User talk:JoeSmack/Archive 3

Movaya Wireless article

from User user:jog1973: jog1973

I can't seem to figure out how to contact you. I added to your message at the bottom of this page. I havn't seen a response. Please read it and respond.

  • articles listed here are no different than the one posted on Movaya Wireless; they are all 'marketing pages' any way you look at it. Some companies are bigger then others, some are public, but they ALL promote the company written about. If the article on Movaya Wireless should be deleted because it is seen as spam/advertising, than so should all articles on companies, including the following:


articles here are no different than the one I posted re: company information

—Preceding unsigned comment added by jog1973 (talk • contribs)

Ok, godaddy has 14 references. infospace has an article in wired. mediadefender has one in the la times. amy's kitchen reads very neutral point of view, very important on wikipedia (see WP:5P). airimba wireless i sent to article-for-deletion'ed....i haven't looked at the others, but maybe you see now a little bit of what constitutes a company article on wikipedia. read WP:5P, WP:NPOV and WP:SPAM to make sure it isn't deleted again, and change the article into a good encyclopedic piece that can be kept! :) JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 06:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please review Movaya Wireless now Jog1973 06:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help Justin. I will continue to work on this article, and more. I am also looking to contibute to the WikiProject Business and Economics. Jog1973 06:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, glad to have you around! JoeSmack Talk(p-review!) 07:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Justin, 2 more editors are trying to delete this article. Can you please step in and talk with them? Jog1973 08:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Earthtimes.org

Is there any way that I can revert/undo the page? Keekee 05:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Keekee 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza deletion

Hey, just to let you know (all this with EA aside), I'm sorry that you've never had an 'Esperanzian kind word', I find that quite sad. Oh, and about my 'Wikipedia without Esperanza is really a foreboding image' spiel – I'm sorry if that offened you, I guess that's just how I felt. :P Well Drawn Charlie 22:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't mean to get people confused or anything, I was only voicing my opinion. By the way, you make quite good rebuts to many comments! Did you ever debate by any chance? Thanks, Jam01 07:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Esperanza

Thank you for your well-reasoned support of the deletion of Esperanza. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 02:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

regarding POMONA BOYS gang article

can you block this ip: 67.127.101.9 he keeps messing with the article and before that he used a diff ip which was 68.123.145.122 and that one got blocked so now he's using a diff one. if you go here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pomona_Boys&action=history you can see how many times he's messed with that article, i'm just here to show the facts and trying to stop vandalism on wikipedia myself but it's hard work, and this guy is really at it, he keeps messing with that wikipedia article... perhaps he's their rival, i don't know, but it has to stop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by John s gordon (talk • contribs)

No he can't he's not an admin. But you can find a list of admins here. --WikiSlasher 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza's MfD

Hi. We were discussing the merits of Esperanza in regard to the encyclopedia. I went to bed before you reply, so instead of continuing the conversation in the sea of other comments, where it might have got lost, you can see my response, here. It's kind of my response, along with a plan from the resturcturing. Thanks for you time, Thε Halo Θ 11:50, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I may be away from the wiki a lot today, so sory if I don't reply quickly. Thanks, Thε Halo Θ 11:57, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repetition of arguments is not really necessary

Hey Joe, thanks for being respectful with your feelings over at the Esperanza MfD. Do you think it is really necessary to reply to almost every single "keep" vote with the reasons on why you think that editor is wrong? All parties are most entitled to their own opinions, you and I alike, but once you've refuted the opinions of one person, why keep repeating the same argument? I say this not because you should stop opposing what you feel, but because it is making the atmosphere of the MfD more negative than it already is. -- Natalya 12:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it's the same in the reverse direction too... ;) -- Natalya 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think if people took the time to read all the comments before posting, we would not have this problem Natalya, but with the sheer size of the thing, I think that while frustrating, some repetition is inevitable. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 19:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The YouTube Thingy You Wrote To Me In My Talk.

Why did you go and remove the links and some of the sentences that I have cintributed so that it can help users to understand its article? Btw, the article that I'm talking about is this --> Sar-vivor Rap. I need your reply please. Thank you.

Regards,

Syed Ahmad Al-Joofri

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released!

  • Special Episode 5 - Viruses in Wikipedia, ArbCom, Wikipedia in China, Wikipedia 0.5 and more!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 06:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

Rencin

Thanks Joe for your help in this will do the same from now. Rencin Matthew

no problem. JoeSmack Talk 07:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Your comment on the page I just submitted

Please clarify what you mean by including an external link that is spam. The link I included is the artist's homepage, as I have seen included on so many other artists' pages.

Also, I'll assume that you flagged this article for removal. This is a factual article, and it is NOT autobiographical. I am a fan who thinks that this artist should be included on Wikipedia because she is notable.

For example: She has participated in collaborations with several notable artists whose profiles are included on Wikipedia, including Tiesto, Deepsky, D:Fuse and Motorcycle, where there is even an empty link with her name and a link to her website.

She has also had songs that charted on international billboards, including "As The Rush Comes" which also has its own Wikipedia entry.

Please let me know what information is unnacceptable in this article and I will be happy to change it. Thanks, Planetjes

Notable Sources

Thanks for your speedy reply! Can you point me toward some examples of notable sources? I'm not sure what would apply. Thanks, Planetjes

How much time do I have before my article is removed? Planetjes
Thanks, I'll get right on that! Planetjes

Youtube

You just contacted me about a link to a youtube. I was using that as a source and the info is likely to be deleted without it...what can I do in this case?GrandMasterGalvatron 17:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the only source you have for information is a YouTube link, it probably doesn't meet notability guidelines as per WP:N and WP:SPAM. ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Page Moves) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 18:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot

If someone asks me that one more time... Nah, just kidding. But yeah, I'm working on that. Right now I'm concentrating on making the code look pretty (commenting it). Thanks though! Shadow1 (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Joint Venture

Why did you change my entry in Due Diligence? Who the heck are you???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.31.124 (talk • contribs)

I changed the entry to Joint venture because the link you added is considered spam. See WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:SPAM for more information about Wikipedia's policies surrounding this for more. JoeSmack Talk 02:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And i'm just and editor. See my userpage for more info about myself. JoeSmack Talk 02:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't even visit the site... did you look at the Aesops tales???? Did you look at the partnering tips? Do you even know anything about partnering???? How many other entries do you do this to?

I just sent and looked up who you are "Hi there. My name is Justin. I'm an ESTJ. I am a rational moral objectivist. Since I don't believe that intellectual property rights exist, every word I write is by default, and always, in the public domain." What are you doing messing with an entry the subject of which you know nothing about? How many other entries are you doing this on?

It is my sincere belief you are engaging in "unconstructive edits" and an abuse of your knowledge and ability to operate within the wikipedia system. Who can I go to who can arbitrate our disagreement on this entry... and probably on others. In my opinion, whatever you are doing can't be good for the wikipedia. But there must be some way to get an objective determination on our conflicting opinions.

Jes Brieden article

Hey, can you swing by and check if this is looking more like how it's supposed to? Jes Brieden Thanks, Planetjes 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your doing great! I went through an added a little formatting to the article, spit and shine stuff. The next step i'd suggest is using in-line citations. You can do this by adding <ref>[http://www.example.com Example citation]</ref> to the front of facts you cite, and then adding <references /> once to the references section (er, make the references section too). this will really help your article because one can trace each fact back to its source without having to read all of them. JoeSmack Talk 08:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in less time than it would take to actually watch the linked-to media, you had removed from Barrington Hall a link to a YouTube page that I had just added. As I mention in the discussion page, my brother and I are the creators of this film, and have never asserted any copy or viewing restrictions over it. Is there any way to prove this to people so that such links are not removed automatically?

If Wikipedia has taken the position that under no circumstances can YouTube be linked to, that should be made clear (and probably embedded in the Wiki's code). If there are circumstances where YouTube content can be vetted to the satisfaction of Wikipedia folks, thopse should be stated. At the moment, however, it certainly seems to be an autonomic response, not a thought out one. Can you clarify what the Wiki-mind actually believes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahlenmahlen (talk • contribs)

There are circumstances in which a YouTube content can be fine, but they are often narrow. Firstly, if you guys have not released the film under any license, it would still be wrong to include it here under GDFL (i.e. wikipedia). Secondly, I guessed (correctly) that it was a link to a film that you the user had created; most of the time added content to makers of the link (or indeed article) are frowned upon as it is inherently (POV) and can be construed as linkspam (WP:SPAM). Often with even the purest of intentions (which I think you had), there is zero way for me to know if you weren't just trying to use wikipedia as a medium to publicize your film. Lastly, the content itself would have to be encyclopedic; in essence, hold unique content that is vital to the article content. See (WP:EL) for more on what external links are encyclopedic (YouTube, a reason you got the warning template on your talkpage, is on the 'Links to be avoided' section).
I hope I have answered your questions; if you have anymore, please, drop me a line. JoeSmack Talk 17:52, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hey Joe, thanks for all the comments and feedback, I really appreciate it. The only thing is, I'm not going to be able to work on the article for several more days. How long do I have before it gets booted for having that flag on it? Thanks again, Planetjes 03:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - China’s re-block of Wikipedia, better searching, wiki markup parsing, Wikimedia board and executive level decisions, bylaws, committees, trademark, and fundraising + a cat w/ an MBA!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

"make a 150wide/50tall logo" <-- okay --JWSchmidt 19:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know if this is not what you were looking for. --JWSchmidt 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The subscription box looks good. I put a copy on my user page! --JWSchmidt 00:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Daveydweeb's changes

Heya, I've changed the template slightly to make it better fit with existing userboxes (so it can optionally be used as an over-tall userbox, if desired). The specific changes were to remove its 1em margins and increase the width to 238px while setting the text of the bottom links to 80% (which fits nicely, in my browser). I thought I should tell you, in case I've buggered it up - please feel free to revert or modify these changes if it's all gone horribly wrong. Thanks! :) Daveydweeb (chat/review!) 13:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may do with it whatever you'd like! No problem. JoeSmack Talk 16:35, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/CurrentTranscriptions

Was this your work? Good job! I transcribed Special Ep 1, and am going to finish Ep 5 on the weekend - if you like, I'll copyedit what the automatic translator spewed out then. riana_dzasta 03:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Why did you put all these warnings at the same time on User talk:72.11.159.89. Isn't one enough? :) —Centrx→talk • 08:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This guy is a LONG LONG term advert spammer. He uses multiple IPs and whole proxy's have been blocked because of him. I also revert 8 incidences of spam. I'm not going to go and add the warning after each revert. Lots of reverts, then lots of usertalk warnings. It just keeps everyone sane (#wikipedia-spam) JoeSmack Talk 08:17, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you don't have to have a warning for each edit. Is this because some silly admins refuse to block unless they see a bunch of warnings on the talk page? —Centrx→talk • 08:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I like the person to see that each action carries with it a response. Preference really. Also, I should have given him Template:spam4im from the very beginning because of his pernicious vandalism streak over the last week. JoeSmack Talk 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Handshape article

You wanted info on marked/unmarked handshapes added. I don't know what that is, so you should do it. Mike.lifeguard 15:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More vandalism from anon user 216.73.65.62

Hi there. I noticed your warning to 216.73.65.62 on his/her/their talk page. This anon user (or IP) is continuing to vandalize despite warnings (see Algonquin article, reverted by me today). I'm fairly new at this. What's the next step? Thanks, Shawn in Montreal 18:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the last user_talk warning he got was from a long time ago, I gave him a starter-warning and thats that. He hasn't vandalized other pages in a while. It is possible it is also a different user using an IP that changes dynamically depending on who the ISP gives it to. This is why after about 48 hours since the last vandalism we give the starter-warning again. Sorry I can't do anything more. JoeSmack Talk 19:01, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Shawn in Montreal 19:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalism User 61.69.3.78

Hi there. I was surfing anonymously when I was directed to the warning page for user 61.69.3.78 - but it definitely wasn't me. Is it possible that I could share an IP address with this person, and does that mean I'll get blocked if they get blocked? Sorry, I'm still very much a newby here. Thanks Yowie 00:48, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely possible that you were sharing an IP address with another person; ISPs do this all the time. Luckily for you if it was another person then as long as you yourself proceed without vandalising you won't hear anything on your talkpage, and no access is restricted. Also now that you have a username this will never happen; your user name is yours regardless of what IP you have. If you have any other questions feel free to ask - im more than happy to answer! :) JoeSmack Talk 01:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, JoeSmack. I've had a username for some months now, and if you check my record, you'll see it's all very staid and sober like the middle-aged mother I am :) It was all a bit of a shock, really, to get someone else's warning. :( One of the reasons I joined up was to remove other people's vandalism. Anyway, thanks again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yowie (talk • contribs)
Glad to help! :) JoeSmack Talk 09:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This week's topics include - 1.5 million articles, an exclusive of Danny's latest contest and more!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 23:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

  • Hello there! I'm just writing to say that the MySpace link I had just provided for In Strict Confidence was removed. It is their official MySpace, so I think it should belong there as many bands use their MySpaces as an important source of information. Many other bands in Wikipedia include their MySpace links as well (and a small number of artists use their MySpaces completely). I understand the Wiki policy asks to avoid Myspace and other social network sites, but the link is officialy managed by the group, and is the subject to the article. It isn't used completely in a blog or discussion forum manner, and the information is verifiable, which is what I feel Wiki mostly wants to watch in that regard. If you have no qualms, I plan to insert the link back in soon, or sometime within the next couple of days. (If I knew how to, I'd kinda like to bring up this issue to the policy to make a written exception for this, because I feel a band's offical Myspace can be just as relevent as their official websites today) Thanks a lot! -- Shadowolf 08:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry but I am not a big fan of exceptions. WP:NOT for one thing would say MySpace is a social networking site and not an encyclopedic source. I've used myspace plenty; i don't think it would be hard to argue it is mostly full of non-encyclopedic stuff. Another reason: if the profile is hacked and something pernicious is put up in its place, wikipedia is potentially liable for holding a link to the material. Finally, most of all, it is almost summarily removed from articles at this point as per WP:EL and for my reasons and many others. The fact that other articles still contain the links doesn't exonerate others' use of myspace, I'm sorry. Please do not re-add the link. If you are interested in talking with people in full about this via IRC, the #wikipedia-spam-t channel is a great place to discuss which links are good to use and which aren't (i'd suggest logging in around 6pm-PST). JoeSmack Talk 09:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello, thanks for the quick reply! I'd argue that a regular website could just be as hacked (even if it may be more difficult), or any sort of vandalism could take place anywhere. Myspace isn't much different. I feel MySpaces are relevent to bands, and especially to a Wiki regarding a band as the sound of their music is right there. Its uniform design allows easy reading of updatable information as well. And some artists use their Myspace over a website completely (such as Chris Cornell). However, I understand where you are coming from, and I understand it is not really your say about this matter regardless, so I will try to clarify this issue upon the Wiki policy before attempting to re-insert it in some other day. Thanks for your help! -- Shadowolf 09:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For relevant policy see WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:MUSIC. Cheers, ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 14:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UKTV

You removed information i added about UKTV stating the link was for comercial use. This is also a statement of fact and added extra information. I could agree with you that the external link in body copy sould be an internal link but until the page is set up i put an external link in. However the external link in the external link section should be allowed (There are many others including the UKTV one). The link provides usefull information images and movies that can not be placed on your site for copyright reasons. I there for request you allow me to add this extra material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.74.62.47 (talk • contribs)

You know, I don't think it is a copyvio but I do think it may not have the right kind of relevance you're thinking of to be added to the article. See WP:EL to determine this. JoeSmack Talk 16:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

85.92.183.119 spam

Thanks for placing a warning on the above "user's" talk page. I've been noticing the same thing myself and have had time to correct only one of their spams on a dog breed page. I fixed the article on Keeshond; the user is pretty clearly working their way through the alphabetical list of breeds and adding essentially the same link over and over ... Ugh! Keesiewonder 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question on modifications

I did not see a 'leave message section so i am putting this at the bottom. i made some modifications to the 'psychotherapy' article and to the best of my knowledge you said they were vandalism. can you tell me why you thought that? i certainly do not want to be considered a 'vandal' so can you help on how not to be accused of it? thanks

raspor 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: heya gurch

Hi again. I still do the odd bit of spellchecking, though it has been over a month now. My main concern at the moment is anti-vandalism, though I also spend a fair bit of time clearing out CAT:CSD. My latest development is a handy little program that saves me time with speedy and other sorts of deletion, doing things like notifying the creator of an article when it's deleted, producing a log of all my proposed deletions so I can check if people remove the tags, and other such stuff. Still a long way to go with the Recent Changes reader before that works properly, though. Is JoeBot likely to be active again any time soon, or did you run out of arm hairs? :) – Gurch 17:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transcript: Wikipedia Weekly Ep 7

Hi Joe, this is just a message passed on from Daveydweeb to not work on the Ep 7 transcript, as he's away and is working on it right now. Thanks, and take care! riana_dzasta 14:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did some transcription from Episode 6

Hello Joe! I transcribed more of the audio from Episode 6. I see you did the previous part. My speaker attributions are uncertain. I may continue work on this (but very slowly) so if you want to finish it, go ahead! EdJohnston 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sex is now the COTF

 You showed support for Amazon rainforest at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

OK Joe, can you turn down a chance to collaborate on sex for two straight weeks? Walkerma 06:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delayed response

So after putting things off for far too long, I was just preparing to head off to the library to grab the Kohlberg books you asked me about a while ago when I checked the page and saw that you'd clearly gotten your hands on some of the references yourself; did you find all the books you needed, or are there others that would be useful? I'm really sorry I didn't get to this earlier (I have been somewhat busy, but also very easily distracted in the interim), but if there's any way I can still help out at this point I would be glad to. Great work on the article, by the way; it's always a pleasure to see a really well researched page like that (even when there's a twinge of guilt for not helping as promised...). Anyway, let me know if anything needs doing. --RobthTalk 20:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya Robth! No worries! There are still some things that need sourcing/doing for the article. If you hit the talk page, I'm in the middle of a Good Article assessment. The page needs a more thorough and sourced Criticisms section (Carol Gilligan, among others are good critics) and a Continued Relevance section (James Rest and his Defining Issues Test builds from Kohlberg, among others). I've gone to a couple of (local) libraries, but they are now tapped. A breadth of Jane Loevinger, James Fowler and Martin Hoffman are other authors that I can't get, those would be good too.
Thanks for still helping out, I've really been trying hard to make this article stellar. Good psych articles are unfortunately pretty hard to find 'round wikipedia, so i hope to change that a bit with this one. JoeSmack Talk 20:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I'm seeing in a quick books-only search; tell me if I should be looking more for journal articles or if these books are what I'm after.
Carol Gilligan: the closest of what I'm seeing appears to be "In a different voice : psychological theory and women's development"
James Rest: I assume "Postconventional moral thinking : a Neo-Kohlbergian approach" is just the thing
Jane Loevinger: "Measuring ego development" looks to be the most on-topic.
James Fowler: "Stages of faith and religious development : implications for church, education, and society", by James W. Fowler, 1940- appears closest (unless this is the wrong James Fowler--there are many).
Martin Hoffman: "Empathy and moral development : implications for caring and justice" appears topical.
Which of these would be particularly useful for the article at this stage? --RobthTalk 21:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I will visit the library this evening and grab several of those, then. I don't seem to have access to the book you linked on Amazon, unfortunately, but I should have some time to work from the others over the next couple weeks. --RobthTalk 22:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, spoke too ambiguously there; I can see the Amazon book, but it is not in my library. 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Jewish marriage

I provided a reason in the edit summary. Perhaps you didn't notice. I will quote it "one controversial man's controversial proposal should not merit a large seperate section in this article. Perhaps within a different section." If you disagree, we can discuss it in the talkpage for that article. 38.117.213.19 07:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Military brat (U.S. subculture)

I just wanted to let you know that your bot reverted some edits erroneously. I don't know if you modify the bot based on false positives, but thought I'd share this with you.Balloonman 08:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a bot, just me. I see now you were in the middle of a long series of edits and I caught some vandalism suspected ones capriciously, my apologies. JoeSmack Talk 08:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem... so long as I wasn't blocked ;-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Balloonman 16:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies

Hi JoeBot, I read your deletion requests and your saw the removal of the links to my info on various pages. I didn't realize that making my own contributions to wiki entries would be viewed as inappropriate if the entry was about me or my work.I was assuming the content would be more accurate. In cases where my work is being talked about like the entry for Jim's Big Ego and a number of bands I have worked with... why would it not be OK to link to a page about my work or other artists I have recorded with, written for or performed as a member. What is the right way to handle it? Currently it feels like I'm not being credited for music I've created and there is no path that would take you to me and give you more info about what I do. I completely understand the notion that it shouldn't be used to advertise but I'm torn with not have all the pages that already talk about my work not link back to me. Whats your advice. I respect your input. thanks Dan@***.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notable.com (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia doesn't really revolve around people getting credit for work with external links; it is about supplying NPOV encyclopedic content. If you can add to the respective articles information that it doesn't already have in a balanced way, that is the best way you can 'get credit'. One problem is however if you have a vest economic or vanity issue with any of the articles (say, you were in the band or you make money from record sales), such contributions are usually recused as being inherently biased in a POV way. You might be stuck not being able to contribute to these articles here. :/ There still is however a wealth of other subjects we'd love for you to add to as you sound like a very knowledgable individual in areas of music. JoeSmack Talk 18:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for your comment

Thanks for your clarification on linking to blogs! Looks like I learned something new today. I didn't know that a fan community was not allowed in the links. Denial land 22:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that they were inappropriate? A lot of the links I have added contain further information about Articles that don't have a lot of info attached to them (eg. Men Behaving Badly - virtually no information about the book it's based on, or 'Private Life of Henry VIII' film). I saw a lot of similar links, so I apologise if I have misunderstood.

Some of the External Links I have added are the only external links for that particular article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Luke Teh (talk • contribs) 06:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Actually, it's a couple of new episodes. I've been moving to an place closer to campus (my commute was getting to me) and hence, the reminder message was a little slow in coming out. So slow we put out 2 where before we had 1.

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 05:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.


WPCD 2

Hi Joe. Any chance you could run smackbot over http://2007-wikipedia-cd-selection.fixedreference.org/wp/index/alpha.htm and see if you can pick up any obvious recent added grafiti? --BozMo talk 10:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Boz. I think there is a litter bit of confusion: Smackbot actually belongs to Rich Farmbrough and not me, I run JoeBot. JoeBot checks for spelling errors mostly (with AWB kung-fu) on en.wikipedia; i'm not sure what the range of applications are for SmackBot is myself. More than happy to try to put JoeBot to work for the list though. JoeSmack Talk 16:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Sorry, being dumb. I spoke to Richard before and then got confused. Any spelling comments of course would be cool. --BozMo talk 17:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement

Announcement
The "Help name my baby" Poll has closed :). Greta Annette was born 12/12/06. She weighs 6lbs 14oz and is 19inches long. Mother and baby are both doing fine. Thanks for all the suggestions!

To keep this slightly Wikipedia related I have started Adopt a State, so adopt your state article today! -Ravedave (help name my baby) 03:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri (talk . contribs) 08:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forer effect

Hi there, why did you do this on the Forer effect article? I'm assuming you are on RC patrol and made a quick judgement call that it's spam (I admit the "mypage" in the URL looks suspicious) - but, having read fairly extensively about the Forer effect and having looked at the website, I can assure you it is a useful and interesting addition to the article. If my assumption (about RC) is incorrect, can you please explain why you removed it? Thanks, Mikker (...) 16:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my mistake, my brain saw 'myspace' and not 'mypage'. i visited the site and it looks like a good EL, my apologies. and thanks for assuming good faith! :) JoeSmack Talk 17:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem :). When I saw it on my watchlist I also immediately thought it was spam, so it's an understandable mistake. Cheers, Mikker (...) 17:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient Rome as the Article Referencing Drive

You have voted for Ancient Rome to be this week's Article Reference Drive, and it now is! Help find sources for the article! ★MESSEDROCKER★ 11:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Policy

"Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority." You just removed my link (which one?) for Christmas. Thanks. I'm a consultant ("recognized authority") to the Oxford English Dictionary, the Historical Dictionary of American Slang, the Dictionary of American Regional English, and I'm an editor of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America. I'm an authority on thousands of Americanisms and food and drink terms. I have extensive database resources, I travel the world and visit libraries and read thousands of books, and I share my work with recognized scholars. I'm not here to vandalize the Wikipedia; I simply want it to have the best information available. It's absurd that many other Wikipedians have cited my work to my dictionary-type blog, but I can't. I've been through this discussion with many other Wikipedians, and it seems that I have to do this forever. --Barry Popik Barry 17:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barry. The reason I reverted your link was a) because it was a blog and not a more reliable source, like say, a peer reviewed journal or historical document, which are far more empirical and reputable (verifiable, objective, etc). b) is that the web link you provided was barrypopik.com while your user name is Bapopik. I think I presumed correctly that you are affiliated with the source in question, which runs into a conflict of interest. As you might imagine, people the world over love to use wikipedia to promote themselves in one way or another - and I'm not saying thats you - but it means we have to keep a no-exceptions-policy on content of this nature being added to wikipedia; it just can't be held in a neutral point-of-view, a pillar wikipedia is founded on. If you have a more primary source other than your website (and by your pedigree I'm guessing you do), that would be perfectly fine to cite and add such information. Any other questions, feel free to contact me. (WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:5P). JoeSmack Talk 18:17, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the original research-policy sums up more of this situation too. JoeSmack Talk 18:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And again, more info, pulled directly from the original research policy, which I think is the most poignant:

Citing oneself: This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, then s/he may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our NPOV policy. See also Wikipedia's guidelines on conflict of interest.

JoeSmack Talk 18:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You posted:

{{User:Thadius856/templates/badlink|1|img|[[User:JoeSmack|JoeSmack]] <sup>[[User Talk:JoeSmack|Talk]]</sup> 02:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)|Illinois}}

on my talk page. This was in response to my reverting your unexplained revert of a previous edit. Personally, I consider it rather rude of you to respond to my request for an explanation with a vague template. That said, I do not understand why you object to this link. On my browser, it does not appear as an inline image-link. If this is an idiosyncracy of my browser, I ask your forgiveness. Still, I ask you in the future to recognize that not all browsers function in the same way, and that this fact necessitates a more thorough explanation of your choice to revert an editorial change.

Again: I did not make the original change. I reverted your edit because you provided no explanation. Please assume good faith. L Glidewell 03:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there; im sorry, but linking an image via a link as opposed to trying to lace it in as to be viewed in an article are a hair different, but the template is the same reasoning. It cannot be guaranteed that the image should be use (licensing, a free version in the commons is the way to go) and every time someone clicks the link it leeches their bandwidth all the same. I absolutely assume good faith, understand that not all browsers function in the same way, and sorry if my first response via a template felt crass. My apologies. For these reasons however, I am reverting this link from the article. JoeSmack Talk 03:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi--Okay, I understand now. I'd only add that--to my understanding--an "inline image" and a direct link to an image are different things. But, your reasoning makes perfect sense. Thanks for the explanation. Best, L Glidewell 03:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They are, you're right. Thanks for working this out! :) JoeSmack Talk 03:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey--Sorry to bug you again, but I took your comments as an opportunity to educate myself about Wikipedia's link guidelines. I really don't care at all about the link that started this discussion, but I do want to make sure that I understand correctly. From my reading of policy, it's okay to link to copyrighted works so long as those linked websites themselves are not hosting content that violates copyright. Did you object because the host was Google? That would be reasonable, but I didn't perceive the link itself as being a search engine result. Anyway, I'm curious partly because I really don't want another editorial conflict with you, and also because I frequently revert recent changes on my watchlist, and would like to make sure I'm doing so in the right. Thanks, L Glidewell 02:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about copyright, but in this case directly linking external images (.jpgs) leeches bandwidth from other sites. This is in general not cool on a monetary and manners level. Host wise it doesn't usually matter. JoeSmack Talk 05:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cite some policy for me, please.L Glidewell 05:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy fighting...

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
I am proud to award you with this small token of appreciation and acknowledgement for exceptional performance in fighting against vandalism. You are a legend, please keep up the great work! codetiger 17:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Why thank you codetiger! Anti-vandalism is a rough business, and business is good! ;) JoeSmack Talk 17:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about???? Don Markstein's Toonopedia is not an advertising site, no is it a promotional site. I'm well aware of Wikipedia's rules, and I'm also aware that an uncited article is normally evidence of plagiarism or outright fabriction. StudierMalMarburg 17:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a mere collection of weblinks - see WP:NOT for more about this. It isn't a place to link to other wiki's - links must be encyclopedic and relevant. See WP:EL and WP:SPAM for more too. Hope this helps! JoeSmack Talk 18:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an update for you. Don Markstein's Toonopedia IS enclyclopedic and IS relevant to the article in which it was posted. I've read the suggested pages and I know what Spam is and I'm aware that Wikipedia is not a mere collection of weblinks. At them same time, however, weblinks are essential to a good article. Rather than being helpful, you are actually one of the reasons why Wikipedia is nearly useless. If an article cannot point to further references where a person can find more information, then what's the point of it. All you are doing is promoting plagiarism, fabrication, and narrowmindeness. Please don't "help" anymore. StudierMalMarburg 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the content is encyclopedic and all that, move the info over here - end result is the link should be removed. If not, it shouldn't be linked in the first place - link is removed. JoeSmack Talk 18:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For further discussion, on this issue, see #EL images inquiry Viewfinder 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inquiry

Hallo, ok, first time i think that i havent do the comment correctly, but next time I have write things about that school. I have worked there, and all i have write is true. Why can not write about there? I think that all people must know the reality of that school.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldowaldo (talk • contribs)

Content needs to be encyclopedic (See WP:5P), and links need to follow WP:EL. Hope I've helped some. JoeSmack Talk 18:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EL images inquiry

See my comment in the next section up but one. You can apply the above reasoning to all external links. What if it is useful and encyclopedic, but its authors do not want to put it on Wikipedia, because material on Wikipedia from can be reproduced ad infinitum without crediting the said authors? Viewfinder 18:27, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Content from authors who don't want their content to enter GFDL seems reasonable, but by a similar token we can't link to them as their work is copyrighted. An exclusive link to their content (e.g. a .jpg) is just as remiss as uploading it here for use without an author's permission. JoeSmack Talk 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You posted the same template on my talk page in response to a direct link to an image that I posted. But you concede that direct links and "inline images" are not the same, so there is no implication that the prohibition on inline images applies to direct external links to images. Re your comment that the inline rule applies to direct links because they also leech bandwidth, may be removed, or may breach licence, does not this apply to all external links? So is not the logical extension of your comment that all external links should be banned from all sites? Viewfinder 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No just links who's sole purpose is to view (leech) the image exclusively (.jpg links, etc). JoeSmack Talk 18:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the link to support a claim I made about the elevation of Mount Ararat, not to leech. You reverted my entire edit. Sorry, but with all due respect there is no prohibition on direct external links to images, only inline links. There are external links on Wikipedia to images on my site which are there with my knowledge and approval. I do not want to upload them to Wikipedia because I edit them from time to time, and I do not want to have to upload them a second time to Wikipedia when this happens. Also, I do not want others to reproduce sections of my images without crediting me; if they were on Wikipedia, I could do nothing to prevent this. Viewfinder 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For heaven's sake, there are loads of links on Wikipedia to POV blogs. So long are all sides of the argument are treated fairly, what's wrong with this? Viewfinder 18:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you see any of those blogs by all means remove them; they shouldn't be there. It is quite hard to universally monitor all these things, even with monobook tools and IRC feeds, so we can't be 100% at removing them ALL at ALL times. JoeSmack Talk 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no ban on external linking to POV material, so long as the overall NPOV is maintained. Viewfinder 18:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is if someone is constantly reverting or linking to unhelpful links - it's called linkspam. People do get banned for this. JoeSmack Talk 18:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You will find many linkspam deletions in my edit history. But on controversial issues, there is no reason why we should not link to first hand presentations of different POVs. See George Galloway, but please do not delete the the links to POV material. Some of them provide essential citation of controversial claims. They have been discussed. They are both helpful and encyclopedic. Viewfinder 19:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - ok - inline citations are usually fine in this case (when a sentence can specifically point out WHY a POV link is important and vise versa it can be necessary). JoeSmack Talk 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Smack,

Regarding the removal of MelodySchmidt.com from the Palos Verdes Unified School District webpage:

I read your external links guideline, and I entirely appreciate the purpose of the rules set forth therein.

For the following reasons, I am respectfully requesting that the link to the “Discussion Forum for Palos Verdes and South Bay teens” website is reinstated on the Palos Verdes Unified School District wikipedia webpage:

1. This website has been approved by the CTO of the Palos Verdes Unified School District, for usage by the Palos Verdes Unified School District schools and students.

2. The following example given in your external links guideline confirms the reason that this external link is appropriate for the wikipedia webpage that it was placed on: “For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band”

3. This is the only external student website that has been approved for usage by the Palos Verdes Unified School District.

4. There are no advertisements on this website.

Thank you. Ftppro 18:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that blogs are neither NPOV, encyclopedic or stable reliable sources. These are all important for links, regardless of how they are associated to the article - i remove band sanctioned blogs all the time for the exact same reason. JoeSmack Talk 18:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For further discussion, on this issue, see #EL images inquiry Viewfinder 19:24, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify your policies

Mr. Smack,

You indicated that you do not allow blogs as external links. However, there are many exceptions to this rule throughout Wikipedia. Here are five examples that I was able to find immediately:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Anderson http://boards.theforce.net/Authors_&_Artists/b10347/5816881/?112

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Stover http://boards.theforce.net/Authors_&_Artists/b10347/5816889/?1503

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ostrander http://boards.theforce.net/Authors_&_Artists/b10347/5863919/?1867

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karen_Traviss http://www.livejournal.com/users/karentraviss/ http://blogs.starwars.com/karentraviss

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sean_Williams http://boards.theforce.net/Authors_&_Artists/b10347/5816769/?269

I understand that you cannot allow a spammer to create content-less blogs for hundreds of Wikipedia topics. However, that is not the case here.

My previous message offered ample evidence to prove that the author of this website is a recognized authority for the subject matter that is contained within this specific Wikipedia topic. This is the only student website that has been approved for usage by the Palos Verdes Unified School District. This website is also used by the district’s yearbook staff as a method of communication.

I look forward to receiving your explanation as to why the examples shown above are allowable as external links, and my daughter’s website (MelodySchmidt.com) is not allowable as an external link at the Palos_Verdes_Peninsula_Unified_School_District wikipedia webpage.

We also noticed that your external links guideline contains the following description directly under “Links to be considered”: “For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.”

This seems to contradict your rule that external links must have a “neutral point of view”.

My daughter is creating a website which will contain her reviews for albums, movies, books, and other creative works. Her reviews have been published in several magazines and newspapers.

My daughter will be extremely distraught if she is not allowed to place external links pointing to her reviews, on the Wikipedia webpages that specifically pertain to the works that she has reviewed. This type of censorship would seem to directly contradict Wikipedia’s philosophy of openness.

This is not a marketing ploy. You will notice that MelodySchmidt.com contains no advertisements or external links whatsoever. This is a sincere effort for my 12-year old daughter to experience the same amazement and wonder about the unlimited potential of the internet, that the founders of Wikipedia must have experienced when they conceived their wonderful network. Ftppro 03:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If your daughter's reviews are unique, or if she is a known authority on the subject (unlikely at age 12), and the reviews are both useful and relevant, then they can be linked. But there is no automatic right to place external links to one's work on Wikipedia and expect them to be accepted. If there were, Wikipedia's articles would be drowned by external links! Viewfinder 04:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the encouraging words

Thank you so much for your quick response. My daughter’s reviews are definitely unique, useful, and relevant, and I’m sure they will be appreciated by other teenagers who use Wikipedia. I will let you know when she posts her first external link to one of her reviews, so you can hopefully provide further advice.

Please let me know why the examples shown in my previous message are allowable as external links, and my daughter’s website (MelodySchmidt.com) is not allowable as an external link at the Palos_Verdes_Peninsula_Unified_School_District wikipedia webpage. Ftppro 04:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All those previous links you showed as an example should (and I will) remove them because they are forums and blogs, just like the link you wish to ad. Regardless how much your daughter wants to add her blog as a link to an article, blogs aren't stable, they aren't encyclopedic for the most part and they aren't condoned because some other articles have gotten away with it thus far. I'm sorry, but wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia first and foremost. JoeSmack Talk 05:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the forum/blog in question and imo this is just another teenage blog which is not unique, or sufficiently useful or relevant to the article in which it was placed. Sorry Ftppro, but I agree with Joe Smack in this particular case. There is a case for linking to blogs by well known authorities, but cases for linking to forums to which all can contribute seem to me to be without exception tenuous. Viewfinder 06:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Hi, Sorry I didn't consider what i was doing as spamming.. As the links i was posting had relevant info to what the page was about, then I read the spam link you sent me. And yes I now realize what I was doing was considered spam to Wikipedia... Sorry.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boxa2 (talk • contribs)

No worries, thanks for taking the time to read the policy. Any other questions, feel free to ask! :) JoeSmack Talk 06:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

Episode 10, lots of new stuff, read about it online and not in this talkpage spam message :)

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!


You can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

IRC Cloak

My username on meta is JoeSmack, my master IRC nickname is Joe_Smack, and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Joe_Smack. Thanks! JoeSmack Talk 18:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BeefCutBrisket.png :-)

Hi Joe,

great addition! BTW, do you have a vector version of it? I'm willing to convert it, otherwise. —Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! No, no SVG. I tried to SVG it during the creation but something went wrong, and I settled for PNG. Please, I'd love to see a vector version. Also, depending on your level of dedication: every other cut for the cow (i.e. Image:BeefCutRib.png, Image:BeefCutFlank.png, Image:BeefCutFlank.png) also exists and are PNG's and would love to be SVGed too I'm sure. Cheers. JoeSmack Talk 17:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! I'll try to convert them in the next days! Thank you for the good work and happy new year! —Gennaro Prota•Talk 18:24, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]