User talk:69.117.97.9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] removed linkin park link page

Thanks for experimenting with Wikipedia. The links you added to the page Linkin Park have been removed. Please do not add commercial links—or links to your own private websites—to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. --AbsolutDan (talk)

Wikipedia is not allowing me to register a screen name. It freezes every time i try.
You removed my link to a page that contained a full radio discography of linkin park with samples, complaining that it was a commercial site. Linkin park is a commercial entity. All the other links are commercial. There is nothing for sale at the site I put up. It contains good, scholarly information that is not available in wikipedia. Did you even look at the page linked?
Please put my link back up so linkin park fans like myself can get to it.
Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 11 May 2006.
In response to your post on my talk page, I removed the links you added because they were spammed across multiple pages. Wikipedia is in need of more content, not more external links. Please see WP:SPAM for guidelines as to what's considered spam here at Wikipedia. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
I sent you a message to explain why the link I posted was not spam. You completely ignored what I said and responded by removing the other post post I made that same day.
This seems like vengeance to me. Are you going to continue following me around because I legitimately protested your spam accusations? You don't like to be questioned?
There is nothing scholarly about vengeance.
And you were less than honest too. You said I "spammed across multiple pages." I only put up one link. The other link was already there. I edited it. There is nothing "multiple" about that.
I have been participating in posting on wikipedia, putting up content and providing good links, for well over a year. Do you have my entire history available?
I see that you have lots of complaints about your overzealous reversions.
Be more careful. Read the posting and reversion rules please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.
Also, I complained that I could not get a screen name. You apparently did not consider that issue important enough to bother to offer me any kind of assistance. You did not even acknowledge it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.
First of all, and most importantly, all of the complaints about link removal on my talk page are from the users whose links I removed. Of course they're going to be a little upset - it was their edit that I removed. This does not necessarily indicate my removals were in error.
Next, I didn't ignore your comments. I take every comment left on my page seriously and try to respond to every comment. I did leave a response on your talk page. For your convenience, I will be combining the entire conversation and posting it both on your talk page and mine.
Although technically your IP's history only shows you adding the link to one article, you did make modifications to the same link, and on the same articles, as another account - Tunecaster. See Special:Contributions/69.117.97.9 and Special:Contributions/Tunecaster. Perhaps it's just coincidence, but this looks suspiciously like 69.117.97.9 and Tunecaster are one in the same.
Speaking of history, your IP only shows edits from the last few days. When spam-removers such as myself are determining whether to remove links we often check users' history. The fact that your IP only shows a history of adding or making changes to links to one particular website makes your edits look like spamming. If you want your edits to carry more weight, and thus have less of any external links you add being removed, I highly recommend creating an account. By doing so, editors can review your entire history, which can help determine your motivation behind adding a link.
Lastly (but also importantly), please sign your comments. It's important to do this so that someone viewing a talk page can determine who made which comment.
In closing, I refer you to the following guidelines regarding external links and spamming. Please check them out before adding additional external links, as they discuss the types of links that are appropriate in Wikipedia articles, and also reasons why an editor can appear to be a spammer.
I'll be posting a follow-up on your talk page regarding your account creation issues --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] next reply to AbsolutDan

I presume, based on your request that I should reply here, that you have noted this location, and that you will be returning.

I appreciate this last reply, which dealt with some of the points I made.

I actually have a long history of editing at Wikipedia, having done many edits for over a year. I used the screen name GrammarGuy, but it suddenly stopped working. Nearly every time that I read a Wikipedia article, I would jump into edit mode and read it there, correcting grammar as I read. My English was very good. I have to say I rarely added content, although I did some shuffling of sentences, as paragraphs seem to become quite convoluted. Usually, I was overwhelmed by the large number of errors and the lack of flow of the paragraphs, and could not possibly correct or smooth all of the problems I saw.

One time, I extended and revised a highly technical article in an area where I had particular expertise. That revision was claimed to be vandalism, and it was reverted. I wound up in one of those 'edit wars' on that page as described on the wikipedia is not so good page. At that point, I became unhappy with Wikipedia. I basically stopped visiting for a while. Also, the sudden inability to create or use a screen name made me apprehensive.


LINKIN PARK. Now, if we could, I would like to deal with your complaints about my most recent posts. If you are concerned that there are too many external links at the Linkin Park page, that is your perspective. Of course I agree that too many links can be a problem. However, the number of links is secondary to the value of the links. To me, good links are those that are refer to source material or that refer to additional information not available on the Wiki page. I think most of the links, including the one I put up, meet those two tests. From my searching, the link I put up was the only link on the internet which listed a full, scholarly list of Linkin Park's popular songs with full chart data, and contained samples of most of the songs. The site had advertising, but I did not see anything for sale there. Precise rules or editing conventions should not be used to reduce the quality and completeness of the content.

I understand the concern about people using Wikipedia as a link source to commercial websites too. This concern creates a strange situation when the entire Wiki page is about a commercial entity -- namely, a big moneymaking music group. Of course, there will be 'commercial' links. The official site of the group is commercial. Here, I think a value decision is being made that somehow some commercial sites are not commercial, and I am not sure whether any actual standard is being used. The removal of fan site links flips the noncommercial links idea upsidedown.


ONE HIT WONDERS. I am not related to the user who put the link up which I modified. I do not know how many problems you are having with people violating the Wikipedia guidelines since I am not a UTC and have not looked into becoming one. To say that some other user looks 'suspiciously' like me makes me think that there is an atmosphere of suspicion at Wikipedia. The fact that you would check all of my recent edits after I complained about the Linkin Park page indicates a very high level of suspicion too.

I discovered the external website when I read the one hit wonders page at Wikipedia and followed the external link. I spent quite a bit of time there before I came across Linkin Park. I noticed that there were not many newer rock groups at that website, but the Linkin Park page was impressive. That is why I put up the Linkin Park link up at Wikipedia -- to continue to share good information that I had originally come across at Wikipedia so that another person could have the positive experience that I had. There was nothing suspicious about that. It was actually one of my better experiences at Wiki.

Your concern about commercial websites simply does not apply at the one hit wonders page. Every external link there points to a commercial site. I would not take any of the links down because they all have different and useful information. However, the VH1 link is broken, and I cannot find a one hit wonders page on the VERY commercial site VH1. So, I am taking that link down.

I am putting the one hit wonders link back up. Although I disagree with you analysis about the Linkin Park site, I will not bother to put that one back up. I really do not want to be part of another 'edit war.' The last one left a bad taste. I hope that you will agree with or at least accept what I am doing and this can end here. The time spent writing this lengthy dissertation about the value of links could have been spent doing something better -- and I expect that you have enough to do on your plate too.

Finally, you noted that I made multiple edits on both pages. Yes, I did. The additional changes, coming just minutes after the first edits, were made to refine the initial changes in very minor ways to try to correct my own editing errors. In fact, I had screwed up the link format. That had to be corrected. I have a habit of putting the edits up, looking at them, then going back in and correcting anything that is not right. Perhaps I should use the preview button more often. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.

Whether the site a link points to is commercial or not is irrelevant to me (unless the site is a blatant advertisement, serves only to try to sell visitors something, or provides no useful content). My main concern is the method in which it was added. As I mentioned above, the history of your IP showed only edits involving that link. Please don't take it personally - spam-removers and vandal fighters regularly check an editor's history (and are encouraged to do so) to see what other edits have originated from that IP/user account.
The fact that you've taken some time to explain your valid reasoning for adding the link makes your re-adding it "kosher" (as far as I'm concerned). Going forward, it might be to your benefit to make use of the article's talk page before adding external links and/or other content that might be considered spam or could otherwise be controversial. Just start a topic on the article's talk page (just like you have with our user talk pages), describing the addition/removal/change you'd like to make, and sit back and wait for other editors to give feedback. When a concensus has been reached, you then have the weight of the discussion to back your edit. By following this process, your edits are less likely to be removed by other spam/vandal fighters.
On a side note, I've formatted these discussions a bit to make them easier to follow. I hope you don't mind. --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] account creation issue

You're right that I didn't mention anything about your difficulty obtaining an account. I felt you were more upset about the link issue, so I figured that it was the most important issue to address. I can certainly try to help you with your account issue if you'd like, but we should keep that discussion separate from the link discussion (ie in another heading like this). You say that Wikipedia freezes when you try to create an account. Have you tried using a different web browser (ie if you're using Internet Explorer, try Firefox or vice-versa)?

For your convenience, feel free to reply here on your own talk page regarding this issue so you can keep all the chat on one page --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:48, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

SCREEN NAME. I used to have a screen name that worked. A few months ago, it just stopped working. When I try to sign in, the window freezes and stays frozen until I close it. When I try to set up a new name, the same thing happens. I cannot think of any changes I made to my system. No one at Wikipedia has threatened to ban my IP at any time. I use IE, and always have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.117.97.9 (talk • contribs) 12 May 2006.
Without actually taking a look at your computer it's impossible to know what could be causing your login issue. First off, have you tried logging in and/or creating an account with a different computer? The problem is likely something to do with Internet Explorer on your computer, because as far as I'm aware there's no known issue with Wikipedia itself. IE on your computer might be out of date, or there might be some other program/toolbar/plug-in etc that's interfering with it somehow. First, check to see whether you have the latest version and all applicable updates by visiting Windows Update. Next, check for and remove (if present) any unnecessary toolbars, plug-ins, etc. Lastly, check your system for spyware. I usually have good luck using both Spybot (free) and Ad-Aware (use the free version).
If the above seems daunting or doesn't work, you can always try FireFox. You can download it here (don't worry, you can tell it not to take over as your default browser). Chances are, being completely separate from IE, you'd have better logging in with FF.
Lastly, you can also post a message at Wikipedia:Help desk. Someone there might have other ideas for you to try. I hope this helps! --AbsolutDan (talk) 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I got Firefox and I will try it on my next reboot (which could be in a few days). If that does not work, I will try the appropriate help area that you linked here. It will be nice if I get a screen name back. That will be an incentive for me to spend more time editing like I used to do.

I am glad that we can come to a reasonable agreement on the prior posts in question. Thank you.

Agreed, I'm glad we were able to talk this out! I just wanted to let you know that I had to restore the conversation you removed from my talk page. From what I can recall from guidelines, all conversation on Talk pages should be kept in some form. However I respect your desire to strike the conversation, so I went through and used the <s> and </s> tags. This uses the strikeout font attribute to cross out the text. Also, I will probably be archiving my Talk page soon, so that conversation will be much less prominent.
Anyhow I hope you were in fact able to work things out with the screenname issue. Please let me know if there's anything else that I can do to help! --AbsolutDan (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)