User talk:Dan1679/Archive005

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.

==Starbucks==

Hi Dan, I just objected to your recent link removal on the Starbucks article. Would you, at your leisure, mind dropping by the talk page and read my comments. I'm not all hot and bothered or antyhing, but I think some clarification might be in order. Cheers! Mr Christopher 21:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Got both your notes, we're on the same page and thanks! Mr Christopher 14:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Please ban...

Hello, this "Sajjid the Great" creep keeps on vandalizing pages with his graffiti. The latest was the Kalyan page. Can you ban him? Regards. WikiSceptic 04:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo/WikiDoo

I made a RfC entry for WikiRoo/WikiDoo here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/WikiRoo. If you can look over it and improve it and certify it, I guess we can go from there. He was at it again this morning. --Gary Will 15:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the case to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct. It's my first too. From what's there, I'm not sure that much will come of this. We'll see, I guess. I was just reading a case from April with no resolution. --Gary Will 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Determinism and Randomness

Hi Thanks for your valuable suggestions. I have significantly reduced the essay like nature and also tried to make it more neutral by making simple slight changes.I've also added proper references and external links. Another thing that i realised was that the article should be a part of another article named Causal Determinism as that is exactly the aspect of determinism that i've elaborated.That article is anyways a stub.So,i'm gonna support the deletion and add the contents of my to the article mentioned here. Kindly check out the article now and leave me a message if its satisfactory. thanks Raghavb 20:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot about the citation idea. I see your point. Raghavb 12:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Re : Welcome back!

That's right, I'm back! - And thanks for the well-wishes, I really appreciate them. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 16:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Fantasy Football

Fantasy Football is an online activity and removing links to NFL.com ESPN.com CBS.com, fantasy rankings, fantasy projections and fantasy software would be censoring information from wikipedians. If a user wants to learn about Fantasy Football, an online event, he does so by visiting sites that play fantasy football or give him fantasy football information. Removing links to those sites is counter productive.

I understand you are trying to remove spam. Tidying up pages is fine. But 'deleting' links is not progress. The page you referred to for fantasy football is in no way as complete as the link list that was on wikipedia.

If you want to continue to make progressive changes for the wikipedia community, do so. But, don't remove links with inferior links. If someone wants to know more about fantasy football, he will do so my continuing to established fantasy football sites where they can play fantasy football. Don't link the wikipedian to sites that are about football, instead of fantasy football. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Amrosent (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

wikiHow

Dan

Just stumbled on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#.22wikihow.22 I replied in the discussion but wanted to highlight in case you missed it as it slips towards the archives.

Best, JackHerrick 17:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

RobNelsonFilms

Not sure how to add information to this so that it gets to the needed sources, but I wasn't spamming. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how it works. I just tested it out by adding some of my most resourcefull pages to the appropriate sources, considering the links on the pages that I found when I was researching the info for my site weren't all that good. I thought it would help out. I thought users would like to see that.

I realize Wiki isn't a source of just links to good info, but its not encouraging me much to help Wikimedia if my additions aren't even noted. I don't think they even looked at my site additions. Sheesh.

Besides, we're not commercial anyhow. We're a collection of 5 graduate students that make articles on biology info.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam"

Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.13.136 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Hi, Dan. Reviewing your claim on WP:PAIN that WikiRoo had been "namecalling" in edit summaries, I thought it exaggerated. "Dissident" isn't even a negative word. I did write a lttle note advising him against using words like "progagandist" in edit summaries, though. But considering that you're in a content conflict with WikiRoo and have recently filed an RFC on him, you might want to consider that actions like WP:PAIN reports for such mild-to-non-existent infractions may reflect badly on you rather than him. I also frankly have a bit of a problem with the note from you that I saw on his page. It's misleading to suggest that editors have an obligation to " try to find something positive to say" to balance critical input that they make. Please review WP:NPOV, as it's our most important policy. And please don't try to deter people from editing articles "if all you can think of is negativity"; that's misrepresenting WP:NPOV in a big way. Intimidating people from contributing is altogether frowned on. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

WikiRoo continuing with attacks

On the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario, WikiRoo continues with paranoid personal attacks and unfounded allegations, accusing everyone who disagrees with him as being either sockpuppets or a cabal. You already gave him a 'last warning'. Time to pull the plug on him? --DarkAudit 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cellular Automaton

Dan,

First, as a recognised researcher in the field of cellular automata (I am the only person who has ever constructed a self-replicator within von Neumann's 29-state cellular automata), I am well placed to give these comments.

Second, Hiroki Sayama is also a well recognised researcher in this field. I suspect that it is he who added the link which you have construed to be spam. Frankly, the article is relevant to the field, for it discusses models of self-replicators within the space of a cellular automata. The link given is to his paper, as available from an MIT Press website.

Third, while I can agree that the article Cellular Automaton is becoming overly broad in its references, this would also include the mentions of Wolfram's work, and he is clearly interested in self-promotion. I know Wolfram (even if only as a passing acquaintance), and I do not regard his work in ANKOS as being particularly important. Sayama's work is far more relevant to the topic of cellular automata. ANKOS is relevant only as a picturebook of the output of some systems of cellular automata.

Forth, what may be more relevant to your act, is the creation of a list of topical papers, and have a single link to that list within the references section of the Cellular Automaton article. What should not be done is a wholesale exclusion of relevant material.

Finally, in my opinion, the article is poorly named. A cellular automaton is a (single) finite-state automaton that resides within a (single) cell of a system of cellular automata. In this regard, Wolfram is using the language correctly. I find it quite strange that persons having interest in the topic of cellular automata persist in misnaming (see the discussion page of the article for some relevant exchange between editors).

The article should be titled: Cellular Automata. William R. Buckley 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the near immediate reply. I have been reviewing the Wikipages respecting the issue of spam, and in particular those messages which discuss apparent actions of Scientific American. About this problem, I am probably in agreement with removal of the link, if only because such links are added to inappropriate places. I really do like the idea of having separate pages which list all relevant external publications (be they magazines, books, movies, websites, etc.), with a single link thereto within the references section of other Wikipedia articles.

The link to Sayama's paper, even though it is through the MIT Press website, is not promotional. Sayama's paper has been published (in 2000), and the link which you removed provides article readers with a means to obtain Sayama's paper. It is not promotional; it is informational. Further, since the paper has been published, it is citable. I will work to find a more suitable place to put such links. Perhaps the Wikipedia community could work with the Scientific American people to adjust their means of providing links. Wikipedia articles would clearly benefit from having external references, such as SciAm articles. It seems the issue is more a matter of how and where such links are obtained and provided. Please know, I do support your deletionist (is that the correct title) activities, even if I do not clearly understand the tendency. I am probably more of the inclusionist bent, even as I hold that Wikipedia should be a strong information source.

Finally, I do well appreciate your comment respecting the suitable place to discuss concepts like article naming. In fact, you will find (upon review) that the discussion page for the article Cellular Automaton does already have some debate of this issue. Indeed, I initiated that debate. William R. Buckley 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

cyLEDGE

The cyLEDGE article has now been edited to take into account justified criticisms by several users. Please accept our apologies for what may have seemed excessive or unclear marketing jargon (the jargon which, for better or worse, we are most familar with...), and have done our best to follow the Wiki Style manual. Though cyLEDGE contains the company site as an external link, it is not so much a marketing campaign than it is an attempt to communicate what we are doing and get reactions from other people working or interested in the field. Since there is a natural affinity to cyLEDGE's activities and open-platforms such as Wikipedia, it is important for us to be present there - an additional paragraph has been added to make as clear as possible what the issues at stake are, and which we are trying to come to terms with. I hope you will reconsider your proposed deletion in view of these changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knusper (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo

Hi,

You may very well be right. Two things in which to take solace, though: 1)WikiRoo is now blocked; and 2) IP addresses can't have their talkpages deleted as easily (being multi-user, they don't have a right to vanish of the same kind), so any griping he does from there will be universally visible. If the IP in question is WikiRoo, it is also possible that he's just confused, and didn't realize that asking to vanish meant that he'd be blocked permanently. As an eternal optimist, I still hope he'll figure all that out and set himself to constructive editing. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned to GaryWill at his talk, the answer is no. Blocking an IP can lead to inadvertent "collateral damage" (the blocking of innocent users on the same network); as well, it is a virtual certainly that someone else will come to possess WikiRoo's exact current IP address someday (people move -- IPs move too.) For these two reasons, indefinite blocks of IP addresses are forbidden, more or less. The "right to vanish" only exists for registered accounts -- which makes sense, since editing behind an IP is a form of anonimity anyway. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

are you an admin?

In that case it is meaningles talking with you, by using violence your are going to impose your POV anyway. Karnagio 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

request to clean up the history of frustration

Wiki has a policy to keep things like users IP adress confidential. What realy got me going was when I first signed up and right away someone plastered my IP address in a banner across my user name page like a branded criminal.

That was the catalist to the whole escapade when I found myself reacting to being under personal attack which started me fighting back at everyone like Don Quixote.

Kindly delete the IP page entirely. I don't want my new work getting prejudiced by that initial foray. Wiki does have a policy of not publishing IP adresses of its editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

looking for your support

Hi AbsolutDan,

Looking for your support on my first article which I think I've put together properly and nicely. I have quite a few editors saying Keep, but I don't know if a bunch of other people are working together to show up at the last minute with a bunch of delete votes to kill my work. I expected a few like Will who have not cast their vote, so I believe they are holding back till the last minute to ambush this article just before the vote tally, to take away my ability to resolve or comment on their reasons.

I also have ideas for more articles and I don't what to invest too much time if others are going to use tactics to undermine it. This is the vote page and I would appreciate your review and comments and anyone else that may be interested in helping to expand Wiki wiht new content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emil_Kolb

WikiWoo 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

Please see Requests for adminship/Yanksox. Thanks Tyrenius 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it will cause any problem, now it's been sorted, and your explanation given. Good job there was one that occurred before where it happened, or I wouldn't have known either. Tyrenius 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, don't worry about your comments and please don't be so hard on yourself. I deeply appreciate your kind words towards me. If you need anything feel free to contact me. :) Yanksox 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Laser Tag and WP:EL

Hello Dan. You don't know me, but I spotted a comment by you to another user on their talk page about Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I was hoping, when you get the time, if you would kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Laser Tag and WP:EL and perhaps give your input. I would appreciate it. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and will contact you if I need further assistance. Cheers again! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki(Woo) and the Susan Fennell page

Since you've dealt with WikiRoo before on the Susan Fennell talk page, I was wondering if you could come by and explain original research and citing your work. I've tried, but he finds the idea of citing everything added "ridiculous." He is attempting to insert his own original research into the article and claims that he has referenced it by giving links to general Google search results (that is, he has extrapolated from the mass of results for a specific set of search terms, and then cited the search as a "reliable source" for his conclusion). OzLawyer 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. OzLawyer 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back

This time as WikiWoo. This is getting tedious. --DarkAudit 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Lord Strachan

Dear Dan,

I read your notes and such about "vandalism", and the articles I have created. Lord Strachan is an actual figure in Scottish and British Parliament, the youngest in fact! I'm currently writing to you from Glasgow, Scotland, and I believe a couple of My Friends attempted to write this Lord Strachan page a while ago, but they were deleted as well. Hmmm . . .

As well, I can see you getting angry at the Fettes College thing, and I am a little sorry for that, but Lord Strachan did attend Fettes College, so can you perhaps write that in there?

Please respond to me why writing about a current political figure is wrong, Thank you,

Avakynesian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avakynesian (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dan, here you are - Lord Robert Keith Strachan House of Lords - Heaton and Others (Respondents) v. Axa Equity ...Lord Strachan heard the twelve actions together and in April 2006 he gave judgment in all of them. The parts of his opinion dealing with liability and with age ... www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020425/heaton-3.htm - 30k - I don't know if this is what you want, but it's some publicity about Lord Strachan. Thank you for your time, but, perhaps; If I give you the iformation and images and such for Lord Strachan, could you maybe make it? It shouldn't be that hard to find info, or images, but I already have them, so if I give you this stuff, perhaps could you do it? Avakynesian 04:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Question

Hi Dan,

I wish to post a page on my product www.activexls.com

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

It get the box saying it is under editorial review.

I do not wish to publish marketing crap, but to create awareness upon such products

It is a great tool for .NET and Java developers. I don't think software should be excluded from WIKIPEDIA just because it's NOT open source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mihaigheza (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles and links from Idcon

Dan,

I tried to edit some of the pages according to what I saw on the page earlier. It looks as if you have reverted all my posts. I'm new and don't know the rules 100%. I felt all my posts went according to the style of the current page. However, perhaps I made a mistake. If so let me know.

I have posted 2 articles. one on the preventive maintenance page, one on the root cause page. I see many other article on the pages so I hope this is not a problem (unless you are a competitor to my company?). Let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.126.96 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 July 2006

me again. Got a log in. I saw your post. It's my first time here, so perhaps I made some mistakes. I understand you have to remove SPAM, perhaps a couple of my post could have been interpreted that way, I'll try to be more conservative. However ...

I tried to add content as well as links (mostly to interesting articles), but you deleted content as well, why?

There are many links to articles on the pages, the links are mostly to commercial sites, If I feel we have good content, why can't I add links to valuable articles? I think I can evaluate which article is reasonabe interesting since I've worked as a consultant in this field (for the posts I make) for 35 years?

If you can't accept article links from me, I think you have to remove them all from your pages (are they yours?). I don't see how you could be the judge of the quality of these articles since you spend your time in front of a computer, not in plants doing or training on these topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idhammar (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

saw your message and saw your point. But, if you follow your own guidelines. How can you have links to pages on the Root Cause page that aren't even to article information? For crying out loud, you even have trademarks for software names in the links you allow!! Where is this community of concensus that allowed those links? Where do I go, because someone is not following guidelines, or the little community is made up of a cartell of SPAMMERS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idhammar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Hi Dan,

I can't believe you would remove the link to a relevant article and leave the other links intact.

C'mon Dan. Do I need to make it a link to a PDF to make it valid? What is the differentiator here?

If people come here for info and value (as I hope they do,) then this link is clearly that and not promotional.

Yes, I run a for profit business, but I do not promote that business anywhere in the article and you have to look carefully for advertising on my site. That is not the case with most of the other articles; who are also "for profit" businesses (even though some pretend to be otherwise.)

I am also well aware of what is appropriate for Wikipedia and see your subjective judgement on the remaining links as very suspicious to say the least.

I wrote a bit of a treatise on this subject some time ago and will share it with you if you are open to another viewpoint if you'd like to email me at jb@tpslean.com

I'm not looking to pick a fight here, but I am a bit tired of people picking and choosing what links can stay or must go based on inconsistent criteria. It just seems to me that something is not working as designed here.

Look over the other links and tell me if they aren't promotional in some way or another. They are; and some are flagrantly advertising.

I wish to contribute every bit as much as the other folks on this site. And yes, like others, I appreciate traffic to my site from Wikipedia as well. Even though thus far it has only been an annoyance.

All the Best,

Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbillh (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

Actually, we probably agree much more than you might think on maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I believe in its value and also want to preserve it

I don't particularly like the argument that now that you are watching the Lean Manufacturing article that all of the previous posts must be relevant. I assure you that what you are calling an olive branch is exactly what most of the other posts are offering.

If you are being so bold as to take links off an article page because of your supreme knowledge of how things should be, then maybe you should exercise some of this wisdom on the other links. Not to be a smart Alec about it, but is it just luck for the clearly promotional sites you let slip by or are you just doing your job half-way? Either seems insufficient and lacking due diligence.

In the bigger picture shouldn't we put a category on the site (in the External Links section) for "Related Articles" and "Other Resources?" These links could lead to another wiki page separate from the main article page to avoid clutter and such, but still add value to the visitors.

All I truly want here is fair treatment and due consideration for what I am trying to contribute.

I'm going to re-post the article link to a PDF version that does not reside in my main website. Visitors may read the article and benefit from it or not and click on the link on the final page of the article or not as they see fit. I've been told by many people in this field that this article is needed and appreciated. I want to share it. People will vote with their clicks.

All I ask of you is that you leave my link there for a few days and see if anyone else takes issue with it. If the community determines that it is inappropriate I will pull it myself if they don't beat me to it. That said, if we are to get real "pure" and "letter of the law'ish" about it, then we all have some work to do on the main page, especially regarding the books and external links sections.

Thanks for what you are trying to do.

--Jbillh 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Dan,

I understood you in your previous posts but fail to accept that it is appropriate or sufficient to only cut new posts to the external links section. It just seems to me that someone inclined to help keep wiki clean would be more thorough on the pages they monitor. Perhaps 1400+ pages is just too many to do justice to when it comes to spam hunting?

In the meantime, I offered a free and relevant article with no strings attached and it is booted while blatant advertising that links to nothing but homepages and books remains. This is why I feel so indignant about all of this. Doing this job half-way is not doing it correctly in my humble opinion.

It is not my goal to somehow "beat the system," but there is no way anyone else can chime-in about the appropriateness of my links if you zap them as soon as they show up based on your interpretation of things. That just gives one editor too much power in my opinion. And that power and judgement is only being cast on new posts. Whether or not there is value in a post or a link should certainly be determined by more than one person. That is why I say let the people who know the topic decide.

We could go round and round here but my life is much too short for this. Although I sincerely appreciate what you are trying to do, I cannot get on board with how you are applying your editorial license.

All the Best,

--Jbillh 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Man, what a thankless job you do. So ... thanks. --Ideogram 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Says one idiot to the other LOL Cshay 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

so you too?

ok hi dan, i'll argue this point with you as well. seriously i don't even know what to say anymore after reading the apparent discussion with the guy from Celluar Automa i don't even know whats going on anymore. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Whateverpt (talk • contribs) 19:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

how did you do this?

Hey, i noticed that you made an edit on the usertalk page for 203.24.163.5 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:203.24.163.5) a few months ago and added in the "sharedip template", with a message saying "This IP address, 203.24.163.5, is registered to Lauriston Girls' School and may be shared by multiple users."

I was just wandering how you managed to figure out that the ip 203.24.163.5 belongs to Lauriston Girls' School?

Thanks Yaksha 02:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks from Yanksox

Hey Dan, thanks for supporting my RfA, which registered a tally of 104/4/7. Which means... I am now an admin!!! I was and still am very flattered by all the kind comments that I recieved, I will also take into account the comments about how I could improve. I guarantee I will try my best to further assist Wikipedia with the mop. Feel free to drop in and say hi or if you need anything. Again, thank you so much! Seriously, if you need anything feel free to contact me! Yanksox 04:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Tom Marshall Bible teacher

Would you kindly not interfere with this article until it is complete. It will be sourced as soon as you let me finish writing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip.marshall (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not appreciate your deleting most of my article on Tom Marshall before I'd even finished writing and documenting it. Hope you don't treat other contributors in this high-handed way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Philip.marshall (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan: Is he a rogue admin with a vandetta?

If you continue to vandalize my talk page you will be reported to other admins. Please provide a link to wikipedia guidelines that say I cannot clean up MY OWN talk page. Also, while you are at it, I suggest you read this article and pay close attention to what it says. Get a life, you robotic idiot. Cshay 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First off no I am not an admin. Second, when you originally removed the warnings from your talk page, you did not archive them. I see that you have since followed procedure a bit more closely and archived the warnings, so I assume that you have since seen Wikipedia:Removing warnings#Vandalism. However please bear in mind in the future that quickly archiving warnings can also be seen an attempt to hide the warnings, and could as such be considered vandalism as well. If you have any other questions or concerns please let me know. However please be civil in your messages. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan tends to use the automated software called "Vandal Proof" to detect vandalism. This amatuerly written malware has a demonstrably high rate of errors due to poor software design. Yet he still uses it because he enjoys giving warnings to users. It is a power trip for him. If you also fall victim to his false reliance on this software tool, please send me a message. I am building a case towards getting him banned. Cshay 06:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: Though the above message may constitute a personal attack, I have thick enough skin and confidence enough in my editing that I would prefer to leave it here "for the record". --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

CShay: I understand you may have felt upset when I recently reverted your talk page and restored conversation you removed at Talk:Viper Room. However rest assured that at the time the edit was not in error, and was not due to any "bugginess" in VP. As I mention above, improperly removing discussion and warnings is generally frowned upon and in some cases is considered vandalism itself.

If you have issues with any other particular edits I have made, please feel free to mention them and I will explain my reasoning for each. However if you are convinced I am outright hurting Wikipedia, I of course cannot stop you from filing a case on me; however please do so rather than making threats. Thank you --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are going to archive your talk page, be sure to archive all of the discussions. Remember, talk pages serve as a record of communication between editors. Please do not remove comments or discussion without archiving them. Thank you.--AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

As pointed out to you before, Wikipedia guidelines only require me to preserve warnings on my talk page. Your obsession with telling me how to handle other aspects of my talk page just boggles my mind. You recently restored content to my talk page that were clearly not warnings. Stop it now or you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Cshay 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

The messages you have removed from your talk page are warnings and as such removing them is vandalism. The first message is an expanded warning about removing warnings:

| As I mention above, improperly removing discussion and warnings is generally frowned upon and in some cases is vandalism itself.

The second message is another reminder to properly archive messages.

Besides, you have threatened to file a case against me. Under these circumstances our discussions should remain on the record and available for third parties to review. Unless you have decided not to file a case against me, please do not remove any of the discussions we have without archiving them. Thank you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your final warning about vandalizing my talk page. You may discuss anything you want here on your own page if you wish it to remain on the record as unlike you I would not mess with your own talk page (since I am not a vandal, contrary to what your buggy "Vandal Proof" software seems to think). However, do not restore content to my talk page that is not a formal warning. Cshay 18:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion

I've given a third opinion on your dispute over at User talk:Cshay. --Scott Wilson 23:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Having had a couple hours to reflect on this, and having discussed the matter with a friend, I would like to start by offering my apologies for the reverts I made here today. I honestly did not know that a warning-type message had to be so "by the book" to be considered a "non-removable warning". Also, I am open to discussing any other edits of mine that you disagree with. Perhaps if we talk about them I may be able to explain my motives or I might better explain why you disagree with them. If this sounds ok, pick a place (here or my talk page) and let me know which one(s) you disagree with. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, to reply to your question - as long as you refrain from asserting editorial control over my talk page (in terms of non warning content, that is), I have no problem with debating with you the merits of using the "Vandal Proof" software that intially caused the dispute. Let's do it here on your talk page. Cshay 03:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts are that the "Vandal Proof" software tends to hurt the Wikipedia community by erroneously labelling ordinary edits as vandalizations as well as making it far too easy to leave nasty warnings on people's talk page. This last bit tends to attract authoritatian neo-nazi types which is not good in general for the community. Cshay 04:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok good - I think we're talking about Talk:Viper Room, right? If so, this is the first edit that I reverted: [1]. I removed it because it appears to be a relevant discussion to the topic. I remember that specific revert - though I did use VandalProof to perform the revert, I did examine it with my own eyes first and determined it should be reverted.

May I ask why you thought the discussion should've been removed? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The Viper Room revert was an accident on my part which, because of the way the "Vandal Proof" software is designed makes it easy to label people as vandals and warn them as such, and this started the whole disagreement. Still, it points out how this software just makes disagreements much more likely. In my opinion, this software should be banned from use on Wikipedia. If that cannot be done, I intend to point out it's abuses. Cshay 04:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The process of reverting removals and leaving warning messages is standard practice. Essentially all VP does is make the process speedier. However, I agree with you that there is definitely a chance for such a powerful tool to be used for abuses. The creator, however, knew this and created a special abuse page to report editors who abuse it: User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse.

Also in its defense, VP lets you choose the type of warning to leave. With the Viper Room revert, I started with the most base warning ({{test1a-n}}, because I believed even then that it could have been a simple mistake. Since it essentially says "I know you could've made this edit by mistake (etc)", can we agree that the warning was appropriate at the time?

There's also a discussion page at which you can bring up your issues with the software itself: User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Discuss. I've seen from past experience that Ami takes complaints about the software seriously - at one point another user had a similar complaint as you in that the edit summaries of reverts previously said "...by VandalProof" and made it sound like straight-up vandalism. He took this into account and shortened it to the current "VP". So, if you have a suggestion on how to make VP edits more neutral sounding I'm sure he'd be happy to hear from you. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I have posted to that page and proposed that "Vandal Proof" maintain a "complaint page". It is my opinion that this tool is bad for the Wikipedia community. However, it will take more than my complaints to change things. Cshay 05:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm sorry that you feel this way about VP, but you're entitled to your own opinion. I think the general discussion page there is probably the best place for complaints, unless they're about a specific user, which should go on User talk:AmiDaniel/VP/Abuse. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, can we discuss these:

[2] [3]? Would you mind letting me know what errors you believe I made with these users? Thanks! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deer Section

Hello,

I am replying to your removal of the link we added on the deer section of Wikipedia. You removed our link because you consider our site a commerical private site. However, we added the link because we have great resources about deer and hunting. If you were to look through our site you would notice that we have nearly all speicies of north american deer and lots of content on hunting (which is generally associated with deer). Furthermore, we added a link to the exact page of our whitetail deer information page. We sincerely feel that we are adding content value by adding our link. We are a popular site which many people enjoy and benefit from. Our content and dynamic information formt is ever chaning/updating and a great place for people to get information.

Thank you, Whitetails.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.185.174.246 (talk • contribs) 15:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Root cause

Hi AbsolutDan... I just recently rewrote Root cause (from a different IP), and had rewritten Root cause analysis previously. I've noticed that you've done a lot lately to clean up these two entries, and I was wondering if you had any comments/suggestions on the content and/or style of my edits? The previous versions were so bad that, in both cases, I ended up trashing the originals and starting over. Thanks for your help!

- 72.141.22.69 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.75.48.150 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

i'm still learning...

sorry... still learning this whole "markup" thing...

bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fullonder (talk • contribs) 04:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Spammer

Thanks for backing me up on that user's talk page. I hadn't slept yet, and that guy was so overwhleming. I had never run into that kind of "narrow-minded" spammer before. Mrtea (talk) 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Interim management links

Hello,

I recently added a link on interim management to www.aster-interim.co.uk. This link has been removed because it has been classed as spam. I thought it was OK to add the link because there are other interim companies listed in the external links section.

http://www.bieinterim.com/ http://www.executivesonline.co.uk/ http://www.interimmanagementuk.com/

Could you please explain why these sites are allowed to be included but www.aster-interim.co.uk is not.

Regards,

Henry. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.99.5 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed all links. Femto 12:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

I am sorry if I caused you an inconvenience. Wikipedia is new to me. Regards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.72.99.5 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with AbsolutDan

I have requested third party intervension. There was nothing wrong with my additions - the links are to useful information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) .

Third party opinion provided at IP talk. Femto 15:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Request additional opinion from people knowledgeable in subject matter. TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

6sigma101.com has been spammed across multiple articles by several usernames and IPs which appear to be working in concert. Please see the following:

• Special:Contributions/203.214.69.7
• Special:Contributions/Goskan
• Special:Contributions/Glen netherwood

There was a heated discussion about the link here: Talk:Six Sigma where it was determined the link was not extremely helpful and is to a site that is intended to promote their services (6sigma training). If you do a WHOIS on 203.214.69.7 ([4]) and 203.214.51.192 ([5]), you can see they both come from the same ISP. It seems apparent that this is simply the new IP of the above contributor(s), back to try to include links to their site, in blatent violation of guidelines. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

As always AbsolutDans argument totally ignores the merits of the link and the content, and instead focuses on continuing his war on perceived spam. Can anyone help me here with a professional review of the proposed link? TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 21:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There are clear guidelines about spam, which speak to exactly the methods you are using to add your link. I suggest you go read them now. I'll make it real easy for you - click the blue link here: WP:SPAM --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 21:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Again - a professional review of the proposed link is requested - what are the merits of the content and how much advertizing it carries? TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

To clarify - the professional review is requested to www.6sigma101.com/glossary/ (not the link implied above) TIA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

?

Dear absolutdan

I never made a change to "the game" and wouldn't even want to. the only changes i've ever made to wikipedia was one to pee wee's playhouse and another to Johnathan Davis, which was reverted.

sorry for the mixup,

Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.242.4.72 (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Petition to Curtail AbsolutDan's Activities

If you have been treated unfairly by AbsolutDan please speak up here. Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The above is not an appropriate message. If you have issues with my contributions or anyone else's, follow the dispute resolution process. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

My message is not about Dispute Resolution, my message is about the use of accessive power. You cannot use this Wikipedia rule in this case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.214.51.192 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, the disupute resolution process applies to any dispute between users. I'm not sure what you mean by "excessive power" - I am not an admin, or a 'crat, I am simply a regular editor with no more "power" than yourself. May I suggest that you take some time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and practice? Help:Contents is a good start --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User talk:71.128.182.45

"Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in New York City Subway. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

I'll remove all my links now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Captmog (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Tobacco Images

Hi Dan, I am wondering why I have been given a last warning for removing tobacco product images from Wikipedia? I had discussed my intentions in the discussion area of the page, and I truly believe that letting tobacco brands be placed on Wikipedia is morally and ethically wrong. Smoking causes so many diseases and deaths each year around the world, so why are there pictures of tobacco brands and products on Wikipedia pages? Are the tobacco companies paying you and/or Wikipedia to let them advertise their addictive and deadly products? It is not necessary for every article on Wikipedia to have images, so why are you defending the tobacco product pages? There are a number of pages on Wikipedia that do not have images, so it is not necessary to have tobacco-related images. I think it is pathetic that you are allowing free advertising for these companies. Tobacco companies are the most deceitful and sneaky companies in the world, who indirectly aim their products at young people and get them addicted, yet Wikipedia is willing to let them advertise and potentially gain new customers that will become addicted to their deadly products. Get back to me please. Gillies corner 01:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Link removal

You removed a link because of commercial content? yet if you go through th links on the page now, all but one of them has ads on their site, and the one that does not says it is under construction. My site only has a few ads. Please re-review your current links! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abbadox (talk • contribs) 06:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

how is the highlander center considered a promotional link

The you removed the highlander center which is one of the oldest and most respected community organizing institutes in thew world training some of the most notable organizers in the country including rosa parks. How do you figure that this is a promotional link?

You also deleted Myles Horton and Bert Corona. I understand that you know absolutely nothing about community organizing, but don't you have a more accurate way of dealing with these articles? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.176.136.254 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Blend Corp.

hi AbsolutDan, im a wiki rookie and seems im having a shedload of troubles on my first sitting. Anyways I added an entry bout my label blend corp. I was inspired to do so after seeing a bunch of my other favourite labels on here. But mine was marked as advertising. What do I need to do to allow mine to stay? Do I need to add it under a different section under record labels? Also got stung for my logo. What do I need to do to prove its mine? thanks for help fred 1945016 12:28, 7 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Webmaster@pbsfm.org.au (talk • contribs) 02:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

dang fast response!

hi Dan, thanks for quick response. Ok so the image that i got warning on i can ignore as i realised the error of my ways and added new image with details... old image will be deleted. Assume thats cool. However, it looks like my page is doomed as I dont fit the corpotaion outlines you linked me to. However, I do clearly outline that the name is reference to the corporate world and that the label is not an actual corporation. Does that count for anything and is there anything further you could suggest to help on this one. thanks so much for anonymity 03:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Kilns

Note: G4 is not applicable to content that was previously speedily deleted - it has to meet other CSD criteria anew - and it was re-deleted on A7, not on G4. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Stop Nitpicking?

Never!!! Keep it up!!! The nuetral thing that you reported allowed me to fix it for the next realease. Thanks for reporting that! —— Eagle (ask me for help) 16:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

wikipedia spam rules

Hello Dan,

You recently removed some links I placed on various pages for spamming. A lot of those links I agree where spam links, but I am new to wikipedia and was not fully aware of the spam rules.

One link I added was to the lean manufacturing page. The link was:

How to Implement Lean Manufacturing an article written by Paul Wilson who has been implementing lean throughout Europe for many years. Is this not a valid link? The site is a commercial site but also contains many useful articles written by Paul. The subject of the article is ideal for the lean manufacturing page, is it not?

www.leanadvisors.com has many external links throughout pages like Total Productive Maintenance, Kanban and Poka-yoke and they are a commercial training company.

Could you please clarify the rules as there appears to be double standards?

heners —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Heners (talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Counts:

Essjay Total edits 6163 Main: 3018 Talk: 319 User: 434 User talk: 1852 Wikipedia: 401 Wikipedia talk: 109 Image: 16 Image talk: 1 Mediawiki: 0 Mediawiki talk: 0 Template: 3 Template talk: 0 Help: 1 Help talk: 0 Category: 7 Category talk: 1 Portal: 1 Portal talk: 0

alphaChimp ^laudare 04:20, 9 August 2006 (UTC)