very well now but it is important with the history for ASCII artists. I've been making ASCII since the late 90's. I don't know what kind of school art you would call mine, I think of it as line art.

Anyway, it would be really nice to see the Dictionary listed as a reference. I noticed the Wiki said not to add more links without approval. I haven't been active on Wikipedia enough to know how to use the talk section so I am sending this as a note to you.

Laura (thatgrrl@gmail.com) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThatGrrl (talk • contribs) 21:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

File:Affmktillus.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Affmktillus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files 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. Cloudbound (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Commissionjunction.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Commissionjunction.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 07:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Affiliatesummitlogo212x110.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Affiliatesummitlogo212x110.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:04, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of PubCon