User talk:Dan1679/Archive004

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

== Thanks for removing "spam" links ==

Thanks for removing some of the many "spam" links in the BMW and related sections of Wikipedia. I have removed many additional "spam" links as well. I was wondering why when deleting these links you only delete some "spam" links and not others? I think that there should not be any personal or commercial links in these pages and would like to thank you for your deligence in this matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bimport (talk • contribs) 14:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Silveran Kanan

Hi, just curious about what is wrong with the intro on that page? What more do you want of it? Please, tell me so I can fix the article. Thanks. DoomsDay349 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello? You going to answer this? DoomsDay349 01:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Deleating links

Dan

The links that you deleated were similar in content and style to already existing links that you did not deleat. If you are going to deleat links, you should be consistent.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.143.40.146 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Re: -bio-notability +importance

> Is there some project going on to replace the bio-notability tag with the importance tag?

> I noticed the tag switch on a few articles I've edited and thought I'd ask.

> Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ste4k"

Yes, what used to be Here got finished. I do not know exactly what templates will be changed, but User:Redvers gave me a star for finishing it. You might want to check with him. Ste4k 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dan! Yes, I believe you are correct. I am very new however and your description sounds very accurate to me with only two details. I was givenn some help on how to do the cleanup, and I tried my best to make sure that the Edit Summary accruately reflected what was removed with a minus sign. If one of the articles had a <div> type, then I read it, removed it, and noted that as well with -div(whatever). Hope this helps. :) Ste4k 00:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Again, Dan. Yes, I understand about all of those concerns. The chief purpose of the cleanup was to remove a dual entry for the new importance Category. I am not qualified enough to say whether the bio template is scheduled for deletion. That tag though, referred to the old Category only though, and not the new Category page. The only other template besides the bio template which triggered that Category was the vanity template. Please feel free to revert any changes made, but be aware that you may end up recreating the old category. I cannot tell you if that would happen either way, yes or no. I would suggest that you drop Redvers a line though since he was notified after I had completed the task. You could TEST the idea to see if the old template triggers the old page, and if it does, simply undo it. That MIGHT even trigger an alarm bell for somebody somewhere, if they care. Thanks, and I wish I could be of more help. Ste4k 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Veotag removal as linkspam

I had seen the veotag link added to Thomas Kean Jr. and saw your reversion of the addition. I was somewaht ambivalent as to leaving it in, but I want to understand your feeling that it constitutes linkspam. If this is a campaign video, why couldn't it be acceptable? Any thoughts? Alansohn 17:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

SPAM

OK

I've read all I could find on Wikpedia about "SPAM".

What I can see that is wrong is that I posted multiple links to multiple related sites. And one of the sites I do own.

However, others of the sites I don't own and were NOT multiple links and were relavent to the article. Did you actually check out the links or simply erase them?

And if you are carefully reviewing things, why don't you pick up almost identical links to other very similar sites that were posted by their owners?

I think you are overreacting to your definition (not Wikpedia's) of spam and I would ask that you be slightly more judicious on your use of the "revert" key.

Perhaps I should just stop contributing because this is Dan's personal playground? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.143.40.146 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you get those cool Userboxes?

How do you get those cool Userboxes on your User page? --Sjledet 03:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Jordan Hasay

Dan, I noticed you tagged Jordan Hasay for speedy deletion. However, she does meet WP:BIO per google news hits[1]. I placed a hangon and listed rationale and removed the hangon once I was done. I know you're doing awesome work and one slips through every now and then. Of course, I could be wrong. I guesss it depends on an admin's decision...if any are awake. :P Thanks! Yanksox ^(talk) 04:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, you have been doing an awesome job! If you look at my recent talk, I've been making mess ups. We all learn from our mistakes, if we don't screw up once in a while, then we are going to be in for a really bad mess. Have a good one! Yanksox ^(talk) 04:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

French Forum link

[note: this discussion began with my leaving {{spam-n}} on the user's talk page -Dan]

Hi,

I think there is some misunderstanding: I added a French Forum link, of people discussing XK8 subject in french, and do not understand why it was removed, as I added in the same time the US and britisch forums which were kept?

Brgds,

Charles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.80.247.61 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello - I removed the link primarily because we don't need more external links in our article, we need more content. I also removed the link because this is the English-language Wikipedia, so links that are in other languages aren't really appropriate unless the topic is specifically about something in that language. Furthermore, there are already 2 English-language forums in the article. That's plenty - reducing it to just one would be even better. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

I added, some weeks ago (had by then another ip adresse), the 3 forums. A french one is perfectly relevant as many people look in first time on the english wikipedia and are then interested seeing that they can also find the info in other languages.

Why did you not remove an englisch speaking one, if you think three too much? Is this some kind of French bashing? And who gave you authority to decide that kind of things?

Also, I'm an XK owner and enthusiast. I contributed by corrections and add-ons where necessary. Giving links to forums is IMHO a good thing which enables people who did not find the info they were looking for to ask other people live, also in french. Even if you do not like French people.

Furthermore, some guy did indeed, before you, suppress the French forum link, and put in a commercial site in place of it.You suppressed the commercial site, which is a good point, and I put again in the forum, that's all.

At the end, i do understand you're not an XK-fan but more a wikipedia fan, right? Please leave the enthusiasts decide by themselves what is good for a page. And do not judge of things so superficially: you did think at the beginning that the forum link was a commercial one: this is not very serious, sorry. Wikipedia is a marvellous invention. Abuses are to be condemned. But injustice must also be avoided, and brutal action is never a good thing. Wikipedia does not need any lynchers.

Brgds,

Charles —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.80.247.61 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Easy with the dramatics buddy. First off, I am myself French, but that's irrelevant. The point is, this is the English article. If French readers want to learn more, they can read the corresponding (if present) article in the French Wikipedia (which if present you could easily link to in the article). If the link you're so adament about is useful, add it to the French Wikipedia article. Or, if there is content that you can add to this article regarding, for instance, a distinguishing feature of the vehicle as it's produced or sold in France, feel free to add that. However, again, external links do not really help an article much (unless they serve as a citation for content in the article) and there is no obligation for Wikipedia to host any particular external link. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just reviewed WP:EL (Wikipedia's external links guidelines), and it reminded me that links to forums should generally be avoided. (see the section "links to normally avoid", point # 12). As such, I have removed all forum links from the article. I hope this settles this issue. If you have further concerns please contact me on my talk page or bring it up on the article's talk page --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording "Buddy" is not adequate here, please remain polite. Sir.

I do not know what your nationality is, but I doubt very much you are French, and suspect French bashing.

I corrected and added some infos on this page, esp. regarding the numbers of XKR Silverstone produces and sold, as there was an error.

I added infos also on the French site, including the 3 same forums (US, UK anbd French). Nobody complained seeing a britisch forum there.

Please read again what I wrote: on a forum, one can find more accurate and immediate answers than on a wiki page. This is why links to forum are useful.And a link to a French forum is useful as there are many French speaking people who first lokk on the Englisch speaking forum and are welcoming infos in there motherlanguage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.80.247.61 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

This dispute was the subject of a Third Opinion request. Please see the Talk:Jaguar_XK page for my response to that request. Kickaha Ota 22:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong, you are just a French bascher, and your third opinion is a partial onbe, coming I presume from one of your friends. You have no knowledge of XKs or of Jaguars, and all you can do is destroy the work of others. You trie to manipulate and you lie. This is in no way the spirit of Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.80.247.61 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me...

But using a vandelism program, and adding me to your black list for so called SPAMMING on an article is a little extreme don't you think?

I added a link to the Peugeot 107 article, this link was to the owners club. I don't feel that it is spam at all, and am actually annoyed at how you think you can just go through and make changes like this to articles. The site is relevant to the article. I have a 107, I run the club, I love 107s, I think this link should go back on, even if you don't.

SG www.107oc.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.6.242.167 (talk • contribs) 10:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

External link removal

who are you to remove my edits? leave my stuff alone —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.234.133 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

none of those postings were spam? they were genuine content that added much more value than the stuff you have on the site.

Have you reviewed those item? please explain your actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

why are you forcing people to watch an un-annotteded 60 minute video that is painful to sit through. The veotagged version is smarter, quicker and has much more value.

I have to question if you actually reviewed the original content before you deleted it.

Why is the stanford version ok ( which is long and painful to watch ) but the veotagged version spam ( which is much better viewer experience yet includes all of the original content )

Maybe I am missing something

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

yo dan, lots of people want to see the streaming video of the high school varsity baseball team playing a game. Why do you keep deleting this orignal content for the local high school television station? Have you reviewed this item before you deleted it?

these are not commercials these are a free way of viewing long format videos so they are easier to view and understand. THere are no commercial messages included in these links. I am having a hard time understanding your position. Why is a long boring video acceptable yet the same video enhanced wiht menus and the ability to navigate to the interesting parts considered spam? you are out of line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

help me understand how this qualifies as OK content

http://chicago.cubs.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060424&content_id=1415977&vkey=news_chc&fext=.jsp&c_id=chc

but the annotated video shown using veotag is considered spam?

I am having a hard time understanding this.

Same video ( no adv's on the veotag version ) lot's of annotations and menus to make it easier to move around

thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

so let me get this right,

according to you, this link is OK

http://www.westfieldnj.com/

but this link is spam

http://www.westfield-online.com

how do you reconcile that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 09:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Help me understand your issue with high quality annotated videos that have direct applicability to the subjects. Why do you allow a Tim Berners-Lee video that runs 90 minutes to be streamed from the Princeton Web site, but the same video that is streamed from the same princeton web site that has annotations, navigation and menus is now deamed as spam. Why don't you ask Tim Berners-Lee which one he would prefer? WHy don't you let users view it and let them decide if it is spam. Perhaps in your haste, you have not invested the time to understand the significcant value add that this free service adds to wikipedia. By deleting these entries, you are doing a significant disservice to the community. please re-consider your position on this topic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

Would be happy to mention the availablity of these annotated videos in the context of the page to gauge the interest of the users.

As for your assertion that -- You're adding multiple affiliated/related links across multiple articles -- Each link I put up was specifically targeted to unique content that highly pertinent and extremely valuable, they all happen to use the same medium, however each item was unique. Using your logic, any contributor that posted two different links to two different streaming video files that used Windows Media Player as the viewing platform, would be spamming. Your logic fails to include the content of the link or the content of the video. The assertion that they are affiliated/related would be true for any video that uses Windows Media Player of Macromedia Flash player as the player medium. Veotag is a next genration rich media authoring and publishing tool that allows the publisher to provide annotations, navigation and menus. These items are essential for long format videos on the internet to become relevant and flourish. The end product is a much more meaningful viewing experience for long format videos. Much like the chapter features of a DVD, only more finite capability with annotations and comments.

Please actually view the links prior to deleting them. If at the end of the viewing experience you still feel that the annotated video doesn't dramatically add value to the page, then go ahead and delete it. If not, please leave the link so others can benefit as well.

thanks for your explanation. I will certainly try my best to add to the content and capability of the wikipedia community, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by My Three Sons (talk • contribs) 17:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

KenStandfield

Dear Dan,

I read your response to my articles. Firstly I would like to apologies for any offense, it was not my intention. Myself and numerous others have been engaged in developing shared and common understandings about intangibles for many years, please see: [Homepage]

Nothing I posted was intended for vanity purposes, corporate advertising, or other issue of that nature. Quite the opposite as I hope to explain.

Intangibles (knowledge, collaboration, engagement, and effectiveness) are at the heart of sustainability, social corporate responsibility, engagement, motivation, and many other issues that directly impact quality of life. Their purpose is to move corporations away from a "rape" and "pillage" attitude to one of inclusion and valuing people. As a result I believe they need to be known about by others. Executives and managers are often ignorant of intangible value and how to manage it (as it is not taught in universities or schools). Our aim is to equip others with knowledge and skill to create a more sustainable, happy, and well-balanced economic system with a greater focus on people, justice, and sustainability. It is difficult for people to take these "intangible goals" seriously without being aware of the key developments that have been made in these areas. Almost all areas were new at some stage (think the internet, wikis, computers, etc). Just because something is not widespread does not mean it is not important.

I would welcome coordinating with you and seeking your help and assistance to ensure that I do not accidentally violate Wiki rules.

Thank you again for your feedback and comments.

Best regards, Ken —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenstandfield (talk • contribs) 11:01, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Revert edit for article tag cloud

When I read the tag cloud article I was interested in learning the technique. However, there was no explanation/tutorial on the basic premise nor was there an external link to a tutorial. I googled the term tag cloud tutorial and found the page to which I linked to. After reading the article I found it to be clear and consise and felt that it would benefit other wikipedia readers who wanted more information than a description of what a tag cloud is. I have no affiliation with the website linked to and I feel that the author of the site linked to is an acceptable authority on the subject as he has authored major technical publications. In addition the page linked to contains no advertising or affiliate links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dv4000 (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

BPM-Forum declined

[contact info removed from post below so that he doesn't get spammed -Dan]

Hi Dan,

Last week I've added the BPM-Forum as a new reference for the Business Process Management page. but it was declined.

Link is to www.bpm-forum.org. This is a neutral organisation to increase the awareness of BPM. It has no commercial value/focus. I.e. could you please explain whay it was denied?

Regards,

Frits Bussemaker Chairman BPM-Forum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.208.197.226 (talk • contribs) 11:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

CoasterForce Link Removal

Hi,

Please could you explain why you keep removing the links to the CoasterForce web site but the links to the other external web sites, which are also advertising, are left there?

Many thanks, Ian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ianmbell (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

a wiki-cookie for you

An award to acknowledge your extensive and detailed grasp of the utterly irrelevant  :) --Doc Tropics 02:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to my Userpage, come back anytime :) I think I've 'seen you around', maybe in AfD? Keep up the good work and have a good day --Doc Tropics 13:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I remember...it was the Kenstandfield issue. He turned out to be a good guy and I think it all worked out well :) --Doc Tropics 13:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Restored faith", indeed. It also did a lot for my faith in Wikipedians in general. Did you notice that every single person who bit him apologized and offered help afterwards? I thought it was a spectacular show of good faith and civility; I'd call it a big win for WP as a whole. --Doc Tropics 18:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

np

NP, I usually delete my moves if they are new or came from names in vio of WP:NAME, just throw a csd tag on them and we get them pretty quick! — xaosflux ^Talk 00:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Links.

Please do not add commercial links (or links to your own private websites) to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Dan--

I send thousands of hours to do original research words and phrases. [Someone wrote a Wiki page about me.] I post the research on the American Dialect Society site, discuss it with other scholars, and then list all the detailed citations on my website. It's the best information around, available nowhere else. You usually can't link or cite this stuff to any other site. You also can't add it all in the Wikipedia text. That's what a link/cite/reference is there for, isn't it?

I give away my work for free to the Oxford English Dictionary, Wikipedia, and others. I can assure you, it's not commercial. If it was commercial, I'd be able to afford health insurance.

My site is linked to the Wikipedia in many places by other people. I are don't understand why these other people (and I don't know them) are better than me. Would it be better if I had the North American editor of the Oxford English Dictionary place a link?

You suggest the "Talk" pages. I've discussed poor and outdated Wikipedia material on the Wiki's Talk pages before. No one "talks," and the material just sits there on the Talk pages, with the "stub" unchanged.

Again, I like to add content AND links/citations for that content. There's a lot of Wikipedia pages that need a lot of work. I'm going to revise "hot dog" this weekend. Gerald Cohen and I wrote a 300-page book on the origin of "hot dog." Our work will be on the History Channel's AMERICAN EATS next week. There's no other book like it, no other research like it, and it's very important to "hot dog" and Wikipedia. Must I add all of my "hot dog" work (work I'd spent thousands of dollars crossing the country to find) to the Wikipedia for free--and be unable to cite the sources?

Barry Popik Barry Popik 16:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Word scholar Barry Popik here again. Thanks for getting back to me so quickly! You wrote:

Whenever available, reference locations for your work other than your website. For instance, if one of your articles is published in the NYT, reference that article instead of the one on your website.

This is just not right!

For example, see the origin of the New York "Yankees" nickname. I lectured before the Society for American Baseball Research. I was mentioned in the New York Post sports section, and my work is in the "Yankees" entry of Paul Dickson's Baseball Dictionary. My work is also in books specifically on the Yankees. The late baseball scholar (Lawrence Ritter) who wrote the "Yankees" entry in the Encyclopedia of New York City said he'd try to have my work in the next edition. I had checked every single New York City newspaper, and found "Yankees" earliest in the April 7th New York Evening Journal (not online). It's an incredible find. The Wikipedia had cited "Yankees" from months later.

The full story of my work is always going to be on my website! The full story often is more than just one newspaper citation. Often, I discuss several citations together, making sense of them. Yes, I can just cite a brief discussion of my work in the Dickson baseball dictionary, but it's less detailed and it's not online. It won't help anybody much.

It's pretty humiliating to give your research work out for free, and it's even more humiliating to have to rely on someone else's interpretation of it, and to give someone else credit.

I can help Wikipedia in thousands of ways with original research. (Again, I usually post my work on the American Dialect Society website, and those scholars use the same computer databases. I can add the scholarly ADS-L discussions--like a Wikipedia:Talk among language folks--as footnotes to the footnotes, but it will be messy.) If I have to wait for a book or a newspaper to pick up on something years later, and if I have to cite that slow and poor source, then what's the point of an internet encyclopedia?

Barry Popik 19:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

More about my word origin posts.

For example, I recently posted about "soul food" (an entry that the OED is revising and that my editor at the Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America had asked me about) on the American Dialect Society list, ADS-L. Benjamin Zimmer (of the Language Log and the University of Pennsylvania) beat my 1962 "soul food" citation with a 1961 citation from the New Pittsburgh Courier (newly on some ProQuest newspaper databases, but not mine).

I rounded up the earliest "soul food" citations and put them in the food section of my NYC website. I don't want to burden the Wikipedia "soul food" text with all the citations, but I added a link to the bottom of the Wikipedia "soul food" entry.

These are the best "soul food" citations anywhere, double-checked with scholars. Anyone interested in the term "soul food" would want to know this. It shouldn't be taken off because I put it there myself. That's ridiculous.

I'd like to contribute to Wikipedia for these reasons:

1. Some information is wrong or incomplete, and I can help thousands of entries.
2. Many of my website entries had previously been linked to the Wikipedia by readers of my site.
3. Google just changed its algorithm. Wikipedia comes up first, and my site has completely disappeared from the rankings. My same information appearing on other sites (in whole or in part) come up before my site. You type in "Barry Popik" + "Big Apple" and I'm on the eighth Google search page for my own site! So, I thought that now's a good time to finally get Wikipedia correct on the stuff where I am an expert.

Can I speak at Cambridge and explain my situation?

Barry Popik 21:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam

Hi! I noticed that you were a member of WikiProject Spam! How can I join? Thanks for your time! SaNdY 18:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I made a good edit to remove POV in the article

The article as it is now is biased and slanted. I am trying to balance the report on the balance of power.

This is Canada not Communist China and we don't need propaganda published. The people that keep deleting my edits and calling me a vandal are the vandals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo 19:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Article I wrote and I would like to publish something close to this. What do you suggest?

The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario

Ontario is unique among the provinces of Canada with its structure of Nine Regional Governments, namely Peel, Niagara, Waterloo, Oxford, Muskoka, Durham, York, Halton and Metro Toronto.

The unique structures created by the government of Wm. (Bill) Davis in the mid 1970's using his majority government over the objections of the local Villages, Communities, Towns and Cities affected. In the thirty years since creation they have been under a constant struggle for power and local control with the local level governments about which of them will become the Single Tier Municipality when the local development reaches maturity.

In the case of Metro Toronto the struggle was won by Metro Region who succeeded in annexing the local Cities of Toronto a few years ago. A similar struggle is currently underway in Peel Region most clearly, but similar struggles have been won and lost in other places as the local governments struggle to break free from their Region to become Single Tier Cities and preserve democratic government structures over less democratic ones.

In Canada, because our constitution only names two distinct government i.e.; The Federal and The Provincial; these Cities and Towns do not have any proper say in the matter of their Regions since both are created by Acts of Provincial Parliament and neither are constitutional governments.

Whereas Cities and Towns are democratically controlled government organization with elected representatives and elected mayors and leaders, the Regions are not. Regions have no elected leader, no full time elected representatives on their Council with offices or personal regional management staff, and there is no structured system for obtaining a majority vote in any proportionate representation of its citizens. Not even a political party system exists that can attract accountability by the votes of its citizens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 19:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Regional_Municipality_of_Peel%2C_Ontario is the discussion page. How long do I need to wait before I should repost if they don't comment? I droped them a note to go discuss it with me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiDoo (talk • contribs) 20:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

FFXIclopedia

I'm not sure why the page is still being contested as not being notable. Wikipedia itself has borrowed information and refrenced the site in numerous places. If you can give me more details, I'd really appreciate it. I compare it to WoWWiki, and I believe FFXIclopedia is just as notable as that site. I see nothing on WoWWiki that would make it any more worthy of holding a page at Wikipedia. --Ganiman 20:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Forgive me for continuing to compare FFXIclopedia to WoWWiki, but I still don't see how WoWWiki is notable where FFXIclopedia is not. WoWWiki has not recieved any awards. The two wikis, are about two similar games, and contain similar content. You mention the article was deleted over a year ago, and it was probably wrongfully deleted then too. You also are avoiding how I mention that Wikipedia itself has used it as a resource in numerous places. If it's so un-notable, why would it be referenced on Wikipedia already? The About and General Disclaimer pages at FFXIclopedia have much more content and detail than those at WoWWiki (they were actually reviewed by lawyers if you believe it). I doubt WoWWiki has been written about in any more major source than FFXIclopedia. As I keep saying, Wikipedia uses FFXIclopedia has a resource already, which to me would fulfill the "It has to be written about in some major source (website, newspaper, etc)" requirement. I understand that forums do not count, but can you specify what might? Using this Google Search [2] which excludes ffxiclopedia.org links as results, I think you may begin to understand it's popularity and significance amongst the community. --Ganiman 11:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing something here. World of Warcraft has a much larger player base than Final Fantasy XI does. Amongst the Final Fantasy XI community, FFXIclopedia has become one of the top (if not the top) resource for FFXI players to find information. As Mierin's commented stated, it's like comparing New York City to Rhode Island, and saying that Rhode Island doesn't deserve to be a state, because there are cities with larger populations. That's just silly. If it were possible to run a poll of FFXI players who thought FFXIclopedia was notable or not, I can guarantee that FFXIclopedia would be considered notable amongst the community. As stated, the WP:WEB page is a guideline not a requirement. Wether the Wikipedia community can understand it or not, FFXIclopedia has become a piece of history for Final Fantasy XI, and as such, it should have it's place in gaming history. There are far worse things in Wikipedia than this. --Ganiman 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

DotNetNuke take 2

Hello Dan,

With regards to this message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:82.211.113.2

I added the DotNetNuke Directory in to the discussions page but no one has commented on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:DotNetNuke).

This resource has now been extended to include a FAQ for beginners and experts (http://www.dnndir.com/FAQ/tabid/1088/Default.aspx) - I have received a lot of postive feedback and think it would be of benefit if added to the DotNetNuke Wiki page.

Here is a the original request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AbsolutDan/Archive003)

Is there any way of inviting editors to review an entry for submission?

Thanks Rodney Joyce —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.211.113.2 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

External links

All right, that's fine. The links used to be there for a long time, but were just recently removed. Then when I saw that a couple were returned, I figured it was all right for them to be there. But I can understand why they shouldn't be there, I won't add then in the future unless they've been 'cleared' to be put up or something. Thanks. Jay 20:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, I think I remember coming across that page now. Ok, thanks for being nice about it, I'll make sure to ask before adding any links like that. Thanks again. Jay 20:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry about the International Youth Day Artical. I didn't mean to do any vandelism, It just said on my Calender that it was on August 9th. I'm Sorry. Please Write me back. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimspon7 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank You for the reply. We should talk more often on Wikipedia. July 6th 2006, 9:01 P.M. CT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimspon7 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[Note: I have removed some personal details from the post below -Dan]

How long have you been on Wikipedia, what city and state do you live in, and how old are you? I'm just Courious. I'm in *******, ** I'm **, and I've only been on this site since May 23, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimspon7 (talk • contribs) 02:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not online?

I havent heard from you since Friday. Did you go somewhere? Let me know.- Jimspon7 July 10th 2006, 6:55 P.M. CDT.

Hi

Hi Dan! I just wanted you to know that I won't be on Wikipedia Sunday. So feel free to leave any messages, and I'll be back Monday. Have You ever edited "The Brady Bunch"? I usally edit that.-Jimspon7 July 07, 2006, 9:52 CDT.

Uhh..............

I hope this isn't too much for private. My name isn't Jim. I just chose the name by merging Jimmy Neutron, and Spongebob Squarepants. My name is acctuly Nick.

Jim Holloway Piece

I did get a bit carried away. Will neutralize the piece per request. Silentrunner 22:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Silentrunner 23:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediator

Don't worry about the lack of conversation on the talk page. By the looks of it this article has undergone drastic improvement in the last 3 days. This may soon be a case closed. Eagle talk 07:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh and please set wierdnabot to archive sooner than 15 days... :) I have it set for 5 days :) just a thought Eagle talk 07:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you're very insensitive!

Many of your fellow wikipedians find it difficult to learn only by reading, and need something more tangible- an example (for example). The paid survey article is poorly structured, lacking any illustration, and almost impossible to read. I had hoped that my link to an example of a legitimate paid survey website would illustrate the topic for the curious and impatient. Now, no one can enjoy it. I hope that this tiny step in your quest to de-commercialize the encyclopedia has made you happy, because it has made me unhappy. -Dan H. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.205.106 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to comply

Dan. The paid surveys article is a joke, but I will not fix it. There is a perfectly good market research page that people can check out. I will continue, however, to seek free outlets for my spamming urges- if not on Wikipedia, then on any of the thousands of virgin Wikis available to me. And if you're not getting paid for what you're doing, you should join my evil master-plan. We have more than enough room for proofreaders, especially proofreaders accustomed to working for free.

 Enjoy your spam-free encyclopedia.

-Dan H —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.8.205.106 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Frustrated Author

I think that you and I got off to an unfortunate start. Perhaps we can do better if I compltely explain myself.

You are just trying to enforce the rules - especially the SPAM rules - and I am just trying to post material that people should be interested in on particular topics that I am interested in.

I started off breaking the rules. It was unintentional - Wikipedia has a formidable set of rules to learn - and I did break them unintentionally.

I posted more than 3 links on a particular day. They were also commercial links. I did not post them for SPAM reasons but you can't tell that. They looked like SPAM to you (and I can understand that) but I saw them as links to valuable information. No matter if they were valuable or not, I broke the rules and I'm sorry. I'll stop breaking the rules as soon as I can figure them all out (there does seem to be quite a labyrinth of rules to negotiate for a new user and reading hundreds of pages is tedious at best).

Next, thanks for referring me to the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. I have read the material (pages of material).

I have a comment about the application of this rule and a comments about the rule and how it may apply if it is applicable. (And I'll post this also on the applicable System discussion page.)

First comment - The Reliable Sources rule doesn't apply to the link I am proposing.

The link is not a primary or secondary source. Primary and Secondary sources deal with proving facts in an article. Rather, this link is an example. It provides examples of tools for Systematic Improvement. These are not "facts" ... they are neither right nor wrong. They are examples and thus can't be wrong (unless you say that they are NOT examples).

Thus the more I read the Reliable Sources rule, the more that I thought that it didn't apply to this link.

But even if the Reliable Sources rule does apply, read the following:

QUOTE 1:

--

Wikipedia:Reliable sources

Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym.

However, editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; secondly, because the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.

--

First, I think the link I am proposing meets this exception. The greatsystems.com web site is a good example of a well-known professional writing within his field of expertise. (Even if this is a very narrow field.)

However, I believe this guideline is probably outdated as on-line media becomes more popular and perhaps just as accurate (or inaccurate?) as the old traditional sources that are becoming more inaccurate to keep up with on-line sources and the 24 hour per day news cycle.

QUOTE 2:

--

Evaluating reliability

Evaluate the reliability of online sources just as you would print or other more traditional sources. Neither online nor print sources deserve an automatic assumption of reliability by virtue of the medium they are printed in. All reports must be evaluated according to the processes and people that created them.

Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources. Note that Wikipedia itself does not currently meet the reliability guidelines; however, nothing in this guideline is meant to contravene the associated guideline: Wikipedia:Build the web. Wikilink freely.

--

Newsmedia as a reliable source ... that's been a joke lately!

And the New York Times as an example? Please do some reading about Jason Blair!

At least in the US, the accuracy of the press has sunk to new low levels. That's what the Dan Rather scandal was all about.

But this isn't just a recent problem. Check out these old headlines:

http://www.saveportland.com/Climate/index.html

Would Wikipedia be more reliable if these articles from newspapers and magazines (including the New York Times and Science) were used a sources?

And lawyers checking articles for accuracy? Someone at Wikipedia must be laughing about this.

Lawyers check for liability. They don't LET someone publish because someone may use what is publish and thereafter, sue the company. This is NOT a reliability issue - it is a liability (risk management) issue.

Besides, I bet that there isn't a single newspaper that has lawyers out checking articles to see if facts are correct. The lawyers too busy defending defamation and liable suits or prosecuting copyright infringement actions. Being from Scotland you may not know this. But being from America, I have experienced the "reliability" of lawyers - and you don't want to go there.

Wikipedia really should consider revising these outdated ideas about the reliability of sources - ideas that are reducing the accuracy of their on-line encyclopedia. The ideas seem to be from old academic research (perhaps developed in the days of hand written dissertations in early 1800's and last applicable in the 1980's or maybe even 1990's). Even previously "reliable", peer-reviewed publications now find themselves mired in controversy (for example the New England Journal of Medicine and the Merck/Vioxx publication controversy).

A recognized professional publishing under his or her own name and staking their professional reputation on their writing is much more likely to be accurate and fact-checked that a more traditional source of media (television or newspapers) in today's world of 24 hour news and instant deadlines.

Why else have dozens of "accuracy" web sites sprung up to challenge the inaccuracy of traditional print and broadcast media.

Perhaps that is why the "exception" above will need to be used more and more to promote accuracy and provide applicable, reliable content.

To conclude, I guess I can sum up my "case" as follows:

1. The link to the Systems page (http://www.greatsystems.com/systems.htm) at greatsystems.com is a good, accurate, reliable link for examples of systems to improve performance that either:

a) falls outside the realm of the Reliable Sources Rule, or

b) perfectly fits the exceptions clause in the rule.

2. Wikipedia should revise its rules to bring them in line with the ever changing world of on-line information (of which Wikipedia is a part). Otherwise they stand the chance of becoming obsolete (like old paper encyclopedias are today). Wikipedia should also recognize that some links aren't used to prove facts but rather are used as examples - a horse of a completely different color!

Thanks again in your patience - I can be rather vociferous when I think I'm being treated unfairly. I will try to be less offended by your (or others) critiques and, of course, follow the rules so that I get less critiques!

One last question, is their a way to pass this idea about examples on to more Wikipeadia editors? I think it really needs consideration for addition somewhere in the rules.

I know that this is a lot of material to consider so please feel free to take your time. The world won't end while we wait to improve the System article.

Thanks

--24.183.226.168 03:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi, Dan, Do you work for Motorola University? Isn't it a commercial site? There are many examples of links to commercial sites in Wikipedia. If they contain relevant FREE content what is wrong with adding these resources??? For copyright reasons not ALL content can be added to Wikipedia. Margaret —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.69.7 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Archive bot...

LOL!! yeah I do have mine to a short period... (but if you noticed... the archive bot looks at the date of the last conversation...) so if a conversation spans 3 weeks... the bot will wait another 2 weeks to finally archive. :) Eagle talk 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, please make a new section on my talk page when you respond... I almost lost you there!!! (look at how many others posted after you!!!) part of the reason for the short time on my page...) Eagle talk 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have editwars... I will hang around... (but do realize that the reverting you are seeing is very low key)

Also I will be gone from july 9-16. Just a heads up) Eagle talk 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

NZHistory.net.nz deletions

Hi Dan

I got a notice saying you had deleted a link to our nzhistory.net.nz website from the Monarchy entry because you thought it was a commercial website. In fact it is run by the Minsitry for Culture and Heritage in New Zealand and has no commercial association. The content is developed by professional historians and where we have gaps we often link people back to Wikipedia.

Since I got the notice I have created an account, but I now can't find the page that had the warning! Anyway, I also got told off for having the same link on different Wikipedia topics, so I'll make sure I don't do that from now on and only link to the page if it is specific to a topic.

Regards Jamie Mackay Web Editor Ministry for Culture and Heritage (New Zealand) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jamie Mackay (talk • contribs) 01:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

6sigma101.com

Hi Dan

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Six_Sigma#6Sigma101

Regards

Glen Netherwood —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Glen netherwood (talk • contribs) 01:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

How do we get removed from your SPAM list?

At this stage it appears that you are removing our links to different pages in our glossary as spam. I would like to stress again that all the links are DIFFERENT and each goes to a different page of a comprehensive online glossary. There are many other reference sites listed in many different articles and they are allowed to do that. So why NOT us?

It is very clear that Six Sigma is the only article in the topical area related to our free resources that had any discussion on External Links at all. It is also very suspicious that highly commercial site like Motorola University gets so much coverage in Wikipedia, even its own Category.

Can you provide us with the rationale for removing our links. Is the content not relevant? Do we have any Google or other ads on our site? Anything else that we missed when we considered adding our glossary pages to the Wikipedia?

Can you reveal your real name? We have added our real name to the entry and can easily be found on the Internet showing our background and credentials.

Regards, Margaret Netherwood MiC Quality —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Goskan (talk • contribs) 06:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

All your responses so far encourage removal of external links. I assume that's the consensus. I shall proceed with this as per your recommendations.

Goskan 13:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

more 6Sigma101

Hi Dan

Please see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Analysis_of_variance

The external links policy states under "what should be linked to"

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article ......... in some cases this is not possible because ............ or because the site has alevel of detail which is innapropriate for the Wikipedia article"

I believe this is true of 6Sigma101.com

under "Links normally to be avoided"

"Except where noted the below do NOT (my capitals) override the list of what should be linked to:

The only point that would seem to be of concern is:

3. A website you own or maintain .... this is because of neutrality or point of view concerns

However the guidelines do not prohibit adding these links it does say they are "NORMALLY TO BE AVOIDED". It also says they do not override the list of links. In factual explanations of statistics there are no "neutrality or point of view" concerns. If somebody puts on an apparently commercial link without discussion, and from an anonymous source I can see the case for removing it without discussion; otherwise Wikipedia would be full of spam very quickly. However if that person comes back and argues the case for its inclusion it is not appropriate to revert it again without discussion. You should go on to the discussion and explain your actions.

Regards Glen

Glen Netherwood 06:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

6sigma101

> However, please refer to WP:SPAM, particularly the section "How not to be a spammer." It is by this criteria that I most often remove external links.

I don't believe that I have contravened those guidelines. I am contributing a valuable resource that is fully compliant with Section 5 of "What should be linked to".

The only issue is, does it comply with Section 5.

If it does then it is, by definition, not spam, and it should not be removed.

I am new to Wikipedia but I believe that if it is to have a lasting value the points must be argued on objective criteria. People should base their arguments on the evidence and respected sources. That is equally true of contextual material and procedures. If you have a problem with the factual content of 6sigma101 then let us discuss it based on the evidence. If you think it contravenes the procedures then similarly, let's base it on the facts.

So far you have not done that. you have just said that in your opinion it breaches the procedure, but have not been prepared to argue the case.

The "Links normally to be avoided" clearly says "Except where noted the below do NOT override the list of what should be linked to"

You said in your reply to me:

"I agree that in certain cases a link ovverides 'links to normally avoid' because it overwhelmingly meets 'What should be linked to.'

The procedure does not say "in certain cases", nor does it say "overwhelingly meets". The procedure is clear and specific. It is not for you to add conditions. If you disagree with the procedure find a mechanism to get it changed by the powers that be. In the meantime please abide by it.

Regards

Glen

Glen Netherwood 15:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Six Sigma

No problem--I haven't been keeping a close enough eye on that article (it gets vandalized so often that I often miss edits), and someone deleted a few of the external links a few days ago. Keep up the great anti-spam work! --Spangineer^[es] (háblame) 11:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal

Have you thought about helping Medcabal? You wouldn't have to take on any cases officially, you could just help out in the background like I do. (you can reply here, I'll watchlist you) --Ideogram 12:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding? :) I spend countless hours each week in discussion with editors whose links I have removed or explaining other cleanup work that I do. It's all I can do right now just to "fight my own battles," nevermind someone else's!

Seriously though, I appreciate the offer. When (or more likely, if) my talk page ever quiets down, perhaps I'll have some time (and mental energy) to try to assist others.

Maybe I ought to give up EL patrol completely - it's a thankless job that generally gets you nothing but flaming. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)