User talk:Mwanner/Archive 7

Hey there. Thanks so much for writing back. I really do think the site is extraordinary. The organizers aren't making a profit from it--they're just trying to cover the costs of keeping it running. If you don't mind, I'm going to put the link back. Would you please not delete it? I have two kids with food allergies and couldn't have gotten by with this site. I think others should hear about it. The world will be a better place if they do. Asbruckman 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Wikipedia point of view is that the world will be a better place if our articles become the best possible resource on encyclopaedic subjects-- please feel free to help make this one fit that description. And the External links policy has exceptions for a lot of things, but not for forums-- that's just not what we're here for: we're an encyclopaedia, not a link directory or a social support network. The upshot: if you put it back in, I'll take it back out. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't create personal home page in wiki

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

Musical theatre

Hello. I noticed that you removed an external link that someone recently to the article added with "Broadway Guide" information. The site seems to be a comprehensive and up-to-date guide to current Broadway, London, Las Vegas and other offerings of musical theatre, so it seems relevant, even though it is a commercial site. I think that many readers of the musical theatre article would find the link to be useful. Do you mind replacing it? Best regards, -- Ssilvers 16:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! -- Ssilvers 22:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call off

Mwanner: I am going to call off the discussion. Those links have been deleted, so I don't feel we should continue to discuss it. The site's owner doesn't seem to care it. I was just helping him on some design in the past. You may want to delete other links at Form 4 or Option page if you wish. I do feel the link at Warren Buffet's page could benefit the readers though. So I hope you can add it back when you are no longer upset. But the two ips you have doubt were not me. I hope you can change your comments at User_talk:Gazpacho#Secform4.com_link_at_Bill_Gates. Thanks Vicn12

Thanks for the note. I wasn't aware that some "blog" links were now allowed. I did leave some of the Oxford University Press blog links, but I removed the majority added by Oupblog (talk · contribs). I'll have to scrutinize these more closely in the future. Mike Dillon 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thank you

Thank you for your forbearance and gentle instruction to the rules of Wikipedia. I have learned from your edits and comments the difference between a user's egotistical desires and the Wikipedia ideals. I will endeavour to pursue the latter. Middleforkmaps 02:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Blue Heron ?

There used to be a picture of a Great Blue Heron in your home page (not the ones in User:Mwanner/Photos) taken at dusk near a lake. Do you still have it in Wikipedia Tintin (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that was the one. Even though it is dark, it looks awesome in that background. Tintin (talk) 14:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Great Falls, Montana. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Rsm99833 16:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry-- it was clumsy editing, not spamming-- I was reverting a blog link by User:69.145.88.59 from an hour earlier, and I missed the subsequent edits, including your spam cleanup. Thanks for catching it. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:08, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you added the Rsm99833's boilerplate above to my Talk page in reference to a link to a Tulsa Coffee Houses of the Past external link on the Coffee Houses page. There is now only one external link on that page, where there were about a dozen previously. Many of those offered unique supplemental information. The Guideline in a nutshell is "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." TulsaTV 12:51, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I won't argue the point, as you are correct about Wikipedia policy. You could defensibly throw out most of the external links on Wikipedia. But I think the Coffeehouse page is the poorer for the loss of many of those links. They presented closely-related local and historical information that I enjoyed reading. Personally, I will just go to an older version of the page to see those. To be consistent, you should probably remove both the References on Coffee Houses, as they are less relevant than most of the links had been. TulsaTV 21:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "I didn't remove any of your external links because most of them are of long standing, but you really should be aware of the above policy before adding any more. It would be far better if you would add your expertise directly to the contents of the articles, rather than more links to your site." In fact, I wasn't aware of the policy, and you informed me in a polite manner. On further thought, I won't be adding any additional links, and I have no problem with the removal of all remaining links to my site. TulsaTV 11:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philosophy Talk

Hi, I'm an avid listener of "Philosophy Talk," a Bay Area radio show hosted by two philosophy profs that addresses a huge range of topics, so I thought that some episodes would make great external links. The show is braodcast from a small public radio station in San Francisco and definitely presents itself as an educational resource. What's wrong with linking to it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Defyn (talk • contribs)

Groovera

Very heavy-handed statement there. Presumptuous, too. As long as you are making such unwarranted allegations, would you care to indicate which page you consider any external link I may have added to be spam? Qazjaz 19:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not answering my previous question. I suppose that the External Link I placed that you removed was the one on the Downtempo page. The Groovera link placed is no more a candidate for spam than the other External Link present on that article. And perhaps you did not notice on the Groovera article that Groovera specializes in this type of music. I highly recommend you restore that link. Thank you. Qazjaz 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an Admin

I'm just a sloppy old editor, so I can make all the mistakes I want.  ;-) That admin thing on my talk page was a thank you from somebody for whom I voted in support of administratorship. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 21:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rules are open to interpretation

I was somewhat surprised and concerned by your rather intolerant and anal editing of my contributions. Whilst your cursory message suggested certain rules are set in stone it may well be a good idea to re-read the actual Wikipedia rules before overreacting in the future. I have posted the relevant sections below for you.

What to link to There are several things which should be considered when adding an external link.

· Is it accessible to the reader? Yes

· Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Yes

· Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Yes


Each link be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter.

[edit] What should be linked to

1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.

2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.

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.

4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

Links normally to be avoided

I think you'll now agree you were incorrect in your over zealous editing. Please contact me in advance before acting in this unfraternal manner again. I look forward to your response before re-instating the links.

Thank you. 

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

Return of User:Dogtoyco

Why did you remove my link from clicker_training whitch was non commercial where as the link above it is just selling a product nothing else............

Please check on this

Ashley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.16.24 (talk • contribs) aka banned user User:Dogtoyco

Hey, Dogtoyco, long time no see! When you're right, you're right! That horse link was spam, just like your edit to that and two other articles eight hours earlier. My bad! Thanks for removing it! BTW, it's "relevant", not "relevent", and "which", not "whitch".
I can't quite agree, though, that the links you added were non-commercial; heading the page is the message "Postage and packing is now free on UK orders over £30.00. All other orders pay just £2.50 flat shipping rate." Kinda says it all, no? -- Mwanner | Talk 00:46, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Musical Theatre

What do you think of the new edits from today in the musical theatre article? Is this a legit. link? Regards, -- Ssilvers 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so-- the print content is all but non-existent, and WP:EL discourages links to pages that require external applications. Most of all, as the editor who added it has zero other edits, I'm betting that it violates the prohibition against adding links to one's own site. I have reverted it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an tired of you removing the Belizeans.com link. The site have every right to be included under Belize because it deals with the Belizeans people and it's culture. You are interpreting the rules like a Nazi and all links would be denied based on your strict interpretation of the links rule! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.127.27.235 (talk • contribs)

Please be so kind as to point out to me where on your site is the part that contains useful information about Belizean culture. And if you are interested in sharing the culture of Belize with the world, why not add something useful to the contents of the article, rather than a link full of ads and chatter? Incidentally, calling people Nazis violates another Wikipedia rule (WP:Civilbe civil), and has never, in my experience, been a very good way to secure their cooperation. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 13:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entire site contains useful information about Belize and it's people. Also the site is from a Belizean who is from the country. As usual you, the outsider, is trying to tell only HIStory and block indigenous culture from tell OUR story. The site contains normals ads like many of the other sites you choose to not touch! And by the way, I say you're interpreting the rules like a Nazi, not that you are a Nazi!

I do not intend to get into a flaming war with you. I will begin to follow the steps listed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Resolving_disputes and take this matter to mediation and/or arbitration if necessary. This link is not spam as you define it. It is a legitimate site about Belize and it's most important aspect: The PEOPLE of Belize.

Boy, if there's useful information there, I certainly can't see it. I am glad you are going to take this to dispute resolution. Perhaps hearing the same thing from other editors will make it easier for you to accept. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps seeing your overzealous ways of editing positive links because of your bias will make you realize that you're not dictator for life of wikipedia!

I would like to inquire about adding an external link to Category “Dance” . The link is for a site that teaches online dance lessons, offers videos and DVDs of all dance types. The site is www.learning2dance.com I think its very relevant to Dance, and provides a lot of information about different dances, and styles. I do recognize however that it is not a traditional link, and that’s why I would like to ask for your input about it. Thanks Bootovr 16:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but no, Wikipedia's External links guidelines include "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" under Links to avoid. We would, however, welcome your addition to the contents of our articles. We try, though, to limit External links. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 16:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received a message from you after adding links to certain articles on Wikipedia, based on not adding "commercial links or links to your own private websites." I understand and agree with this policy as such.

However, the links I am adding are to professionally researched biographies on the Women in History website -- http://www.lkwdpl.org/wihohio/ -- which is maintained by Lakewood Public Library, in Ohio. This is not a commercial or private website.

Women in History is a non-profit organization dedicated to the education of all people through the dramatic re-creation of lives of notable women in U.S. history. The biographies are extensively researched by a librarian-writer and written to provide comprehensive, accurate information on each of the historical women -- knowing many students use this site for their own research.

Please let me know if I am cleared to add these links to Wikipedia articles on these women. (I hope I do not have to clear this with each and every article I'd like to add a link to; there are about 100 WIH biographies.) Thank you! Lkwdpl 21:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)lkwdpl 16:52, December 2, 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, you don't have to clear adding links with me or with anyone else. You do, however, have to comply with Wikipedia's External links guidelines. Any of hundreds of editors here can and will review what you add, and if they find your additions unhelpful, they will remove them. I would urge you to read our guidelines carefully, and perhaps also WP:Spam#How not to be a spammer, with the idea of possibly saving yourself needless effort. You might want to avoid reading them as a lawyer would, looking for loopholes, as some do who are anxious to promote their sites-- those who review your additions won't be reading them that way.
Perhaps I can offer a few words that might help you to understand our position. First, read our Susan B. Anthony article, and then read your article on her. Is there anything in your article that doesn't belong in ours? If there is, then we would ask that you add any missing facts to our article, rather than adding a link to a separate article that duplicates much of the material already in our article. Why should a reader have to read a dozen similar articles on a single subject to assemble what could be found in one, complete article?
I hope you will agree to add to the contents of some of our articles. We always need good editors willing to work. If you find some articles that your pages cover much more thoroughly than ours do, by all means, add a link. Understand, though, that your pages will be used by future editors as sources to improve our articles, eventually being moved from the "External links" section to the "References" section of the page.
I can all but assure you that if you choose to add links to dozens of articles here in a row, without adding content to those and other articles as you go, you will trip someone's spam radar; we get spammed pretty massively, and an editor adding dozens of external links and nothing else is exactly what a spammer looks like.
I hope you take this as friendly advice, and aren't too put off by it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not simply delete appropriate external links in Wikipedia, as you did in Bed and Breakfast.
Please first discuss in the Discussion page of Bed and Breakfast why you think the specific links you personally have scheduled for removal (ie all and any) do not conform to particular guidelines. As a seasoned and valued contributor to Wikipedia you should know that it is better to reach a consensus before deleting material willy nilly.

For the avoidance of doubt I wish to clarify again that the two links I have added (one to DMOZ and one to privatestay.com )do not turn the Wikipedia Bed and Breakfast article into a mere directory of links and nor do I intend them for for advertising or self promotion and I find it offensive that you persistently ignore my clarifications in this respect. These two links are NOT inappropriate links and are NOT links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which I am affiliated, or links that exist only to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guidelines and for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel a particular link should be deleted from the article, then please discuss that specific link (rather than links in general) on the article's Discussion page rather than spoiling other's efforts unilaterally. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.

PS: I realise that you have a particular bee in your bonnet about external links but try and restrain your temper. To quote another contributor on this page: “You are interpreting the rules like a (pejorative deleted) and all (external) links would be denied based on your strict interpretation of the links rule” Gaimhreadhan 15:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Bed_and_breakfast. I prefer to keep this conversation quite public, thank you. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that I owe the Wikipedia community in General and Mwanner in particular an apology for unwittingly violating the 3RR rule.

I can only plead my Newbie status and ignorance in mitigation.

I must admit that I thought it rather daft that two otherwise sane and mature adults could mutually waste each other's time by endlessly reverting to versions that they each believed (in good faith) to conform to Wikipedia guidelines with no mechanism for resolution.

In hindsight I suppose I have not allowed sufficient time to receive a response to my earlier plea in the discussion page of Bed & breakfast that "rather than... have no links at all, is there no process by which two or three links can be chosen on objective criteria and then locked down?"

Sorry again. Gaimhreadhan 17:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, but I have done the same, it seems, and I certainly cannot plead newbie status. Perhaps we should apply a self-punishment, and each leave the article alone for at least the next 24 hours? That would also be following one of the prescribed steps of the Dispute Resolution process. After that, the obvious next step would be to call for other opinions. As the article's Talk page does not seem to be attracting any attention, this means turning to more active pages-- WP:EL's Talk page would be an obvious choice, but people there have been edit warring of late over slight changes in policy, so it seems to me an awkward time to try them. I am inclined to try the Talk page at WP:Spam, as being equally closely related to our bone of contention, or just to invite the attention of a number of editors whose opinion I respect. You, of course, may turn to any avenue you choose.
I should mention, in passing, that your idea of a decision process and then lock-down does not exist-- there is, I believe, no way to lock down a section of an article. Besides, such an approach would lock out indisputably worthwhile links, such as, e.g., a "History of B & Bs". Also, it presupposes a clearcut decision process-- if there were such a process, I would be happy to turn the question over to it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly agree to your suggestion to apply a self-punishment, and leave the article alone for at least the next 24 hours.

However this does not resolve either of the difficulties that we both have.

We both, I believe, have difficulties with the inevitable consequences of a self-denying ordinance: unmeritorious and self-promoting external links proliferate like wildfire.

I have the additional difficulty that I genuinely believe that a google like thicket of links is just as unhelpful as having no objectively selected information source at all while DMOZ remains broken.

Why can we not suggest that a temporary lock-down of the external links section be instituted? Is this a technical or a policy limitation?

Why can a wishing contributor of, in your words, an "indisputably worthwhile link, such as, e.g., a "History of B & Bs" not then submit a request to an Administrator to add that meritorious and undisputed link to the (otherwise) locked section - presumably and hopefully with the unanimous support of contributors to the Bed and breakfast discussion page?

Finally, my spouse reminds me that I need to make another pre-emptive apology for bothering you again. Sorry! Gaimhreadhan 19:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology needed. The inability to lock down a section is, I believe, a technical problem. It could probably be solved, but it has been my experience here that getting agreement on software changes is even more difficult than on policy changes. And the lack of a standing "appeal authority" that your suggestion would require seems to be endemic to Wikipedia's extremely flat organizational (non-)structure. Essentially, all decisions are by consensus, with virtually no appeal hierarchy. (I should add that the foregoing is to the best of my belief-- it is fairly difficult to be absolutely certain of anything at Wikipedia.) Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bungee jumping

Thanks, for pointing that one out - I reverted them and reported them on AIV since they spammed after the final warning. Actually, unless it devolves into a content dispute - spam is considered vandalism and 3RR does not apply. So in a case like this, feel free to keep at it :) - Trysha (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sneaky Stats Vandal

The old Sneaky Stats Vandal is at it again, this time from Brazilian IP addresses. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Long term abuse#Sneaky Stats Vandal and add any useful information you can think of. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 01:37 Z

No problem. It was a long time ago, and I thought you may have remembered something about it. I've had to deal with this character a couple of times since. Regards. —Michael Z. 2006-12-06 04:25 Z

Inside Hookah

Dear Marc, Thanks for taking time out to help me become more experienced in the Wikipedia way of doing things. I posted the link on the talk page of hookah and hope to get some feedback soon from other editors. If you don't mind, please put your thoughts down on the page as well in the hope that others might also decide to comment on it. If no one voices opposition to it on the talk page, would it be inappropriate to try the link again, now having read the guidelines you refered me to? Thanks again, LizInsidehookah 18:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you chose to remove several links from the wiki's IBS page including the one detailed, without any discussion and entirely based on your own judgement.

This is a link to a non-profit support group to help sufferers of this disease in Scotland, it is wholly appropriate for this link to be included in the wiki's IBS page as it provides an avenue for peer support to readers from Scotland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.193.43 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I removed it just as you added it, without discussion, based entirely on your own judgement. But behind my judgement is the External links guidelines, mentioned in Fraslet's message above. (Incidentally, many consider it to be an act of vandalism to remove warning messages from your Talk page.) If you check the guidelines, you will see that Wikpedia is not a link directory. Your link may, indeed, be helpful to sufferers, but that is not what Wikipedia is here for-- Google, DMOZ and many other resources fill that need nicely.
Meanwhile, why not add your expertise to the contents of our articles? That is something we always need more of, while external links are often added by everyone who wants his or her organization to get a little more exposure. Imagine what our articles would look like if every local organization throughout the world added a link to their site.
So, I hope you decide to stick around and help improve our articles. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:15, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last change

IF YOUR GOING TO SEND ME 'LAST WARNNINGS' SHOW ME WHAT I HAVE CHANGED. IF NOT I WILL REPORT YOU TO WIKIPEDIA. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.5.33 (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Secondly this is a shared 'ip' meanning it is not limited to one person, i myself no nothing of electricians so you speak to me before you type warnnings...

Well, it's hard to "speak to you" if you're on a shared IP. If you want folks to speak to you, register as a user. The reason for my message was this edit, made from this IP. If you re-read my message, you will see that it says nothing about being a "last warning"-- it was, in fact, meant rather lightheartedly. Sorry if it misfired. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 22:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i just want to say that i think you went a little overboard in erasing all of the external links as if it was spam. I see that you are trying to apply the guidelines of Wikipedia the best you can, but i think that you forgot to verify the sections where i added the links.

Since the link i added is a portfolio of an artist, an artist with a "dark theme" in fact, i think it fitted nicely in the "dark art" section and other related ones where i added it!

I think that you saw it as spam because i added the same link over a couple of sections, but since i'm a new user here, i'm also "learning" and the fact that i added only ONE link over a couple of page does'nt mean i'm spamming Wikipedia.

I also wanted to add other artists to theses sections, but you really did'nt give me a chance to add them because you judged me as a spammer.

I like the fact that you sent me the informations about the guidelines(since i'm a newbie) and would like to thank you for that. But still, i would like it if you would re-think some of the "erasing" you did!(Maybe the link in the "sketch" section was too much, i agree. Im sorry!)

Please answer this message, i am a great wikipedia fan and use it almost everyday, i dont want all of my "early" contributions to sink in the garbage can.

Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shadekiller (talk • contribs) 18:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Well, for starters, you added the same link to eight different articles. Also, links need to do more than "fit in nicely". Consider, for a moment, the number of artists in the world. Now imagine that we put links to each of them in each of our articles remotely related to their art. See the problem? Links need to be informative, and if they're going to provide examples of something, it should be the best possible example, preferably a substantial range of examples.
Finally, Wikipedia is being spammed pretty massively these days, so consider that any behavior that even remotely resembles spamming has a half-life of a day or less in general. In short, if you want your contributions to last, consider working on the contents of our articles, and limit your use of external links to exceptionally fine examples
Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]