User talk:Veinor/Archive 6

Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

Biotelemetry - Biotactic

Hi, www.Biotactic.com is a very focused biotelemetry science service. It has a wealth of information on its website about biotelemetry, techniques, projects etc. and also discusses their LIVE BRAVO biotelemtry monitoring network. They are very highly respected in this field and have published dozens of papers on ths subject. Thus I thought they should be mentioned in the Biotelemetry page of wikipedia.

Will add it back in as a link. Will you reconsider this?

Regards, Brett

Well, links to commercial sites are generally cautioned against by the external link guidelines. Veinor (talk to me) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Veinor, Under external links i'v added a useful link where people can do their job search. It has been repeatedly been removed. This is not a commercial site, there are no ads running on it what so ever. Yet you have sites listed there which are fully commercial, like Dubai Rental Cars and others, would you please take a look at the link added and consider it for inclusion. www.DubaiJobsNetwork.com

Thanks, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.210.33.98 (talk) 23:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

You were adding this link to the United Arab Emirates page; which isn't just about Dubai. Besides, how does that link even give more information about Dubai? And the addition of other links generally is irrelevant to another one; each link should stand or fall on its own merit. Note, however, that as more links are added, the guidelines become tighter. Veinor (talk to me) 12:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Change in Template:DRV top

Just a heads-up that I made a small change in the {{DRV top}} (or {{drt}}) template: the level 4 header, with a (closed) marker, is now part of the template. So any discussion can now be closed by simply replacing the four equal signs on each side of the title into the the template text: 

 ====[[Title]]====

is changed to 

 {{subst:drt|[[Title]]|Decision}}

which turns into

Title (closed)

Hope that makes closures a bit easier. Comments and questions please here. Take care, trialsanderrors 08:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for letting me know. Veinor (talk to me) 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 13 26 March 2007 About the Signpost
From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:34, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamemecca Wikipedia Entry

I spent a number of days gathering the knowlege of the various clans and their origins. I realize the topic does not exactly seem to be "encyclopedia grade" material, but it is of great importance to the 2000+ members of Gamemecca. Most of which know little or nothing about the site and the clans. I ask you to please undo the removal of 2/3 of the entry I spent a great deal of time compiling please.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by CagedAnger (talk • contribs) 15:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Well... Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is not just intended for the Gamemecca members, but for the entire world. The amount of work it takes to do something has nothing to do with whether it should be included. Veinor (talk to me) 15:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

This page is in no way being discriminate about who views this, nor is intended solely of members of Gamemecca. Gamemecca is a well known website related to the video game Serious Sam and has a longstanding history that deserves to be known. Caged 15:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to your comment about how "it is of great importance to the 2000+ members of Gamemecca". I really don't think that it's encyclopedic information, due to verifiability concerns; all information should be cited to reliable, third-party sources. Veinor (talk to me) 16:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

"Internet guides. Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known. See current events for examples."
I clearly gave the history and significance of the site and its member clans. Naturally I couldn't find everything about them and am encouraging the other members to contribute. The page hasn't even been online for a full day and it is already being threatened to be pulled. Please, give it some time to grow and gather more resources.

The Article for Deletion process takes five days; the only time the debates are closed sooner is in really obvious cases (such as if somebody put Earth up for deletion), so you should be able to find something, if it exists. The history and significance of the site is not what I removed (I don't think I did, anyway), just the information about the clans. It totally lacked good references, and seemed to me to be quite cruft-like. Veinor (talk to me) 16:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

AIV report

I had about 4 edit conflicts amending that automated report. Should make sense now. --Dweller 15:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

207.177.69.18 is blocked

Hi! According to the block log you've blocked User:207.177.69.18, but User_talk:207.177.69.18 hasn't been updated. I doubt this is something for me to be bold about fixing. Mark Hurd 16:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Everyclick

Hi,

I recently wrote an article on everyclick as a search engine, and it was removed. i am not here to argue wether it should be reinstated, but i just wanter to clarify for future reference. I added the site as it doesn't contain any advertismants i have come across and i thought that as google has a pade about it, then a similar search engine would be ok. can you explain the problem in this please?

Thanks

Lj

Jimbo-lj 20:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, the article was blatant advertising for Everyclick ("just imagine how your selected charity could benefit if you and your friends all used everyclick.com to support them whenever you searched the web" is definitely not an encyclopedic tone), and half of the content was taken directly from the website (which violates copyright). Veinor (talk to me) 20:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion without consensus

Why did you delete Enemy of Islam when consensus was not reached? I am sure you are aware of WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY. Furthermore I find your reason for deletion quite amusing. You state "The result was delete" without elaboration. Are you aware that you are supposed to give a "Reason for deletion" see WP:DPR and WP:DGFA. Arguments were made to keep the article yet they were not addressed. Also, the arguments for deletion were not sustained (i.e. the term being a neologism). Note: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." Please read [1] and restore the article. The article must be restored since consensus was not reached. Agha Nader 20:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader

Consensus seems pretty clear to me; the arguments for deletion were of a higher quality than those for keeping. The argument that I found best was "Not a 'special' term deserving of its own article. Someone can be an enemy of America, enemy of Christianity, enemy of whatever...", by User:The Behnam. I failed to see why the phrase "enemy of Islam" carries special significance. And I am quite aware of how to undelete a page, thank you very much. If you want to contest my closure, you can do so on deletion review. Veinor (talk to me) 20:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tiresome Spam

Is there any way to get the Spam links for "antonkisieldesigns.com" that keep popping up automatically blocked? Today's attacks came from 70.105.243.62 but the IP keeps changing. It's annoying to think this person is getting some reward for constantly posting his unrelated web site anonymously. Thanks for any info. Quenn 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Should be on Shadowbot's blacklist now; it should start reverting that link on sight. Veinor (talk to me) 02:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Sortprice

I apologize for having that site removed. I am new to totally new to this whole scene. I didn't realize without a username it would be updated and the rules enforced

Please reconsider we are on your side.

2, 28 March 2007 Veinor (Talk | contribs) deleted (G11; blatant spam.)

Well, the article was spam. It needs to be rewritten in a more neutral tone. Veinor (talk to me) 03:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I am doing a class project and need to create an article on a shopping related website...trying to get the hang of Wikipedia and its features, thanks for your help.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sortpriceinc (talk • contribs).

Then I have to ask... what's with the username? Veinor (talk to me) 04:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

i thought it needs to be realted to the article—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sortpriceinc (talk • contribs).

Nope; in fact, usernames that are names of companies go against the username policy. Veinor (talk to me) 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

oh.. how do i delete my username?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sortpriceinc (talk • contribs) 04:30, 28 March 2007.

Hi Veinor. They eventually ended up on WP:AIV. I wrote a (hopefully sympathetic) message to their talk page and added an indefblock with account creation enabled. I also left {{usernameblock}} so they'll know what to do. I feel bad about blocking them but it does fail WP:U and I believe they were acting in good faith - Alison☺ 04:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

169.226.84.71

Why not indef? Only vandalized while trying to disguise as "fix." The Behnam 03:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it's most likely a shared IP, and IPs are never indef blocked period. Veinor (talk to me) 03:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of my article David C Skul

Why can an article like this be valid Matt Cutts but not the one I wrote on David Skul? He is just as important to many members of the internet world as Matt Cutts is. Why was this article deleted?

Because the article was essentially "Look at this man and how great he is!" Articles need to be written in a neutral tone and prove notability using reliable sources; otherwise, they will probably be deleted, either by speedy deletion (as I did) or the full Articles for Deletion process. Veinor (talk to me) 16:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I was goign to add more to it over the next few days but it got erased the minute after I saved it. He is a pretty great guy and I have lots of references to back it up. How do I add an articel an not have it erased before I am done?

I'd suggest editing User:Ipbanned4ever/David C Skull instead, then, let me know when you think you're ready and I'll check it over and move it back into mainspace if I agree. Note that I'm not any sort of official guardian or anything; I'm just trying to make sure you don't get burned again. Veinor (talk to me) 00:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help but you spelled the guy's name wrong. It is SKUL not SKULL.

Willren (talk · contribs)

Hi Veinor, since you are the other user who has interacted with this account, I figured that I'd come to you. I'm beginning to think that we should indef the account, since they have refused to be compliant repeatedly. They have no real intention of editing the encyclopedia, only to post love letters. Most recently, they blanked your warning. Should we give another warning, or just end it now? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 20:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I think that shared accounts are actually forbidden, so they could always be blocked under that. Veinor (talk to me) 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Do you want to just do it now? I'm not an administrator, so I don't have that power. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The user page was deleted and salted per an MfD discussion. RJASE1 Talk 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

dquiring (talk · contribs)

Mr. Veinor. You left me a note about spam on my contribution to Henderson, Nebraska. I'm sure I didn't place any spam on that site. Perhaps my login is being spoofed? If you view the links to the two founding churches of the community as spam then I guess it's spam. Unfortunately the descendants of the 35 German-Russian Mennonite families who founded the community would disagree. Have a great power trip.

Let's see. Is the article about churches in Henderson, Nebraska? No. Is it about either of those churches? No. It's about the entire city. The links' subjects symmetrical with respect to the subject of the article (there are many churches in the city), so the external link guidelines caution against adding them. And I ask you to remain WP:CIVIL. Veinor (talk to me) 01:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the remaining community links that I published as you've requested. (03/29-07 1113 hours CDT)

Ellipse

I added a few external links to the ellipse definition, which you removed. This stuff cannot go in the content of wikipedia because it is in Java which is against the rules. However, many teachers and students find it useful. It's a free site with no commercial interest. Where's the harm? John.d.page 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Bleh; I removed, then re-added, then removed. I think that having 10 different links to the same page is silly, but just one is fine. I was distracted by something else; I really need to pay attention more. Veinor (talk to me) 03:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

They are not all to the same page. Each page is quite different. So you OK with it going back? They really are useful, relevant pages.

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; excessive links can dilute the purpose of them by confusing the reader. Linking to many pages on one site rarely is substantially better than one link to one page on that site. Veinor (talk to me) 03:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK. I can make it work that way. Later.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John.d.page (talk • contribs) 04:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

There. I collected them into one page and placed a single link to it. You were right, it's better.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John.d.page (talk • contribs) 16:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Homebrew

What is wrong with adding a Wiki to an entry? homebrewtalk.com/wiki is THE source for home brewing information using Mediawiki. Why is it not an acceptable link?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.119.6.92 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, the external link guidelines caution against linking to any wiki that's too new or doesn't have enough contributors to give a sense of reliability. That one certainly seems to fit the definition, with the vast majority of recent contributions being made by 2-3 editors. Veinor (talk to me) 22:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Not much information? Try taking a look again. www.homebrewtalk.com/wiki/ It's loaded with information and just recently it's been the SYSOPS adding information. Look before them, lots of members contributed. Are you familiar with how non-Wikipedia Wiki's work? First a bunch contribute then it weeds out to just a few. I urge you to rethink it and add the link back. Having that link on the Wiki home brewing page will get more users from Wiki there to add information. Your preventing it from growing. Your logic doesn't make sense.

Are you familiar with the external link guidelines? I don't think that a wiki where the majority of the contributors stop contributing can be terribly reliable. And, while I am aware that the lack of links to other wikis does prevent them from growing, this is not what Wikipedia is for; it is not a crystal ball. Veinor (talk to me) 03:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Baptist women in ministry

What do you think was the consensus on this page? I sort of thought it was a "delete" decision, but remove the little bit of information that didn't relate to the organization and put it in the other article. Do you agree? I'm not sure what to do about it. --Strangerer (Talk) 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a merge... but I'm not sure if Anabaptist is the proper place. Veinor (talk to me) 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I probably should have reverted

Sorry, I thought about reverting last night's contrib by another user but figured you might want to directly see it and could probably handle it better. Morenooso 13:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

WTF?

u tellin me how to talk? u know wat since its the internet i aint gonna start nothin wit ya... so i will try to ease up on tha ebonics like i did now even though thats how i talk in real life Pretty Ricky aint breakin up yall! yay!! Tam` Tam` =] 14:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you talk like that by choice or because you were raised that way? People will tend to be more forgiving of you if it's the latter. Veinor (talk to me) 14:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

i was raised dis way =] Pretty Ricky aint breakin up yall! yay!! Tam` Tam` =] 15:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, if you keep trying, then that should help you type in a more understandable way. Veinor (talk to me) 15:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

kk =] Pretty Ricky aint breakin up yall! yay!! Tam` Tam` =] 15:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)



Finnish Sauce

I new here and my english skill is not so good but you were angry at my posting about the Finnish SAuce, I realise now I am wrong, you see I see an advertisement on the television for the Finnish sauce in Australia (a small european country underneath asia), I was very proud, I check the internets and I add to the Finland article because I was very proud of Finland sauce international popularity. But my english friend insulted me because the advertisement was a joking only playing on the word Finishing sauce which has a meaning is different. I apologize with no reserve, please forgiveness.Aleksi Peltola 19:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It's ok, I forgive you :-). I'm not angry at you at all; I very rarely get angry at people who I barely even know. I find it's pointless and counterproductive. From here, it just looked like you were advertising; I've seen people not read what the article is about before they spam, but I see that this isn't what's happened here. Veinor (talk to me) 22:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

History Pages messed up; need your expertise

Hello Veinor-- About 14:33 28MAR2007, User:Pschelden did something that messed up the history page of Frank Stagg (theologian).

  1. Apparently, User:Pschelden first moved Christian views about women into a blank Frank Stagg (theologian).
  2. Realizing the error, the User:Pschelden seems to have started a new Christian views about women and cut-and-pasted the text from Frank Stagg (theologian) back into Christian views about women, leaving behind all of the Christian views about women History.

Is that about as clear as mud? Anyway, the text in both present articles is now correct. However, both HISTORY pages are incorrect:

Hope you will help getting correct Histories on both. With appreciation, Afaprof01 16:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 14 2 April 2007 About the Signpost
Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable" Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane" News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 15 9 April 2007 About the Signpost
Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for figuring out how to do a deep link to the max headroom make-up site. I really debated when I pulled the original link for since it wasn't a deep link (and was posted by an anon. user) it seemed more like a self-promotion effort then informational. However, the info is good and the deep link removes my concerns about self-promotion. Thanks again.--P Todd 21:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Misaf-Keru 00:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Normandoo

You just closed this AfD with a speedy delete. Could you please undelete somewhere so I can see it. There is not the least indication of what the article is about, and the worth articles that one of the eds. there has thought worth a speedy do not inspire confidence. I have no doubt I'll agree with you, but I like to see for myself. DGG 04:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Sure; see User:DGG/Normandoo. Let me know when you're done looking at it. I'll be sure to be more explicit when speedy closing next time. Veinor (talk to me) 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Response To Deletion

I don't think that anyone is out to get me, and I didn't mean to imply that the user mentioned previously had an anti-Australian bias at all, just that he may have a pro-American continent and mainstream bias. But anyway, that is irrelevant. The main issue is the fact that the article was removed. Whilst WIC Exchange aren't famous, or mainstream, they are a company which is making big moves in the crossing over of companies like Second Life-based companies into the real world by offering a limited licence to own and trade their online currency, known as wics. This is a company that is beginning to get as lot of attention in and out of Second Life, as well as with some of the Australian online community. If Wikipedia will only allow the publication of articles based on companies that have 'made it' or are in the millions of dollars a day league, then yes, I totally agree that WIC Exchange should not be allowed as an article. However, it was my understanding that Wikipedia allow the publication of any article about a company where it has made, and is making significant changes in the way people behave or operate on the internet. WIC Exchange is bridging the gap between virtual buisness and real business for one thing, and is for the first time of any company on the internet, providing it's merchant services free of charge. I couldn't possibly agree that they are not worthy of an article in this case. Please reconsider.

Well, you understood wrong. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we have notability guidelines. You need to find reliable sources that have done in-depth coverage of the company. I searched for "WIC Exchange" on google and got seven results. To me, that makes any sort of article extremely unlikely; we can't use Second Life as a source (no record). Veinor (talk to me) 17:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


Response To revert on Chinese Astrology

Hi, I do not agree with your replacement. If your reasoning is correct, then may be I should go ahead and replace all external links on all WIKI pages with DMOZ link? What/Who gives you the right to use that particular link in place of all other link?

Furthermore, even the DMOZ's wiki page has external links. Why don't you go there and remove all the external links and replace it with DMOZ link? If you are such a good Police, how about you simply go visit all the pages and replace all links with DMOZ's?

It is apparent that you action spoils the whole basket of links. I would say majority of them already PASSED the link spam tests. Why don't you spend a little time of your own and weed out the suspicious links instead of all of them?

Please don't be LAZY! I am putting those link back.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RJASE1"

Please see my response to your identical message on my talk page. And please stop reverting, the dmoz template is considered an acceptable substitute for a link farm - see this. Should we be linking to every Chinese astrology site from Wikipedia? Please stop reverting and take your points to the article's talk page, thanks - you're risking violation of the three-revert rule. RJASE1 Talk 21:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

--71.111.109.225 03:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Just because one volunteer write a method in WPSPAM page does not means it it is the law. It may be commonly accepted by SPAM police, but not all users. It may be simple, but also could give impression of laziness and total irresponsibility! If external links are so bad, why even allow any links? Why not just remove them all?

No, we should NOT be linking to every Chinese astrology site from Wikipedia. We all knows the SPAM policies. Isn't this what all SPAM police and all user responsibility to weed thourgh the links?

Use a little common sense when using the linkfarms suggestion. When there > 10 new spam entries per day and the links are hugh, linkfarm suggestion may make sense. When there are only a few links (<10) and there are no frequent new spam insertion in the page, then consider just remove that particular spam that appear instead of removing all the links that have been around for > year. You made a mistake, admit it, then recover your mistake. Do not cover your back with "commonly supported" excuse!

Also, instead of wasting my time proving all the links to the article's talk page, why don't you spend sometime instead proving to all of us that this site has such a HIGH SPAM activity that it warrant you using the linkfarms method?

I posted a link to www.justiceforkevin.org, a non-profit site with valuable information about a man who was wrongfully convicted of rape. You deleted my edit, saying I was a spammer. I respectfully disagree -- this website would have saved Kevin's life if he had had the information it contains, and the makers of the site are dedicated to preventing this tragedy from happening to anyone else. It should be available for Wikipedia readers interested in these lagal issues. So how do I go about putting it back up -- and maybe getting you to come down off of your high horse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.138.56.209 (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

(see Special:Contributions/68.101.131.133). First off, don't add the same link to over 15 pages in 22 minutes. That looks really bad. Second, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links; while he may have been subject to Megan's law, there are many such people, and a link to every 'save so-and-so' page would dwarf the article. Finally, stay civil; insulting people is likely to make them more hostile to you. Veinor (talk to me) 22:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's all well and good, but it's still within the Wikipedia rules. What does it matter how fast they were added, or that if EVERYONE did it, what would happen. I never insulted anyone, but you sure seem to have taken this all to your head, with deciding who should be included in these articles and who shouldn't. And if you are sensitive about people being rude to you, why delete their contributions? Are you doing it out of your hostile anger, or is it an actual appreciation for the rules? Seems like the former based on your response. Again, this link is a perfectly acceptable addition to the sites it was posted on -- both because of subject matter and pursuant to Wikipedia rules. I am going to repost them, and if they get deleted again because of your opinion, then I'll report it to Wikipedia myself.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hillarystarbright (talk • contribs).

'Get off your high horse' seems like an insult to me. And I'm not sensitive at all; I've been called far worse things without batting an eye. I just don't like it is all, and people have easily been blocked for doing similar things before. Besides, I'm being anything but hostile right now. I'm trying to work this out with you. And if you repost, I will block you again. If you want to complain about me, you can do it at the administrator's noticeboard, or request a 3rd opinion, or go to the mediation cabal, or bring it up on the talk page for the Wikipedia counterspam effort; this is probably the closest thing to 'reporting it to Wikipedia'. And the external link guidelines say that links whose subject is not directly related. There are many people who other people believe were wrongfully convicted of rape; why is this man (and not John Doe) special? Veinor (talk to me) 23:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Oooh, so THAT's what it's about ... I have to prove to you that something is "special" and get you to approve it first? This is a public website, and you're being way too controlling with this. The external link I added conformed to the subject matter and to every Wikipedia rule, but you seem to not get that. I'm within Wikipedia guidelines, what do you want??

No, you are not within Wikipedia guidelines, as I pointed out above. The link does not conform with the external link guidelines, specifically number 13 on the 'Links normally to be avoided section': "a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked to an article about a general subject". It is up to you to prove that this is not a usual case; it is not up to me to prove that it is. Veinor (talk to me) 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ooh, please. It is not on a general subject. If this information were available to more people, there would be fewer wrongful convictions. Just because there happen to be a lot of wrongfully accused and wrongfuly convicted people doesn't make this addition improper. It's not a "general subject" and it's not inviting "everyone with a conviction" to edit this. Please just knock it off and let me post this on a COMMUNITY site. How can you say you're not on a high horse, but that the merit of every addition has to be proven to you? THIS is what's abusive, not me.

Megan's Law is on a more general subject than just the people who have been convicted under it. And Wikipedia is not a soapbox; just because something would help the community (in your view) doesn't mean it should be included. And let me put it this way: we don't link from Blog to every single blog, nor from Porn site to every single porn site. How is this different? By the way, I never said that you have to prove this to me; you just need to prove it to the community. Don't put words in my mouth. I gave you three options to get opinions of people other than me, and you (apparently) haven't taken any of them up. Veinor (talk to me) 23:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
Calling my edits fascist is definitely abusive, by the way. Veinor (talk to me) 00:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

How can I retrieve my codes on speed deletion

Hi Veinor, I understand why the article has been deleted. Just in the case, How can I retrieve Wiki codes to move it into my User page? Thanks. Mohtashami 22:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mohtashami (talk • contribs) 22:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Eh, I wouldn't. I think it'd be much better to write one from scratch; it looks awfully like a resume to me, and those sort of things tend to get frowned on. Your userpage should have some content about yourself, that's OK, but a list of your conference papers is frowned upon. Try to keep it relevant to Wikipedia. I'll work with you on designing one from scratch, if you'd like. Veinor (talk to me) 23:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Veinor you are right. Ofcourse I was before in doubt too, about the possibility of creating such pages in Wikipedia. By the way thanks of your remark. Mohtashami 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've seen revolving doors with less spin than your page

Wow! You're taking hits!!! --Morenooso 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Still Having Problems...

Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove

I came to you yesterday asking for assistance with this article - a Wikipedia member continues to place links to his website on it, and, every time I edit it to make it neutral, he reverts it back.

I place the code you recommended,

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Chambers_Range do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.. John E. Chambers 20:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC) , there, but it didn't work - he went right on and deleted by edit, and posted inflammatory comments about me in the discussion page.

He also posted the following on my "talk" page:

"This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did to Chambers stove, you will be blocked from editing. User keeps vandalizing wikipedia by removing valid references in an attempt to promote his own for-profit website. There is only one not-for-profit website devoted to the free exchange of information about Chambers stoves, and it contains the references for much of this article."

My position is that the article should not reference ANY outside website, or the "Notes and References", which are obviously attempts to get people to visit his website.

Any suggestions? John E. Chambers 01:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it - thanks for the heads-up. RJASE1 Talk 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Veinor, this seems to be a situation with multiple people editing who have a confict of interest problem. I'll try to get this sorted out. RJASE1 Talk 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


A thank you to RJASE1 for assisting in an even-handed resolution to this conflict. I'm sorry to have had to bother all of you with this. Regards - John E. Chambers 23:55, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

MC Dow

MC Dow is a successful, popular rapper from around the Central Coast Australia. A lot of rubbish about no bodies such as actors etc is on wikipedia so why couldn't thislocal legend be put on. Highly unfair. MC Dow it was deleted.

The article didn't appear to satisfy the notability guidelines, so I deleted it. Importance around the central coast of Australia is not enoguh; Wikipedia is a worldwide project. Veinor (talk to me) 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I read this exchange a few days ago and I got to thinking whether it was right. It seemed so arbitrary.

I have always thought of Wikipedia as an American only project and upon investigation I still think that is the case. It would be a mistake to think of it as a worldwide project. For example baseball is played only in North America, likewise American football (indeed most of the world yawns at the very idea) and I believe are excluded from the Olympic games yet they have extensive articles. What if someone were to delete them on the grounds that they do not have worldwide appeal? I looked up American football and there does seem to be some minority interest in some other countries but this is bound to happen and does not make it a worldwide sport. Indeed there might be some fans of MC Dow in America for all we know. Who is to judge? Many of the judgements made in Wikipedia are inevitably arbitrary.

I'll give you other examples to make you think: I've seen the word 'Christen' in some articles to mean the same as 'name'. This is a colloquialism only used in Christian or sub-Christian cultures in the West. Look up the word 'witch' in Websters dictionary which is American and in the Oxford which is British. You will find completely different interpretations. Websters sticks firmly to the biblical view.

My point is that an encyclopedia, like a dictionary, is not just a collection of facts, but of information which is interpreted by the people writing that information and biased by their own backgrounds, cultures and indeed religions. Deleting an article is so much quicker than creating it in the first place. Wouldn't it be fairer to discuss it with the writer first and get the justifications for the article clear? Does MC Dow meet the notability criterion of "a large fan base or a significant "cult" following"? Worldwide appeal is not listed as a criterion unless I missed it.

So I think it is fair to say that Wikipedia is *not* a worldwide project but would like to be. Forgive my ramble. Robotics1 09:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd say that you're right about it being primarily American (but not supposed to be), and that worldwide appeal is not necessary. However, in this case, that's irrelevant, because the article was on somebody who pretty obviously didn't have any reliable sources on them; I tried googling "mc dow" and got about one result that could possibly be the person alluded to in the article; all the others were last names or references to somebody else entirely. So they basically fail the notability criteria for musicians.
As far as linguistic differences go, I think that the standard is to either use American English or British English, but be consistent with an article, and use the style of the subject, if it exists. For example, Queen Elizabeth should use British English, Abraham Lincoln should use American English, and Computer can use either (but should be consistent throughout). I suppose this is the closest that we can really come to being neutral in this respect. Veinor (talk to me) 13:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and thanks for debating the issue with me. I also could not find anything on MC Dow. On the other hand there is a complete article on Wikipedia on just one song: On the Hotline. I googled for that and found a few references. Go to [2] and see what you think of the lyrics. Does this meet the the notability criteria for musicians? They are based in Florida and I bet no-one outside of the USA has ever heard of them. If they don't meet the notability criteria then Pretty Ricky and the song should be deleted. On the other hand My Chemical Romance for example are well known worldwide. (Note: I am 62 and have no bias one way or the other where music is concerned.) Robotics1 18:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost
The Wikipedia Signpost
Weekly Delivery


Volume 3, Issue 16 16 April 2007 About the Signpost
Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag" News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Home  |  Archives  |  Newsroom  |  Tip Line  |  Single-Page View Shortcut : WP:POST

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Veinor, I am Zava 17:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted all links that were added to the "Smart Camera" article as spam. I had some notes on this point int the article's discussion page ("no nonsense guidelines to external links). I have written most of the Smart Camera article, and I do share a worry that there may be relevant temptation to use that page to spam lots of commercial links. I had tried to regulate this by inserting a "non commercial links" section and hoping that "spammers" would use the "commercial links" section I had provided (which in fact they seemed to).

I agree that commercial links are not in Wiki spirit, but I also understand that somebody resorting to the article may find it useful to also find some direction to who makes the objects.

In fact I had previously set up an external, independent page listing all/most manufacturers I was aware of and linked that one, then many links to individual manufacturers had been added.

I would appreciate your opinion about the opportunity (and possibly usefulness) of sparing a link to http://www.smartcamera.it/links.htm

There is a google ads link in that page, but since it drove me approx 17$ in two years (which Google will send me only when I reach $100 :) , I am ready to remove the ad if you advise the page itself may then be useful to direct readers to all manufacturers without directly cluttering the Wiki page.

Please let me know how you feel about this.

Zava 15:29, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd actually suggest not having a 'commercial links' section at all, since that wouldn't serve any function beyond advertising the linked-to sites. I also think that, in general, a list of links to smart cameras isn't something that'd be terribly useful. On the other hand, a page on Wikipedia called List of smart camera manufacturers could potentially be useful, and if you want to create it and list some (but only ones that satisfy the notability guidelines for corporations), then I'd have no problem with linking to that from Smart camera. Veinor (talk to me) 16:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Good suggestion, I'll try something, please later have a look if it is acceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zava (talk • contribs) 08:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Sorry...

I tried to enter a page about our small football team, so that future members could check up on the past history of the club but it was 'speedily deleted'... I have read the policy but I don't think it was in conflict with them? Danielmadsen 16:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Check the notability criteria for organizations; I couldn't find any good reliable sources about Black Eagles FC. Veinor (talk to me) 16:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we have a website... can i link that to you?

Official sites don't count as reliable sources for the purpose of determining notability; they have to be independent of the subject of the article. Veinor (talk to me) 16:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well we've had articles published in local newspapers in the past about us... Hailsham Gazette? Is that credible ok?

Could you show me all the articles you can find? Just link to them on this page, if they're available online. If they're not, that'll be more complicated. But it has to be a significant fraction of the article about the group, not just a paragraph and not just about one of the members. Veinor (talk to me) 17:00, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Err well I have them in material form, but I can't find them on the web at the moment. I was planning on maybe adding to the basic paragraph by gathering and further detailing the article.. Is it ok to get back to you at a later date when I've found a link? Thanks for you're help.

If you want to work on it on Wikipedia, I'd suggest creating User:Danielmadsen/Black Eagles FC and working on that page. That way, it's less likely to get deleted. Let me know when you want me to take a look at it again. Veinor (talk to me) 17:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Cody A. Wheeler

Sorry, I think I tried to tag this article just as you were deleting it, and accidentally restored it instead. I hate it when that happens. -FisherQueen (Talk) 19:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


"Abusive administrators"

What do abusing administaters do? LAcfm 22:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a joke; see WP:ROUGE. Veinor (talk to me) 22:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Compas central

compas central: you deleted the reference ? this is the very first website dedicated to promote haitian music: we recently celebrated 50 years of compas music, the qebsite created 10 years ago includes a hall of fame, the very popular compas zodiac an the only music themed recipe book on the web. the forums offer information about haitrian culture in general and is maintained an edited by Jean-Jacques Stephen Alexis son of haitian novelist Jacques Stephen Alexis. the site is listed as source in the Embassy of Haiti's official site as a source of information on haitian music and culture ??? let me know jacompas ====

You have to prove notability using reliable sources; simply being the 'first' (a claim which you have not backed up) is not enough. Also, the article was written like an advertisement, which is another reason to speedily delete it. Are you the owner/maintainer of the site? If you are, then I have to ask you to not create the page again, since you have a conflict of interest in it. Veinor (talk to me) 16:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Indonesian Cuisine

Hi...
I tried to add external links to Indonesian Cuisine but it was reverted...
Is it a violation to link to a blog ?
I think my blog is a good source of valid information about Indonesian food recipes, especially traditional ones...
My Blogs are:
original-javanese-recipes.blogspot.com
original-indonesian-recipe.blogspot.com
Juandy 19:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It's generally not a good idea to link to a blog, since they aren't reliable sources. There's no fact-checking involved there, so we have no way of knowing that any of the information is good. But it's an especially bad idea to link to a blog, or any website, that you own, due to the fact that you have a conflict of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 19:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

LiteSpeed for SQL Server

Why is the LiteSpeed for SQL Server article not considered blatant advertising, while most of the other software products from Quest Software are (and which were deleted)? — Loadmaster 22:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer {{db-spam}} for things like 'LiteSpeed for SQL Server is the ultimate solution to your SQL backup needs!' or something. The stuff in that article isn't too bad; G11 is usually for the really blatant stuff. Veinor (talk to me) 23:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but it is almost identical to all of the other Quest Software products that were listed as WP "articles". WP is not a web space for advertising products, and all of the other product pages were deleted per g11 (except for one, TOAD (software), which appears as a much more legitimate article). I'd like to mark it db-spam again. — Loadmaster 21:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
If you want to do it again, I won't stop you. That article's existence is not going to make or break Wikipedia. I won't delete it myself, but I won't restore it either. Veinor (talk to me) 22:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits to GMC Envoy

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you madeon GMC Envoy. Not sure if you already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Best regards, HumanZoom 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the customized forum ones, because linking to forums isn't necessarily spam. It's more specific that way. Veinor (talk to me) 23:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Moola (game)

Hey: saw you were the first to warn 76.174.27.15 about spam links. I've been reverting his attempts daily (or more) and finally gave him a level 3 warning. His only edits have been to that article, so he apparently has a vested interest in having people follow that link. My intention is to give him a level four at the next violation, then report him for admin action, as well as to you. Thanks for the interest. --LeyteWolfer 15:25, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Canine Companions for Independence

According to the deletion log (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=&page=Canine+Companions+for+Independence), you deleted the article Canine Companions for Independence on April 17, but I can't find that in your edit history. What am I missing? I just discovered that this article was deleted (when I saw its name in red in two of the numerous articles that refer to it) and am baffled as to why an organization with this group's historical importance is gone. AlexLLangley 15:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it because the article was written in such an advertisement-like tone that I thought it might be better to start over. In retrospect, I think it might have been better to look in the history and restore to an earlier revision. I have done so. And to answer your initial question, deletions do not show up in edit history, as it does not involve actually editing the article (and edits to deleted articles don't show up either anyway). Veinor (talk to me) 16:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info, and thanks for restoring to the appropriate version. AlexLLangley 02:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Adminship

can i be an admin please :(Janzenh2 16:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Er, no. Becoming an admin takes months of effort, and even then success at a Request for adminship is not certain. You don't look like you're off to a good start, vandalizing my talk page. Veinor (talk to me) 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

For fixing the vandalism on my talk page. It's the same vandal who's been having a going at Jimbo and Irishguy's talk pages, etc. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

WHY

Why is my article inappropriate

-- xbdx17(talk) 17:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Because you have zero proof of notability. You did not have any reliable sources (which must be independent of the subject of the article), and I find it highly unlikely that you could find any. I searched on Google for "xBlackDragonsx", and got one result: a myspace page, which also is not a reliable source, due to the fact that anybody can have them and they rarely cite their own sources. Veinor (talk to me) 21:09, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The religion of (')Bauerism(')

First of all I would like to say that I'm at the end of my leash, or, as you administrators tend to do nothing but nit pick, a leash like implement that would be used for restraining humans. Bauerism is a religion, and so before we move on from that I have to say I'm appalled at how its been thrown around like it was a mere 'internet phenomenon'. The administrator I spoke to before did nothing but insult Bauerism as if it were a joke, but it is not a joke, it is a religion and I would like for it to be treated with some dignity. This also applies with you, putting it in inverted commas and trying to degrade it. Whatever the outcome of our correspondance, I'm telling you now that I will take these issues further and make sure that their are consequences for the handling of this issue. As I have already said on a site like this I would expect an issue as sensitive as such to be treated with the respect and dignity it deserves, and the lack of both forces me to make complaints concerning the manner of your adminstrating and of Shadowbot's. Moving on from that issue is the issue of my article on your esteemed site. I fail to see logic behind your deffinition of a reliable source and of verifiability. I have given you the actual page where Bauerism was first created, how is this not reliable? I fail to see how it being mentioned on any number of said AMERICAN networks would give it the type of reliability that this page apparently fails to provide. I can tell you now that Bauerism is extremely unlikely to have ever been mentioned on your said news networks, and yet this makes it non-notable because? Bauerism is a religion, let me stress that a religion, followed by thousands of people, and its lack of news coverage makes it non the less notable or approipiate for your site. If you wish I could provide you with a petition of said amount of email addresses, all of which you can contact individually if you so wish, or perhaps we could come to some other agreement of how to pass Bauerism as 'notable' in your eyes.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blobby124 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 19 April 2007.

For your information: Shadowbot is neither an administrator nor human; it is an automated program. It is run by Shadow1.
Again, I ask you to prove notability using reliable sources. The main site itself is not one because any organization can get a web site, let alone a facebook. Notability means that other people have decided it worthy of their coverage; if they do not, why should we? Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we do have standards. Its lack of mention on major networks, newspapers, in both America and abroad (sources from other countries are perfectly valid, though they should preferably be in English), then it is non-notable by the very definition (that Wikipedia uses). Therefore, it is inappropriate for coverage by Wikipedia. While the notability guidelines are not ironclad rules that must always be followed, I see no reason to believe that this should be an exception. I have already told you how to prove that Bauerism is notable; you have admitted that you cannot. Therefore, it almost definitely cannot be included in Wikipedia, unless you can give an exceptionally good reason that it should. Veinor (talk to me) 21:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Firstly let it be noted that a complaint has already been sent to offcom. You are aware of offcom? That would be The independent regulator and competition authority for the UK communications industries, stress on UK as apparently this website is entirely American orientated. And secondly in reposte to your opening sentence see my opening sentence on the first post, you administrators seem to be lacking a certain element of common sense. My exceptionally good reason is that Bauerism is not an internet phenomenon, its not a certain issue that people may find of issue, to be honest with you I would admit myself that its not even notable by any stretch of the imagination on the global scale. However, it is a religion, followed avidly by thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people. Wikipedia has over two million articles, self confessed statistic, and I fail to see how one subarticle on one page should be so strictly denied when it means so much to many of your users, including myself. You have stated above that the rules for notability are hardly ironclad, and so I ask you to allow us to fulfill a different deffinition for notability, as just because we have not been mentioned on American news channels we are very notable, atleast within ourselves. I hope we can come to some understanding and comprimise about fulfilling a different deffinition to your unreachable, apparently not ironclad, standards. I ask you this, has your page fulfilled your own notability criteria? Because I doubt its been mentioned on CBS. An example Shadbot1 used before was eggplant parmesan, however has that been mentioned on various American news channels? What makes eggplant parmesan notable where a religion is not?

Why did you send a message regarding a project that is based in Florida to OFCOM, since OFCOM has absolutely zero jurisdiction over the Wikimedia Foundation? And, while the notability guidelines are not totally ironclad, as I have said, they are close. You yourself have admitted it does not possess any, so I see no reason to include it. However, disregarding that (though it is still a perfectly valid reason to not include Bauerism), there is still the issue of verifiability. That is policy, which means even fewer exceptions than guidelines. You must find reliable sources that cover Bauerism and are independent of it. As for your objection that 'it matters so much to many of your users', there are many other editors that would object with its inclusion. The fact that you may want it does not mean that you have some sort of right to include it. Have you ever heard of the fable of the straw that broke the camel's back? If we allowed this, then we'd have to allow the next small religion nobody's ever heard of, then the next one, etc, and Wikipedia would be flooded with them. And notability is not unreachable by any means; Pastafarianism, the belief in the 'Flying Spaghetti Monster', has an article, but that is because it has been covered by, among others, the New York Times, the Associated Press, Wired News, and the Washington Post. And, until you brought it up, I had no idea that Bauerism was not American; you did not lead me to believe that it was. But that is irrelevant; Wikipedia is a global project. And finally, user pages are not required to satisfy the notability guidelines, merely pages in mainspace (pages without a User:, Talk:, Wikipedia:, or anything else in the front of their name). Every user is allowed to have a userpage and a user talk page. Veinor (talk to me) 22:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and Shadow1 wasn't talking about eggplant parmesan per se, he was talking about starting a religion that worships it and asking you how it's different from Bauerism. Veinor (talk to me) 22:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I hope your happy. You've just proved how much of a life you have. Where as I have been taking the piss. I hope this has wasted a lot of your time, and its amused me greatly. Lastly it might be relevant to inform you that there is no such religion as Bauerism. Also yawn.

Wow, you wasted 10 whole minutes of my time! I'm sure that you must be proud of yourself. Besides, you didn't even totally waste it; you were good sparring practice. Like a training dummy. Veinor (talk to me) 22:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Suddenly you have my sympathy. Robotics1 21:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

RE:Werdna

I do not know how to forward per Special:Emaiuser/Venoir, would you mind telling me your email address (or email it to me)? ~ Magnus animum (aka Steptrip) 01:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


RE:GOYBAND

I redid it with my own words...sorry, I didn't know.

I hope it's ok...

Also, Can I link to IMDB and the sites that support the film? I'm not sure if that's ok or not.

Thanks! Christa/Goyband

Links to IMDB and the film's official site are OK on the article itself, but not for any other pages. Veinor (talk to me) 17:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Reality TV note

I re-read the posting requirements and properly cited the source of my additions and reason for the link. Given that my additions provide the only sourced information on the page, from a published book on the subject of selling reality shows, and this is what I do for a living, I believe this section is a proper and useful addition of information. I have added the information to the page and it might be helpful to check the source, as well, to verify its integritry. And if all of the existing text was written without any source references at all, it is contrary to logic to flag sourced information as vandalism. Planetdma 16:58, 20 April 2007 (UTC)planetdma

Well, yes, but the article on Reality TV is not about how to sell a reality TV show; Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Also, the link to www.tidalwavetv.com/ShowStarter/book.htm appears to be there to promote a book, which I suspect you are the author of. The usual procedure to cite a book is to list the ISBN, as shown by the other 'further reading' entries for books. Furthermore, I'm not sure if the book is a reliable source; you appear to have published it through a company that you own/control, and self-published books are not generally considered reliable. The same goes for your work on Screenwriting, by the way. Just because somebody has published an alternative theory doesn't mean that it should be on the page. The theory has to have a significant following first. Veinor (talk to me) 17:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I came back to add that I made the initial correction to add citations because of your initial note, so thank you for that heads up. I am not sure on what basis one decides that a theory does not have a significant following? The books are available in entertainment bookstores, the reality one is on Amazon, I speak year-round, nationwide on the issues and am a prominent, recognizable expert in my industry. To be clear on the screenwriting entry, I did not publish an alternate theory but an alternate approach to the same theory of story structure that goes back to classic Greek writings. Not trying to be difficult, just unsure how completely unsourced writing from editors who may not even work in the field are on the page while my additions are challenged as spam? Also, yes, I am the author of the book, not something to suspect, since my name is provided there. And the reason I chose the section of the book to add here is because it is a very major distinction of reality TV, how our business model differs from the rest of Hollywood. The information provided is only for viewers, and not entirely correct. Professionals also should have access to useful information. Is this something you feel belongs in a separate entry since it is professional? Planetdma 17:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)planetdma

I feel that it doesn't really belong at all, since Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Furthermore, self-published sources are generally not considered reliable, due to the lack of fact-checking in them. The article is also not written in anything near the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia; it seems more like an attempt to initiate a dialogue, so to speak, with the reader. Finally, it looks like the content was lifted straight out of a book; was it? If so, then the material definitely cannot go on Wikipedia unless reworded due to copyright concerns. Veinor (talk to me) 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You are unclear on your reading of self-published sources, since it states that if third parties have cited them, that helps, and many third parties have cited mine. And if tone is an issue, then it is quite simple to improve the content with a request for more formal tone rather than elect to revert without first contacting the author, another Wikipedia expectation that you did not yet cite and may not be aware of. And you are incorrect in your reading of the copyright language, since it specifically states that if it is contributed, I am granting such copyright permission, which I am, and I did reword it, which you did not inquire before improperly reverting the entire article. You are expected to resolve editing disputes directly before reversions. The entire reality TV section is an explanation of what it is, and speculation on format is no more or less a "how to" than explanations of how it is made. The larger issue remains, there are no sources whatsoever for the speculation provided on the page, and I am a leader in the field. You will want to do due diligence on sources when provided before deciding for yourself they do not qualify for inclusion, and you certainly want to do more research on this subject area before deciding that business model explanations do not belong in a reality TV entry. You are incorrect there, and your reversion was improper. I am happy to address tone, and I remind you that you cannot recklessly revert multiple times to satisfy your own definition of reality TV. This is a community project; perhaps you might consider this a chance to learn something about the field? Planetdma 17:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)planetdma

My reading of the self-published sources is fine; you didn't volunteer the information that third parties have cited you. Besides, we can avoid the issue of self-published sources very simply: just cite the references you used directly. It's pretty clear that we're at an impasse here; would you like to get a 3rd-party opinion? There's the Mediation Cabal, Requests for a 3rd Opinion, the article talk page... there's probably more that I can't think of at the moment. Which one would you like? Personally, I'd like to go to the Mediation Cabal or RF3O; the talk page seems rather unused at the moment. Oh, and please tell me which option you decide to go with; I'd rather not find out about one of these a couple days into it. Veinor (talk to me) 17:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

First, I addressed the constructive requests you made, which addressed tone and the how-to nature of the additions. I do not see citations on other pages listing the additional support for a source and am not sure if you took a moment just to look me up as a source. I also would benefit from understanding why the wholly unsourced material of the page remains unchallenged versus my four paragraphs? Also, the top link on the page was a link to a for-profit site called "How to Create a Reality Show," which was not challenged or removed. Please take a moment to read the re-edited section, perhaps research me online (I'm quite easy to find) and decide if there are constructive ways to enhance this contribution rather than continue to revert it without research on your end. If not, yes, I am happy to go to mediation. And thank you, by the way, for your thoughts on the tone of the initial post from my book. I am not trying to take your intention out of context, but it was my intention to make a very complicated and frustrating process far simpler for the many people who try to break into our industry, and I am really pleased that you found the tone inviting to the reader. At the same time, I am trying to offer the same information here so more people can stop banging their heads against the reality wall because they don't know how it works. I will work on the addition until it manages to inform without upsetting the tone and intention of the Wikipedia. Please work with me to do that rather than undoing my hard work because you suspect bad intentions. The first thing the Wikipedia makes clear is that there's no SEO benefit to links here. Like you, I am trying to help provide information to a world community.

Hmm. I think that this version might be better; I think, however, that your book doesn't need to be in both 'Further Reading' and 'References'. Also, I'd cite more specifically than just all of the subjections to five pages in the book; maybe do each paragraph individually? Also, I recommend using the {{cite book}} template, or writing each citation out manually and putting them in <ref> tags, like <ref>this</ref>. If you do that, then you can replace the references section with <references /> and they'll show up automatically. As for the issue of being a self-published source, if you are indeed cited in third-party sources, then I don't think it's much of an issue anymore. Veinor (talk to me) 20:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Easy enough to leave just the ref info up, but per the Harvard specs, it seems less intrusive to cite only once overall since they all come from within pages of each other. 69.231.192.244 21:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)planetdma

Having one citation for 5 paragraphs looks pretty bad, in my opinion. It also makes it hard to see whether the citation applies to the entire section or just that paragraph. But that's my recommendation. I'm not a citation expert. Veinor (talk to me) 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Screenwriting Notes

To return to your reversion of my 1-3-5 inclusion, again without working together to improve or enhance the information, your initial response assumed that I was not a leader in the field and had created an "alternate theory." I will not repost just yet; but please take a moment to simply Google Donna Michelle Anderson and screenwriting story structure. Then we can work together, I hope, to restore useful and well-recognized information to this article. (You will also see from the top entry for my name IMDb info that establishes my reality TV credentials - those are voluntary listings, so they are not comprehensive but they are quite clear). Thanks for working with me on this.

My main concern here is the prevalence of this alternative method. Can you show me some other people who have written about it? Veinor (talk to me) 20:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

This will seem like splitting hairs to a non-filmmaker, but it is not an alternative method. There is only one classic story structure, just like there is only one equation for slope. But different teachers help math students grasp y=mx+b effectively in their own ways, and the many different story structure instructors help filmmakers grasp story arc effectively in their own ways. It also remains unanswered why wholly unsourced material is not objected to and mine is; would you mind responding to help me better understand this?69.231.192.244 21:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)planetdma

My reasoning here is that, whenever there are two alternatives to something, the neutral point of view policy dictates that we weigh each option according to its prominence. So, for example, a model of the creation universe that one person has proposed that nobody else believes is obviously not suitable for inclusion, whereas the 'God did it' vs. 'Big Bang' debate, to put it crudely, is obviously quite important. I'm just not sure where your 1-3-5 view falls with respect to this. And in this case, it doesn't really have much to do with the citations, or lack thereof, it's the prominence, like I said. By the way, just typing ~~~~ is sufficient to sign; typing your username afterwards makes it look kinda silly. Veinor (talk to me) 21:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Also, you seem to have accidentally logged out. Veinor (talk to me) 21:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Relevancy of S Holding Article

S Holding is a relevant article because it describes an actual company--one that I own stock in. I suggest that you not continue to delete my articles, as they are all factual, relevant, and important.

Sincerely,

Wrshogwarts

Please read the notability guidelines for corporations; we need reliable sources that are free of conflicts of interest. Veinor (talk to me) 22:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Gary mcDaid

Why did you delete this article. He is a former inter county player with donegal. is that not enough.--DevelopedMadness 22:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove notability using reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 22:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I can get you a link to his club website but i can't find anything on donegal inter county career because he got a bad injury after his first few games.--DevelopedMadness 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you please show me said link? Veinor (talk to me) 22:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[3] mentions he manages U13s

check photos he is shown on team in top left intermediate 2005 and new jackets club notes als mention him --DevelopedMadness 22:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Generally, Geocities sites are not considered reliable sources, due to the fact that anybody can really make one. Even if this one was, you need coverage from multiple sources. Veinor (talk to me) 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

but he is only with his local club now they are n't that big--DevelopedMadness 22:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess that there's no good way to write a properly sourced article about him, so there shouldn't be one at all. Verifiability is key to Wikipedia, and if someone hasn't been written about in fact-checked places, then there can't really be any verifiability. Veinor (talk to me) 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

go to [4]. it say he manages herald cup team with james gordon. (he is the only fully qualified pe teacher in the school)

We need something more than just a trivial mention (one sentence). We need multiple paragraphs. Veinor (talk to me) 22:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

he also has a blog [5]. great imagination. i think he should become an english teacher--DevelopedMadness 22:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that you like him and his blog is also not a good reason to include the article. Nor is having a blog. Veinor (talk to me) 22:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if i didnt like him i wouldnt want to know much about him. look i think he deserves a page just like other GAA player. he can't help he got a bad injury--DevelopedMadness 22:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

What other GAA players have pages? I ask out of curiosity; the existence of other pages is also not a valid reason to make another. Veinor (talk to me) 22:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


players from armagh dublin and other squads--DevelopedMadness 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah. Well, like I said, it doesn't make a difference. Veinor (talk to me) 22:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

he should get a page like them what do you meen it doesn't matter. he has notabliity you know and don't go stating me rules--DevelopedMadness 22:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The existence of other pages is not a reason to keep or delete one. You have yet to prove that he does have notability, according to the Wikipedia definition, so he shouldn't get a page. It's that simple. Veinor (talk to me) 22:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, sorry about that. New to this. Thanks. GaryOpenhill 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


Article "Aaron Borg"

Why are you deleting this page. It isabout Australian Race Driver, Aaron Borg. Please allow it to be shown as it is just the same as the other Racecar Driver pages.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgy41 (talk • contribs).

The article failed to assert a claim of notability, which makes it a valid target for speedy deletion. Wikipedia articles on people must prove notability using multiple third-party reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 03:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I have got multiple links.. If I show them to you will the page be valid. Will I have to show these links on the article as well??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Borgy41 (talk • contribs).

Yes. Veinor (talk to me) 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


Deleted Alexyss Tylor Article

How is the Alexyss Tylor article any less noteworthy than that of "Bub Rub and Lil Sis?" She's famous. That's why it's noteworthy. Famous people are generally considered noteworthy. Erdosfan 04:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The existence of other pages is not a valid reason to have one more. Also, the article didn't have any claims of notability. A good claim of notability would be coverage from multiple third-party reliable sources. Veinor (talk to me) 16:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Blind reverts, restoring copyvios

Please more closely review users' edits before mass-reverting them. Almost all of the images removed by 84.211.71.5 were replaceable non-free images. All but two or three of the images were of musicians who are still alive and still performing. Many of them had no source information and no fair use rationale either. Also, due to inconsistencies in 84.211.71.5's edits I doubt it was a bot. In a handful of the edits he also added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the top of the articles, and {{fact}} tags to individual sentences in the article. Also, in one or two edits, he replaced the wrong line in the infobox when pasting the placeholder image. To me, this looks more like an error of human hand-eye coordination than a search-and-replace failure by a bot. I figured I'd let you know I reverted most of the edits where you put back images which don't comply with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly the first item "no free equivalent could give the same information". — CharlotteWebb 10:18, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The reverts seemed very justified to me. Many of the images weren't scheduled to be deleted for several more days. And there were fair use rationale arguments that hadn't been given consideration. This was accidental vandalism by an anonymous user. -dtfinch 09:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:Single-cover

Hiii again!!..=]..um can u delete this page for me?,i dont need need it and i tried to move it but its a template so i cant..=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 16:37, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

thank u'z!!!..=] Push It Baby!! ..Dats Muh Song!!..=] (Tay) 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Help From You Who Once Blocked Me

Veinor,

I was blocked a couple days ago for adding too many external links, thus qualifying for "spamming". I have to agree all I was doing was adding links to my favorite website. Once my block was lifted I contributed to a few pages where I added information to discographies and corrected some errors. I also added a couple links. But now I am being harrassed by Theresa Knott for no good reason. She erased my links (but not all the info I added to Wikipedia) so I undid her eidts and she re-edited them and wrote what follows:

Theresa wrote:

"Give it up There is no way I will let you add those links. You've already been blocked for spamming, what can you possibly hope to acheive by repeatedly adding them back? Are you trying to get them added to the blacklist so that non one will ever be able to link to that site. Because that is what will happen if you persist. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:03, 22 April 2007 (UTC)"

Here is my response

Listen to you "There is no way I will let you add those links". What on earth are you doing? Those links have every right to be there if you allow all the other external links. I was blocked before because I added TOO MANY links not because I added ANY links.

Wikipedia has become a farce because of actions like this. THERE IS NOTHING WRONG with those links. It is NOT spam based on Wikipedia standards. If you continue to harass me by reverting my contributions, threatening blocks and banishment it will prove to be a pointless and personal action on your part. I've read something about this. Do a search on Google and see what reputation it's gaining. Admins like you get a little bit of power and you abuse it.. There no way YOU will let me add those links?!?

and one more thing...I'm going to write that website I was linking to and tell them you are threating to ban them..I'm sure they'll be thrilled about that. No very fair."

sooooo.... Veinor, Can you kindly ask this person to stop picking on me when I haven't bee spamming. IF you allow SOME links on Wikipedia than I should be allowed to add pertinent links if I'm adding other material, yes?

Thanks "Homesquid"