User talk:Veinor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Derringer

In what way is linking to manufacturers of an item a violation of policy?

What should be linked

... 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. ...

The American Derringer and Bond Arms websites both contain detailed information, including photographs, detailed specifications on the derringers, such as size, weight, and caliber information, that are cannot reasonably be integrated into Wikipedia due to, among other things, copyright restrictions. As the information is from the manufacturer, it can be considered authoritative. These sites are not directly commercial, as they do not sell products to the general public; purchase of any new firearm requires the transfer through a licensed federal dealer in the United States, or through a licensed import/export company in other countries. scot 22:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that information on the size, weight, and caliber is restricted due to copyright; you can't copyright objective facts. And I agree that the sites are not directly commercial; however, the intent does seem to be to get you to buy their brand of derringer, not the competitors'. If there's another site that hosts this kind of information, I think it'd be perfectly acceptable (or if you find a place for it on Wikipedia and cited those pages as references). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

How about if I say, for example, "Current manufacturers of derringers, such as Bond Arms and American Derringer, both offer models in such and such a caliber, with sizes and weights of blah and blah respectively", and put inline links to appropriate pages with supporting information? That was the direction I was heading; just saying "Derringers are small" is rather pointless unless it can be backed up with some facts. A comparison to, say, the .32 ACP KelTec offering's size and weight (with link to manufacturer page) would let me draw a real comparison between derringers and other pocket pistols. scot 18:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that a statement such as 'derringers are small' is rather pointless, and I don't object to using those sites as reliable sources for references. My chief objection is to linking to those sites in the External links section and to introducing text into the body that serves as advertising for those companies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

High School Musical Contribution

High School Musical was at CenterStaging in Burbank. There is video of the rehearsal on rehearsals.com. I don't understand why this is being removed. We want to share with people that the video is available.

This is the link: http://www.rehearsals.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070108&content_id=2059&vkey=news&fext=.jsp

Can we include something in the writeup. It is factual information. Watch the video where Kenny Ortega talks about CenterStaging. This is not an advertisement.

There is also a press release that went out about the High School Musical rehearsals. http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20070122005299&newsLang=en

Can you help out?

Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rehearsals (talk • contribs) 03:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

First off, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Second, it seems that you have a conflict of interest, given your username (or maybe you're just a fan?). I'd suggest, in this case, bringing it up on Talk:High School Musical and seeing what other editors think. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Austin music spammer

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your determination and persistence in eradicating the recent Austin music spam link spree. JFreeman (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys

I don't see how that site is any different from some of the sites already listed on the page. The only difference being that the site I linked to is a legitimate news source for information on the Cowboys which is updated hourly, whereas the ones you currently have linked are dead sites that havent been updated in as much as a year. Those sites listed are definitely not encyclopedia sites. However, the one I listed is, it has an enormous history section, thousands of articles, and a place for discussion of everything on earth Cowboy related. I assure you there was no malice in my linking that site. I just laughed when I saw the sites you had listed and figured I would include one that actually updates their site more than once a year.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.201.250.114 (talk • contribs).

Well, the link is to a forum. According to the external link guidelines, links to fora are generally discouraged. Especially since it requires registration, another big no-no. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Burning Man

Good call on the rm of regional events w/o articles. Vees 20:50, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Federal111- Halotrialmods.org

Any follow;up on the speedy deletion of the article Halotrialmods.org? It is notable—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Federal111 (talk • contribs).

I never saw any real proof of that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

AWOL

How do you figure the link to research concerning Bush's possible AWOL during 1972-3 not relevant? Just Google "AWOL", and the topic comes up: http://www.google.com/search?q=awol

Please explain how why this was removed.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.207.169.235 (talk • contribs).

Because the page isn't about the topic of AWOL in general. It's about a specific instance. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Judith Rodin

I think its good what you are doing regarding all the external links that keep showing up on a lot of sites that are pure promotion, but was hoping to offer a suggestion. I think it is right to delete the wikipedia links that are pure promotion if it has nothing to do the article or is an external link from a wikipedia page that is clearly designed only for the purpose of promoting the commercial product. But, as in this case, there is actually something interesting here and that I found helpful because I had no idea about her appearance in this book and think it is an interesting point to note on the page about her. I would like to see it put back or at least have a link that goes directly to the photo collection where she is shown, at least that is a bit less promotional than the main page. Thanks for the good work, and I hope to see the link back, or I can take care of it and if a problem exists maybe we could go from there. Here is the photo link I found. http://www.gotwhatittakes.net/photos.htm# Bricks2183 05:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that no symmetric relationship really exists here; each of the subjects have been in many books, and this is just one of them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:44, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Pipeline Inspection Gauge

Next time you decide to remove links on a page, you should research the history of the page. First of all, the user MMMBOB that you accused of adding the links was not responsible for adding the links. Only one of them was added by him. Also, the subject matter of the topic that you edited is rather obscure and the links to relevant companies providing the service are valuable in that they provide readers with exterior resources to understand the topic. I understand the wikipedia policy for external links, and those links do not violate that policy. I have restored them. Mrmcgibby 04:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; links to commercial site in particular are generally avoided. And I didn't say that he added all of those links; I think you misinterpreted my warning. It also seems interesting that they all link to the companies' main page; if they provide more information, then the relevant pages should be linked to. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Telematics

On external links in the Telematics page, except for a few of the listed sites, it appears the majority are not there to chiefly advertise. What do you suggest that is reasonable? Would removal of "Service Providers" suffice? Actually, there are no contributions to the article at all from service provider sites (so it's not like I disagree with you 100%). Many, many people edit just to add links -- what a sad story, welcome to wikipedia! --Lperez2029 23:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC) P.S. How do you wikilink a signature?

I think that removal of all corporate sites (unless the link is to a subpage that provides information about telematics in general) is appropriate. And signature wikilinking is done by going into preferences and unchecking the 'raw signature' box and put whatever you want the link to appear as in the box. More advanced signatures (such as mine) are done in the same way as articles. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input. Go ahead and wipe out all corporate sites as you see fit, then I'll check and see who contributed to the article and link subpages that provide Telematics information as appropriate. --Lperez2029 22:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering...

Are you a cat lover? I'm getting this idea from your contributions on the Cuteness article. 71.213.149.92

Yes, but that's irrelevant. The additions as they were done were putting the text in the middle of a very narrow column, which created stylistic issues. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

spam ?

So why don't you remove the link that HE put in which he run an agressive site toward many peoples like: faketitles.com. You do nothing against that ! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghost rider1000 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

Umm... what exactly are you asking me to do? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because if you said that the link I had added was AGAINST the rules of Wikipedia..the link of Bradford does the same ! Attacking reputation of peoples. Is it the goal of Wikipedia ?

 Ghost R.

The difference is that your link attacks Bradford, mainly, while his site is more of a cautionary site. Also, I can't find any sources for your own site; his site has actual references. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh well.....I'm loosing my time with you ! If you want to protect this guy, it's your business. Wiki has some weird rules !!!

Jasper Duncombe

I changed the link over to the Relish Files as that is Jaspers site. His company is Relish and the site he makes money from is the Relish Files.

Thank you.

Krome007 22:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I added both his sites, the shop and the members site.

Hey can you help me clean up his business partners page? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Colquhoun I am trying to get the format right so the picture is on the right. Thanks

You would use [[Image:Harrycoquhoun.jpg|right]]; however, the image seems to be up for speedy deletion due to the fact that it's marked for non-commercial/Wikipedia use only. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

theram

I would like to argue my point about the Laoistalk.com link, where can I do this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theram (talk • contribs).

If you just want to talk with me, then here. Otherwise, we can continue the one at your talkpage. Or you could bring it up on the talkpage of the page you want to add it to. Any of those is fine. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Direct Relief International

You had created this page some time ago. It was tagged with a notability question. It also had a bunch of juvenile vandalism from an anon user on Feb. 6, 2007. I removed both. It is not really my area but a VERY cursory scan of Google shows DRI to be clearly notable with numerous news stories. I encourage you to go back to this page you created and improve it with some citations and some updated information. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. (talk/contribs) 15:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Republican Freedom Fighters (RFF)

As we are still a small organization made up of only a few members, we have not yet had the time to create a large following or an expert page. The major goal of this page was to allow ourselves some advertisement to gain a larger notability. We re-vamped this page in the hope that it would attract people to our cause. We hope you see it in your heart to allow us to stay a part of the wikipedia family. Please hear our plea and do not delete this page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by SikoraP13 (talk • contribs).

See Talk:Republican Freedom Fighters (Broadalbin, New York) for the discussion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Fort Bragg, California

Dude, how come you keep taking me link off the "Fort Bragg" page?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.59.152 (talk • contribs).

Because you're advertising on Wikipedia, something that the external link guidelines, as well as this guideline forbid. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry about that, I thought my "Mendocino Coast Podcast" might be of interest to visitors to the area, But... is IS also kind of shameless promotion! Check it out though if you want on the iTunes store.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.64.59.152 (talk • contribs).

Jane Eyre

I am not sure if this is the correct way to respond to you. Apologies if it is not! I added a link to Jane Eyre which you removed for pointing to a 'non-encyclopedic source'. This blog, Bronteana has been reporting news on adaptation and scholarship on Jane Eyre for over a year. It clearly is relevant to the topic. Was it removed for a legal reason? Bronteblog which covers most of the same material is still listed, so I do not understand why a distinction is being made between them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.173.183.223 (talk • contribs).

Yes, this is the appropriate method to contact me. The reason I removed it is that blogs, in general, shouldn't be linked to, unless they're written by a recognized authority (according to the external link guidelines). This is because blogs aren't peer-reviewed and don't make for good reliable sources; there isn't any sort of legal reason. As for the other blog links, I didn't leave Bronteblog because it's different, I left it because the button I clicked to remove yours only undoes the last contributor's contributions (i.e., yours). I think that the other two blogs shouldn't be there either, so I decided to remove them as well. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Word of thanks for Veinor Good morning (GMT time); I'd like to thank you for supporting, opposing, taking a neutral stance to, closing, suggesting I close or otherwise contributing to my recent RfA; unfortunately, I felt that although there were more support than oppose votes, the weight of the latter was too great for me to accept the promotion with so many not trusting me with the janitor's trolley - I therefore decided to end my nomination prematurely. The feedback I received was invaluable, and I am striving to start afresh with all of the advice my fellow Wikipedians offered. In order to meet the aim of adapting to your advice, I've drew up a list of aims (located here) which I intend to follow from this point onwards. If you have any further advice or comments for me, don't hesitate to post me a message at my talk page where it will be graciously and humbly accepted. Once again, thank you and I do hope to bump into you around the encyclopedia! Regards, Anthonycfc [T • C]

Behavioural Aims: User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Behavioural Participation Aims: User:Anthony cfc/Aims/Participation

Don't hesitate to add to these - just drop me a message so I know!

Lehigh Valley IronPigs

Quick question.. I know you guys have been pretty leniant in the past about the addition of message boards links, including those on Myspace. Why was my one for the Lehigh Valley IronPigs removed?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4g1e (talk • contribs).

Because generally fansite and myspace links are a bad idea; they don't generally add much to the article (e.g., give more information). As for us being 'leniant' about myspace links, that's actually been the subject of much debate, and Jimmy Wales himself has gotten involved. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't see the difference between it and any of the other fan pages that are listed on the other MLB team Wikipedia sites. It doesn't add much to the article, but it's a discussion group that's meant to generate discussion between now and the time the team hits the field. : —The preceding unsigned comment was added by E4g1e (talk • contribs) 03:56, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, the existence of other links is generally not accepted to be an argument for the keeping of another link; the presence of those other fansites, IMHO, isa problem that needs to be resolved, not an argument for keeping your link; see the external link guidelines for more information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why did you delete my link

Aagavin 19:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Aagavin Today

Because you were using it to promote your site. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:55, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Why remove restaurant list?

Just wondering why you removed the entire restaurant list on the Teele Square page. I had been editing the list both to keep it accurate and to make sure that it didn't read like advertising. Most of the businesses in the square are restaurants, so it seemed pertinent to me to include a complete list of them. FYI, I don't own or work in any of the establishments. Is there some sort of Wiki policy against listing businesses in this fashion? Thanks. Notmyrealname 17:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's generally considered unnecessary; Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Also, the fact that all of the restaurants were linked to the bostonsquares.com domain also looked odd and linkspam-ish. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

This says that "Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel or the price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Such details are, however, very welcome at Wikitravel, but note that due to license incompatibility you cannot copy content wholesale unless you are the copyright holder." I was trying to strike a balance and thought it less linkspam-ish to use bostonsquares than to only list places that had their own web pages. I never included anything like menus or street addresses. I'm not connected to any of these places (other than having eaten at some of them) or bostonsquares.com. It's by far the primary commercial activity of the square, and how most people would identify it. If you check the editing history on the page, you'll also see that I've been vigilant about keeping out obvious endorsements of any establishment. Given this would you reconsider? Perhaps as a compromise, we could put it all back in but without the links to bsq (although I would prefer to leave them in). Thanks Notmyrealname 15:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

E-Democracy Again

A while ago I added a link to the e-democracy section, which was removed by you. I asked a number of questions which still remain unanswered and I wonder if you please provide answers:

1) Why do the following "promotional" links remain but if new ones were to be added, they would be deleted?:

  1. — Experimental political advocacy site, which scrapes the UK Parliamentary record and turns the debates into an easily searched means of keep tabs on Members of Parliament.
  2. UK Local E-Democracy website — The local government e-democracy projects being sponsored by the UK government.

2) In a previous response you answered "Often the way it is is I just see the most recent link added, remove it, and then go on to the next." Can you explain the reasoning behind this approach?

3) You also said "I didn't choose to keep them so much as not choose to remove them". I'm still confused by the logic of this response and wondered if you could explain it.

Thanks

Graham

Sure. I'm sorry I didn't answer your questions, I'm quite busy sometimes (though I do try.)

1. I don't see either of those links; maybe you're looking at an old version? Try clearing your cache.
2. That's because removal of the most recently added link is very simple to do (and is accomplished by undoing all of the most recent editor's edits, which can lead to problems occasionally); however, removal of more links requires human intervention.
3. I think that an analogy would help. There's a difference between not liking something and disliking it, right? It's the same thing here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 7	12 February 2007	About the Signpost

US government agencies discovered editing	Comment prompts discussion of Wikimedia's financial situation
Board recapitulates licensing policy principles	WikiWorld comic: "Extreme ironing"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:43, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam

Sorry About The Freewebs Site. Im New To Wikipedia. I will never do it again

Deleting my addition to The Prisoner

In what way did I post an advertisement for . . . what myself? The Prisoner? I had nothing to sell and the information I provided about Patrick McGoohan was accurate. No book resulted. I mean, are you God? or are you just some wretched Prisoner fan? Please explain this to me. Saturdayloo 02:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saturdayloo (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC).

My mistake; got you mixed up with someone else. Happens occasionally (but less and less often). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

link count

no more link counter V? i just got twinkle fluff working and im inching for some spam reverting! :D JoeSmack ^Talk 21:04, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Nah, I've just been rather... busy and unable to access the internet. Rest assured the logs will be up later today. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Television licence

Why does V delete anything that shows the British TV Licence in a bad light ? If he checked www.tvlicenceresistance.info he would see it gives FACTS which are all backed up yet he and some of the other wiki admins delete it. I've seen a self confessed BBC fan Nick Cooper get upset at seeing the TV Licence/BBC in a bad light and I suspect he works for them because of the amount of time he spends on the subject but why to the Wiki Admin follow his every wym ? Is Wiki just an opinion based information site now or on the BBC's payroll perhaps ???

You're speaking to 'V', and I'm not an admin. I don't work for the BBC or anyone, and Wikipedia has very strict neutral-point-of-view policies. I would like you also to read the guidelines on what constitues a good external link, and note that forums are generally discouraged. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:34, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 8	19 February 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor
Arbitrator Dmcdevit resigns; replacements to be appointed	Essay questions Wikipedia's success: Abort, Retry, Fail?
In US, half of Wikipedia traffic comes from Google	WikiWorld comic: "Tony Clifton"
News and notes: Brief outage, milestones	Wikipedia in the News
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Blundy

OK I think I see what you mean. This is all new to me, but I can't see why some other fan sites or even Internet Movie Database are not seen as self-promotion, though... You even admitted that linking from Wiki does not result in increase in traffic...

I was just innocently trying to gather up some complementary link and certainly not shamelessly promoting external sites. IMDB is very easy to find on the Web, do they really need the extra exposure? Cult Sirens is mainly trying to talk about neglected actresses. But I understand the reason for keeping it in control.

Thanks for your time and advice! Blundy

Well, linking from Wiki doesn't increase the Google PageRank; it can certainly increase traffic. There's a difference. And the fansites are seen as self promotion if they don't contain any extra information and source it properly; the vast majority of them are either in the style of 'OMG I LOVE SO-AND-SO!!!' or a forum, which isn't exactly the most reliable source; IMDB is considered to be a high-quality source. The linking to IMDB isn't to promote it, it's to supply the reader with information that can't be put on Wikipedia (lists of things, reviews). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Christopher Romer

Despite the listing of reliable sources, has the article been pulled anyway? What additional information is required to prove notability?

Thanks, Amyjnelson 15:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

The notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (people) (commonly abbreviated as WP:BIO; either one works). While the page may be in flux, the general guideline (at least, the one that I go by) is that there must be multiple published works about that person specifically that contain non-trivial coverage. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Infrared Sauna

Hello Veinor -

I'd like to thank you for your belated welcome, but although i haven't been as heavy a contributor, i've been a member of wikipedia for at least as long as you have, and am well versed in wikipedia's external link guideline.

That being said, I was fully aware of the links that I was putting in there, and I don't believe that you are at all correct in your assessment that those links did not meet the criteria. As i explained on the talk page for infrared sauna, i'm extremely passionate about this issue, as i've just gone through a hellish experience trying to do research about infrared saunas.

more than many other industries out there, there is a HUGE amount of misinformation and exaggeration out on the web. perhaps it is because it is an emerging industry, with debated science. but just because western science doesn't except something fully yet, doesn't mean it should be dismissed out of hand.

furthermore, the whole purpose of wikipedia is to provide a place where information can be provided to people without them having to wonder about it's validity. it's also a place where people go to begin their search for a product or about an idea. wikipedia is not an encyclopedia just for the non-comercial - in the sense that just because people buy and sell dogs, that the buying and selling of dogs should not be discussed on wikipedia.

in short, i think you and i agree on all of these things, but are having a mis-communication. i have noticed as well that a number of external links get put up on that site on occasion, and I GREATLY appreciate what you've done, with regards to de-spaming the page. but just because an outside link has commercial ties, does NOT make it immediately invalid. it is a very different thing to follow the letter of the code blindly, and to respect and honor the goals of the wiki code of behavior.

if a commercial outside link has merit for people regardless of whether or not those people choose to buy that particular brand, then it is still a worthy and valid link. now, ideally i could just go to a couple of those sites, and copy the information onto wikipedia. but i can't - and i wouldn't if i could, because i'm a strong believer in copyrights. and ultimately the editing i did was only the beginning of what i hope to someday turn into a longer, perhaps featured article, and i can contribute what i've learned. but in the mean time, and even then, there is information that is on a variety of sites, commercial and otherwise, that IS useful, and IS unbiased enough to be wiki worthy.

i am trying not to sound combative here, but if i come across as defensive, i apologize. it is perhaps a little insulting to receive a welcome to something from someone that is no newer, and no more experienced. just because you tracked all of your edits, whereas i didn't always log in, or because you edited, whereas i only read.. or whatever. i apologize for sounding defensive, but i don't think it was unwarranted.

to conclude, i will go onto the talk page and describe the reverts that i'd like to make, and then i will make them shortly thereafter.

i suggest that we work this out, as a disagreement between wikipedians would just result in reversion battle that would be meaningless, since i believe that you and i are on the same side, when all is said and done. we both hate spam, and we both want to promote the goals and ideals of wikipedia.

EvanClifthorne 00:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that; I can get a little defensive myself sometimes. I'm perfectly willing to talk this out with you on Talk:Infrared sauna, and we can hopefully get some 3rd-party opinions. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

CATIA CAD External Link to EIFFEL Tower website

Hello Veinor -

You have removed a link I put Under CATIA external links , to direct people to a website about CATIA and the EIFFEL TOWER reconstruction . I don't understand the rule to post an external link .This website is interesting for CATIA users and I thought they would be interested by it . Amdsoo 01:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)amdsoo

The guidelines (not rules; the guidelines aren't as strict) for adding external links to Wikipedia can be found at Wikipedia:External links. First off, I think you have a conflict of interest in the link: given your username, Amdsoo, and the URL of the linked-to page, amdsoo.5gbfree.com, I conclude that you are the owner of that page. Am I correct? If not, feel free to correct me. Second, while the site does appear to be interesting, if we linked to every site that some people consider 'interesting', we'd probably have over 10 times the number we have now. Also, the site doesn't seem to be about CATIA in general, just a specific application. To me, that just doesn't justify its inclusion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

You are right with your first statement and I haven't tried to disguise anything here .I'm the author of the site and I truly think people inquiring about CATIA would love to hear and see about this experience . For the second statement , I insist that you are wrong , all the current external links are pointing to CATIA's owner sites which are all commercials sites .Why do you tolerate then ? I repeat my site has nothing to do with selling anything and is purely intended to "share" my passion of CATIA and the Eiffel Architecture . How to explain what CATIA does ? With words ? I don't think this is enough , I think a picture , a 3d representation will clarify much more than 10000 words .This is what you didn't get because you have no clue of what 3d CAD is about .Sorry. Amdsoo 05:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)amdsoo

I don't tolerate commercial links; they've been removed. As for your argument that a picutre being worth more than 10000 words, I agree. I'd suggest uploading one of the pictures from your web site to here; instructions on how to do so can be found here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Veinor, I did upload the image but I don't see the image attached to the article . The name of the Image is EiffelCATIALeg.jpg , I really don't know what I did but I thought I uploaded it correctly .COuld you help me Amdsoo 23:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)amdsoo.

Hello Veinor, No sweat , I found how to add the image using your procedure .Thank you gain .Amdsoo 23:38, 25 February 2007 (UTC)amdsoo

Spam?

Hi, I'm pretty new to wikepedia - saw that you deleted a link I added to Freedom From Fear on an Anxiety article. The organizaiton is a non-profit dedicated to helping people with anxiety - is it spam to include links like that on wikipedia? Just want to know for future - thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chronicle7 (talk • contribs).

Yeah; even non-profit links can be considered spam. The general external link guidelines can be found on Wikipedia:External links; the problem is that if we linked to one such group, it'd start a slippery-slope-type thing, and we'd have way too many links on our hands. If you still have questions, feel free to ask. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification... appreciate it. One last question - if I find useful info within a site, like a relevant article by an authority that adds info (i.e. for this anxiety article, if I had added a link to national statistics on anxiety, or a research-validated anxiety screening tool) would that be considered fine/helpful? I get the idea of not linking to organizations in general - thanks.

It depends on the site, really. Statistics are generally useful (or they can be incorporated into the main body itself), but a testing tool probably wouldn't (it doesn't provide information about anxiety per se). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

External Link Petras Geniusas

Hello.I am new at the Wikipedia community and I did not know that things such as ”repeatedly adding links” could be considered Spam. However after reading the guidelines and policies, I understand that the external link (http://www.magistermusicae.com/ )should not be considered Spam. Magister Musicae host videos with master classes from the professor and it adds information to the article; People will not only be able to read about his biography, but also to watch his teachings through the videos in the link. Magister Musicae has been developed by some well known music schools in Europe such as the Royal College, The Reina Sofía School of Music, The Koninklinjk Conservatorium from Brussels or the Porto School of Music . Some of them are State-owned and all of them are non-profit institutions, and makes Magister Musicae a reliable source of information. --Cada2 18:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you're adding the link repeatedly to many pages, which raises several red flags, and that the site isn't in English, which is another thing that WP:EL says is a big problem. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the link magistermusicae.com you can see that you have the option to see the web in english. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cada2 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

(1) Why didn't you link to that in the first place, then? (2) It's very badly translated; 'Sponsors and collaborating organisms' is definitely not the best translation. Also, you're linking to the main page instead of to the individual sections for each of the videos themselves. Finally, external links are supposaed to give more information about the person that can't be put into the Wikipedia article (due to copyright issues or the level of detail), not examples of the classes that they teach. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

74.116.35.36

OK, just don't send me new message any more—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.35.36 (talk • contribs).

I won't if you promise to behave :-D. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop it! I had no intention to post ad, it's just that there's no explicit warnings there, by the way, what's ad & what's not ? Mentioning Microsoft isn't an ad? Anyway..I don't want to continue this talk any more, thank you

The guidelines for what constitues advertising can be found at WP:SPAM. And you're the one that keeps replying; this is my talkpage, and I can respond if I want to (though I can't force you to). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about someone's contributions/editing

Hi, You were very helpful yesterday and I hope youd don't mind my coming to you directly for some guidance. I'm brand new to Wikipedia and yesterday's article was obviously my first ever. My article was the one replacing something someone had written that included completely false information, incorrect information, and inappropriate links. He had only done it that the 21st and I just stumbled onto it. I sent a link with the original article to one of the authorities on the topic, he wrote eback: 'This wold be hilarious if there wasn't the danger that other people would take this information seriously. I don't know who wrote it, but the entire article is inaccurate.' SO, I spent considrable time researching and writing a correct article, and I had it proofed and modified by that same expert.

And after that, the person who wrote the original mess is tampering with what I have done, and not making it better. In fact, he is again making incorrect changes. Here's an example: he continues to add a link to 'additional conflicts in Canada' and when I pointed out this was a battle in New York (not Canada-- which it clearly states in the article) he wrote this: '(→See also - The battle occurred in Canada, New France so List of conficts in Canada is relevant)'. How can he get it THAT WRONG and be allowed to publish???

My concerns are two-fold. First, is there any way to stop this guy from making modifications to the article? And second, is there any way to find out what else he has written? He could be putting more garbage out there on a topic I care very much to see done right.

Many thanks in advance for your time.When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template.

Yes to both of your questions. Someone can be blocked for a period, which prevents them from editing, or the page can be protected, which prevents anyone can editing. However, neither of these will likely occur unless that person has been properly warned about it and an admin agrees. I'd suggest trying to talk it out with them like you're doing with me right now.

As for seeing what else someone has edited, this is also possible. Just go to Special:Contributions/Thatperson'sname (i.e., Special:Contributions/Veinor for mine). That displays their last 50 edits, and you can navigate around using the provided interface. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks very much. I hope you go for the Admin thing they are talking about! Cheers. Pvtchauncey 18:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA nomination

I think you're qualified and ready for adminship. I see you definitely could use the tools for all the work you do with WikiProject Spam. Eagle 101 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is also going to add a co-nomination for your RfA this weekend. I hope you accept. We could really use someone like you. =) Nishkid64 17:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

After a couple days of consideration, I accept. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:12, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! I have added my nomination, and I will let Eagle know that the page has been created. Best of luck, Nishkid64 18:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Entrepreneur Edits

Hi, I'm new to contributing, so learning the guidelines. Understand your comments about "not a how to guide", so understand the removal of the link to Guy Kawasaki's book.

--Chris Gill 17:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You missed one

According to your talk pages "links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product." are violations. I was looking at the Microsoft Vista page which has a lot of links which are to promote and inform about product. I think you should go in and delete the page from the system. Since this is what you have been doing to all the non multi-billion dollar corporations, which have products listed on wiki.

Thank you.

--MikeyCarter 05:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you talking about the various links to microsoft.com and its subdomains? If you are, then please note that links to official sites of the subject of an article are allowed, even if they exist to promote something. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Bots?

Do you have authorization to run a bot on the database? I was unable to find any such authorization, and have therefore blocked VeinorBot. When you get authorization, notify me and I will gladly unblock it (or, if I'm not available, another admin will do so for me). DS 15:18, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I just put up the approval request. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:19, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hoodia Gum

Hello Veinor,

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my side of things.

My intention is not to promote myself/business/site per se, but as the first company Worldwide to have produced Hoodia Gum after a lengthy search for the correct manufacturing process, I do feel entitled to be a reference point.

Indeed, I have put out information on the net warning people on what to look for when searching for this kind of product.

Being new to Wikipedia, I would appreciate your advice as to how I can contribute.

Kind regards,

Vic —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VicCarrara (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Well, everyone here is entitled to their reference point, as long as it agrees with ours. Seriously, though, you're entitled to your opinion, and I respect that. However, I don't see how the link you added adds any information to the Wikipedia article; the sole purpose of it seems to be to get the viewer to buy hoodia gum. This is not the purpose of having links on Wikipedia; the purpose is to supply information that can't be put on wikipedia (amount of detail, copyright issues, reviews, etc.). The external link guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:External links. As for how you can contribute... there are many, many, many different ways. What would you like to do? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Veinor,

Thank you for the reply. Re my first attempts at adding my link ... this was done as at the time and for a period of several weeks I saw another link in the reference section to another manufacturer - (my) logic suggested that as they had a link, it was okay for me to have a link ... My logic has duly been updated! What would I 'like' to do? Specifically with the Hoodia Gum, my concern is that unless it is manufactured correctly (i.e. the herbal ingredient should not be heated in the manufacturing process), any positive effects that the user may receive would be removed. What I could attempt to do then, is write a neutral (as much as anything can be neutral) piece for this section with evidence/references as to what may make an effective gum? Kind regards Vic. VicCarrara 09:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. I think i tmight be a good addition to the article, as long as you make sure to avoid mentioning any companies by name (in either a positive or negative light) and can back it up using reliable sources; adding original research is generally a bad idea. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Veinor, Okay, I'll start scribbling! Best, Vic. VicCarrara 14:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Astro Pages

You stated:

I also have undone some of your revisions; the site, while good-looking, does not cite its references at all and therefore cannot be considered a reliable source. If you have any questions, feel free to ask either Eagle or I. Veinor

I have quoted directly from actual texts and I have linked where you can purchase these texts, what other reference do you need? Antiquus 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Where are your citations on, say, [http://antiquus.prophp.org/Taurus.html this]? Also, why are you citing yourself as the publisher, despite the fact that it's an ancient manuscript? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I did not realize that I needed to add "essay style citations" on the pages of LINKS offered either. If thats the case you have quite a job to do deleting most links on wikipedia(including ALL of the links in ALL of the Astro-Signs pages since they are similar to mine), if youd like a list of these id be sure to give you a nice bundle of pages. These works are recopied from the actual manuscripts and self published by my site, I thought people would RATHER pick up a copy for themselves than having to go to LONDON to read it. Antiquus 03:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

We have no way of verifying that the content you offer is accurate; the Library of Congress doesn't even have a copy. As for removing other unreferenced sites... the standards tend to be stricter for free webhosts such as the one hosting your site. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that if I pay to get a Library of Congress number, then im allowed to cite the books? Just because it has a filing number? The Library of Congress doesnt have a copy because it was published in 1592 and hasnt been since then till now! How do you know if my site is free or paid for? Because my host offers free accounts?? Thats quite an assumption to make. Antiquus 03:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, the base concern here is that you're adding original research to Wikipedia, something that tends to get removed rather fast. Also, the spamming of your link in the 'external links' sections didn't help your case. Also, you offer no proof that the texts cited offered the majority interpretation; if they did, then alternative, better sources shouldn't be terribly difficult to find. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Then please tell me, why you allow the material on the uncited pages to be up to begin with? Are you saying that I can add all of this information, as long as I dont cite it? I was trying to help out the page by citing some sources so people could follow up on it if they choose. Secondly, how do you know that the other links on those webpages werent added by the people who wrote those pages? And if that is your way of collecting external links, by having other users add them just as long as they dont own the website themselves, then I might as well get some friends to add the links for me so its "ethical". That is pretty ridiculous. Thirdly, why should it matter if my sources hold "majority of interpretation"? There is very little spoken of the origins of the Signs and I thought people would appreciate some back history which can be proven if someone wishes to fly to the Museum of England to see for themselves the documents. Did you even read the additions before you took them down? Do you know anything about the subject material you are editing? I would think that would be kind of important. I know you consider yourself as the "Spam police"(as illustrated by your profile) but its not "spam" when each page I added has something specifically to do with the subject material in the context of the article. Antiquus 03:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Getting friends to add them for you is a similar conflict of interest; the adder muust be independent of the site and its owner, as well as other critical people. Also, there are further external link guidelines that should be followed; while exceptions are made, they are far and few between.

Your criticism that I must know a subject to judge the inclusion of links has been raised against me in the past. In any case, you should cite the works in the museum, since you've obviously seen the hard copy, rather than your 'digital remastering'. And repeated addition of the same domain to multiple pages is one of the hallmarks of spam and usually results in a quick mass reversion. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay so why dont I just create a different account and readd them myself and claim the account isnt mine, just so its ethical? So it doesnt pay to be honest? That is ridiculous. You have no way of knowing if the person who posts the links are the actual site owners or an independant party therefore you cant enforce such rules. If I was in some way seeking to spam my website do you not think I would have just linked right to the homepage instead of the specific articles which had relation to the information posted? If you only want me to include one link to my website then that is fine, i just thought it would be more helpful to link all three pages because they each added to the information added. As for knowing the subject matter you edit, I think that is quite important. Especially when you are making judgments between the informatin posted and the links they come from and their relation to eachother.Antiquus 04:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, we can't detect that. And it does pay to be honest; not admitting to having a conflict of interest, and, indeed, denying it can have serious repercussions. And I didn't know for sure, but I had a fairly good idea, given your username and the url of the site. And I was not judging your site in relation to the other sites, I was judging it on its own merit, which is how links should be judged. And as for creating an another account, methods exist of detecting such trickery, and doing so will get you blocked. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You're failing to see why I am stating "signing up for another account". I am simply stating that to show that anyone can sign up for an account and claim the website links they post wasnt theres (even if it is). And the severity of the repercussions is no deter to most people. You have no way of verifying that the links on these pages are from the authors of the site therefore you cannot dictate which links are appropriate an inappropriate. Its all or nothing. I see nothing wrong with stating my own site if it pertains to the information listed. I can understand how linking to the page to purchase the book would be inappropriate (as I already stated I took that from another page which did the same). However, there is nothing for sale on the pages I posted and the user has no reason to go to the other pages if they do not wish to. Antiquus 04:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Look; while conflicts of interest are good reasons for people to not add a link, they are never the sole reason. And we do get some repeat offenders; a while back we had some spammers adding the same links on many, many different pages from different IP addresses. There's a way to block that as well. And, as I said before, the presence or absence of conflicts of interest is not the sole guidelines for the suitability of the link; there are others (which can be found at Wikipedia:External links). My concern is the verifiability and reliability of both your page and the textbooks you're quoting from; are you positive you can't find the same information somewhere else? If you can't, then that really makes it hard to ensure that the books are actually considered accurate by today's standards. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 9	26 February 2007	About the Signpost

Three users temporarily desysopped after wheel war	Peppers article stays deleted
Pro golfer sues over libelous statements	Report from the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia
WikiWorld comic: "Pet skunk"	News and notes: New arbitrators appointed, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Solid-State Relays

Hello Veinor,

I added the link to Crydom and Crouzet SSRs on the "Solid-State Relay" page because they are two of the largest manufacturers for this type of product. There is plenty of good information about SSRs on these sites that some readers might find interesting....especially the "Knowledge Base" section of the Crouzet SSR site.

I also planned on adding a link to Omron's site, but I need to look it up. Their website is a bit convoluted! Carlo Gavazzi was next on my list :)

As for showing preferences to specific manufacturers, the only picture and manufacturer link left on the page relates to Power I/O. They are quite a small "player" in the SSR market, and giving them exclusivity to this page, in my opinion, is not providing a service to the reader.

Again, just my opinion, but the reader might be interested in an unbiased listing of the top 3 or 4 suppliers of product and information for solid-state relays (Omron, Crydom, Crouzet, Carlo Gavazzi). If we should not provide that access, then at least remove the link to Power I/O.

I'm such a newb and really hope I am adding this comment in the proper place / manner.

Best Regards, Dsherman Dsherman13 17:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is the proper place/manner to add comments, so you did OK. As for the manufacturers, Wikipedia is not a collection of (commercial) external links. I removed the Power I/O link that went to their main site (the one under 'Manufacturers'; I'm fine with linking to glossaries and knowledge bases (as long as they're either non-commercial or contain unbiased information), just not the main sites (too spammy for my tastes). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Very good. I understand and appreciate the policy. Thanks for the explanation.

Best Regards, Dsherman13 18:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Amateur Radio Emergency Service page

Veinor,

I added the listing of Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) Groups to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service Wikipedia page. Your update "18:21, 27 February 2007 Veinor (Talk | contribs) (remove list; Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information)" removed this list. I don't feel that this list is "an indiscriminate collection of information". I added a listing of Amateur Radio Emergency Service (ARES) groups to the Amateur Radio Emergency Service page. This list of ARES Groups is similar to the listing contained on the Wikipedia page "List of amateur radio organizations" which contains non-ARES groups. I have not found a complete listing of ARES groups anywhere on the web and was impressed by the listing of amateur radio organizations on Wikipedia so I thought I would start a similar list for ARES.

Also, I added to the "See also" links at the bottom "Amateur radio" and "List of amateur radio organizations" Wikipedia pages since I did not see any references back to those pages in the text above. These were not external links. Should I have done these changes separately?

I am new to editing on Wikipedia and would appreciate any advise and guidance. Thanks.

Dave. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by W4dtr (talk • contribs) 18:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

The problem is that including the list in the main article will cause it to bloat beyond all recognition; I'd recommend starting it at List of amateur radio emergency service groups, and be sure to apply the notability criteria. The 'see also' shouldn't have been removed; I didn't see it. I'll re-add it. As for whether it should have been a separate edit... I don't know. It's good to not make too large of an edit at once, but too many small edits clogs up the page history. In that case, I think that having it in one edit was OK. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Veinor - I created the List of amateur radio emergency service groups as you suggested. The notability criteria is really covered on the Amateur Radio Emergency Service page, so I am unsure if you want me to duplicate the information. I will review other similar Amateur Radio pages and try to add more notability criteria to the newly created List of amateur radio emergency service groups page tomorrow.

I also added List of amateur radio emergency service groups to the 'see also' on Amateur Radio Emergency Service.

Dave W4dtr 23:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about keeping in mind the notability criteria for including things on List of amateur radio emergency service groups. But yeah, I think that that's the best move. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

BIAS page

Hello, I used a number of other software company pages as models for this page, which are not flagged as sounding like advertisements (Digidesign, for example) - I have tried to keep the tone very neutral - any ideas on what I can do to not be flagged? Thanks!

Phrases such as "This fundamental difference from a DAW is what gives Peak the ability to edit digital audio so quickly. Its focused editing environment makes it a complementary tool to many DAWs, video editing, and multimedia applications that offer limited editing features." seem like they'd be more suitable in a piece of advertising than in a Wikipedia article, which is supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

not spam, it was a valid update to "Competitors"

not spam, it was a valid update to "Competitors"

Considering alienware lawyers had been trying to acquire rights to Area51 Computers since 2001 when on "October 11, 2002" they falsified documents to register "Area-51" as a trademark with a first use listed for a date back in "01/01/1998" a few months prior to Area51 Computers open of business, as can be verified on the bbb report or any whois report. This harassment only stopped after Dell acquired the company however the fact remains that Area51 Computers was using the name Area51 for custom systems prior to alienware and is a valid current competitor.

Would it have been better had I posted it under a new heading such as controversy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.169.23.102 (talk) 00:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree; while (given my limited information) it looked like spam, I think I can sort of see what you're trying to get at. I think a 'controversy' section would probably have been better, but you'd need to show some mainstream media attention. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Danny Govedar

I don't know if thiss is where to put it, buy i don't think that the article Danny Govedar, DX Films, EHW, and SMog Town Boys should be deleted. Danny, owner/founder has asked for my help to put his film company up. He has already filmed several bands, ect, and i feel that if you are to remove DX Films, why don't you remove Paramount, or steven speilburg, they're just a movie company and a movie director. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hyscule (talk • contribs) 02:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

The proper place would be to put it on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Govedar; I'll copy it there for you now. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

Sorry about the confusion on the Conspiracy theory page. I re-posted the link assuming it was an error on my part. Then I saw my talk message. Of course i abide by your decision. Sorry again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sabreblade (talk • contribs).

Church of God

I am new to Wikipedia, but it was my understanding that people are to edit when they see inaccurate statements and to post relative information to the topic.

I believe that is all I have done.

If you ask 90% of the people involved in these churches thier opinion, it will be pretty much match the editing that I did.

So, I would presume that you are one of the IN crowd with the Nabors church to take such an angry position towards me.

I am pretty sure I know who you are, and I will leave this alone and pray for you that God will open your blinded eyes.

I am sorry that the TRUTH caused you so much anguish.

I won't bother to clarify the lies again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johndoe1997 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I'm an agnostic/atheist. Being in a conspiracy with a church to promote its agenda would go against my values. And I point out that you have called other Christian denominations "cults"; so I say to you: "Love thy neighbor as thyself", "Judge not lest ye be judged", and "Do unto others as thou would have others do unto you." Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, since I have intimate knowledge of this group and it's "beliefs" and methods of operation, I am probably in a better position to judge their "fruit" to determine if they are a true "Christian" church or a "cult". Based on the generally accepted definifition of "cult", this Nabors group fits right in to that.

It's obvious that Wikipedia isn't interested in any sort of truth in this matter.

It seems that the stories about the inaccuracies about W. are correct.

I am going to sign off now and not bother with this site again. It's obviously a waste of good time and energy.

I've heard about W. for a long time and thought I'd check it out when a friend told me about this.

Sorry I did.

So long.

Well, you do have the right to vanish. I won't bother you again, then. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't delete Kelloggsville!

Let's face it...Kelloggsville students have little pride... Our sports teams SUCK...This publicity allows us some pride. Deleting us throws us into nothing! Maybe you can attach it to the "Wyoming, Michigan" page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Genius2007 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

You need to make your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelloggsville, not here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for answering my question. Now I have no trouble with edit summary. I still have many other questions to ask since Wikipedia has so many new conception to me. But I don't want to go to help desk because that page is really overloaded with bunch of questions every day. Do you know another way to ask other experienced users without going to help desk? Appleworm 16:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Is there any way for you to get on Internet Relay Chat? If you can, then the #wikipedia and #wikipedia-en channels are going to be more than willing to help you out. Myself, I usually am in #wikipedia-spam-t, but that's more for anti-spam efforts than helping newbies (though they're not going to bite you). You can get more information about how to connect here. If you're behind a firewall, you can use ircatwork.com. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

worldofbags edit

how best could that listing have gone, without external links? Company articles I think should be neutralized by listing their competitors thusly offsetting the company's gain from an article. --Jlcook 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry signed it. --Jlcook 23:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC) additionally maybe you could work on that article's discussion page instead of here? --Jlcook 23:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that it'd really benefit the article; for one thing, if it's written in a proper neutral point of view, the company doesn't benefit. Also, having the same information spread across different pages is a bad idea; the usual thing to do is to make a list or category and put them in there. In any case, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

ROM hacking article: they're at it again

ROM_hacking

Check the history/links. >_> --Blackhole89 16:02, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Self Help for Lazy People

Hi there,

I noticed that you removed my link. It was not my intention to spam the topic "Laziness". I just noted that there were very few links for the topic of laziness and I thought my humble blog fitted the profile there. Can I ask you to perhaps reconsider?

shrigley.blogspot.com

thanks, Allen

Well, linking to blogs is generally a bad idea, unless they're written by recognized experts in the field (and we can prove that they're written by them). The problem is that we don't really know how reliable they are, due to the utter lack of standards for them. Also, your blog seems to contain less information about laziness per se than it does advice for lazy people. This isn't really the purpose of the external links. They're supposed to provide more information about the article's subject. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully...

...you will be blocking them yourself soon! Keep 'em coming til then! :) Bubba hotep 16:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I hope I am doing this correctly, & if I'm not, I'm sorry.

According to my IP page I've vandalized twelve pages, yet I've never vandalized a single one. & I am the only person who uses this computer. Should I be alarmed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.166.216.138 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Not necessarily. If you have a dynamic IP, then it would change every so often (this happens sometimes if you have cable internet). In such a case, it's best to create an account and edit from that; that way, we can be sure that there's only one person that performed those edits. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations

You're an admin. Free advice is available here. Be good, have fun, and use your newfound abilities for the betterment of the project. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

congrats!!--Hu12 19:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Elle Fanning External Links (Redsox04)

My page is perfectly fine. It pertains to the subject and is not inappropriate in any way!!!!!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redsox04 (talk • contribs).

As far as I can tell, the link you added is to a wiki that undergoes very little actual activity. As such, it fails the external link guidelines, which require that any linked-to wikis have a substantial history and userbase. This is to avoid linking people who read Wikipedia to unreliable sources. Thanks! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Cover Letter page

new references section of page which references are allowed...? There are number of references and I posted one reference for a Resume and Europass CV writing and it was removed quickly?

• GetResume.com: Resume and Europass CV writing.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salexe (talk • contribs).

Generally, references to sites that intend to promote something are not allowed. So the link you added has been removed (by me.) I also removed the webtech-101.com link for the same reason. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

GetResume.com is only free multilingual resume and europass cv builder. Visitors can create and download in PDF file for free...I think it is well worthed online tool for job seekers but I can not go over your decision, so it's up to you if you want to allow it or not —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Salexe (talk • contribs) 22:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

External Link to Discussion Forum Discrepancy (in "Jungian")

Hi Veinor,

I just posted an External Link in "Jungian/Analytical Psychology" to a Jungian discussion forum. It was immediately rejected. I read the policy about not posting external links to discussion forums, but I'm confused because there were already two external links to Jungian discussion forums on the page.

I would argue, intellectually, that all of these Jungian Discussion Forum links are useful contributions to the page (and good sources of external information on the subject). On principle, I would argue that it is unfair to discriminate between them (for what reason?).

Please explain this discrepancy and advise me on how to revise my entry to make it appropriate for the page (it was formatted exactly the same as the other discussion forum external links as posted).

Best Regards, Uselessscience 22:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're right. There is a discrepancy that shouldn't be there. In particular, the other links should be removed. The reason I didn't was that the method I remove links by only undoes the changes of the most recent contributor; removing the other links as well requires extra work. This isn't to say that I'm lazy, but I just have to work fast to keep up with the tide of links that are added. I hope that that answers your question. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:47, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I didn't mean to spam. I apologize.

So it's a hard and fast rule that discussion forums dedicated to specific subjects (on which there are articles) cannot be added to external links? No loopholes or exceptions?

Could one hypothetically make a new article dedicated to Jungian discussion forums, for instance? I believe there are currently five in English. Two of which are specifically "Jungian", two of which are tangentially Jungian, and one of which is somewhere in between (in my opinion). All of these represent potentially valuable sources of information on the subject of Jungian Psychology.

I respect and admire Wikipedia. I have no interest in circumventing the policies here . . . but although I understand why discussion forum links would be disallowed, I'm unconvinced that a sweeping ban of them is the best answer. These forums represent potentially valuable sources of information (in many instances), not to mention a significant, developing form of information technology . . . sort of like Wikipedia itself.

Sorry to take up so much of your time.

Most Gratefully,Uselessscience 23:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, certainly no loopholes. WikiLawyering, or trying to find loopholes, is generally considered to be a bad thing. However, there can be exceptions, such as if the forum is very large and the general consensus is that it is useful, or if the forum is the official one for the subject of the site. I really don't think any of those fora met the criteria.

Hypothetically, you could make a new article, but it would probably get deleted. All it could really be would be a bunch of links, and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links.

As I said, there is no 'sweeping ban' as such, just a general idea that they're not a good thing. And the problem with using them as reliable sources of information is that you don't know whether the person has a Ph.D or is just some person who found a textbook in a dumpster and thinks they're an expert. Like you said, it's somewhat like Wikipedia itself, and why we never cite ourselves as a source and caution others against doing the same.

There's no need to apologize; I really have nothing but free time. I do this purely as volunteer work, not due to compensation from the Wikimedia Foundation or anything. I do it because I believe Wikipedia has great potential, but it needs maintenance... and I enjoy it as well. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Veinor. I agree with everything you say and want to respect Wikipedia's policies (not exploit them). I guess by "loophole", I didn't mean WikiLawyering, per se. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing a legitimate way to link the forums. It had never occurred to me that Wikipedia would show such links until I saw those of some of my colleagues. It didn't even occur to me that this would be spamming.

Somewhat romantically, I like to think that a professionally-oriented online forum could become a premier intellectual venue . . . even helping push a field of thought forward in ways technologies of the past never permitted. But forums are very far from such a lofty ideal (and most who participate in them don't share my particular, stern romanticism).

Thanks again for your help.

Regards,Uselessscience 01:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that the phrase 'spam' actually gets overused. Strictly speaking, it does refer to promotion, but it gets used to mean inappropriate addition of external links even if the intent is to add good resources, not simply to promote sites. And it's always a pleasure to talk to someone who listens to and understands what I have to say. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

VFR Simulations Article Deletion

Hello, I dont mean to be mean but the VFR Simulations article is being deleted. I have been a user of the VFR Simulations Products for Some time now, and they have made me a much better pilot. I feel that I can fly in a real airplane. Please dont delete that article.

P.s. Somebody added a very good reference onto that article and I think you should see it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.94.126 (talk) 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, if you think you can prove notability according to the guidelines for corporations, then go for it. But do so on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vfr simulations. Also, pages published by the company themselves do not count as reliable sources due to their inherent conflicts of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Platypus Marketing

I think it depends on the situation. If you wantto unblock and reblock with account creation enabled, I have no objection. Academic Challenger 04:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I've had experience dealing with these sort of people, and I find that they tend to be reasonable if you discuss it with them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Citebite on the spam blacklist?

I see that you have successfully placed citebite.com on the spam blacklist. This has now crippled many Thailand-related articles that used the Bangkok Post (one of the two English language newspapers in Thailand) as a reference. The Bangkok Post doesn't use stable URLs for news articles - articles only stay up for about a week before being deleted. The Internet Archive does not store Bangkok Post articles. I and many other editors of Thailand-related articles therefore use Citebite (which stores a copy of a webpage on its servers) for article citations of the Bangkok Post. These articles include en:Thaksin Shinawatra, en:Saprang Kalayanamitr, en:Surayud Chulanont, and en:Bhumibol Adulyadej (a featured article). Placing citebite on the blacklist has crippled these articles. Citebite is not being used to spam Wikipedia; it is being used as a tool for citations. Patiwat 06:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Patiwat is right. Please see my comment in the Spam Blacklist talk page. Your intention is noble, Veinor, but to base your judgement solely or even mostly on "how many times/day each link was added and who added them" is simplistic. Patiwat and his fellow Citebite-happy editors (I'm not one of them, by the way) may be zealous, but they are zealous about Wikipedia and meticulous referencing, not about promoting Citebite! Or would you rather have tons of dead (and thus unverifiable) links instead? bongbang 13:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 5th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 10	5 March 2007	About the Signpost

New Yorker correction dogs arbitrator into departure	WikiWorld comic: "The Rutles"
News and notes: Picture of the Year, milestones	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Congratulations!

Another great admin added to the fold. Good to see you finally have the tools you deserve. 70.88.111.65 13:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Signing again after login. ~Crazytales (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That week went by fast...I just went back to RfA today and realized you were promoted lol. Congratulations, Veinor. =) I wish you best of luck with the admin tools, and if you ever need any help, you know where to reach me. Nishkid64 23:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Dumpy Level

Please see Talk:Dumpy level regarding Billbeee's contribution yesterday which you removed. AuroraD 20:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are freewebs allowed on wikipedia?

I was on the Totally Spies article and found a freewebs link are they allowed?-hotspot

Generally, no. I removed it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

WFM

Hi, I added a link to RosterOne's web site from the WFM (workforce management) page under the list of companies that supply these solutions. I am not sure why you rejected the link when they do the same as the other companies on the list. Rhysrobert regards

I removed the other companies as well; it's not like I'm discriminating against you or anything. I removed them because I considered them to be advertising for those companies, and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks working?

Hello. Looking at AIV, it appears that you are blocking IPs and removing them from the list, but the addresses don't show up as blocked in the logs. Is this a function of the helper bot? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. They show up at Special:Log/Block for me, anyway; maybe you need to purge your cache? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, I stopped checking at the one that I was interested in and one other. Looking more thoroughly now, I see that of your most recent listings at AIV these 3 do not show up in the block log: 68.127.151.53, 68.222.103.72, and 141.151.88.130. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The second and third apparently never got blocked for some reason; the first one was definitely blocked, as can be seen here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. You did indeed block that one. For some reason, it appeared twice in the history here and here, which made me initially mess up the reconcilliation. I would appreciate it if you could make sure that 141.151.88.130 is blocked. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 00:31, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Links on Attard page

Hi Veinor..i have added some info not just a link..i was not intending to advertise just a link..i had submitted before preview...thanks 9h1lo 02:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Toaster Lad

Hello,

I would like to request the restoration of the "Toaster Lad" article. I believe it was deleted because of copyright issues and that 'Toaster Lad' is not a recognizable comic-book character. I deleted the copyright in the article and I have explained that he is not yet recognized as a comic-book character because the production is supposed to start this spring 2007. This article was a preview. You still deleted the article. I am looking forward to your answer. Thanks in advance!

Sincerely, Filip Grgic (Wikipedia username: filip1507)

You prove my point; there's no way that this "Toaster Lad" would be notable. If he hasn't been published yet, how would we find reliable sources on him? Also, please be careful to not overwrite other users' comments, as you did. And I can tell your username; it shows up in the page history. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)