User talk:Veinor

Please add any new sections to the bottom of the page, sign them at the end by typing ~~~~, and insert an appropriate header; see examples below for how to do that. If you don't do so, then your comment runs the risk of being ignored. I will reply to them here.

Archives

September 11, 2005 - November 28, 2006
November 28, 2006 - January 4, 2007
January 4, 2006 - January 28, 2007
January 28, 2007 - March 9, 2007
March 9, 2007 - March 25, 2007

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)[reply]

Adding external link for reference

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ah. Thanks for letting me know. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 12:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

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) [reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

AIV report

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

169.226.84.71

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The user page was deleted and salted per an MfD discussion. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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).

Apparently, User:Pschelden first moved Christian views about women into a blank Frank Stagg (theologian).
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:

Christian views about women HISTORY contains only entries made since the Big Move on March 28.
Frank Stagg (theologian) HISTORY contains all of Christian views about women's history from Day One up until the Big Move on March 28, PLUS history line items appropriate to Frank Stagg (theologian) since the Big Move.

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

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

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) [reply]

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

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)[reply]

Max Deep Link

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)[reply]

Thank you

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

--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?[reply]

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?

Question about why you deleted my link

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).[reply]

(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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Calling my edits fascist is definitely abusive, by the way. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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. [reply]

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)[reply]

I'm on it - thanks for the heads-up. RJASE1 ^Talk 01:06, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Industrial Robot

Forgive me if I am writing to you in the wrong way. I don't know how to work this one. If I'm right you are the one that removed the 'external links to robot manufacturers' from the industrial robot page. My problem is this: a number of companies were listed there which do not warrant their own pages but I felt should be listed. May I ask why you removed them? Robotics1 17:29, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, and the external links seem to serve as basically advertising for those companies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand that but the list was relevant. I don't understand Wikipedia all that well as I only contribute to robotics pages. I haven't seen you name in industrial robot. Is your function to go through all parts of Wikipedia removing commercial links? I don't see how you can avoid some links to commercial sites. Wikipedia is riddled with them as far as I can see. I think the important thing is that they should be relevant.

Above the list was a list of robot manufacturers many of whom have their own pages. Some are not so big or so influential on the robot scene that they warrant their own pages. But below that section is a section called 'other links'. Now these links are distinctly commercial and I feel well and truly fail your criteria and mine too. in fact the link to Tim King seems to have no relevance at all to industrial robot. I don't know how long it has been there.

I don't want to tread on anyone's feet so I would like to clean those lists up. I have been in robotics for 40 years and written many articles and papers so I feel I can make a decent and fair contribution. I propose to enhance the list of manufacturers and edit or possibly remove the 'other links'. I also will be making some links to robot software and other subjects elsewhere in Wikipedia. I meant to do these a year ago but have been so busy I only just got round to it. I ask you to trust me that what I do is fair and accurate. Robotics1 18:50, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my 'function', if you want to put it that way, is to remove all the spam on Wikipedia. I don't have a problem with commercial links per se, but I do when they're not to pages that actually provide information about the subject of the article. I don't see any link to anything about Tim King there. The main issue that I have with links is when they just serve to promote a company and don't add any information; for exmaple, those commercial links didn't have any information about industrial robots, just specific companies. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason you didn't see the link to Tim King is that I removed it and the other link that was way beyond your criteria. As for robot manufacturers I see external links to commercial sites all over Wikipedia so you have your work cut out. But where robot manufacturers are concerned I agree with the person who originally inserted the list because robot manufacturers websites frequently include a wealth of information which you could not put in the article itself, for example the design of the controllers, how their software works and so on. This list was a great deal more useful than other commercial links that still exist on Wikipedia. Why did you pick on ours? (that is not meant to be an aggressive question, sorry, I am just curious why you picked this list of links, and not the overtly commercial links on the same page and not commercial links elsewhere on Wikipedia?) Robotics1 14:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I picked this list because I happened to see a link added to it through a linkwatching program, and I saw the page, saw all the links, and decided to clean it up. It's nothing personal or anything. And I don't think that information about how a specific company does something is useful for a page on robots in general, since that might not be a widely-done method of doing that thing. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

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)[reply]

Links in "Smart Camera"

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]