User talk:Rrburke/Archive 7

Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Nucleobases' Elements

The creator and only content-editor of this page blanked it, which you then undid and warned him about page-blanking. Any objection to letting the blanking stand as a request for speedy-deletion as a blank page? Alternately, the content appears to be a fork of other pages the editor is working on (and embedding this same content), so it should technically become a redirect, but the name is nonstandard, so any objection to sending it to speedy-deletion as a recently-created nonstandard redirect? DMacks (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was entirely my error: the succession of edits looked like sneaky vandalism (fiddling with headings and brackets) followed by a page blanking. I should have checked the history page so that I might have seen that the editor was also the article's creator. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Not vandalism

I am offended that you consider my contribution vandalism. It is taken from The Jerome Biblical Commentary, edited by Raymond Brown.

I didn't suggest that it was vandalism, merely that it was original research because you didn't cite any reliable source.-- Rrburke (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why, thank you!

Say, are you sure that "China Head" isn't the UK's basketball mascot? Don't know what the guy was smoking, but I don't want any.  :) Seriously, thanks for alerting me to this latest dingaling. He be blocked, he be. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for your information. Please can you cite the paragraph of Wikipedia:External_links which the information I added to the Hypertrophy_of_breast does not conform to.


M-support (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Modifications of Dule Hill

Hi, this has been an ongoing issue, I personally know Dule well and this is what he's requested. Please refer to the discussion section of the Dule Hill page if you would like to discuss it there without having a reversion war. Thanks. --68.226.125.253 (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, nice...

Doggone it, I wish people would stop trying to get a free advertising ride on this site. Thanks for letting me know. PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool...thanks! Just signing off, so feel free to drop me a howdy and I'll check back with you later. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Cutting Board

Why don't you format/modify good information to your standard - instead of just wiping-out/reverting because you don't like it?

BTW: Using bleach on a wooden cutting board is asinine, and I doubt you will find a verifiable reference (with any credibility) that would support bleach-to-wood sanitation.... You use White Distilled Vinegar, Peroxide, Soapy Water (I would not advise soap, but it is acceptable) - Or Salt and Water.... NOT BLEACH....

I respect your efforts to moderate the Wiki; Please respect the content and quality of information that others add - And feel free to format their work in a way you deem acceptable; That is called making an EDIT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by N7cav (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The issue had nothing to do with the quality of the information you added, but with the source -- in particular, the lack thereof. Material added to Wikipedia articles ought to have been previously published in reliable sources. If what you added is drawn from your own experience, it is not suitable for inclusion because it violates Wikipedia's policy against original research. If you were reproducing material previously published in a reliable source, you need to provide that source in order that other editors might verify it. I don't know anything about the topic and am not in any position to correct it or evaluate its accuracy: I removed the material because you cited no source. If you have such a source, please add it. If you don't, please don't. And if you think the article contain inaccurate information, and that information is not supported by a reference to a reliable source, please take it out. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No Problem

I had guessed that. It's nice to see I'm not the only one who is annoyed by the spam. The offender has been reported though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehudi92 (talk • contribs) 16:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello,?is anybody there??????--98.16.208.136 (talk) 17:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)Brian Greenwell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.208.136 (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Audience

Hello!, what I edited, I have references.

There are references to the funeral of Michael Jackson has been seen by over 2500 million people worldwide.

And there is no reference about the funeral of John Paul II has been seen by 2 billion people.

You did not delete it please.

Excuse me for my poor English.

Greetings! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.168.126 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If you indeed have such sources, please add them to the article. A blog is not considered a reliable source. -- Rrburke (talk) 22:25, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources

I added sources on the hearing of the funeral of Michael Jackson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.49 (talk) 08:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As this is English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred. Moreover, one of the sources you've added (yet again) is a blog, and blogs are not considered reliable sources. I've switched it back. Please don't change it again without better sources, preferably in English. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Please

Please Unlock: 62.42.168.126

Thanks!! A greeting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.205.49 (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

User:62.42.168.126 is not blocked. -- Rrburke (talk) 13:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hello there

I think that it was yourself who just removed links I'd placed on the pages of James Fredrick Ferrier, Patrick Geddes, and probably the page for John Stuart Blackie as well.

Would you reconsider this? I am a professor of human ecology at Strathclyde University in Scotland and I use my personal website to host 3rd party scholarly material of interest to others in these fields. Ferrier, Blackie and Geddes were all Victorian Scots and what I have posted will be of considerable value to other scholars as it is all stuff very hard to get hold of and long out of copyright.

Alastair McIntosh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair McIntosh (talk • contribs) 20:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, while I placed the notices on your user talk page, another editor removed the links. I've passed a link to your message along to him. While I now better understand the purpose of the links you added, you should be aware that, unfortunately, due to the coincidence of your username and the url of your website, you are likely to encounter this problem whenever you add a link to your site: that combination will trip an abuse filter and tag your edit "possible conflict of interest". The prominence of Wikipedia inevitably attracts people wishing to promote their own work, and most editors coming across edits like those in question will not be aware that you are not linking to your own work and will assume you are violating one of the following policies or guidelines:
You can probably avoid a good deal of this trouble by including an edit summary with any future contributions of a similar type. In the case of the Ferrier edit, the edit summary might be something like: "No COI: adding link to out-of-copyright work by Ferrier". You might also consider putting a note at the top of your user talk page alerting editors who've arrived there thinking you're violating the conflict-of-interest guideline when in fact you're not. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

That is really helpful, Rrburke ... thank you so much. Alastair McIntosh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alastair McIntosh (talk • contribs) 07:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to thank you for the message you sent about editing my talk page. Very helpful to be given such tutoring. Alastair.

You might be better to ask before you remove entries. Thank you Comparisonfocus (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, adding promotional links to a website you're affiliated with is called linkspamming. Removing such links has to be done, alas, hundred of times every day. Typically no asking is involved. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:04, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Khmer Classical Dance

Thank you for your experienced attention to this page. The book suggested is an important recent contribution to Cambodian dance scholarship. http://www.amazon.com/Cambodian-Dance-Celebration-Denise-Heywood/dp/9749863402 even if user "Denise Heywood" is the author (she has no user page). This is a very narrow field of scholarship and her work necessarily draws from previous works. The fact is that if you take out the work of Groslier and Cravath (and Groslier is not even in print now) there is very little scholarship on Cambodian dance prior to 1975. Heywood's book covers events since that time as well as providing important archival images. This book should be a Reference on this page, Dance of Cambodia and the Apsara Dance pages. Thank you for your work.

Hi. I have no objection to you adding this material: the problem lay in the author adding it herself, as adding links to your own website and citing yourself run counter to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline and the policy against using Wikipedia for promotional purposes. -- Rrburke (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, got it! I will get the book and add references with ISBN soon. Thank you! Also on Cambodian dance topics can you please help with a revision on Earth in Flower? This will also help me understand table design. I restored a detailed Table of Contents to the listing about this reference book that a previous user had removed. My reason for including it is that the TOC included many technical cultural and artist terms that may only appear here on Wikipedia. This will help researchers locate them within a reference context. Also, I hope to expand important terms with complete listings in the future.

Back to my problem on the table. Only the headings (now in CAPS) should be bold. I can't figure out how to mix regular text with bold text within the table columns. Thank you! Sophontevy (talk) 16:35, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

PS - I think the technique may require a code for each line. I have to go out now but if you can do an example I can do the time consuming part when I return. Thank you again!

Talkback

Replied on my talk page. —Soap— 02:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

List of dubstep musicians

Hi Rrburke - I stopped watching that page eventually as I was doing so much reversion that it was becoming counter-productive to me. I might have a look at it in the coming days... --Kaini (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for getting in touch and explaining your decision to roll back my links. I understand the guidelines, but would suggest that what I am pointing to is resource material which I have posted and am happy to share (which is what both the net and wikis are about) rather than self-glorification.

Anyway, kind of you to have sent me the message.

AW —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrew Whitehead (talk • contribs) 10:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Archmere Academy & Wikipedia

Dear Rrburke,

I spent all day today updating the wikipedia page for Archmere Academy. This evening I saw that the page was reverted back to the prior page. Why did you revert the page? Is there a way to prevent updates from becoming reverted?

On another note, I did not realize that by creating the name "ArchmereAcademy" I would be causing problems. I hoped that by using this username it would give credibility to the page. I will be creating a new username tonight.

Thanks for your help as I try to understand the process and update the page.

Best,

Dan 

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.104.112.52 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dan,
Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline strongly discourages people from writing on subjects with which they have a close personal or professional connection. In addition, the section Institutional Advancement made reference to fundraising goals, which suggested that the purpose of the edits was at least partly promotional. Using Wikipedia for promotional purposes is strongly proscribed. Finally, the tone of the edits was somewhat laudatory, which is at odds with our policy of maintaining a neutral point of view.
To be blunt, because you are affiliated with the school, it's not considered appropriate for you to be editing the article, with the following exceptions: you are free at any time to revert vandalism or to remove anything defamatory in the article. But beyond such instances there really isn't any role for a person who works for an institution in editing the Wikipedia article about it.
As JohnCD suggested, please consider having a look at:
-- Rrburke (talk) 23:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your help. I definitely was not trying to promote the school, rather, my intention was to update and add to the page. I've heard from many people that it was severely lacking with respect to the information that one is able to get from it. From what I gather from the CoI policy, if I were to add a disclosure note to my individual page I would then be able to make changes to the page. What does it mean that the editor "who wishes to suggest substantive changes to an article should use that article's talk page".

Thanks for your help. Not sure if you can see it, but I did put a request in to have my username changed.

Best, Dan

Hi, Dan. I did see your request -- you may not have seen that it was granted. I'm not sure if you're aware yet of what a talk page is, so I'll start there: each article has a corresponding talk page where editors discuss changes to improve the article. In the case of Archmere Academy, the talk page is Talk:Archmere Academy. What the passage in the guideline you referred to means is that if a person with a conflict wishes to propose changes to the article, he or she should post the suggestions to the talk page along with a note explaining that a conflict on interest prevents him from making the changes himself.
I sympathize with your predicament: it's a perennial one with school articles. The short version of the problem is that while Wikipedia requires that articles be composed using material that has previously published in reliable sources, schools are not commonly written about in third-party publications, so it's hard to find sources. The people most likely to have the required information are people who work for the school, but Wikipedia can't permit people affiliated with schools (or other institutions) to edit articles about their place of work, because school officials will begin using the Wikipedia article as a recruitment tool or a kind of advertising (believe me, this happens constantly), which violates what we call WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. As well, things people know first-hand but are not published anywhere are not permitted in the encyclopedia due to the rule against original research.
So the needed information can't be included because it hasn't been published, and the people who are most knowledgeable about the topic can't edit the article because they have a conflict of interest. The result is that many if not most school articles are bad.
The problem is partly a function of a decision to apply Wikipedia's notability guidelines more flexibly to school articles because schools are often important social hubs in their communities. So on the one hand, the article is allowed to exist even though its subject may not meet the notability requirements, but on the other hand there are few third-party sources out of which to construct the article, so it is usually of poor quality and full of inaccuracies. If this debate interests you, consider having a look at Wikipedia:Schools/Arguments. -- Rrburke (talk) 01:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I guess I will have to start searching the web for some 3rd party sources :) Am I permitted to updated inaccurate information, such as tuition and enrollment numbers or does that follow the same rule.

I'll admit, I've learned a lot about Wikipedia very quickly, thank you for your patience.

Dan 153.104.112.52 (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi again, Dan. We try not to be overly rule-bound (or hidebound), because Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy (another rule!). But the conflict-of-interest guideline is just that -- a guideline -- which means it's slightly different from a policy and often allows for more flexibility. The guideline calls on you to "avoid or exercise great caution" when "editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors." I am satisfied that you are exercising great caution if you are merely correcting inaccuracies about facts and figures. If Archmere Academy has a website you could cite for this information, that would be even better. If I were you, I'd declare your conflict on Talk:Archmere Academy just to demonstrate you are exercising great caution :)
I'm about to sign off for the night: if you need more help, I'm happy to oblige, but I may not see your message until tomorrow. -- Rrburke (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam/Advert by DatASIA?

Can you look at the contributions for User:DatASIA? I pointed out this contributer was basically spamming, see discussion for Khmer Classical Dance. And I noticed recently that Denise Heywood, another author on the subject of Khmer classical dance had her contributions promptly removed, yet DatASIA's contributions still remain. --Dara (talk) 22:00, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I just notice that this user DatASIA was taken care of. Sorry for bothering. --Dara (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Another look

I've now reflected enough in the article itself that I believe it will be clear to all that the book is notable. See Win Shares (book). You may want to reconsider your !vote (and then again, you may not!).--Epeefleche (talk) 07:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandal warning

Actually, I had issued an only warning for persistent vandalism just prior to that edit on the page you have reverted, so why did you issue a level 2 warning-the warning says that it is an only warning. Immunize (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Which article / user are we talking about? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
This user. Immunize (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Huggle automatically chooses the warning level based on the warnings present on the page. Not sure why it chose 2 then 3 when there was already an immediate on the page. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Although I am a rollbacker, I rarely use huggle because I have found that it does not always correctly warn users. At some point I will probably make a suggestion at the village pump to improve huggle's warning accuracy. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Have you considered submitting your suggestion at Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#Feedback? -- Rrburke (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Question about edit changes

Just wondering why you rolled back my edits? The old information on the page for Norther Power Systems was out of date and I am trying to make it up to date and more factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jciempa (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up to your response: Thanks for the clarification. I understand the point and terms in regards to the conflict of interest; however, the information that was previously on the page was outdated and not accurate. That said, my edits were only intended to provide current, factual information about the company while also providing photos to add to the wikipedia user experience. Based on your terms, this type of editing is allowed and all I am trying to do.

Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? Shortcut: WP:BFAQ#EDIT

An important guideline here is our guideline on conflict of interest. You are strongly discouraged from writing articles about yourself or organisations (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which you hold a vested interest. However, if you feel that there is material within an existing article which is incorrect, or not neutral in its tone, please point this out on the article's talk page. Likewise, if you have content which you think should be added, please discuss this on the talk page. Editing articles that you are affiliated with is not completely prohibited; you may do so as specified within the COI guideline, but you must be extremely careful to follow our policies. Don't resist when other people edit your contributions. If you follow our basic rules, your edits should be accepted by the community. If you don't, however, your edits may be reverted and you may end up blocked if you do not stop when asked to. For more suggestions see the essays: Wikipedia:Search engine optimization and Suggestions for COI compliance.

That said, I ask that you keep my edits to the page.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jciempa (talk • contribs) 21:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

What the guideline principally recommends you do when you have a conflict is to avoid editing the article in question: this is always the preferred choice. You are welcome to remove vandalism or anything defamatory, but edits beyond that become increasingly problematic. The FAQ passage you've cited actually suggests that in the case of inaccuracies you should consider posting suggestions for improving the article to its talk page (in this case, Talk:Northern Power Systems): it is strongly preferred that you let others decide whether to follow your suggestion rather than making the changes yourself.
Additionally, the tone of your edits is decidely promotional and not in keeping with our core policy requirng articles to maintain neutral point of view. Describing a commercial product as "advanced," "revolutionary," "next generation" and asserting that "customers from Alaska to Italy are discovering that the Northwind 100 is a smart investment producing clean, domestic energy" is more suited to a sales brochure, goes far beyond providing mere "factual information" and is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Please see:
Finally, the images are very likely to be deleted because their source/copyright-holder is not identified and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that their copyright-holder(s) have given permission for them to be used. If such permission has been granted, confirmation will need to be sent to permissions-en@wikimedia.org. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR and List of common misconceptions

From WP:ENGVAR: "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic." Prior to about 2009, the article had very few words that are spelled differently in different versions of English. It tended to have about the same number of examples of each. Around 2009 American English emerged as more predominant, although both versions have continued to some extent. This is not an issue I feel strongly about, as long as the article is consistent. If someone wishes to change all spellings to British English I don't object. I think the more important factor is consistency. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As part of the MOS, WP:ENGVAR is actually a guideline rather than a policy, which means that while it enjoys consensus and editors should attempt to follow it, it should be applied with common sense and a measure of flexibility. It is rarely worth fighting over, though fractious insistence on changing articles to conform with one's own national variety may be seen as disruptive if it becomes a pattern. I don't mean to imply that I see evidence of such behavio(u)r here, only that it's good to avoid it. -- Rrburke (talk) 19:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree and have long been aware that ENGVAR is only a guideline. My only goal was to achieve consistency in the article, which I tried to communicate to Hairhorn (talk · contribs), who suggested that he might revert each change I made simply because the entire article was not changed instantly. That, of course, would have meant the article never would be consistent. When I tried to explain this to Hairhorn, he apparently took great offense, which is a complete mystery to me. In any event, Hairhorn apparently has dropped the issue. Thank you for your comments. 71.77.20.119 (talk) 19:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess I'm back...

...that nice note you left on McDoob's talk page was most kind. I'm still going to lay low for awhile; this site was taking up too much of my time and that Larry Sanger incident left me with a very bad taste in my mouth. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

disclaimers to cover ownership issues in Facebook community/city pages

How does a local government organisation advise viewers of the Facebook city pages that replicate Wiki content, that the page and the association status and updates are not an 'official' communications channel of the Council. Considering implications of the NSW State Government Records Act? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.10.195 (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Could you be a bit more specific? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Facebook has "community" and "city" pages that draw content from Wikipedia e.g. http://www.facebook.com/pages/Port-Stephens-Council/106177012747085?v=desc&ref=ts These can show status updates from facebook users who have mentioned the subject in their Facebook updates, these pages have the potential to be perceived as being "official" organisational communications. Risks are that enquiries are not dealt with causing reputation damage, and for inappropriate comments to appear on these pages causing potential liability issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.10.195 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not put a disclaimer on the Port Stephens Council Facebook page? -- Rrburke (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be great, the organisation does not have a Facebook page and so far has resolved not to go down this path because of the same issues identified above, except the above situation has place management of content out of our hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.220.10.195 (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't clear from your earlier messages that the Facebook page is not actually maintained by the Council. It appears to me your issue is with whoever maintains the Facebook page. Wikipedia is simply a freely-licensed encyclopedia and people are free to use its content however they please. Nothing in the Port Stephens Council article suggests that its contents are provided or endorsed by the Council. It does seem a little odd to me that someone could set up a Facebook account which bills itself as "Port Stephens Council" and that the Council itself has no recourse. Surely the Council has some means to prevent people from falsely claiming an affiliation or from improperly posing as its representative or agent? -- Rrburke (talk) 03:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It is Facebook that has done it (not an individual user), they have set up pages of wiki content based on words found in users profiles: schools, towns, bands, authors, movies, institutions, corporations. Facebook must have something set up to automatically draw content from the wiki article, the only way we can add additional information to protect ourselves is by putting it in the information source - the Wiki article. They are collectively called Community Pages and are a new Facebook content feature. 203.220.10.195 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

In effect it is the Wiki community that is maintaining the Facebook page in this case. 203.220.10.195 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia's content is actually reproduced all over the internet on different mirrors and forks (and elsewhere) and no attempt is made to control how it is used. Anyone is free to modify and reuse Wikipedia content as they see fit, provided they publish that content under a free license. It appears you are unhappy less with the content of the article per se than with the use that a third party, Facebook, is making of it, in which case you may wish to consider approaching Facebook to suggest that they add disclaimers to their city pages. As for Wikipedia, its articles contain only information related to their topics, and I'm afraid that excludes disclaimers. -- Rrburke (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reverting my changes to Star Trek: Elite Force II

I would like to knwo why you did let my changes vanish. The HaZardModding Co-op Mod is one of the Major Modifications of that game, in production since years. I see no reason why you have removed the link, the Link to the GBS Mod is still there, you know I worked at that project too. To be quite honest I feel offended, I'm not just a one day Modder having a mood for some publicity! The Co-op Mod is also mentioned in the Article, it would seam logical to link it, as the GBS mod is linked as well. I'm not asking for much and it seams to me that my request is more than just justified, please have your reasons explained to me, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrissstrahl (talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Linking to your own website runs counter to Wikipedia's external links guideline. Here is the relevant passage from Wikipedia:External links#Advertising and conflicts of interest:
[I]n line with Wikipedia policies, you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked
-- Rrburke (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Chrissstrahl (talk) 21:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC) Well, that is great, the game is virtually death there is not much activity of any kind any more. Well then that's it. Thanks for the Explanation :) .

You're awesome

Per this. Although I must say, it is kinda really funny. Cheers! Tommy2010 00:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I aim to please. Weird, the long lag between the first couple of attacks and the later flurry, don't you think? -- Rrburke (talk) 00:59, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
Yea... I wonder how many users use their watchlist, vs the recent changes..Tommy2010 01:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)





Please sorry that was my son. It will never happen again. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.110.18.109 (talk) 14:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI

You may wish to comment at this ANI thread. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Death threats

I didn't see your death threat (that's the threat made to you, not one you made, obviously) either, but here's one I received instead, in case you feel left out :-) I suspect from edits made elsewhere that my fan signing himself "Knobjockey Cock" is situated less than 30 miles away from me, so I'm really, really scared. Still, if he's going to kill multiple people the chances are he may be caught before he gets to me... Cheers, Tonywalton Talk 15:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to be safe, if you see someone riding towards your house on... Well, if you see a guy of diminutive stature, near your house, riding... Hmmm... Well anyway, just be careful out there.  :) -- Rrburke (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply to your message

I don't know how to use this, hope I did it right...

I understand my posting the link might seem bad because it is my site. However, the link is relevant to the title "Online Reviews" for Risk, therefor it's under the category it's suppose to be under. My site lists reviews of risk sites as well as images of their in game aspect. It is only the start, I plan to add more sites later and even user reviews perhaps. Either way, my site is online reviews of risk sites, which is the title. There is no reason to take out my review site but keep up other review sites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRisk (talk • contribs) 21:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you have an opportunity to review the guideline in question, Wikipedia:External links? There is a consensus here that people should not add links to the own sites because it runs counter to the rule prohibiting the use of Wikipedia as a means of promotion, which can be found at WP:NOTADVERTISING. The general feeling is that if an external link is important enough to add to an article, a person not connected to the site will probably add it sooner or later. On the other hand, if the only person who thinks the link should be added is the person who runs the site, that's a pretty good indication the link is dispensable. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So then can you go ahead and add that site for me. Is it not a review site? You and I both know it's a review site. If wikipedia doesn't want me to add it because it's my own site, you can add it then. I don't see what the problem is. I don't care who adds it, just that it's added. I think the site is quite useful to new people who are getting into risk online. My site alone probably isn't going to get a ton of hits, that's true. What I build will be worthless without people seeing it. It doesn't help anyone not being seen. So I found a place where I can show people who are looking for these reviews, and that place is here. People who are looking for reviews, not lengthy out of date reviews with scores that try to say who is the best site and who isn't, like the other site has, but a simple site with simple reviews and a quick 1 image for people to see.

At the top of playriskonline.net's page you will notice the top site is ConquerClub.com. Why is it on the top? It's on the top because the owner of that site thinks it's the best. Those scores are his scores. They are based on his opinions. It has been said my site (FreeRiskOnline.com) shouldn't be up because we recommend dominating12.com. That is our opinion, and we defend that opinion in our review of the site. We also list reviews of other sites, not everyone is going to want to go to that site, as we say in our review, it's a very new site. PlayRiskOnline.net recommends that people should go to ConquerClub.com to play risk, based on what he saw. He recommends that by giving it a 7.3, the top score on his list of risk sites. Our site recommends that people play on Dominating12.com. We do that by saying, "We recommend you play on dominating12.com". It's the same thing. Conquerclub.com is the top site in his opinion, based on criteria he made up. Dominating12.com is the top site in our opinion, and we explain why in the review.

The 2 sites PlayRiskOnline.net and FreeRiskOnline.com are the same type of sites. They are both online reviews of risk clone sites. There is little difference in them except that FreeRiskOnline.com does not have scores, and instead of lengthy reviews has quick reviews and 1 simple image of the ingame experience. FreeRiskOnline.com is a valuable site and should be added to the wikipedia list of review sites which now only consists of 1 site, PlayRiskOnline.net —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRisk (talk • contribs) 03:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a site for people to trade links or recommend websites to visit. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia people use to read about topics that interest them. The purpose of adding external links to articles is not so that editors can attract more visitors to their site: adding external links for this purpose is precisely what the restrictions on linking are designed to prevent. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, the point isn't so I can gain more visitors, the point is so that people who view wikipedia can gain more information. And they can get that information from this site. So why not add my site if it helps inform visitors of wikipedia? Yeah, I get more hits, and I understand wikipedia doesn't care about my hits, but for wikipedia, this site would be as helpful as PlayRiskOnline.net, so why not add it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeRisk (talk • contribs) 05:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010 Audio Secrecy

Hi there,

If you read the referenced link, large chunks of the submitted text are direct copies from the website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smoozle (talk • contribs) 00:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes -- My target was a different page: I reverted that page in error and have now changed it back. -- Rrburke (talk) 00:56, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks mate. Smoozle (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Review Site

You recently nominiated my page Yet Another Review Site for deletion. I have since created a user page and would like advice on how to get it published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daverage/Yet_Another_Review_Site When you consider that the likes of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Harris_(journalist) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamezebo are published, it seems hard for me to understand that my page is of less importance than them. It may be small, but it does get cited in wikipedia (admitedly only once :) )Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverage (talk • contribs) 14:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that Wikipedia has large numbers of articles that should probably be deleted, but it's an ad hoc process rather than a coordinated one -- editors nominate articles they think should be deleted when they happen to come across them -- so the existence of equally dubious articles isn't generally accepted as a reason to keep an article being considered for deletion. If you think these articles you mention perhaps ought to be deleted because their subjects are not sufficiently noteworthy, please consider having a look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy and Wikipedia:Notability. For help with the mechanics of nominating an article for deletion, please see Wikipedia:Deletion process.
Finally, there is a strong feeling here that people should not created or edit articles related themselves, their organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with (the guideline for such cases is set out at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). While this is not the reason your article was deleted, the guideline will explain the reason it probably shouldn't have been created in the first place. -- Rrburke (talk) 21:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I did not raise the point to highlight as you put it "dubious" articles or try to defend my article because it as "equally dubious". I highlighted it to point out that it was not a dubious article. I fear if we went the route of deleteing all of them, wikipedia would become rather small rather rapidly. It was to try and point out that it was as notable as most other articles relating to smaller review sites, of which there are a lot on the system. They may not be as big as other sites like Gamespot, but to their 20,000 or what ever viewers, they are noteworthy. I agree that a site like Gamespot has had a cultural significance, so is more notable, that does not make yars and other similar sites un-notable, just less notable.

As for writing about an organisation that I run, the article was totally neutral and purely facts based. I have been writing for a while now, and am quite capable of maintaining total neutrality. There was no sales pitch, no "we are unique and great because". I was doing it as a way to have somthing that some people are interested in recorded in a place that I know will be maintained for many years to come.

I had really hoped you would be able to help, rather than just tell me I am wrong. It seems I mis understood how this works, which is probably me just looking at wikipedia through a rose tint. When someone genuinly asks for advice about somehting, try helping rather than just pointing out all the reasons they are wrong. You are in a position of power in this area, use it well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daverage (talk • contribs) 08:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

UAA

Hi there. Please don't do this. This is liable to break the bot that patrols this page because it looks for a very specific header. The bot should automatically mark this when there's a problem. (Also, I note that you marked it as an editor backlog, not an admin backlog.) Anyway, thanks for your reports. Regards, Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 14:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)