User talk:Mwanner/Archive 8

Retail links on Irrigation Page - yet you kicked off our FAQs off Drip Irrigation

Twice you've refused to list drip-irrigation-guide.com under topic Drip Irrigation. However, you allow a completely commercial site under topic Irrigation.

Under Irrigation - Under External Links - this is listed:

• Irrigation Supplies, Products, and Sprinklers

Why would you allow a commerical/retail site and not a site that only provides information?

This is very confusing and I do not understand why irrigationdirect.com is more helpful information than drip-irrigation-guide.com.

Could you please explain this to me?

Thanks, April Lougheed —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aprillougheed (talk • contribs) 00:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

That's easy-- I didn't have irrigation on my watchlist. It is now, and I have pulled the offending link. You see, the process by which an editor ends up watching particular articles can be somewhat haphazard. Most of us are set up so that any article we edit automatically gets added to our watchlist. I generally look at all external links that get added to my watchlist-- if someone spams multiple articles, I'll follow the chain, removing spam as I encounter it, and indirectly adding new articles to my watchlist. That's how one can end up watching one article but completely missing a change to a closely related one. Hope that makes sense?

Incidentally, we would love it if you would add your expertise to the contents of our articles. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Mwanner, haven't come to wikipedia for some days, how are things going?

Still trying to see if you mind to add the Warren Buffett's stock holding and historical transactions at http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/315090.htm. He is so well respected by people and I still think many people can benefit from his investment knowledge. Hope you reconsider the link, thanks :) vicn12 | Talk

No, nothing has changed-- you seem to think I was just in a bad mood? The link is simply not appropriate. It's not just me. Perhaps you missed it, but KonradG also reverted your link ([1]). Besides, there are dozens of books by and about Warren Buffett[2], which would be the best way for people to benefit from his investment knowledge. Why don't you help people by improving the contents of our articles? Read one of his books, and summarize his wisdom for our readers. After all, the actual trades made by a multi-billionaire are not neccessarily the best example for an ordinary investor to follow-- they can't afford to take the risks that a wealthy man can. Best wishes. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK :)vicn12 | Talk

Hello

Hello Mwanner,

You recently deleted some external links on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet. The links were to some sites that had some interesting information on permanent magnets. These sites are unrelated commercial sites that present information in a separate section from their commercial content. You did however leave three other commercial sites with similar information untouched. Could you clarify your rational for this? I believe both sites should be reincluded in the wikipedia as they provide interesting and useful resources. These are the sites and the original listing:

• Magnet University Resources from the fundamental theory of magnetism to advanced applications of magnetic materials.
• Wondermagnets - FAQ on Magnetism Info on electromagnetism and homemade projects & experiments.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.205.10.4 (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

I agree that the first site has some useful information, the second one rather less so. I removed them because Wikipedia's External links guidelines list "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services" under "Links normally to be avoided". I don't understand your contention that the links that I left in place are commercial-- one of them does carry advertizing, but it does offer any products for sale. We accept many sites that carry advertizing-- the New York Times pages are a prime example. And the pages you added seem to me far less "separate" from their commercial content than you suggest-- the first shows a shopping cart in the upper right-hand corner, the second has a link to "Products" in its upper left-hand corner. I could possibly see keeping them if one had to go back to a home page to find one's way to the direct sales page, though I think it would be fair to say that, even so, they would still be "sites that primarily exist to sell products". But having the sales link directly on the info page is clearly over the line. -- Mwanner | Talk 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mwanner,

Thanks for your explanation. I added an invitation for discussion on the talk page of the article. The invitation includes a listing of all of the commercial sites that have been, or currently are, on the page. Hopefully we'll get some good input. I hope a clear consensus will result of whether content that is contained on a commercial site should be removed or has merit independent of the product or service being sold.

I also received a comment from Femto saying that I shouldn't add links repeatedly without discussing it on the Talk page. I actually wasn't familiar with the Talk pages until yesterday. However, in my defense, what I did was re-add links that had been there for some time and were removed by a single individual repeatedly who did not open up the discussion on the Talk page.

Thanks again for your explanation. 72.205.10.4 (talk

No defense needed-- there is an immense amount for a new editor to learn when getting started at Wikipedia.

The Talk pages can be useful, but I have often found them to be too little used to provide solid direction. The best solution to the issue of these links is incorporate their contents (rewritten, of course) into the article, and then list them as sources or references. It's hard work, of course, but it results in our article becoming the best possible source of information on its topic; not incidentally, it also pays back the editor who does the work significantly-- after undertaking such a task, you will find that you know the subject much better than you did by just reading the sources. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:10, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rallying

Hello,

First, please forgive me if I am not using this talk function correctly, or adding content in an inappropriate way. This is my first time trying to contribute to wikipedia so I'm quite new at this.

I would like to try and understand why the 2 links that I added to the Rallying page were removed.

Having been involved in Rally here in the USA and actually competed in events, I would definitely recommend both Ben's Rally Page by Ben Bradley, a DEFINITIVE and well known member of the rally community and the information on past history that he's archived on his web site. Ben Bradley is a major contributor to Special Stage, also listed in the extrnal links section.

Rally Classified is also the central location for people in the rally community to buy and sell rally related items in the USA. It's Free - and non commercial as per the link guidelines.

Both of these sites are well known in the US rally arena, and carry decent pagerank. Search google USA for "rally cars" and you'll see that there is some weight behind this, not just my own opinion. In fact, it's listed just below wikipedia's rallying page.

Thanks for helping me try and understand what I may have done incorrectly in my attempts to help contribute to rallying on wikipedia. -- Mlepisto

Hi. Sorry to stomp on your first edits! The problem with www.rallyclassified.com is that it is involved in selling, an activity we don't much care for-- see the External links guidelines, Links normally to be avoided, # 4. The fact that it is free doesn't lessen the commercial aspect; it is still a "site that primarily exists to sell products". Remember, too, that Wikipedia is not a directory, we're an encyclopedia. In other words, we want to help people understand a subject, but we're really not interested in helping them buy a rally car.

Probably if you had only added Ben's Rally page, I would have left it alone. But you added the Classifieds page first, then Ben's, which carries a prominent link to the Classifieds page, so I figured they were both there to promote the classified site. If you want to re-add the link to Ben's, I won't revert it. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time to offer clarification. I've re-added the link for Ben's Rally Page. I misunderstood the commercial page guidelines - I thought by selling product it meant a site that sells its own product, not a site that is there for other people to sell their items (such as ebay). Your clarification about not being a directory makes perfect sense.

Thanks again for your patience with a newcomer! Mlepisto 16:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

thanks Mwanner for your messages on my talk page, I would appriciate it if you would guide me & tell me which of wikipedia's pages that I have added an inappropriate external link.

Peace.--Szayat 15:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, it's the links to http://www.admotorshow.com/. The site is nothing but an ad for an upcoming event. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your guidance Cheers --Szayat 15:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate Link

Hello Mwanner, I understand that you think that some links i've provided recently are inappropriate? Could you please be more specific? I invite you to explore each and every one that I've provided, most are found under ophthalmology related topics. The ADVISOR Project is affiliated with 13 agencies in the Northeast including Children's Hospital Boston, The Perkins School for the Blind, The National Association for Parents of Children with Visual Impairments, The New England Center Deafblind Project and many others. The site is a collaboration of these institutions to provide resources for children with visual impairment. These resources are developed by Doctors from Children's Hospital and Educators from the collaborating agencies in New England. They are unique and educational and are in no way spam or promotional materials. I would please encourage you to explore the said links and see for yourself the quality of the content and the educational potential contained within. Thanks! For reference for all links, please visit the project website ADVISOR, we are supported by the National Library of Medicine. --Bluephoenixmedia 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC) Dennis Gotto - Children's Hospital Boston[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's External links guidelines, especially the section on conflicts_of_interest. Given your relationship to www.e-advisor.us, essentially all of your contributions would appear to violate our guidelines. You might want to read WP:Spam#How not to be a spammer. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please be more specific as to how the links are not relevant? Children's Hospital links to some of these pages from their clinical site...please see This is the Ophthalmology page from CHB linking to us Each and every link I posted relates to the said topic, almost all of the resources we provide are unique and written by experts in the field....wikipedia didn't even have a dark adapted threshold page, nor did it have an article on orientation and mobility training....I again encourage you to actually look at the links, watch the educational movies and read the content contained within.....we are not a commercial website, we are non-profit, we have no advertising, and we are supported by a grant from the NIH....please re-consider....thank you.Bluephoenixmedia 18:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What part of conflicts_of_interest don't you understand? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely understand the policy. I merely thought in this case it would be overlooked due to the quality of the resources presented and the benefit to the users of the site seeking trustworthy and educational information, it is regrettable that this is not the case. Thank you for your time. Bluephoenixmedia 18:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HSV

Hello,

I just reverted your revert of the Herpes Simplex Virus page - the links look legit to me, one is from the Public Health Agency of Canada, it's got references and whatnot. The other one was also referenced and looked like a decent general-readership on HSV, supported by the obstetricians and gynaecologists of Canada. The first one is from an official government of Canada agency, the other a general info website by a medical association. Did you still want to remove them?

WLU 15:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will grant you that some of these sites are OK as links. But the behavior of the editor [3] is what led me to treat these contributions as spam. If you look at the speed of the edits, this is not a person reading our article, asking themselves "Will these links add to the information already there?", "Is there any content I can add to the article that will make adding this link unneccessary?". No, they're just spamming, the same conclusion that Kafziel came to looking at this editor's similar contributions on December 12.

Since you re-added them, let me ask you "What information is contained in these links that doesn't belong in the article itself? See WP:EL: "If the site or page you want to link to includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first" and "Links should be kept to a minimum."

Incidentally, I enjoyed your Five stages of Wikipedia. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 15:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone's reading my userpage, otherwise it's a lot of work for nothing. Was the landed gentry section too obscure? And did you actually click on the 'enema' link? I've been waiting for someone to do so.

Anyway, I had reviewed the user's contributions as well - normally such an extensive list of EL being thrown down would get the same reaction from me, but I looked over the ones s/he put in and they were actually legit (i.e. referenced and reputable sources). I'd like to leave them there for a bit until I can make the time to go through and check the external pages against the wikipage and see if there is anything to add, then move them to the references section instead. It's a bit like using the page as my own personal to do list. I did notice that the OB/GYN page does have info about avoiding STI infections with HSV, so at the very least that's valuable to put into the page. Anyway, no matter what they're in the diffs, so if you feel very strongly about them being removed I won't revert it again, I'll just pull them out of the diffs when I've got the time to actually add content.

WLU 18:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the landed gentry bit is fine; I must admit that I didn't check out the enema link. And probably more people read your user page than you think-- I actually had a guy request a photo that I had removed from my page months before-- he'd seen it and came back looking for it.

Anyway, feel free to do as you like with these links-- as I said, I can see that they're potentially decent links, though I feel pretty sure that you'll find some whose contents are already well covered in the articles or in pre-existing external links. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 18:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Interior Design

It is imperative that the exact wording of the legal definition of Interior Design is used on the Interior Design page. The Interior Design Educator's Council (of which I am a member), The National Council for Interior Design Education, the International Interior Design Association, the American Society for Interior Designers, and the Council for Interior Design Accreditation have all agreed that this is the definition of what constitutes an Interior Designer. Paraphrasing or changing the definition creates problems of misunderstanding an Interior Designer's legal responsibilities and qualifications. As an official legal definition, I cannot imagine that it violates any copyright laws and am certain that misquoting or paraphrasing causes harm to the profession. 69.252.248.150 17:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)k8tey K8tey 20:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted it again to the non-copyright version. You may not be able to imagine that it violates copyright, but until I see something explicitly indicating that it is in the public domain or licenced under GFDL or the equivalent, I will remain convinced that it is a copyright violation. Please note that text does not have to bear a copyright notice to be copyrighted-- rather copyright happens automatically upon publication. Thus, for this text not to be a copyright violation, there would have to be an explicit statement releasing copyright or stating that a free distribution licence applied. Please do not restore this text without pointing out where copyright is waived.

Further, I feel quite certain that Wikipedia has no reason to worry about your legal issue-- it should be possible to satisfy any such concerns by reference to the text on the Association sites. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't *my* legal issue, but a huge concern effecting thousands people who are part of a profession that I don't believe you possess any knowledge about - forgive me if I am mistaken. I am unsure why you used the royal "we" when referring to Wikipedia in your first message to me. Both you and I equally constitute Wikipedia - that's the joy of the format, yes? I am going to contact the NCIDQ for explicit information on public domain for the definition. In the meantime, I will continue to edit the article for incorrect content and add content as needed, as I am an expert in the subject matter. I do appreciate your diligence in trying to make wikipedia an encyclopedic reference, but I wish your tone was more friendly and inclusive. We are both working toward the same goal. K8tey 23:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for your vigilant editing, and for being patient with me. I also am sorry that I took offense readily and for any offense you felt. Please keep up the excellent work in editing out spam and copyvios, etc. :) Peace to you! K8tey 02:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How stuff works links are spam?

I'm reverting your removal of a How Bluetooth Works at HowStuffWorks from Bluetooth as it is using a WP template. Seems benign. Seems non-commercial, and relevant to the article. I haven't read much about HSW links, so if there's something I don't konw.... If there's an ongoing discussion of linking to HSW, please let me know on my talk page, I'd like to review it. TIA. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 21:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I yanked it because of a spamming run by User:Alyssapvr yesterday. Today I came across the template, added May 22, 2006 and used, apparently only twice, at Bluetooth and at Power steering, both of which I removed, precisely because people tend to assume that the existence of a template means that the thing can be used just about anywhere. Furthermore, I have yet to find a Wikipedia article where HSW provides information much beyond what our article already contains. Remember, Wikipedia's External links guidelines basically call for linking to sites only if the information on the site doesn't belong in the article because it is too detailed for an encyclopedia article. That certainly does not seem to be the case with most HSW articles, though I will grant you that they are generally well written. I would urge you to compare their Bluetooth article to ours, and if there is anything missing from ours, simply add it in (rewritten, of course), then use HSW as a source. My guess is that you won't find much if anything to add. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 21:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Researc link?

Commercial reference not

The following reference contains a journal of clinical studies not adverts. It is available on sciencedirect.com, a site of Elsevier. Elsevier is a publisher of science articles. I don't see how it could be construed as commercial except on the assumption that ANY studies of aromatherapy must be commercially rather than scientifically motivated. But that would be POV wouldn't it?

• International Journal of Aromatherapy Clinical studies of aromatherapy

Also the directory contained links to research orgs, only some were commercial Cayte 00:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte[reply]

I'm not quite clear on which edit of mine you're refering to, but when I go to the link above, I get to a page where I must pick an article to look at. When I do so, I land, for example, here, which wants $30 to let me view the article, unless I am a registered user. I would call that commercial. Perhaps you are a subscriber, and are therefore unaware of the charge? If I am missing something here, please enlighten me. Thanks, -- 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The abstracts are useful and they are free. Unfortunately, except for PLOS, most journals charge for the PDF. I would take commercial to mean a site selling aromatherapy products where you'd have to take any "scientific data" with a grain of salt. Re; How Things Work. The No redundent info policy makes sense but in hard to understand technical areas, a rewording of the same thing can somestimes help, at least for me Cayte 01:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm having trouble understanding your statement that there are free abstracts available. If I click on the link above, click on the Full Abstracts tab, check the first article, and then click on Selected Articles, I end up here, which is nowhere. Am I doing something wrong? -- Mwanner | Talk 01:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I come up in the Browse Tab. If I scroll down each article has an Abstract, Full Text and PDF tab. If you click on Abstract its free.

An alternative solution would be to have a section called Journals. We have sections for books and books are sold commercially. Cayte 01:42, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Cayte[reply]

Ahah! I'm sorry. I finally went back to the actual edit of mine that you're referring to, and I now see what you're talking about. It's confusing because the first two entries don't have abstracts, the third does but it's an empty page, the next few have abstracts but they don't amount to much, finally down at the sixth article we get an abstract worth looking at, and from there on they look pretty good. It's too bad all the weaker ones are up front. Anyway, if you want to re-add that link, I won't revert it. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 02:25, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inside Hookah

Dear Mwanner I received your message on my talk page, but I'm somewhat confused as to what is your opposition to Inside Hookah being listed on the Hookah page. Inside Hookah is not affiliated with any product or company, we have articles pertaining to information on Hookahs that you don't find on the Hookah page. We dont sell anything on the site, and the only advertising revenue we get is supposed to help fund the project and pay for writers to product quality material on a monthly basis. In the december issue we did a piece on Hookah's in Veinna Austira. Its not a commercially driven article and it covers a topic that is not on the Hookah page. After two weeks on the Hookah talk page, not one editor has commented on the inclusion.

Please be more specific on what your conerns are. There is a link on the page for a Hookah-Bar directory, no one has removed. While that is a valuable resource for hookah smokers, I feel that Inside Hookah is a valuable resource as well. I ask you kindly to please be more specific on what your opposition to it is. The external link quide and spam policies refrences that you provide are in the end enforeced by interpretation, please help me understand yours.

Best Regards, Insidehookah | Talk 01:25, 22 December 2006

If I Google "Hookah", I get 2,630,000 hits. So far as I can see, Inside Hookah is not on the first ten pages of results. Wikipedia's External links guidelines are clear: external links should be kept to a minimum. They are quite explicitly not to be used to promote a site, which is clearly your intention, since you have evinced no interest in improving the contents of our article. Your message on the Talk page has drawn no response, presumably because no one has seen sufficient value in a link to your site. I'm sorry, but there is a complete lack of correspondance between your aims and Wikipedia's.

Thank you for your polite adherence to our procedures-- it is a refreshing change from the behavior of many in your situation. It is quite possible that your endeavor will attain a prominence that will cause an editor of the article to add your link at some point in the future. I know-- that is a frustrating answer-- how can you attain that prominence etc., etc. And yet, imagine what our pages would look like if we didn't guard them vigilantly against those who wish to use us to increase their traffic.

Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:40, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We'll Inside Hookah will probably take years to get listed highly on Google for the keyword Hookah, that can't be the only value of a sites worth. Social Smoke which is highly ranked (8-9) on google has already placed a banner on their homepage for Inside Hookah, so has Starbuzz Tobacco, which is one of the most highly respected tobacco brands in America. We also hope to have at least one more top 10 ranked company place a banner on their site within the next week or two. Unfortunately, it may appear that we are simply trying to promote a site, when we feel that we are trying to promote hookahs in general.

Its absolutely not the case that we do not want to improve the content of the Hookah page. I have read the entire Hookah article many times and I know we can be a part of expanding it and adding to it. But if our work/site/articles is deemed insignificant by wikipedia, then how will our changes be viewed.

It might be a simple case where we have to put ourselves out there first by taking a instrumental part in the hookah article before we gain credibility. This is not a problem. We are hookah lovers and want to improve information and knowledge and correct misconceptions on hookahs anywhere we can.

Best Regards, Liz Insidehookah | Talk 02:47, 22 December 2006