User talk:Scientific American

Related discussion is at User talk:208.241.19.100.

Welcome!

Hello, Scientific American, 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! --Alan Au 02:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Computed tomography

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Computed tomography. 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. - CobaltBlueTony 18:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions

In case you weren't aware of this, there is also a policy discussion going on at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Scientific American linking. I think most editors are mostly receptive; just walk softly. And please heed the request about formatting below. linas 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper reference formatting

I'd like to make a request: if you continue linking, can you please present your links to a preper reference format? That is,

Author, "[http://whatever.com/url/blah.html Title of the Article]", Journal Name, Volume Number (year) pp. pages.

Citation styles are discussed at WP:Cite. Just because a lot of articles on WP have a sloppy "external links" section doesn't mean you should add to the slop.

I beleive it would be best if you could create a template, and use that for inserting references. See for example, Template:Springer, Template:Mathworld and Template:Planetmathref, for references used for the Springer Encyclopedia of Mathematics, Mathworld, Planetmath, etc. These give the references a nice uniform appearance, and provides a centralized way of managing the appearance and style of the citation. (Also handy if a URL changes in the future). It would be excellent if you retroactively make this substitution in the articles that had been previously linked. To see examples of articles that use those templates, go to, for example, Template:Springer, and then click on "what links here" in the toolbox on the left of the page. If you need help creating the template, please contact me on my talk page. linas 01:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to recent so-called "linkspamming"

Hello, I would like to personally thank you for your efforts to improve Wikipedia. I would also apologize for what might have been a rude awakening due to some of the responses, but it perhaps you didn't really do your homework before beginning your project, or you might have expected such reactions.

In either case, if you are, as you state, honestly interested in improving this valuable world-wide knowledge resource, then there is certainly a place for you at this table! But I would like to point out that Wikipedia is, essentially, a repository of free content. Many of it's contributors, such as myself, believe strongly in this freedom, as essential to the project. Therefore, it is likely that many of us will remain suspiscious of your motives as long as commercial advertising is involved in any way, even through external links. (Obviously, it's not the wonderful Scientific American we object to, but rather the dangerous slippage of principles which are so very important for a near-anarchy like this.)

If you would genuinely like to add to Wikipedia, might I suggest you do just that, and add content directly to the articles? There's no doubt your organization is capable of doing a good job of that! Also, we are always in dire need of many, many different images for illustrative purposes, another asset which you could supply in great abundance.

The caveat is, of course, that all such contributions must be made freely, and given directly to the Wikipedia, sans any attribution, credit, or other "positive strokes" -- let alone remuneration! And while I earnestly extend to you an invitation to improve the world (and your reputation within it) through such an act of 'information philanthropy', somehow I remain unoptimistic it will be accepted. But, one can dream. :) Eaglizard 07:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and please do continue adding links

Along with others I would like to extend a warm welcome to Wikipedia. And, always assuming that the links to your articles, are relevant, I heartily encourage you to continue adding them. If you run into any difficulties, please feel free to contact me, I am an administrator, and I would be glad to help in any way I can. As you might have gathered some editors might have "issues" your adding "self-links", but I think that most editors will welcome your actions. For the record, I know of no official policy (but take a look at WP:EL guideline, if you already haven't) with which you are in violation (and if there is one we should rewrite it ;-). Warmest regards, Paul August ☎ 15:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone

Thanks to everyone for their feedback. We will continue our project to add content to Wikipedia but revise our efforts to follow the spirit of Wikipedia. Thanks again. --Scientific American 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's great! Please do add relevant content to Wikipedia articles, and of course link to the sources for the info from the magazine, for as many articles as you have time for! Given the lack of consensus on mass-addition of only external links (see WP:VPP#Scientific American linking), I recommend that you do this at a limited rate, and only for the articles that would benefit most for now. That being said, I personally strongly support any contributions you make, and I (like Paul above) am happy to help you in any way I can. I'm also an admin, so I can answer questions in that capacity as well. To get my attention quickly, you can leave a message on my talk page. -- SCZenz 16:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

adding references

I'm no admin, so I can't bend any principals for you.

Wikipedia does have a problem with correct citations, especially in the Military History Project, where I mainly contribute. We do have lots of bias, pseudohistorians and the latest brand of strategic computergames to fight. Many users insert their edits without sources and hardly anybody takes a look at the sources listed.

In other cases, any nonsense can be listed among the sources. Afterwards it is impossible to verify that a source was not used in the article and remove it. So external links (where you contributed) and a source list tend to agglomerate anything in disregard of value.

Currently the only solution to fight these problems is using a thight net of in text references, like footnotes. The problem is, that actually writting such a reference is a painfully timeconsuming process. On the other hand if a contribution is made this way there is less to object, because it was an absolutely required work. There is a project in wikipedia providing this tool, but it could improve.

A footnote tool with access on an archieve (with a search function or an arranged library) of free content (provided by Scientific American) for simplified insertion would be extremely valueable, especially if the footnote can link an interested reader directly to the concerning part within an article. You could also please the free spirits and make an integration of other references possible.

In case you develop anything likewise, please tell me. Greetings Wandalstouring 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]