User talk:Ripogenus77

Welcome!

Hello, Ripogenus77, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 23:57, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nova Scotia

Hi Ripogenus77,

I just wanted to let you know my addition of "Nova Scotia Classifieds" site isn't commercial linkspam :) It is a 100% free classified ad site for the province and will always remain free for anyone to use. I pay for the site, maitenance, hosting etc out of my pocket and I don't even have so much as click through ads on it although I may post some banner ads from local business to help cover costs. That being said the site will always be a nonprofit online community for Nova Scotians. I added the link again, in hindsite I should have came here 1st but as a new member was unaware of this message posting option etc. I hope this is ok but if you have any concerns please let me know.

Thanks!

Hi, ripo.

Noticed your deletionist contributions to the Chebeague Island page. Honestly, I don't understand what evidence one can link to when stating wildlife and nature on the island when the personal experience of me and my family living there is the source. Do we have to create a website first that says the same things so it can be linked to?

And the whole Nabisco / Chebeague event certainly seems like an important, encyclopedic commentary on the spirit of it's inhabitants, just as their recent (and successful) secession from Cumberland on the wiki is.

You deleted some of my additions saying they were not sourced, yet you left in obscure things I did not give a source to.

I do not wish to engage in any deletion / restoration wars. I do ask that you merely rewrite anything you find grammatically incorrect, nothing more. I didn't create a wiki account, search a random island in the united states, then spend a few hours writing lies about it. The purpose of Wiki is education on any given subject. Not to delete data for the sake of deleting data. --JINZONINGEN 73 04:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply on your talk page. Ripogenus77 13:24, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fryeburg fair

Hi! Thanks for checking out the Fryburg Fair article and seeing that it was lifted from the page. I completely forgot about looking at it again. :) --- The Bethling ^(Talk) 23:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on Bethling's talk page. Ripogenus77 00:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of New Hampshire Links

I completely understand that Wikipedia is not a link suppository, as I've been told twice now. In regards to my links being deleted: !!!!!!!!!!I AM NOT a multi level marketing link spammer!!!!!!!!!!!!! And I do not appreciate being labeled as such. I own and run a website about New Hampshire. I personally wrote about and photographed places in the state such as the Saco & Swift rivers, the Great North Woods and Lakes regions, and other things. In each page on Wiki, I placed an external link to the relevant page on my website. You are wrong in saying that the content I provide on my website doesn't "add" anything to the articles I linked from. I created the article "Rocky Gorge New Hampshire" for wikipedia, placed my link on the page, and it was deleted. If I can't have credit for an article that I created, then I will no longer contribute to wikipedia. It is "blatantly", as you put it, obvious that my contributions mean nothing anyway. Mlynnsoucy 10/24/06

Replied on Mlynnsoucy's Talk page. Ripogenus77 13:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ripo,

I know that you are mad at me. I am trying to go straight by putting legitimate information on my town's Wikipedia. I don't understand why when I do good and fair work on here, you always delete it. I understand it may seem like vandalism, but there really was a report of gangs roving the streets of Monson many times in the Piscatquis Observer. That's right I am informed. If you look at the paper from late August 06, you can clearly see the vandalism these gangs did to the town. The town's manager has even decried these acts. Call him. If this continues I am going to report you to wikipedia and the proper internet policia. I don't understand. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Thehutch86 (talk • contribs) .

I have reported this to an administrator. Ripogenus77 01:43, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italics

Hi, Ripogenus, I wonder if you can clarify something for me. The recent change you made to the Center Harbor, NH page included removing the italics from the external link to their "official website". I don't know the Wikipedia policy for italics, so I'm assuming that's correct. My concern is that every NH town (that has a website) has the same italics and wording for their official site. That's up to 220 pages that might need to be corrected. Any thoughts? Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:43, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going by MOS:ITALICS. From my understanding of it, italicization should be limited to things customarily italicized in literature: titles of books, periodicals, works of art, musical albums and such; names of ships; words discussed as words; non-English words that are not regularly used in English; and very sparingly, for emphasis. Other than that, it isn't necessary (names of places, names of companies, schools, organizations), and that includes image captions (unless it's a photograph that has a formal title as a work of art or something like that).

Looking at any given "model" article (Featured articles or Good articles), seems to confirm this sylistic distinction. I've just been changing it in articles as I come across them and when I have the time to do it. I don't think there's an urgent need or anything... but that's probably what would have to be done, on a case by case basis, whenever I or someone else can get around to it. Ripogenus77 01:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that part of the reason I'm asking is because I spent quite a bit of time standardizing the articles for towns and cities in NH - a pet project. I'm going through them again to fix some different things, and I don't relish the thought of going through a third time, though I may just do that. My own minor form of OCD :) Anyway, thanks for the input! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I've seen all the hard work that WikiProject NH has done. (In fact's inspired me to mull the idea of trying to start a WikiProject Maine, if I can get enough interested parties to join). The italicization thing seems trivial, but it probably would be raised as an issue if, say, a New Hampshire-related article ever came up for Featured Article nomination. Ripogenus77 16:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Limestone (town), Maine & Aroostook County, Maine

I removed the link because it looked like spam to me based on this. While the link is valid in Loring Air Force Base it does not seem so in the other articles. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 19:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at (Talk). (It wasn't me who added them, and I have no objection to their deletion). Ripogenus77 20:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that was done in a rush and not very clear. I knew that you hadn't added them. I just wanted to point out that I had removed them just in case they were valid in those articles. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 08:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SiteSell

Ripogenus77, when you have a moment could you revisit the talk page here...

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

...so that we can discuss your deletion and my suggested amendment for this legitimate private company? There's some misunderstanding about the article's purpose and the company being profiled (i.e. that there's MLM/network marketing involved). (Edit: Just noticed that you did the same thing to this page...

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

...rendering it an orphan at the same time.)

Looking forward to hearing from you so that we can discuss both entries. Thanks in advance! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Maltiti (talk • contribs) .

To be honest, I've pretty much lost interest in the subject. Sorry. Ripogenus77 15:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means, Ripogenus77. Does that mean I can make the suggested amendment with your blessing? I'm not into edit wars either and don't want to seem the spammer. I do, however, think that the article is worth more reflection.

By the way, I do know that editing Wikipedia can be a trying -- but valuable -- task! Thanks for the effort that you do put in. I just wanted some additional feedback if you were willing to share it. Maltiti 15:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means "do what thou wilt." I generally stick to what I know. I only got involved with the articles because someone involved with this company was posting links to her SiteSell-based website to various New Hampshire related articles that were on my watchlist. So my attention was briefly focused to a subject to which I am otherwise not really interested in. See my discussion with User:Mlynnsoucy above. Ripogenus77 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I have contacted SiteSell's support to let them know of the issue with that particular person because more education about proper Wikipedia contribution may be necessary.

The link though between what an individual does is different from what an organization does. Using PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) as an example (they're also a private company). What if one of their clients contributed to several investment related articles then linked to their own personal site? Would PwC's page be modified along with the investment contributions? The link, to me, is tenuous at best.

Oh dear, I'm not here to lecture, Ripogenus77 (especially since you mentioned this is not an area that you usually man). I wish I also had the time to dedicate to Wikipedia for editorial. Perhaps in the near future. I'll be sure to come to you for tips and tricks!

I do appreciate your update and will now go modify the two articles mentioned in this conversation keeping your comments in mind, Ripogenus77 Maltiti 14:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lake Winnipesaukee

On October 7, 2006 you made edits to the article on Lake Winnipesaukee. You said you "removed commercial links." In doing this, you removed a link to Paintings of Lake Winnipesaukee. This link is not commercial, and my site for White Mountain Art is strickly educational and non-commercial. Please explain why you removed this link? It seems to me that before links are removed, you should examine the external site in some detail.JJ 19:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because I tend to presume the addition of any external link, commercial or not, is linkspam (intended merely promote or publicize the website) unless strong direct relevance to the subject of the article is either self-evident or successfully defended in a Talk discussion with consensus reached. I stand by my edit. Ripogenus77 02:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at my site? I have refused for years to have a single commercial link. I have done nothing to promote my site using search engines. Yet, search for "White Mountain art" using any major search engine, and you will find my site. I state on the home page that the site in educational and strictly non-commercial. Seeing examples of paintings of Lake Winnipesaukee done by 19th century artists, some quite well-known Hudson River painters, is relevant to any article on Lake Winnipesaukee. Removing the link is a disservice to the readers of the article. I stand by my objection. JJ 12:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia, Maine

Hey, Rip. Just noticed your comment on Columbia, Maine, as I was there researching for a project, and I agree with your concerns and have postulated other concerns there. Indy (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]