User talk:Mwanner/Archive 9

not a spammer

Pitonpro 16:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC) I am adding content that mirrors existing content in the wiki already. I am not a spammer. Please do your research to understnad that I am merely cpoying existing templates or using existing information to then write wiki pages and articles. I am not malicous, hyave no intention os soliciting or selling anything. If this is truely a open source encycolpedia then why do you keep deleting my content? I apologize if I have done anything wrong according to wiki rules. I am learning as I go. Better to ask me to edit it then to just delete it. I am willing to comply to the standards that exist. I am also going to reliy on existing wiki pages as examples of how to and what I can post in the wiki.[reply]

Thanks for being pacient with the new guy.

Kilts & Tartan page edits

You appear to have a problem with an external link to http://clan.com/kiltsandtartan on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kilt but I and my kilted brethren think you're wrong, whoever you are. Please explain your reasons. The guidelines rightly outlaw commercial postings and self-promotion. But this free resource is neither. The work in question is entirely non-commercial (other than its including an appendix of reputable suppliers (in a world where many people are fooled by rip offs). And the author establishes his professional credentials on the cover as a justified claim to expertise, but thereafter admirably avoids self-promotion. I have no direct connection with this, other than being a big fan of the work, and its value to anyone exploring kilt wearing for the first time. It is one of the most important works in this field in decades, and in common with almost everyone who knows anything about this subject, I think it deserves to be here. So if you think differently, explain why. That's not just my view but the consensus of the leading kilt-wearing experts and enthusiasts in the world, where it's been reviewed to huge acclaim and universal approval for its importance. See http://www.xmarksthescot.com/forum/showthread.php?t=21721 So why do you think you know better? Please justify! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.9.178 (talk) 12:27, 23 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, if I were buying a kilt, I find it useful. But helping people buy stuff is really not what we're about-- we're an encyclopedia. Wikipedia's External links guidelines are not just about banning commercial sites. Look at "Links normally to be avoided", item 1. "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." From a quick read, it appears to me that most of its factual contents (leaving aside the extensive chatty promotion of kilt-wearing generally) could, in fact, rather easily be incorporated into our article. And despite the author's credentials, it is anything but a scholarly treatment.

Also, it's really quite a bit less non-commercial than you claim. Allow me to quote from page 25:

"Here one resource on the web stands head and shoulders above the rest. It is the most complete and comprehensive, listing all fabrics known to be in production at all the main tartan (and tweed) weavers, plus thousands more that can be woven to order.

It is also, by common consent, the easiest to use. And here too I must declare an interest since, as it happens, I designed it myself. This is the Scotweb Tartan & Fabric Finder. (See Resources at end)"

Following said link takes one directly to an online retail site. So someone following this supposedly impartial advice is led straightaway to the author's rather pricey webstore empire. In short, no, I do not think that this link meets our guidelines. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon this question if it seems rude, but do you actually wear a kilt? I find it hard to believe that you are suggesting the contents of this short book could be compressed into a Wikipediia article if you've ever been faced with doing so yourself for the first time. If you have any idea about the number of issues involved this seems to me ridiculous. It covers massive ground, in a complex area, which is why so many people have welcomed it with open arms. But to reduce this to being about only 'buying a kilt' is nonsense. You appear to be reading it with what appears to my friends and I to be a suspiciously hostile attitude. Why?

Yes, if the author agreeed, he could rewrite it for use in Wikipedia, but the same applies to every bood on earth. That's not the point. I didn't think Wikipedia existed as a grand plan to strongarm authors into transfering their work into the public domain. Do you? Otherwise, there's no way it could all go here. The number of illustrations alone make this impossible (which are useful, not just eye candy). And agreed, Wikipedia is not (just) about helping people buy stuff. But this covers every practically every aspect of wearing one, particularly for first-timers, as well as very valuably giving non-intimidating moral support (which you rather damningly deem chatty promotion, as if that's a crime). As for the link to that tartan finder, I've spent years looking at tartans online both for myself and for many associates and it's factually true that the one mentioned is the most complete listing of woven fabrics anywhere. So to criticise the author for daring to mention it because its his own work seems laughably uptight.

I strongly suspect you have some other agenda going on here. Your mention at the end of the "author's rather pricey webstore empire" tells me you have more of a vested interest than you're letting on. You've done all this research with comparison price shopping (as if that were a relevant factor in any case!) just to edit this article? Pull the other one. I've discussed this issue with trusted colleagues and we feel unanimous that there are no reasonable grounds to exclude this important reference on the flimsy grounds you've given. So we're left asking why the entire kilted community is being abused by one zealot's unilateral decisions. Shall we find someone higher in the Wikipedia hierarchy of demonstrably independent status to adjudicate? Because frankly, we smell a rat here. Widipedia editors are meant to be unbiased, not just contributors. We have no confidence in you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.9.178 (talk • contribs).

No, I don't wear a kilt, but that fact is entirely irrelevent. An encycopedia article on kilts certainly does not need all of the material covered in this booklet, at least a quarter of which is purely promotional. And no, we're not interested in strong-arming authors into transfering their work into the public domain. There is nothing in this booklet that belongs in our article that couldn't be easily rewritten and added by anyone, and I doubt that it would add more than a paragraph or two to the whole. Read through it again, crossing out everything that doesn't belong in an encyclopedia, and you'll see what I mean. While you're at it, circle all of the illustrations that are worthwhile additions to a scholarly article-- I don't see more than one or two; the rest are, indeed "eye candy". Consider that the first dozen pages are entirely "why everyone ought to wear kilts" and the last dozen are all about accessories, and thus inapplicable to this article, and your "book" covering "massive ground" shrinks to barely 30 narrow booklet pages, and that is still filled with vastly important statements such as "For most daytime events, particularly when outdoors, you would wear a Lovat or dark tweed jacket instead of the Argyll, with or without matching vest, and horn buttons" or "Check that your supplier’s jackets really are all 100% pure wool barathea; if not, make a hasty exit." This is just not encyclopedic material.

But from the tone of your response, I'm sure nothing I can say will convince you that I am not acting from some nefarious purpose (what, is the implcation that I have a competing website? or is it that I am anti-kilt?), so by all means, please avail yourselves of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. And Merry Christmas to you too! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:35, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello Respected Sir Mwanner, Sorry if I posted this message wrongly in this particular space. Please understand me, I'm new to this Wikipedia. I have uploaded vintage photo (circa 1896) of Dr. Jose Rizal, the National Hero of the Philippines, when he was 35 years old, last December 23 but you removed it merely A DAY AFTER because I failed to mention the source or License. I just received the NOTICE today which says that the uploaded file will be removed in seven days (but you have removed it already). Actually the photo you removed is in the PUBLIC DOMAIN and has no copyright whatsoever being a photo produced more than 100 years ago. I also uploaded some photos related to the life of Dr. Rizal today (December 25), photos which was published in the United States prior to 1923. These photos appeared in "The Project Gutenberg EBook of Lineage, Life and Labors of Jose Rizal: Philippine Patriot, by Austin Craig (1913). Please take note what is being said in the Project Gutenberg Ebook site which I'll quote for your information:

"This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.net

Thank you for your time reading this message. I would like to suggest that you give NE contributers enough time (perhaps at least a day or two after sending them a NOTICE of DELETION) before removing important contributed files that they recently uploaded. Please show a little courtesy to your new contributors.

MERRY CHRISTMAS!

Iandres Philippines

I am very sorry. You're right, I should have waited. I looked for a source for that photo online, and when I didn't find one, I made an unwarranted assumption that a source would not be provided. While looking for the source, I found another reasonably good image, and used it for the article. Thank you for correcting my error and bringing it to my attention. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:12, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Respected Sir, I received your latest message. Apology accepted and thanks for your consideration and undestanding to a "new comer". Another anonymous contributor (uses only IP Address) replaced some of the recent photos I uploaded in the Jose Rizal wikipedia page but I replaced it once again and returned the image I previously uploaded. The one I used for the page which was replaced by the "anonymous" contributor was the last photograph of the subject person (i.e.,Dr. Jose Rizal, the Philippine National hero) taken prior to his famous "martyrdom" in 1896. I think is more proper to use it than the photograph taken while he only 25 or 30 which has less relevance than his last photograph that I used (which shows him as an old man who has deep eyebags and receeding hairline). What do you think? Thanks.

Iandres

I would have to say I am fairly neutral on the question. I agree that your image belongs in the article; however, one could argue that, as it is the last image of him before his death, it belongs toward the end of the article. The anonymous contributor claims that the other image is the one most commonly seen, and a Google image search suggests that he may be right. Nevertheless, I don't have a stron feeling either way, and I leave it up to your best judgement. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwanner. Thanks for the Wikipedia Welcome Notes and for being "neutral". As expected, the anonymous Wikepedia editor (is he/she an Administrator? How can he/she edits without signing-in first? Likewise I tried to TALK to her but he/she has a notice in her TALKPAGE warning anyone not to wrote anything there), he/she removed the subject photograph again for the third time saying that although the photo is in Public Domain I copied it from somewhere else without stating the source. Thus I uploaded the same subject photograph and indicated its source which is the Philippine National Archive, hence no violation of any wikipedia and property copyright law because the subject photo is in fact in the Public Domain. Thanks again for your help. Sorry if I posted this message wrongly. I merely select "EDIT" at the TALK PAGE to write this. Could you please tell me how and what is the proper way to answer messages in the TALK page? I tried looking for the answer at the help page but did not find it. Thanks again

iandres

No, the anon is not an administrator-- anyone can edit without signing in. That message on their Talk page is from another user, asking the anon not to edit the other user's (KaElin's) User page, so you should feel free to leave a message. On the other hand, I see that now there is another player involved, so I would recommend that you try taking the discussion to Talk:José_Rizal. You might need to draw attention to the fact that you want to discuss the matter there by leaving an edit summary of "See Talk" on your next edit to the article.

You can put messages at the bottom of a page either by clicking on the "+" tab, or simply by scrolling to the bottom. Talk pages, whether a User's talk page or an article's Talk page are just like articles-- you can just open them up and edit them anywhere.

And yes, it's very hard to figure this place out when you're getting started, so no need to apologize, and feel free to keep asking questions. Good luck, -- Mwanner | Talk 13:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xmas edit summary

Out of curiosity, what is this address you made reference to in your edit summary, and why did you put it in? Thanks, JDoorj a m Talk 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yeah, don't you wish you could edit Edit summaries sometimes? It was a matter of clumsy split attention. I had been pasting "rv spam" into a bunch of edits of a spammer I had been following around, while in a separate tab I had pasted that address into Google Maps-- it's a house that's for sale. Didn't notice that "rv spam" had become that address until just after I hit return. I wondered if anyone would notice. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 12:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raw food - you deleted external links

Please join me on the Talk page for discussion of your recent deletion of the external links. Joie de Vivre 18:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're on. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sodium - you deleted external link

You appear to have a problem with an external link to http://www.healthpolitics.org/archives.asp?previous=how_much_salt. Please explain your reasons. The guidelines rightly outlaw commercial postings and self-promotion, but this free resource is neither. The author is an established doctor, and this topic clearly relates to the topic of the page. I have posted this link as a helpful site to any users interested in sodium and the diet. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kfrohlinger (talk • contribs)

Yes, and I imagine it's the same problem Dirk Beetstra has with the link. Partly it has to do with the presence of the link to "Books By Dr. Magee"-- it's not truly a non-commercial link.

Secondly, putting together your cut'n'paste creation of the Mike Magee, M.D. article with the fact that you have added www.healthpolitics.org links to five other articles (essentially your only contributions to Wikipedia), one is left feeling that these links violate the prohibition against "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Do you, perhaps, work for Dr. Magee? Is Magee a nom de plum? What is your relationship to the site?

Finally, the link falls afoul of Links to Avoid rule number one: "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." These are not pages that have an unencyclopedic level of detail-- there is no reason not to simply integrate any facts not already in the article directly into the text of the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving

Sorry about that. Someone asked me to do something and it took a lot longer than I though it would. I'm still working on the archiving. It is really big and messy, but I think that I will be done soon. -- Kjkolb 13:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Untagged image

An image you uploaded, Image:TowerHillSchool logo.gif, was tagged with the {{coatofarms}} copyright tag. This tag was deleted because it does not actually specify the copyright status of the image. The image may need a more accurate copyright tag, or it may need to be deleted. If the image portrays a seal or emblem, it should be tagged as {{seal}}. If you have any questions, ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- 13:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

DUI

Thank you for the welcome, Mwanner, and for the comments and helpful resources.

However, I must confess to some frustration with your comments concerning links involving blogs or "advertising and conflicts of interest". At the risk of sounding egotistical, I am generally considered in the legal profession to be the foremost authority in the area of DUI/drunk driving law, police procedures, blood/breath alcohol evidence and constitutional issues. My book Drunk Driving Defense, now in its 6th edition after nearly 30 years of publication, is considered the standard text on the subject; it has been cited as an authority by other editors on related Wikipedia topics. My blog at http://www.DUIblog.com, with over 400 articles, is the most-visited and most-cited for the subject on the internet: it will appear in the top 10 results for most DUI-related searches on Google (if you enter "DUI", for example, my blog is #3; Wikipedia is #6).

The problem: How do I continue writing original content and revising existing (and often erroneous) content on Wikipedia without linking to the best resources available? I am well aware that Wikipedia strongly encourages citation to the most authoritative sources, but you are suggesting that I should not do that. I would certainly be very grateful if you could point me to any other online authority to which I could link as authority on, for example, breathalyzers, field sobriety tests or drunk driving law (a search on Google for "drunk driving law", for example, results in my blog as #6 -- and my own law firm's legal resource center for lawyers and laymen, http://www.DUIcenter.com, as #5; the first 4 are, as you can see, poor resources).

As you can tell, I have a considerable interest in DUI-related subjects, as well as in teaching (former law professor) and writing (14 books). I would like to continue contributing authoritative material to Wikipedia, and would appreciate any suggestions you may have for providing authoritative links. -- Letaylor

Please do not be discouraged by your experiences on Wikipedia. There is a powerful deletionist element here on Wikipedia and they only get stronger when you leave in disgust after their activities. Many of them give little thought to the official Wikipedia policies on external links and, of course, it is always quicker to destroy and delete rather than to research and create...

In this regard I would choose to emphasise the primary guidance contained at Wikpedia's External links guideline:
"Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article" and, immediately below this encapsulation:-

"Wikipedia articles can often be improved by providing links to web pages outside Wikipedia which contain information that can't or shouldn't be added to the article. These links belong in an External links section near the bottom of the article."

I believe you probably have both the talent and inclination to fight your corner with zealot deletionists like Mwanners and if you look at Wikipedia policy you will quickly realise that there is ample support there for your stance. (I doubt that Mwanners will ever concede gracefully - but then he is "opposed to links that have commercial intent".)

Gaimhreadhan 15:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pitonpro

I blocked this account for spamming. You might want to have a look and make sure all the spam was reverted. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of my link on pararescue

I am a United States Pararescueman. I have posted a link to my site that allows everybody real time actual information regarding Pararescue. I have facts to present; whereas your page is outdated I am up to date. I will repost my link on the page. I expect it to remain there. Please contact me at pjcountry@gmail.com if necessary. The Pararescue community is very small. I am one of 250 in the world. We like to stay close and offer correct info to those interested. I am not a spammer . Please leave my link alone!!!!! My link is the same as the specialtactics or any of the others on the page except we are specific to Pararescue!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.231.143.22 (talk) 21:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A request for assistance

Would you support the concept of moving the Earhart "myths" to a separate page or article? The reason for my suggesting this is that the main article should be an accurate and scholarly work while the speculation and conspiracy theories surrounding the disappearance of Amelia Earhart are interesting, they belong in a unique section. Most researchers, as you know, discount the many theories and speculation that has arisen in the years following her last flight. Go onto the Earhart discussion page and register your vote/comments...and a Happy New Year to you as well. Bzuk 05:52 3 January 2007 (UTC).

You redirected "Kayaking" to "kayak"-Why?

I fail to see how the action of Kayaking is the same as describing a physical item. Please see discussions on the appropriate talk page. I have reverted kayak to it's previous form. You seem to be interested in kayaking or canoeing, so please consider joining WikiProject Kayaking Bennyboyz3000 09:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added link to Air Force Pararescue

Added blog website link to this article. I viewed their request on this article's talk page - blog is unique to this article and it certainly adds value to readers. Being members of this group, they can assert expertise and thus WP:RS. I'm not affiliated with this website and wanted to give you a heads up because you had removed it when they attempted to add to this article on their own. Thanks! Calltech 00:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am on Wikibreak through at least March 3, 2007.

I hope you return refreshed and happy. Gaimhreadhan 18:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for calling me a vandal

The wiki I edited was Online Dating Service and I added some external resources as links to popular dating sites which i am not affiliated to or anything and I was accused of vandalism to wikipedia. On that particular page, there were some nonsense links to BBC which is nothing to do with "online dating service" or maybe I didn't know "online dating service" means "local tv station" on the wikipedia.

If you go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airlines, there are hundreds of commercial links to airline companies so that is useful information which I agree and what I added is nonsense and not relevant. If that information is nonsense then i think it's better for you to take of the "online dating service" subject all together off the wikipedia and stop spamming search engines with a page which only contains the meaning of the topic, with no actual and relevant resources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cenkbut (talk • contribs) 14:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I removed from Wikipedia all external links to my own site, some that I had added (which was an unintentional violation of the Prime Directive), and some that others had added. I, too, am baffled by this editor's judgment of which (if any) external links are appropriate, but my energy is better spent creating original content (on my own site) than WikiLawyering. TulsaTV 18:52, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not be discouraged by your experiences on Wikipedia. There is a powerful deletionist element here on Wikipedia and they only get stronger when you leave in disgust after their activities. Many of them give little thought to the official Wikipedia policies on external links and, of course, it is alway quicker to destroy and delete rather than to research and create...Gaimhreadhan 18:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism by User 72.10.124.202

Link to User's Talk Page

this user has received a number of warnings about vandalism and being blocked, but has not been blocked to date, yet continues to vandalize articles. what is the procedure for blocking that user? Whateley23 21:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How to use images properly

Hi Mwanner,

I'm JenniferFisher and I'm interested in using some of your pictures on my profile, but I don't know how to. I mean I wonder if I would be breaking some copyright licenses rights by doing so without permission.

Please instruct me on how to use those images properly, I'd really appreciate it.

Thanks JenniferFisher

Image:ThomasShippAbramSmith.jpg

Hello Mwanner, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:ThomasShippAbramSmith.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Mwanner/Other Images. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 01:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Miguel Unamuno.jpg

Please note that random websites do not qualify as original sources for the purposes of determining the copyright status of images. Oldpoetry.com did not photograph Miguel de Unamuno, nor do they state the actual source. Furthermore, the version at oldpoetry.com has a lower resolution than the image at Wikipedia, so it could not possibly have been even a secondary source for Wikipedia. —LX (talk, contribs) 12:07, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two Bucks.jpg

Hi. When you uploaded Image:Two Bucks.jpg, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with {{GFDL-presumed}} and, for some time, it has existed on Wikipedia under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted.

This image has been tagged for deletion and will be deleted in one week if adequate copyright information is not provided.

If you, personally, are the author of this content, meaning that you took the photograph yourself or you created the chart yourself (and it does not use any clipart that you did not create), please retag the image with a free image copyright tag that correctly describes your licensing intentions, usually {{GFDL-self}} or {{PD-self}}. Please also make sure if you have not already done so that you write a good description of what the image depicts, when you took the photo, and other important details. This will allow Wikipedia to continue using the image.

If you did not create the image or if it is derived from the copyrighted works of others, please keep in mind that most images on the internet are copyrighted and are not suitable for use on Wikipedia. Wikipedia respects the copyrights of others and does not use images unless we know that they have been freely licensed. Any creative work is automatically copyrighted, even if it lacks a copyright notice. Unless the copyright holder has specifically disclaimed their rights to the image and released it under the GFDL or another compatible license, we cannot use it. If you did not create the image, and cannot make the image compliant with Wikipedia:Non-free content, simply do nothing and it will be deleted in a week. All other non-free images must follow these rules.

Please feel free to contact me on my talk page or leave a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions with any questions you may have. Thank you. Aksibot 07:47, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]