User talk:CliffC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Welcome to my talk page. Feel free to leave me a message to discuss my actions or tell me about something that you think I might want to know. Please add your message at the bottom, and sign and date it by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end.

  • I prefer to keep conversations intact, so if you ask me a question here, I will reply here, unless you indicate otherwise.
  • If I left you a message on your talk page, I have added you to my watchlist, so if you reply there, I will see your response.
This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Contents

[edit] Reply (editor changing categories such as 'duFresne' to 'DuFresne')

You mean like this? [1] I think they are just tightening up category listings, so that the category will display its contents in alphabetical order. Let me know if you have any specific concerns. --Guinnog 12:22, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

Thank you for sharing your concerns with me, I will have a look. For future reference, you may add {{subst:spam}} --~~~~ to the user talk page of someone editing in this way, as I have just done with the user in question. Don't hesitate to ask if there is anything else I can help you with. Best wishes, --Guinnog 14:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I've manually removed all the links this user added to that site. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. --Guinnog 15:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Google robots crawl the User pages? !!

Oh yes, everything we post here is googleable, if that's a word! --Guinnog 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Durer

Yes I meant to lose that one - 1903! I think I had deleted most of the things it referenced. My stuff mainly cojmes from Bartrum, but I have just put her in as a book , not 97 refs. I'm done for tonight (nosing around Goya now) so please do your worst. I'm very much learning Wiki style Johnbod 04:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Cliff, as basicly a writer not an editor by temprament, though i try to be good, I would LOVE a compulsive whatever-you-called-yourself following me around, so do please look at my page where I list & link all my contributions - mostly art especially printmaking pre 1830 Johnbod 05:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeanine Pirro

I'll do better than that, I will watch it for the next few hours at least as I will be in doing some work on the computer anyway. THanks for the heads-up! --Guinnog 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:64.59.200.43

Thanks. Let me know if this user vandalises again today and I will block. --Guinnog 18:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Video art editing

Hey--just saw your revert on video art. I was confused by that as deletion well, but actually the original edit had removed some repeated text (which may have been my fault initially--I did some reworking of that paragraph and may have left a couple of sentences after the paragraph). I'm going to revert it to the one before your edit since that's actually correct.Freshacconci 15:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks a lot for your messages. I cleaned up the non-notable book refs and left the user a message, and warned the other one. Another time there would be no harm at all in just being bold and doing what I have done, then perhaps checking with me. Very best wishes anyway. --Guinnog 02:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rejected Contributions

Hi Cliff,

First of all, i would like to thank you for your contribution on WikiPedia. I do want this website to maintain its excellent reputation.

However i do disagree with your withdrawal of my contributions. I think i made a valid point about "Third-party corroboration" on the Click Fraud page...

"Some Third-party corroboration solutions can display a custom pop-up message after a set amount of fraudulent clicks within a set period of time. This can be a good way to overcome unwanted clicks from Advertising Competitors. Nervous competitors may be concerned that Google can track their clicks."

This is discussed in more detail with other methods of preventing click fraud on my website. I has spent a large amount of effort creating a non-commercial resources section to my website. This information is available for free to web browser, hence why I believe why my link should be valid. At the very least, I believe my comments above are valid.

I don’t think it’s fair to presume everyone is "Link Spamming". Believe me, I could think of far easier ways to do so.

Please don't take this as an insult or as a personal attack.

Thanks --nPresence 12th Dec 2006

Hi nPresence - as far as the text in Click fraud is concerned, it was not rejected, but simply reverted along with the link you added. I am not an expert on click fraud, so I personally have no issue with the text (but of course like everything else on Wikipedia somebody else might); I just happen to have Click fraud on my Watch list because it attracts a lot of commercial links. I sympathize with you because I know how hard it is to get a business name or product "out there" at the beginning. As far as adding the link to either article, Wikipedia rules are clear on this, "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". However, take a look at item 6 in Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. Best regards. --CliffC 02:02, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
CliffC, Thank you again for spending your time explaining this to me. I am not a Commercial Click Fraud site. I am not an affiliate nor do I promote any Click Fraud software. I do however have articles on how to combat click fraud. Some of the information on my articles are "opinionated" and not confirmed, hence why I didn’t add it to the Wiki Page. I was certainly not trying to get a business name or product "out there" --nPresence 09:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Vikasramachandran

Cliff

Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. I have deleted the information and indefinitely blocked the account. Best wishes, --Guinnog 19:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spreading a long link or other string across multiple lines in the editor

For example, the LA Times citation links in article Thomas Kinkade are so long they make any diff they apperar in ridiculously wide, and when pasted into an article they make the article 'jump' inside the edit window. Is there some way to break these up across multiple lines so that they get recombined in the article without inserting spaces? My HTML was never that great and I don't see a wiki construct for this. Something like the following would be nice

<allonestring>|url=hhttp://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1112584561.html?dids=1112584561:
1112584561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+29%2C+2006&author=Kim+Christensen&pub=Los+Angeles+
Times&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=Painter+Said+to+Be+Focus+of+FBI+Probe</allonestring>

If there's something really obvious, it's OK to embarrass me.<g> Thank you. --CliffC 01:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

You can name the link, i.e. [http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/access/1112584561.html?dids=11125845611112584561&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Aug+29%2C+2006&author=Kim+Christensen&pub=Los+Angeles+Times&edition=&startpage=C.1&desc=Painter+Said+to+Be+Focus+of+FBI+Probe LA Times], producing LA Times—WAvegetarian•(talk) 02:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you should rarely put the URL straight into the article anyway. Another option would be to put the url in a pair of square bracket after a punctuation mark, like this.[2] Xiner (talk, email) 02:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess my question wasn't clear; I'm really only concerned with how the link looks and acts in the editor or in a diff; this particular long line is part of a citation and there's no problem as the article is presented to the reader - that line is not seen by the reader. I just don't want to manage these super-long lines inside the edit box when I am editing the article. --CliffC 02:22, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think it hurts readability if you set up several text strings and add them up at the end. I also don't think it's worth the trouble for the editor. At least right now a reader can simply skip through that long URL b/c they can see what it is. As for the problem while you're editing it, leave out the long URL until u're reading to submit the post, then paste it in. Xiner (talk, email) 02:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, but I'll try taking this over to WP:VPT after the New Year when (presumably) more people will be around to answer it. Super-wide diffs are a problem to any editor with a watchlist of articles with long links. --CliffC 20:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bonjour (Howdy)

Re Crane (machine): there is nothing really in Trolley (disambiguation) to describe the trolley on the Overhead crane. This needs to be fixed somehow. And indeed, the system got things sorted out. By the way, keep up your compulsive proof reading as there are plenty of typos to be found, especially in translations from other tongues.

Cheerio, Peter Horn 03:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Peculiar happening

I couldn't reproduce the fault. It did make me realise however that I have never edited the sandbox! --Guinnog 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My reverting the Spyware IP editor

Yes, a mistake on my part ... I was in a kind of, well, maximum alert mode then - vandalbots running and lots of sockpuppets with multiple IPs, so I reverted on sight. So yes, I'll remove my warning and welcome the user instead. Cheers! Yuser31415 05:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blatant vandal

Hi Cliff. In a case like that, I think we can justify using a {{subst:bv}} warning. Well spotted, thanks for your good work. --Guinnog 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] All is now well in Kearny NJ

I'm certainly glad to hear that. Keep up your good work. --Guinnog 02:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Snowman

Oh, it's no problem at all, you can leave the link on. :) I'm still looking for information on the history of snowmen...which seems to be a pretty impossible thing to find. If you have any sources that could help, do tell. → Icez {talk | contrib} 06:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Better Business Bureau

The Better Business Bureau was founded in part by Al Capone. If you follow the link within the existing article (http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff1343.htm), it says that. It also says it on this link. http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v257/__show_article/_a000257-000013.htm Shuim 15:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this partly because Al Capone was only 13 years old in 1912, that was the first tipoff. I suggest taking a look at WP:Reliable sources. I like reading Ripoff Report too, but a side observation in some anonymous victim's complaint isn't a reliable source; nor is the anonymous item in your second citation, apparently someone's blog. My edit summary said "revert unsourced statement" to be polite; I hope the next reverter is as nice. --CliffC 16:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Thanks for fixing my user page

Haha that sounds like a good plan. Oh, and thanks for the thanks (or something!). Will (aka Wimt) 16:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Medal of Honor - awarded or received?

You make a valid point. If you change it back to "awarded", I won't change it back. I guess, the more I think about it, I don't mind "awarded" so much. I just hate it when people say someone "won the Medal of Honor". The two MOH recipients that I've met made it very clear that it wasn't a contest. Betaeleven 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joseph Smith, Jr.

I guess I should RTFA before I make a change, eh? The phrase "Tarred and feathered" sounded odd to me, so I changed it without reading. Nice catch on my error. Flibbert 01:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I had an eighth-grade teacher who would threaten to do that (except for the leaving-for-dead part, of course) on a regular basis. I must admit you had me stumped with "RTFA" for a minute... "Oh, arrrrticle!". --CliffC 03:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation (Disambiguation)

Re your partial reversion - per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) and Wikipedia:Disambiguation, dab pages are only to be used to help readers navigate to wikipedia articles, they are not dictionary entries, so redlinks are not appropriate. Unless you can come up with a guideline reference or another really compelling reason, I'm going to remove the redlink again. As for the Cessna line, it's not at all promotional, it's that the "Citation" name was used on a bunch of different aircraft. Because of the complexity of the line, there are currently 5 different articles (with a 6th on its way), so this method is being used as one means to help the reader navigate to the particular Citation article he/she might be looking for. Akradecki 05:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you felt I was wikilawyering. As for the Citation, to use your Ford analogy, if Ford called every one of their models "Taurus", then there would be massive confusion, and it would be appropriate to list the various Taurus articles on the DAB page. Such is the case with Citation. Why they decided to name very different aircraft the same name I've not idea, but they did. Remember the function of DAB pages: to enable our readers to navigate as easily as possible. That has been accomplished. Akradecki 01:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I did not vandalize the page pal

The Queen of England was shown in the South Park episode. She was clearly Elizabeth you fucking dumbass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.94.120.34 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Zango Dtodd 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)4/7/2007 dtodd

Cliff,

Numerous parties have a vested interest in keeping information about Zango inaccurate. While I am not concerned about positive/negative information if it is accurate, it is concerning to me that if I remove inaccurate and misleading information that others can simply replace it. Can you please let me know how you determine the accuracy of some information and how best to proceed if my desire is an honest and accurate representation of the history of Zango?

Thanks. dtodd

Moved to Talk:Zango and responded to there. --CliffC

[edit] Re. your edits to Brandon Hein

I stumbled onto the Brandon Hein article, and popped over to the talk page to see if there was anything interesting going on. Anyway, saw your comments re. the young kid who overwrote the article with his personal biography, and I gotta say: you handled that incident fantastically - your comments were tactful, gentle & professional, yet got their point across. Nicely done! -Rhrad 15:45, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appearance on Category:Anatomy

Hey Cliff! I'm working on cleaning up the anatomy section, and I was wondering why your user page appeared right below underarm hair and above vagina:) Rather than edit your page, I was wondering if you could take yourself off the list of human anatomy. Thanks! Kludger 18:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

All in all, that sounds like a pretty good place to be! :) :) I mention and display the "human anatomical features" template on my user page; that's why it appears in the category I presume. I also display the
This article is part of WikiProject Hip hop, an ongoing effort to improve articles related to hip hop culture and hip hop music. The goal of the project is to bring this article, along with all others to featured status. If you have any questions, concerns or wish to participate you can visit the main project page here.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
template; recently someone contributed the "class=NA" parameter to my page with the note "Hope you don't mind - the template shows up in the unassessed article category". Let's try a "class=NA" experiment here, since I have had difficulty finding template how-to information in the past... nope, that didn't work, how about "class=template" (I peeked)... that didn't work either. Looking around I found random article Wikipedia:WikiProject Cheshire/Assessment; under its text "pages that are not articles" it seems to suggest NA should do here what it did for the hip-hop template. But it doesn't. now try adding "Wikiproject"...no that yields a redlink...
Anyway, if you can get someone to look at the "human anatomical features" template and tell me how best to code it on my user page, I'll do so (and clean up this section correspondingly as well). Cheers. --CliffC 19:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
(Four months later) Hi Ryan, I recently started teaching myself template coding and remembered the loose end we had with template {{Human anatomical features}} where I and other users had their user pages listed in Category:Human anatomy. As a first project I added an optional nocat parameter to that template, so if you're still interested in cleaning up the category, you can ask anyone whose page doesn't belong there to code the template thusly: {{Human anatomical features|nocat}}. Best regards, CliffC 04:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appalachian School of Law shooting

Many thanks for your kind comments. You might want to check out the article's talk page. An editor appears to be questioning the defensive use of the guns by the students. Of course, I may be misinterpreting the situation. Always good to have another editor's opinion, so please join in. Best, --Alabamaboy 01:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hah!

Love your userpage observations, very funny and true, without venom. Cheers. Dina 19:01, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Any time! :)

Any time, dear Cliff! ;) And let me know if I can help you somehow with that London-Arkansas axis! While I'm visiting you, can I ask you why, of all cards, you picked the Hermit? Sheer curiosity on my part - please ignore this if you don't feel like telling me. Cheers! Phaedriel - 19:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Had to think about that... good question. When I was working on and off on the AARP article a while back, someone posted a "Picture requested" tag and I was rather goofily looking for something totally inappproriate to put on the Talk page to illustrate the possibilities, and a search for "Death" took me to the Tarot deck, something I don't know much about. I'm not very hermit-like myself (well, maybe just a little), but it seemed like a cool picture of an old guy - perhaps a proofreader? - looking for something amiss. Regards, CliffC 20:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring old shared IP warnings

Hi Cliff, there's no need to restore warnings over 6 months old to talk pages of Shared IPs because it only unnecessarily clutters talk pages and the vandal the older warnings were issued to would have been long gone by now. Administrators such as myself regularly remove old warnings from IP talk pages in order to lessen the bandwidth burden on our servers (an editor issuing a new warning does not need to unncessarily burden our servers by downloading warnings issued back in 2005, and an administrator generally only refers to editing patterns of an IP over the last 3-6 months in determining the length of a new block. Anyway, older warnings will always be permanently accessible via page histories. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:26, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that was kind of a knee-jerk reaction on my part, sorry. I'd seen a particularly annoying non-shared IP blank his warnings earlier. I've now gotten to the point where if I see an IP is shared I won't even bother with a warning unless it's totally outrageous. --CliffC 19:37, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PPB song of praise

Hi Alan, I removed the song from Point Pleasant Beach because it looked bogus and I could find no reference to it, or to Manukyan's alleged authorship of it, anywhere else. It was inserted 13 January 2006 by IP user 71.130.84.192 in LA who never contributed anything to Wikipedia before or since. Regards, CliffC 13:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the explanation. I agree that it should be left out until we have a source showing Manukyan's connection to PBB and authorship of the ditty. Alansohn 14:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
    • [Later that same day] I'll be damned. You're a better searcher than I am, Alansohn. --CliffC 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
      • It establishes a connection, and the song was written in the year described. I would never have added it on its own, but with this source, I think it's justified. Without a link to the lyrics I don't think they should stay, so I trimmed it down to match what was available. Alansohn 23:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Info for So You Think You Can Dance

Hi CliffC; I was able to verify with members of production of this show that the only officially credited permanent judge was Nigel Lythgoe for Seasons 1 and 2. All other judges and choreographers were/are considered guests; none had contracts and they worked week-to-week. Brian F. was never demoted (and was never permanent, despite the number of appearances). For season 3, Mary Murphy attained the official credit of permanent judge (and contract), as referenced by the TV Guide interviews with Mary and Nigel. You can hit me back if you want further information. Porfitron (talk • contribs) 16:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] René Magritte image rearrangement

Thank you for your compliments on my editing job! Justin Foote 00:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brandon Hein

Thank you for maintaining the accuracy on Brandon Hein's page. Nicely done and we appreciate it. Justice4bh 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for fixing my user page (a note I left on Grimey109's talk page)

I didn't know I had a "friend" in Alanta. An odd vandalism style, I can't imagine who it is. --CliffC 04:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Cliff, don't mention it. I'm glad to have helped out. I've read your list of "Observations and criticisms", and it's absolutely fabulous. The article at The Onion is a classic! Also, I'm not sure "teenagery" is a word, but its use in that context is striking, fitting, and oh, so hilarious! I look forward to reading more observations as you develop them. Grimey109 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the good review, I have copied it to my talk page since I happen to agree.  :) Cheers, CliffC 22:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Alleged" crimes once perpetrator is convicted, what is the official policy

Just edited Megan Kanka and took out a bunch of 'allegedly's. Her killer was convicted in a court of law, but there remains an editor who seems to be claiming it's POV to say "he killed..." without sticking in an 'allegedly'. Please point me to the "official" policy on this so I can cite it. Thank you, CliffC 10:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

See: Words to avoid — So-called, soi-disant, supposed, alleged, purported
I hope this helps. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:09, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I forgot to mention to be careful when citing the link I provided as it is not considered policy, but rather guidelines. — Dorvaq (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
While words like "allegedly" should be avoided, it is even worse to word a proposition by "it is". Instead, you should write like "Who-and-who suggested that...". --Deryck C. 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Dorvaq, thank you for the pointer, where I see "Newspapers, for instance, almost universally refer to any indicted but unconvicted criminal as an alleged criminal." Agreed; I use 'alleged' whenever writing about someone where crimes have been charged but not yet proven in a court of law. Perhaps what I'm trying to ask is more of a common-sense question to which the answer is so obvious that no one has thought to incorporate it in a policy or guideline here. Trying again, "Once an accused criminal is convicted in a court of law, is it not both inappropriate and biased to insist on using the word 'alleged' when writing about the charges of which he's been convicted?" Maybe someone has a pointer to an old discussion or arbitration about this? It seems that it must have come up in the past. --CliffC 17:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure there is no discussion involving the generic use of "allege" (or any derivative thereof) specific to before-and-after trials. However, there has been many discussions of this sort on individual article pages involving criminals. But, most of these discussions have been initiated by either anonymous users or users who contribute very little to Wikipedia besides the article in question. Perhaps your best bet would be to start there unless someone else can provide you with something more informative.
Anyhow, I don't believe this needs to be incorporated into policy/guideline beyond how the word has already been treated. In terms of law, to allege is to present without proof or without first proving. Therefore, to state the convicted crime of an offender as an allegation is inherently contradictory. Wikipedia is dedicated to quality and integrity — anything contradictory fails on those two points, but that's my opinion. — Dorvaq (talk) 20:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, that last paragraph hits the nail on the head, thanks. Nothing like logic to prove a point. I came upon the Megan Kanka article by chance and I remember the case quite well. It really irked me, after removing all the 'allegeds' and cleaning up the article, to find an old entry on the Talk page stating "He argues that he was wrongfully convicted; if he admitted to the allegations, they wouldn't be alleged, but he hasn't, so therefore they're 'alleged,' and he's the 'alleged killer.'" Arrgh! Thanks again. --CliffC 02:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
Once a criminal has been convicted in court, they are legally guilty of the crime, and it is acceptable to say "they did it", even if they continue to deny doing so. If they have been charged or indicted, but not convicted, they are indeed the "alleged" perpetrator, but once convicted, it's entirely appropriate to state that they are indeed the perpetrator. If they are suspected of involvement but have not yet been charged or indicted, the proper reference is generally "suspect". Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this one off and on all day. I think an absolute "convicted" means "they did it" policy is wrong. We know that, even in the U.S., there are at least a few wrongful convictions, and in some countries at some times, a conviction might have nothing to do with facts. The flipside is also that "acquittal" does not automatically equate to "they didn't do it". Consider John Gotti; we know he bribed at least one juror during one of his murder trials. Or consider O. J. Simpson... I think the key to the issue is, is there are a genuine controversy over what happened? Then WP:NPOV applies. All the other policies come into play in deciding if there's really a controversy, in particular WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:SENSE. If someone claims a controversy to dispute what most of us think a conviction means, they need to produce sources, and we get to evaluate how reliable those sources are, applying all we know about the context of the situation. We need not take the self-serving statement of a convict as seriously as some neutral person's; we consider the source. For example, despite some weak claims of accident in the Yolanda Saldívar article, the Selena article is right to say Saldivar murdered Selena. On the other hand, there's some sort of heated controversy about whether Mumia Abu-Jamal actually committed the crime of which he was convicted, and the regular editors of that article try to apply NPOV.
We have much the same problem with other types of "facts" about people. We say that the two Roosevelt presidents, FDR and Teddy Roosevelt were 5th cousins, even though no one's ever done genetic testing or otherwise "proved" it; there's just no controversy there, so we don't need to condition the statement. On the other hand, in sports there are various non-legal controversies about infringement of the rules with performance enhancing substances; articles should usually reflect well sourced notable allegations, but err on the side of caution and use forms like "X claimed that ..." or "Y suspended Z after a positive test for...".
Also, a lot of the questions can be avoided with careful language; "X was convicted of doing Y to Z" is usually a verifiable NPOV statement, that lets the reader apply their own biases. Studerby 05:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Private Message

Hello Cliff,

I hope you are well. I am hoping to send you a private message. How can I do that? I can be reached at sstratz@gmail.com

Sstratz 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

I'm not very keen on private messages. I assume, based on your email address, that you are the Steve Stratz who is director of public relations for Zango and according to this OMMA article seeking to have candid conversations with Wikipedia editors. On my part, I would prefer that any conversation took place over at Talk:Zango, where I will move your note. --CliffC 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Post was speedily deleted, please help

I posted an entry about On Top of the World Communities, Ocala, Florida. It was tagged for speedy deletion. Why? Whoever marked it for speedy deletion did not specify any reasons. I wrote it to be 100% informative about the community to the best of my abilities. Is it possible to get a second opinion on this "speedy deletion" or possibly get a critique of the article to inform me as to what is so inappropriate about it? I also want to point out that there are numerous other retirment communities listed on wikipedia written in a similar format. Thank you for your help. (username: otow)

(moved your question down here to the bottom) I am the editor who nominated your article for speedy deletion. Yesterday I noticed the account User:Otow had spammed Ocala, Florida, an article on my watch list, with a link to www.csculturalcenter.com. I removed that link and looked for other edits by the same account. As you may be aware, spam and linkspam is a big problem here at Wikipedia, and most of us volunteer editors work hard to root it out. Quoting the message someone else left on your user page November 15 2006, "Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product." When I saw On Top of the World Communities, Ocala, Florida I recognized it as simply an advertisement and tagged it for speedy deletion by placing {{db-advert}} at the top, with edit summary "blatant advertising". I also left a message on your talk page at User talk:Otow. Probably an administrator here reviewed and deleted the article before you noticed the message, tag or edit summary. My message on your talk page, and the links it contains, will give you more information. Finally, it's never a spam defense to point out similar articles or links that may also be spam or an obvious conflict of interest. We try to catch them all but inevitably some are overlooked. --CliffC 14:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] it really was not commercial content

Hi Cliff,

You undid some of my recent additions, indicating that they were of commercial nature. (One citation to www.securitycartoon.com and one image.) I am sorry if the post was poorly phrased. I would like to ask that you reconsider its removal, whether of both entries or only the reference.

Please do not let the ".com" fool you. This is not a commercial offering, and it was not an attempt to sell a product. SecurityCartoon is an effort out of the stop-phishing.com group at Indiana University, and we aim to educate typical Internet users about security threats. Our approach is guided by academic research insights, and we make absolutely no profit. Please take a look at our material at www.securitycartoon.com and you will agree.

Our effort is closely related in spirit to the one already referenced in connection (reference: Ponnurangam Kumaraguru, Yong Woo Rhee, Alessandro Acquisti, Lorrie Cranor, Jason Hong and Elizabeth Nunge.) Neither is a commercial endeavour, both have the same goal, but different techniques.

I hope you will be willing to undo your removal.

Yours, Markus Jakobsson

Markus, I reverted the citation and cartoon you dropped into the middle of a sentence in the existing text in part because the cartoon, of a keylogger creature and its master, had absolutely nothing to do with Phishing, the subject of the article. I now notice that neither of the two ids used to add the cartoon has contributed to Wikipedia before except to add links to documents of which you are an author, and that a few hours after you posted the above note to me you added to Phishing a link to another document of which you are an author. There is no rule against this that I am aware of, but editors will always wonder about such additions. I suggest you review the guidelines at WP:Conflict of interest and before making edits where you would cite yourself or the group which which you are affiliated, first propose your changes on the article's Talk page. --CliffC 02:57, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi Cliff, People define phishing in different ways. Sometimes crimeware is included, othertimes not. A common definition involves some social engineering component (which the installation of a keylogger often has) and some theft of information (which the keylogger certainly has.) The point was not to talk about keylogging, though, but rather, about educational efforts. I can pick an example more directly related to phishing. While I agree with you that self-promotion should be kept out from the wikipedia, we must also recognize that sometimes it is the author of some document who is the expert, and therefore, the most appropriate contributor. I do not perceive a conflict of interest in this case, but see how you might have felt that there was, specially given the '.com' extension of the material. Please consider reverting your changes; I'd be happy to upload another cartoon strip, if you and others find that more appropriate. Cheers, Markus
--above unsigned message from Markus-jakobsson 20:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to turn this thread of discussion over to Talk:Phishing for comment by other interested editors. --CliffC 00:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale

I assume you were leaving a message on my talk page in regards to this edit? If so, all I did was switch the category from Category:Psychological tests to Category:Intelligence tests. I did this after recently creating the Intelligence tests category. An intelligence test is a standardized psychological test. All I wanted to do was make the article more specific. I don't know if you noticed this but the intelligence test category is actually a subcategory of "psychological tests". So now the category list is more specific.

Another example of this would be Bono. Rather than listing him in the general "U2" category, he is listed in the "U2 members" category. The U2 members category is then, in turn ,a subcategory of "U2". Does that make sense? If so, the same principle is at work here.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the "links and/or templates" "don't seem to lead anywhere or do anything". All I did was make a category listing more specific. Did I miss something, or do you disagree with making that categorization more specific? Chupper 23:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, I was referring to THIS, a very different edit made about six hours before yours by User:194.176.105.39 . my error. I'll move my comments to his page and delete them from yours. There is absolutely nothing questionable about your edit and I am certainly sorry for putting you through all that. --CliffC 23:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Message from User:Navigator1972

Thanks for your message, but I can't see where you get to decide what is appropriate and what is inappropriate when it comes to external links to medical information. Do you have any medical training or knowledge to make you an authority in this topic areaNavigator1972 15:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC)? If it's on topic and it's helpful to users why would the link be inappropriate? I know that copying the information from the original source without GFDL permission would be wrong, so the only thing I can do is add the link.

It's then up to users to decide whether to follow the link. If it took them to a violent, abusive or pornographic website or a site that was totally unrelated then I think it could be termed inappropriate. If it takes them to information that could help them get over their medical problem, then it's very appropriate. By removing these links you prevent injured individuals getting free information that would help them recover.

Finally if my contributions are going to be arbitrarily rubbed out by someone who thinks they can make decisions for the rest of us, then what is the point of me contributing to this community?

Message to both User:Navigator1972 and User:87.113.21.133
I was preparing a response to this message on my user page, but I see that it has been removed, I'm not sure why. I have restored it from the history file. My response would have pointed out that these links to www.physioroom.com are spam, by any Wikipedia definition, not "contributions" to the encyclopedia. If someone wants to add "information that could help them get over their medical problem" they should do so by adding it directly to the article, that's what a contributor does. Material where copyright is claimed can be recast and rewritten before it's added. I'll be requesting action on these links by an administrator, since admins have the ability to remove all links to a site with a single mouse click, rather than one-by-one as I must. The following paragraph is a template, but one you should read, and consider following its links.
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added 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. --CliffC 02:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I still feel that people will benefit from reading the information that is linked to, but I respect your knowledge of wikipedia policies, so I would be very grateful if you could remove those links that you think are not valid. I'd be even more grateful if you could contact your friends in admin and arrange the closure and removal of my account; and expunge the history of my contributions (including this talk) and all data related to my account including the user name and IP address. Thank you very much. Navigator1972 13:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I am sorry to hear this as I do think you had something to contribute in the subject area, promotional links aside. I looked into your request and it is not possible to delete an account or remove its history of past contributions; please see the explanation here. That link contains a link to a further discussion of deleting user pages. If you are certain you never want the Navigator1972 account to be used again, I have seen the suggestion made to simply change the password to a string that cannot be remembered. --CliffC 00:41, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
FYI:
Thanks for your diligence on this.
The global Wikimedia Foundation blacklist covers all projects in all languages (Turkish Wikipedia, Chinese Wikisource, etc.). It's also used by 1000 to 2000 unrelated wikis that use our blacklist in compiling their own. There are rumours that Google and others consult it when evaluating whether to penalize domain search rankings for spamming. I think these guys made a poor business decision in persisting after your exchanges with them. --A. B. (talk) 19:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User warnings

Hi. Please take a look at Wikipedia:User_page#Removal_of_warnings. This comes up because a newbie user has complained about "harassment" by another editor, for repeated restorations of warnings that the user wants removed. Since you had also restored warnings (once) for that user, I thought I'd point you at policy, as just FYI. Studerby 19:03, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I saw the notice on his (newly-cleaned-up) talk page and tracked it down to see if it was legit. I won't do that any more, and thank you for the heads-up. BTW, this is the guy that puts the icing on my annoyance cake by signing his messages "FOUR TILDES". --CliffC 00:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Your vandalism of many pages needs to stop. please assume good faith when making revisions in accordance with wiki policy.4.158.204.93 00:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The above message is from 4.158.204.93, co-author with 4.158.204.147 of these nonsense vandalisms today. I reverted these and warned 4.158.204.147 with {{uw-test3}}. Now 4.158.204.93 has undone two of the reversions and restored his friend's/brother's/own nonsense edits. Based on his/their edit summaries, these are not new kids on the block (block, get it? heh heh). Will warn both with {{uw-vandalism4}} and revert again. --CliffC 02:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Today, same nonsense vandalisms posted by 4.158.204.198, will warn. Next step is to request a block of this range. --CliffC 14:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Later today, these three similar vandalisms by 4.159.11.60. I have not issued a level 4 warning because I know it's all the same person or group and others in the range have received level 4 warnings. Note that the vandalism to Joe DiMaggio uses a false edit summary, as do many other vandalisms by these pests. --CliffC 02:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Latest vandalisms by 68.117.58.43, false edit summaries again and no original thought. Warned with {{uw-vandal4}} since these are group vandalisms. --CliffC 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Today's vandalisms by 75.72.167.8, false edit summaries and same text. Warned with {{uw-vandal4}} since these are group vandalisms. --CliffC 16:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The earliest vandalism of this style that I have found was made 21 March 2007 to article 690 by 193.146.59.41, who uses similar text and similar false edit summaries on later dates. Warned with {{uw-vandal4}} since these are group vandalisms. --CliffC 17:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

--CliffC 12:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

And again just this evening, 4.159.17.205 - Studerby 00:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I wrote this all up and posted it at WP:AIV a few hours ago, keeping my fingers crossed. --CliffC 00:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Is a complaint online somewhere? I'd be happy to verify the pattern, particularly with regard to the Outsider Art article. BTfromLA 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm unfamiliar with that WP:AIV page--I take it that complaints are logged and immediately removed for administrator action, yes? Anyway, seems like you're on top of the case... if you need support, drop me a note. BTfromLA 05:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, posted here. I tried to make it as complete as possible. --CliffC 05:03, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

After three quiet days, 68.117.58.43 is back. --CliffC 23:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

207.69.137.39 restored the "greaser" bit to Outsider Art today, and has a considerable history of vandalism. I didn't look into this deeply enough to determine whether is the identical vandal, or is just someone reposting the obnoxious material opportunistically as a means of disruption, but either way, this seems like an IP that should be blocked. BTfromLA 16:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Back again, as 4.232.150.226. Was there any action on that 4.158... IP?BTfromLA 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I just posted this. If you want to see if any action was taken, you can go to a talk page and look at the block log, but I have seen no blocks in the few I looked at. Right now I'm pretty disgusted. --CliffC 21:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Multilple external links to one site

Hi Natalie, I saw your comment in Talk:Mumia Abu-Jamal that "our external links policy does suggest limiting external links to one per website". Actually this seems reasonable, and I must confess I wasn't thinking of external links when I made my comments to the user who removed the link he saw as a duplicate; I just saw it as an arbitrary removal of information (and perhaps could have been more civil). Can you point me to that policy? I took a quick look at WP:EL but didn't see it, and it sounds like something I might like to quote to some argumentative spammer one day. Regards, CliffC 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you; I've been offline since Friday. It's point #2 of important points to remember. It's more of a guideline than a hard and fast rule, but a very logical one. Natalie 06:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks for digging this out. --CliffC 12:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments on a reversion, and I suck as an editor

(Following message was moved here from my user page)

The information I provided to the Thomas Benton page provided unknown information regarding his friendship with an important southwestern artist. I assure you it is not promotional or a conflict of interest. And you suck as an editor!!!!!
--unsigned message from 68.107.128.207 02:00, 20 June 2007

The edit I reverted, with summary "rv promotion, suggest you review WP:COI", is here. In the context of the host paragraph, your addition "Benton was close friend of and often visited Arizona artist Ettore DeGrazia" is a non sequitur - it has nothing to do with what precedes it. (I did review the article looking for a spot where that statement might fit in and was unable to find one.)
I notice that your edits combined with these similar ones have resulted in Tucson, Arizona having two separate mentions of the DeGrazia Gallery in the Sun. I think it would help the article if you were to delete one. --CliffC 01:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I'm going to bed now - am sure tomorrow will be a better day

Unblocked the relevant IP address; it's not showing up as a Tor exit node at this time. Apologies for any inconvenience. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:27, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your EAR

Hello,

Thanks for checking in on your request for editor assistance (subject: "Request for long-term IP vandal blocks, protection of target articles") which you posted recently.

Given your response to the feedback provided, do I have your permission to mark this request as resolved? Feel free to reply at my talk page, or better yet, append a remark to the request directly. Cheers, --Aarktica 23:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:PM

I have written on that page that Assisted living and Retirement home should remian seperate, in opposition to your nom. Bearian 19:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow, this is like opening a time capsule... that was 10 months ago, and it was a suggestion, not a "nom". I see that the forces against have won the day, and I yield the field. Try not to take this stuff too seriously.  :) --CliffC 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mafia wannabe

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll keep an eye to see if any other editor responds. Why this crime family would appoint a seventeen-year old British kid to their ranks is indeed interesting! pablo ::  ... hablo ... 13:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Long Term Care Insurance

This article has misinformation. There are "References" that directly promote an agent's website, which you are telling me is not allowed. I understand that this site is not for self-promotion, but you need to enforce the rules across the board, not just us newbies. I plan to re-write portions of the article correcting the errors, and giving references. The public needs to be correctly informed. --Auburnchika37

I don't think anyone will have a problem with additions of the type you made in your second edit here, assuming they are backed by a WP:RS. I reverted your two edits on the spot because as a new editor the first thing you did was post an external link to a commercial site. That's something that will set off most reviewers' spam alert. It's never a defense to say "there are other commercial links here, why not mine?" I assume you are referring to the link for agis.com, which I have just now removed, thank you for bringing it to my attention. If there are others, please point them out on the article's discussion page so somebody can take a look at them.
For the future, here are some guidelines on external links:
--CliffC 01:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I am new to this site and I should have read more of your help articles before making changes. You did remove the link to the agent's site. I just posted an article "LTC Insurance Features", and I hope I referenced it correctly. Auburnchika37 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your EAR

Hello,

Recently, you sought request for editor assistance (subject: "Someone at 65.160.57.101 requested my password") and your post has generated a handful of responses. Were these of any help to you? When you receive this message, please feel free to leave a note on my talk page regarding this matter.

If you prefer, you could update the request with the latest information you have on the issue. Cheers, --Aarktica 13:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I hope you don't mind, I reverted some vandalism to your user page. Bearian 20:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind at all, thank you. This is the first time the honey-roasted peanut boys have paid me a personal visit. The admins haven't been able to do much about them yet. --CliffC 03:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Spyware

Sorry about forgetting to sign my comments on Talk:Spyware. I can't offer a good excuse... it simply slipped my mind. Perhaps I need to be scanned by AdAware or rebooted. :-) I fixed the page. --DevinCook 06:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well, no biggie. Instead of AdAware, you might register for one of those free Panda scans, Panda will send an email to remind you of who you are every day.  :) CliffC 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Daniel Faulkner

My attempt to resize the images to equal proportions failed. I left them as they were with reasoning as per my talk. Both images warrant inclusion being that the deceased policeman's notability hinges upon the acts alleged of the person convicted of murdering him.NonlisteningFriend 02:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I tried resizing them too. The reason I asked you to think about removing the Mumia photo is because you're the one who added it -- nobody ever complained about not having a Mumia photo in the Faulkner article before. Actually, I don't think either party's article needs the other party's picture to make the article more complete -- the link to the other article is there to click on if they want a picture. The Faulkner photo in its current size is a WP:NPOV problem, it makes him look like an inconsequential pinhead by comparison to the majestic Mumia. How about removing the Mumia photo and I'll ask at the Faulkner talk page if anyone can upload a larger one? --CliffC 02:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Media Wiki Guru

Hi Cliff. We get such wonderful people on WP:EAR as you know. There was an artist who tried to reverse an Afd decision through Ea/R (!), so I created a new article for her on Art Wiki (the bit that pays for Jimbos flights). She was very pleased despite the fact that Art Wiki only has 5 real articles.

My goal (mad crazy lunatic) is to get to 1000 articles by New Year. Hopefully as I write new articles or find new unknown artists it might create an interest. 1=2=4=8=16=32 etc. (hopeless dream?)

All I want and there is no hurry is a welcome template (three simple links, help, about and 1000 article project), a don't be naughty template (nobody is going to get blocked or told off), copyright template for images saying that they must be cc2.5 (+/- attrib compatable), and a barnstar for every 10 stubs/articles an editor creates.

There is no hurry if you are interested. I probably won't start anything major until term starts anyway. One great thing that you can do though is that if you see any artists (fine art, film, dance, sculpture etc) going through Afd or articles for creation can you pass them along to me. (Falling on the floor laughing, oh and I'll give you a barnstar and make you no1 admin).

Cheers cliff see you later Mike33 - t@lk 11:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia Abu Jamal

Hi Cliff Thanks for your intervention and note re " Please do not add commercial material to Wikipedia, as you did to Mumia Abu-Jamal. While objective prose about products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for advertising or promotion. - especially by placing two ads in the same article." I understand , however let me put my case. The article has two footnote references to "HBO Special, A Case For Reasonable Doubt". The references are unhelpful to anyone wishing to follow up the information.Crucially they fail to give the full title of the documentary ("Mumia : A case for reasonable Doubt?") which makes it almost useless to search for. And all I wish to do is add information that I contend is purely objective and non-promotional . With a book you have the title, author and publisher. With a documentary it is standard practice to provide the title, filmmaker and production company or DVD producer. That information enables a user to find the documentary without too much difficulty.

The DVD information is made available with many docs on many entries in Wikipedia. In this case, the film was made by an independent production company, not HBO , who showed the film once in 1996. I rest my case for your consideration.Thanks. SeabreamSeabream 13:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Those two citations ("The 1996 HBO Special, Mumia: A Case For Reasonable Doubt, directed by John Edginton of Otmoor Productions - director's cut on DVD through Winstar/Genius Products 1997") seemed overly detailed, and when I looked at your edit history here I saw other edits leaning toward the promotional such as this one. I agree with you that "HBO Special, A Case For Reasonable Doubt" is an insufficient citation. Wikipedia has approved formats for citing article sources including videos and DVDs here. Since these are a little hairy, I'll add them to the article for you, although the format will not allow them to contain all the information you might wish. In the future if you need multiple citations of the same work, it's best to give the first citation a name, then simply refer to the name on subsequent citations, no need to repeat the information. This has the added advantage of listing the cited work in the footnotes only once. Hope this helps, CliffC 23:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Magritte pop culture section

Thanks for the note! Feel free to put that message into any article that may benefit from it. It may be effective, maybe not -- the Silverchair fan club has been pretty relentless about publicizing the band in as many articles as possible; I think this is their 3rd time on the Magritte page. Ewulp 04:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An apology

Hey Cliff, I just wanted to apologise for any disruption I might have caused with the blanking. I hope you can understand the reason for my actions however. If something like that comes up again just revert to a non-vio version or blank the copyvio parts. Again, no disruption intended. Cheers—Cronholm144 02:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted, those instructions need to be expanded.
Do be aware that the Guillain-Barré syndrome edit you reverted[3] earlier today was made by the same idiot who poured copyright violations into the article for months. I don't see how he can show his face, especially in that article. --CliffC 03:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Define well known at Spyware

What makes those anti-spyware software more notable or 'known' than others that are not included? Many pieces of anti-spyware software is already included and lists just look bad in any article.--The Negotiator 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just now cleaned up and reordered that list, including only products where both the company and the product have Wikipedia articles. That left the list one product shorter, at five. Not everyone would agree that lists "look bad in any article" -- if that were so Wikipedia would not contain the thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of lists that it has. This particular list, "Other well-known anti-spyware products include", presents information pertinent to the article, Spyware. The term "well known" of course does not mean that the average man on the street would have heard of it, it means well-known to those involved in computer security. As to "more notable" than others, the article doesn't say that, it simply lists some well-known products. You should feel free to add to the list any well-known products that you think have gotten the short end of the stick. --CliffC 21:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Stop wasting your time all that crap will be reverted

Wow, you surely are the most rude editor I have yet to encounter. I hardly consider adding an outside link to an vetted article from a reputable source about Medicaid on the Medicaid page to be vandalism. While disagreement about what is or is not relevant is welcome, your response just goes to show that you don't have much respect for other people's contributions. Martha p 23:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct, what I said was very rude, and I apologize. I should have simply left the warning template on your talk page without a header, especially that nasty one. Trust me when I say it's very much out of character for me to leave that sort of message for another editor. I was in a bad mood because of how things were going that day, and I childishly took it out on you. --CliffC 01:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] comment request

Hi there, would you be so kind as to provide an indepenant neutral opinion of the image Construccionkaiserrick.jpg at the section of the same name on the talk page of Richmond Medical Center here please? Thank you very much as this may help to alleviate a current debate over its inclusion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cholga (talk • contribs) 01:26, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Glad to do it, I'll just comment here if that's okay. I took a look at the picture as it sits right now in Richmond Medical Center, and also viewed it full size. In my opinion any picture used to illustrate an article here should (a) tell a story, and (b) be visually pleasing. No disrespect to anyone involved, but I don't think the picture does either of these things. I have not read the article but I think the point of the picture, which seems to be that the center is expanding through construction, could be better made by simply adding a sentence or two to the article. --CliffC 02:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Primalist's

Thanks for the sojourn. I did get in touch with the creator of the article. It's still a bit too cool for school for 14 article art wiki (not in mainspace yet Primalists). (OT Strictly speaking as there is no word only "new" as Primalist, it wouldn't have to follow the conventions of English grammer, so they can do what they like with the apostrophe.) I do think that it should have been spd on its first day though. Mike33 - t@lk 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The program is not spyware

source code is here sf.net/projects/wssecure —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.132.229 (talk) 11:46, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was spyware, I said it was spam. Please read the warning on your user page, read the material it links to, and be careful not to get blocked or get your site product blacklisted. --CliffC 12:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
P.S. - this has nothing to do with the spamming aspects of just plunking a mention of a product into the middle of an article, but note that wssecure was regarded here as non-notable when its article was deleted last year. Discusson at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wssecure

[edit] Ellis Island, rejected changes, no citation

Sorry I don't have a URL. I was watching the History channel when they showed a picture of the chalk chart used by the inspectors. It had the word "Favus", which I've never seen -- so I decided to look it up. Well it turns out to be one of the specific diseases they were looking for, which generally appears on the Scalp, but not always. If you google Favus and Ellis Island you'll find many references. Also all the 2 letter codes for a single word used a lower case letter as the second letter. The History channel program had photos of people with multiple codes on their lapel. It seems important to distinguish between "Pg" and "PG". Also "EC" seems to be simply the codes "E" and "C, probably a common combination, but not a unique code itself. CliffC, I'll let you decide whether to change the page to match the photos from that period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lattyak (talk • contribs) 19:50, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Lattyak, I undid my reversion, so your edits are back in. Sorry to make things so difficult, but if you look at the History tab at the top of the Ells Island page you'll see it seems to draw a lot of test edits, and I saw this was your first edit. Thanks for the explanation. I put a "Welcome" template on your user page. Happy editing! CliffC 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It's cool. I'm newbie -- can you suggest the best way to add some info for the editor that's not to be included in the article. Lattyak —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lattyak (talk • contribs) 06:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
When you say "for the editor" I can think of two things, one is to include the information as comments, between HTML tags <!-- and -->, these will only appear in the editing window and of course to those that have the article on their watch list. Or maybe you're referring to putting something on the talk page via the 'discussion' tab, not many casual viewers will look here either, and it's a good place to discuss an edit that might be contentious beforehand. P.S. it's a good idea to sign your postings with four tildes ~~~~ like I wlll here. CliffC 15:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1request for comment

would you mind commenting here please? [4]CholgatalK! 02:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Acknowledging editorial contributions assisting Mumia Abu-Jamal toward WP:GA status. TruthHider 11:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead Capture Page

I would like to how you consider this page spam. I am a new user and would like some feed back please. User 11 05:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad to. The smoking gun here was the inclusion in Lead capture page of a link to to your own web site, which leads off "With Your Own Personalized Lead Capture Page, Generate The Absolute Highest Quality Of Prospect For YOUR Business!", and goes on to say "Allow Me and My Knowledgeable Team of Web Developers to Assist You in Creating Your Own Customized Lead Capture System."
Reviewing your first ten edits here, I see a sequence that seems to do little more than establish a place to house a link to your own site.
  • Your first four edits create the Lead capture page article, including an in-line external link to your own web site. (Changing an in-line link to an external one doesn't make any difference.)
  • Over here you redirect existing article "Lead Capture Page System" (earlier version here) to simply point to your new article. Admittedly, "Lead Capture Page System" was brief, but it seemed to cover the same points.
I have placed a {{welcomespam}} template on your talk page. Please follow its links to policy and guidelines on advertising in articles. Thank you. --CliffC 14:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: copyvio you caught

Do you think a request for checkuser would be in order? I'm a bit confused with the user's behavior, since he seems to more or less complying with policy now (after a few very strong warnings, that is). I was originally thinking of AGF-ing, since he seems to be recreating the article without copyvio, per policy. But your link does sort of suggest otherwise. Any ideas, or should we just wait and see what develops, then act accordingly? Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I must confess I don't know, exactly, what a checkuser does, but if it's something that will keep the Guillain-Barré syndrome copy-violator off Wikipedia forever, assuming this is the same person, I'm all for it. He poured copyvios into that article (and others) for two months before anyone noticed, and of course once it was all reverted the honest edits other people had made were lost as well. --CliffC 23:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Basically it's a place where we can request that an admin break out a tool that'll look at the ip of a user, and see if they're a sockpuppet, or have been banned before. However, after reading about it for a bit, I think we'd need more proof of vandalism before they'd approve such a request. As much as I dislike it, I think the best bet is to keep an eye on his contrib's, and if he starts being a vandal, to flag him as such. (There's probably a more proactive solution, but I'm still kinda new here, so I don't know what it would be). best, --Bfigura (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Update: the above refers to an IP user who introduced a stream of undetected copyright violations to Guillain-Barré syndrome and other medical articles over three months from May 18, 2007 to August 18, 2007, creating such a tangled mess that three months of edits by every contributor to the article had to be purged. For the record, that user was 208.101.102.186, WHOIS shows this user to be in the Ontario area. A similar copyright violation was posted to the article yesterday by 208.101.116.108, also in the Ontario area. Let's all keep our eyes peeled for this person to avoid losing our edits again. --CliffC (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 13-digit ISBNs

{{helpme}} 13-digit ISBNs are not working for me. For example, none of the 13-digit ISBNs under the three cover images from ...for Dummies work for me. Each results in an Amazon.com 404 ("We're sorry. The Web address you entered is not a functioning page on our site ") error. If I substitute the equivalent 10-digit ISBN, the Amazon.com page comes up fine. Example below. Is this some personal setup problem, a Wikipedia one, or Amazon's? Any guesses would be appreciated. My monobook.js is HERE; I've tried a more vanilla version with no better results. FWIW, pasting the 13-digit ISBN straight into Amazon's search box works fine. --CliffC 19:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

13-digit ISBN not working, ISBN 9780470043998
13-digit ISBN not working, ISBN 9780470043998
10-digit ISBN works fine, ISBN 0470043997
10-digit ISBN works fine, ISBN 0470043997
Hi, I've clicked on the ISBN there to go to Wikipedia's ISBN page, gone down to the "Find this book on Amazon.com" link, and clicked there, and it found the book, both for the ISBN13 as well as the ISBN10. So I'm not having the problem. Are you still experiencing an issue? — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
hang on, I just realised you mean using the code to avoid going to Special:Booksources. Let me check. — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, I can reproduce the problem, but not sure why. I suggest you report it to the author of the code. His comments suggest the best place would be User_talk:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js  — Timotab Timothy (not Tim dagnabbit!) 21:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll do that. Glad it's not just me! --CliffC 11:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey CliffC, I responded to you over here. Lunchboxhero 12:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I changed that one line in my monobook.js to read
var magicURL = "http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=stripbooks&field-isbn=MAGICNUMBER";
and now it works fine for both types of ISBN. I tried appending the "/wikipedia08-20" string that's supposed to give Wikipedia some sort of Amazon referral credit – for ISBN13s Amazon doesn't understand the string (gives an error), but it still works for ISBN10s. Well, I'm off to order the entire "For Dummies" catalog. --CliffC 16:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Yes, the quote function is excellent, you can pack in extra information. I always add the lede paragraph from news articles. It helps find the article later, if a weblink dies. People keep linking to yahoo news for Associated Press reports and they go dead after a few weeks. Its hard to find the correct article if all you had was "John Smith dead at 85", but if you have the full lede, you can always find it again at CNN, or USA today. turn on your email, I can email you any NYT pay articles you may need. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 01:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

"But wouldn't that be wrong?" (just kidding) Thanks, but I subscribe to that puppy already. I've been burning up my most recent 100 freebies digging up cites for George Metesky. If the guy who just today asked for citations at Green-Wood doesn't clean them up within a week I'll do it myself, and embellish the NY Times one with a quote. --CliffC 02:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TerminArtors external link removal from Thomas Hart Benton (painter)

Dear CliffC,

We have acknowledged your warning. We have carefully read the external link guidelines and do not think that we violated it in any way. Would you, please, explain why our external link qualified for deletion? Some points to consider:

- terminartors.com is a rather large and very carefully designed project

- presently its database counts some 22,000 paintings, 500+ artists and 1000+ museums, increasing every day. I suppose you agree that it is not a small gallery

- all items are indexed in a very structured pattern so the whole database is searchable in very advanced ways

- the external links we put in Wikipedia all go to exact hits, no further search is needed (e.g. if you click our link under Leonardo, the link will point to Leonardo's page at TerminArtors)

- Many other galleries, mostly much smaller and less advanced, count a very large number of external links to their website. This is of course not an argument but indeed confuses us with regard of your guideline policy.

Please, reconsider your standpoint and lift the warning.

Sincerely Yours

Lynu —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynu Eng (talk • contribs)

Lynu, the quality and content of your site isn't the question. Please understand that there are so many online galleries that it's not possible to have a link for every gallery on every artist's page, for then who would decide which ones to allow. That's one reason we have the guidelines in WP:EL.
Under Links normally to be avoided in WP:EL we see "Links mainly intended to promote a website."
Under Conflicts of Interest in WP:EL we also see "Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked."
I sympathize with you because I know how hard it is to get a website "out there" at the beginning. As far as adding your link to any article, Wikipedia rules are clear on this, "Adding external links to an article for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed". However, take a look at item 6 in Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer and the guidelines in template {{welcomespam}}. Wikipedia needs content, not links. I hope you'll stay and be a content contributor. --CliffC 02:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Your reasoning is understood, I will be more careful in the future. However, I have some further points to be considered:
- I do not see why a larger number of relevant links would harm the article or the Wiki ideology. For example in a quality bookshop, there are many books about e.g. Caravaggio and these books, of course, have 80-90% similar content. Some books you will like more because of any reason and you will have the choice to take one or more according to your preference. Similarly, having many galleries does not make much harm here they merely increase the sortiment you can choose from.
- You are of course right in claiming that we want to use Wiki as one of the tools making our project fly. But this self-motivated intention of ours should, I think, be measured against the added value, if any, our linked site provides to the visitors. At this point I disagree with you and really think that the quality and content of our site, and of any site, does matter. We strongly believe that our site provides unique content (not the paintings of course but the searchability and the community functions avalable) and also strongly believe that this content will be appreciated by certain segment of the visitors. Again, these two factors should be considered together.
- I still maintain, and it is easy to check, that there are many galleries which put in extarnal link to e.g. painters like we did. How does your policy concern their external links?

Best Regards, Lynu Eng 09:17, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that your only contributions to that date (39) consisted of adding that link. Wikipedia defines spam also in terms of the rate of link addition: I notice that the spamminess of a link is proportional to the number of times it was added and the number of warnings ignored. MER-C 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for replying us. We realized that we were in a rush and we slowed down. However,
- Technically, and this is for a certain extent also a material difference, we added DIFFERENT links which pointed to sub-pages to our site. The links were chosen to be exact hits to the Wiki page we insterted them in as an external link.
- Your reasoning, while making sense, does not address the points we raised above in our latest entry before. Those points, we think, are to be considered.
- We did not ingore any warning intentionally, we just did not notice that someone had sent anything to us. This was our mistake and we make sure we will check out for messages in the future...You see, we are learning our lessons...:)

Best Regards, Lynu Eng 19:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Lynu, I agree you didn't ignore any warnings, I think all your links had been added before I noticed the one in Thomas Hart Benton, reverted it and posted the first warning on your user page. Normally I revert spam links manually, but when I saw how many articles had been hit, I posted your site name at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. User MER-C, who possesses automated cleanup tools, saw the posting and cleaned up the rest.
I hear what you are saying about other galleries having promotional links in Wikipedia. These are an ongoing problem. Editors here are volunteers and can't always keep up. If you report any you see, they will be looked at, and deleted if they fail WP:EL. Your argument is mentioned indirectly at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and I'm sorry is not a convincing one. --CliffC 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for removal of links to YouTube illegal downloads

Hi Cliff A few weeks back we communicated about a reference to a documentary "Mumia:A Case for reasonable doubt" in the entry about Mumia Abu Jamal. You considered that one reference citation was sufficient and I agreed. Now I see that two new references have been put up that actually link the reader directly to two seperate YouTube downloads of sections of the film. See refs 39 and 41. These Youtube playouts are entirely illegal as they totally breach copyright. Lawyers have been in contact with YouTube requesting they are taken down. I am writing to you to seek your agreement that these links should be removed immediately.Thanks.User:SeabreamSeabream 12:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC) 11 October 2007

Thanks, I have copied your message to the Mumia Abu Jamal talk page and I'll be removing the YouTube links to your copyrighted work in a few minutes. --CliffC 19:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mumia Abu-Jamal

Dangerously close to FA standard, wouldn't you agree? There already, IMO. IchiNiSan 17:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It looks great, kudos to us all. --CliffC 02:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assata

responded.Savidan 00:09, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rasputin's Penis

I was just making the text of the article agree with the reference. I would hardly think this requires a description in the change log, but I appreciate you making me both waste my time writing this and realize once again what a pointless endeavor Wikipedia is. 70.173.50.153 18:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

After you are around Wikipedia a little longer you'll realize that it's infested with people who like to make joke edits, and the first indication of a joke edit is the lack of an edit summary. It's a courtesy that keeps other editors from having to spend time deciding whether an edit is constructive or not. I personally have not committed to memory the length of Rasputin's penis, so I checked the length as given in the article a few versions back and so assumed your edit was vandalism. Some editors won't spend even the small amount of time I spent, they will just revert such unexplained edits automatically. I see you have now corrected the article again, but without an edit summary your changes will always look questionable and waste other people's time. Looking at your other contributions so far, which seem to be limited to removing article tags, you are headed for a vandalism block.
I see from your note to me that you know how to write a sentence, so why not stick around and contribute? I'm adding a {{welcome}} template below, not to break your chops but because I see no one has done so yet; these links are good reading to understand how Wikipedia works. Best, --CliffC 19:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Related links

I just wanted to know why you would not want to include a link to a site with consumer content on reverse mortgages [5]. The link is included here only to have you take a look at the content and realize that the website has a similar goal to that of wikipedia. The Investor Education Fund was established in 2000 by the Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), Ontario's investment industry regulator and is funded through OSC enforcement settlements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Investored (talk • contribs) 15:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

On almost any topic, there are web sites containing more information than the corresponding Wikipedia article. However, we try to encourage more content to be added to Wikipedia while keeping external links to a minimum. To do this, volunteers regularly review articles and prune external links.
One method we use to determine whether a link should stay or go is how it was added to the article. In this case, your link was added "bare" (no additional content was added to the article), across many articles. This approach always raises a red flag; if I had not noticed and removed those links, someone else likely would have.
Wikipedia needs more content, not more external links. The best way to incorporate a link that points to an external web site is to contribute cited text - add information to the article that can be learned from the link in question and then cite it per normal guidelines. This is the happy medium that we strive for. See WP:COPY for your copyright considerations. I'm hoping that you or someone in your organization will contribute more to Wikipedia.
I hope this explains what happened and doesn't leave you with any bad feelings. I can see that your site is not a commercial one. To help avoid problems like this in the future, here are some guidelines on external links:
--CliffC 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Escitalopram

I really don't think it was a good idea to respond to that woman on the talk page. There have been instances on other medication pages where advice like this has been given and it has turned ugly... I hope that doesn't happen here. All the best, l'aqúatique talktome 22:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Right, well, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I simply repeated some generally-known information and pointed her to a footnote in the article. --CliffC (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. I wasn't criticizing you! You're allowed to respond any way you want, I merely worry that you might inadvertantly open the flood gates, in a manner of speaking. l'aqúatique talktome 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Journal Author

Cliffc - I see that you are busy on wikipedia. I am a physician who deals with bppv and am one of the authors of the recently published paper dealing with the treatment of BPPV. I am also a member of the company that now manufactures it. I object to the tone and implications in your recent post.

The device in question was developed with the support and supervision of our local university. This was 2-3 years ago. Since that time it has proved to work very well for a number of patients who have now apparently been posting it on Wikipedia, and had it removed by you, it seems. There are a number of other publications in press from research conducted over the past few years but this was the first to make it to print. As the local demand for the device grew it became necessary to find a way to make them in larger quantities - hence the formation of a company which has only now begun production.

There is always the question of conflict of interest when medical products move from research to market. However, the research referenced and the other pending publications have all been completed prior to the marketing of the device. While I cannot comment for those who have been debating/adding/moving the reference - in my opinion the device does provide a real medical benefit to those suffering from BPPV. As much as Epley should be referenced on the page I ask two things from you 1) Be careful what you imply as you may not have the whole story and 2) that you find some way or suggest some way that this device can be referenced on the page as the patients who have tried it seem to want to see on wikipedia. I have no interest in debating this but rather I reference "edslee" and "mdwyer" who suggest the external links tab.

Thank you for your dedicated policing of wikipedia. As I have in the past I will endeavor to continue submitting relevant and useful commentary on BPPV and other ENT topics. Mabromwich (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your desire to have the device mentioned in BPPV and other encyclopedia articles discussing vertigo, but "to find some way or suggest some way that this device can be referenced on the page as the patients who have tried it seem to want to see on wikipedia" is to put the cart before the horse. Once a person or place or product becomes notable, someone may wish to mention it in the encyclopedia, not the other way round. Once the product is mentioned by a Wikipedia:reliable source, someone can paraphrase or quote that source directly, perhaps something similar to "One method of treating BPPV at home that has shown some success is the DizzyFIX", followed by a <ref>...</ref> source citation.
I have spent considerable time reading about the DizzyFIX at the company web site and viewing the how-to video. The product is very interesting, in the most positive sense of that word, and seems promising. Having said the above regarding in-text mentions, if someone were to again add the external link I would not object.
Rambling here... you have likely thought of this already, but beyond sending out brochures to doctors, I wonder if getting a placement in AARP or some other geriatric magazine, or in the WebMD magazine I see in so many doctors' offices, would help get things kickstarted. (Would it need to say "prescription required in USA"? That might actually be a plus in today's ask-your-doctor advertising culture.) The product's unusual appearance would, I think, be an advertising plus. All the best, CliffC (talk) 16:58, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. We expect that the device will continue to help our long suffering population of dizzy patients. I wonder if you would also kindly revise or amend your recent post on the discussion page of the BPPV article to reflect our resolution of events. Kind regards, Mabromwich (talk) 18:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
What would you say to my simply copying to the talk page your original note above along with my reply? If that doesn't work for you, I'll try to think of something else. --CliffC (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Agreed.Mabromwich (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jane Alpert

I really appreciate all the informationt hat you were able to add to the Jane Alpert entry. What you had to add clearly helped fill her page with valid and cited information. I believe that Jane Alpert should deserve her own page and therefore on the entry section I think it would be best if it was left for her, and not include Sam Melville. Let me know what you think! Thanks! jjs8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjs8 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I agree that the cited material you had adds to the article and should be restored, however I do believe it fits better somewhere else in the article and not the lead. As it stands right now, I feel the lead should be only about Jane Alpert and her contributions to Weathermen, SDS, and anything else she has accomplished throughout her life. Her involvements with Sam Melville seems more appropriate in the body of the article. I do believe that Jane Alpert warrants an article by herself, she has done/acheived notable things without the assistance of Melville or anyone else that the lead of the article should acknowledge that. It is my suggestion that the article be reverted to a previous change by Jjs8 and have the lead be only about Jane Alpert.76.104.201.83 (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please sign your talk page edits using four tildes ( ~~~~ ), indent comments using ":" and add new sections at the bottom.
I'm sorry, but as to taking Melville out of the lead I must disagree. As I said over at Talk:Jane Alpert, Alpert's bombings and life on the run are what she is mainly notable for; I see few press reports of her good works in prison or after her release. Had she never met Melville this would be a very different article, if there were an article at all. But there was a Melville, and he was her co-conspirator, that's the reality. I won't repeat myself by explaining why a lead section is built the way it is, but please review WP:LEAD. It might help to study some Wikipedia articles outside the domain of Weathermen/SDS/other militant groups, many of which seem to rely heavily on autobiographies and personal recollections, to get an idea how good articles are constructed. --CliffC (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quick Work Permit CopyVio question

Hi, this is 67.168.65.207 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if it's ok to remove the copyvio tag on Work Permit or if an admin has to do that?
Thanks a ton!

Hi, I saw your question over on the article's talk page but figured I'd wait for the complainant, if that's the right term, to answer you. Copyright complaints don't seem to have a high priority, but when and if this one gets to the top of the pile I think when an admin reviews the pertinent histories it will be thrown out, especially considering that the complainant was the original contributor of the material. I have no objection to removing the notice (they sure are ugly), maybe with 'remove stale tag' or such. Best, CliffC (talk) 03:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, is there a way to raise the priority of a copyright complaint? Thanks, 67.168.65.207 07:20, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't know - you might try asking at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. The wheels seem to grind very slowly on these. --CliffC 10:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star-Banner

I have to question your tagging of this article. While I am not the original author (she has a definite CoI), I have worked on wikifying and expanding the article, and a daily newspaper with a circulation of almost 43,000 people (which is cited in both the text and the infobox; it's close to 50,000 on Sundays) is clearly notable. It is the local daily newspaper for a metropolitan area of 316,183 people (2006 Census Bureau estimate). As to published sources, it's a newspaper. Newspapers generally do not write about other newspapers unless there is a big scandal of some sort. Papers try to be the source of the news, not the subject. Horologium (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I've withdrawn the tag. Thanks for pointing out the above facts and for your work heading up the article. (If the Boca Raton News rates an article here, the Star-Banner certainly does.) --CliffC 22:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biofeedback

Talk:Biofeedback#Modification_in_head_psychology -Biofeedback —Preceding comment was added at 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Paul, I have posted a response on that page, sorry to take so long. Cheers, CliffC 02:02, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks. It's a been right pain! Do you think we should nominate the article for FA if the image issues (Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images#Image:Gov Ed Rendell.jpg) are resolved? I can't decide whether it would kill off one of his outlets or spur him into even more disruption. DrKiernan (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dear Cliff

1.) I DID address the copywright issue and wrote an article on Nelson Lauver in my own words. 2.) Externial Links - I have placed several external Links to Radio News Stories on various subject, and you have complained of said links. I am an entusiast in Radio Storytelling, The only way to apreciate these stories is to hear them. The stories are very, very well done. This is not spam or promotion... this is an art form. I am not affiliated with The American Storyteller. There is nothing wrong with these links, please let them alone. I emailed Mr. Lauver and asked him about the sale of CD's on his site. He wrote back that it is simply a customer service thing (he sells about 5 per month) to satify people who still want a CD eventhough the stories are free on line. He said it's much more of a pain than a money maker. Again please let my Links standm as the stories are in relation to the article, very well done and NOT promotion or spam. Would you delete an NPR link? Mr Lauver runs on many public station and he doesn't even charge them! User:Trgwilson (talk) 08:46, 19 December 2007

On the copyright issue, I was just trying to help you keep the article from being deleted – you had added nothing to your talk page to indicate that you had taken any of the suggested steps to correct the problem. Rewriting the article in your own words of course solves it. On your question about deleting NPR links, yes I certainly would delete them on an individual basis if the editor adding them followed any of the patterns advised against in WP:EL, in particular WP:EL#How not to be a spammer. Your additions of Lauver's name to two lists of "famous residents" will be removed, as Google suggests he fails WP:NOTE. Your article on producer Jane George will most likely be removed as failing WP:NOTE as well. Please don't feel singled out, the way Wikipedia works is that a person, place or thing needs to be notable to rate an article or a mention here as notable. I'm copying this note to your user page and adding a "welcome" template below it so you can familiarize yourself with how the encyclopedia works. --CliffC (talk) 15:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Cliff Napoleon, God of Wikipedia. Do what ever you want but you are wrong. Some of us (including me)who are blind or sight impared appreciate the oral storytelling and you are standing infront of and blocking our inclusion to Wikipedia. You are placing a roadblock in front of us.... SHAME ON YOU! Your parents must be very proud of you. TrgWilson —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgwilson (talk • contribs) 15:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
The blind or sight-impaired won't be sitting around in silence simply because Lauver's and his producer's names are not sprinkled around in Wikipedia. Google shows me 2,700 hits for just one search variation for the spoken word, "recorded radio programs"; there are dozens if not hundreds more possibilities. Rules and guidelines are necessary in any community – I hope you will review the links placed on your talk page and contribute material within the same framework as everyone else. I suggest you also review WP:Conflict of interest to see whether you have a conflict, you probably should not edit articles where one exists. One other acronym you should be aware of, WP:CIV, civility. Finally, please don't bring anyone's family into discussions here. --CliffC (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Civility?! You are a bully! Nobody but Nobody can paint a picture for the blind like Nelson Lauver. You are so arogant to sugest to us to search elsewhere...I rep a group of blind internet users in my area AND WE WANT TO USE WIKIPEDIA, again, shame on you.

There is no conflict of interest here! We reviewed other links and they are filled with ads. The American Storyteller does not have ONE AD on Thier story download page (the page we link to)...AGAIN This is not promotion or Spam... no one is making a cent from these links. The Links are relevent. AND it adds an element that the blind, LD, Visualy impared can participate in... I'll give you something to review - Review the ADA. I wonder how everyone who is giving money to WiKi thru the ONLINE PROMOTION would feel if they knew there was a bully like you out there excluding people with disabilities. Get down off your high horse and get a bit of humanity. I don't think Lauver give a rats *** if the links are here or not... but we do because we want to participate in Wikipedia! Go ahead be a bully and open this can of worms... It won't hurt you but it will hurt us and that will hurt wikipedia... shame shame shame on you! It's time to call the press! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trgwilson (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC) --Trgwilson (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! I'm just letting you know that Trgwilson has taken the above to the helpdesk in an attempt to get you to stop helping them with their copyvio and external link issues. I've attempted to set them straight, but if the civility issues continue, may I suggest WP:ANI? NF24(happy holidays!) 01:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. As I received your message I had just finished dinner and discovered all this, and had just begun a post for WP:EAR because I've found the folks over there helpful in the past. It seems unlikely that this editor is willing to listen to anything further from me. I've never needed WP:ANI and I'd rather not get involved in any back-and-forth with this person, but if I need to after giving WP:EAR a shot I will. Thanks you. --CliffC (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

Thanks for helping wikipedians not get banned and telling them how they can stay out of trouble. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipop-3 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Apparent advertisement"

I have no particular interest in promoting visits to the 5 Frank Lloyd Wright homes I detailed in my edit. I think it's noteworthy that people admire him to the point where a market has developed to stay at homes he designed, a fact that came to my attention in an article on page 42 of the current print version of National Geographic Traveler. I would suggest that any unintended commercial/advertising effect would be eliminated if you simply eliminate the websites, rather than rv the entire text, as you did. I would suggest you reconsider. Thanks.Pr4ever (talk) 03:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry - the web addressees set off my spam alarm and I didn't notice you were a regular user. My knee jerked, and there it went. I'll re-add your edit without the addresses. Best, CliffC (talk) 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! ...and Happy Holidays!Pr4ever (talk) 19:05, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biofeedback, commercial link

My link is not a commercial link http://openemg.free.fr Paul 31 December 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 15:13, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

My French isn't very good but other than the Amazon referral tags, a minor thing, I would agree. I probably overreacted when someone inserted their commercial link ahead of the Mayo Clinic link.
I'm not sure how many English speakers will spend sufficient time on your site to find hidden gems like the build-your-own EKG plans; maybe a translation would help one day. Happy 2008. --CliffC (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Find A Grave link at Nicole duFresne article

Where did you get the idea that a link to Find A Grave does nothing if the burial location is unknown? A lot of burial locations on Find A Grave are unknown, but that does not necessarily invalidate the link. People might want to read Nicole's bio at Find A Grave, peruse the offerings, and then leave their own note for her. To say that the her link to Find A Grave does nothing is ridiculous and absurd. One of the main problems with Wikipedia is the fact that it is too easy for people to make destructive edits. Anthony22 (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia's Find A Grave article,
"Find A Grave is an online database of over 20 million burial records. ... he could not find an existing site that catered to his hobby of visiting the graves of famous people so he decided to create Find A Grave."
What is "ridiculous and absurd", to use your phrase, is to add a link that doesn't deliver what it promises: the location of a burial site. Beyond this lack, if there is indeed material at Find A Grave not already included in the Wikipedia Nicole duFresne article (I don't see any), I encourage you to improve Wikipedia by finding citations for the material and adding it to the Wikipedia article, rather than sending readers off to a commercial site with pop-up, banner and other ads. I'm assuming good faith but poor judgment in the adding of such links. As I run across others that add little value to the host article, I'll remove them as well. --CliffC (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] regarding your opinion of Laurence Caruana

Recently you have shown unusual and dogged concern regarding the article I wrote on Laurence Caruana. First you criticized the lack of references. Fine - I fixed that. Now you have invoked the "notability" clause. Is Laurence Caruana a notable artist? How do we judge this? What criteria have you used to call this into question? After the large contribution he has made to visionary art (recognized by such notable artists as Ernst Fuchs, Alex Grey and Robert Venosa - or are these also not notable in your opinion?), I find your remarks show a lack of knowledge regarding the subject. Do you know anything about Visionary art? Do you know of the artists mentioned on the Visionary Art entry, such as Andrew Gonzalez and Amanda Sage, among others? If you don't, are you now going to go on a witch hunt and question the notability of their pages as well? Given the large amount of people above who have called your judgement into question, I'm relieved to discover that I am not alone in disagreeing with you. Perhaps your actions were well-intended. But, if you have no expertise in a subject, I suggest you leave it alone.

Florence Menard (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I hardly know where to begin. First off, what you call my "unusual and dogged concern" is limited to two edits, (1) adding a {{notability}} tag to the article; (2) a few minutes later, modifying that too-general tag to be more specific, i.e. {{notability|biography}}. I can see that you are new to Wikipedia so I'll simply suggest that you click on the 'history' tab at the top of the page and carefully inspect the history of who has made changes to an article before you leave anyone the above sort of message. Secondly, I do not have an "opinion of Laurence Caruana", as your title above puts it; I only have an opinion of the Wikipedia article about Laurence Caruana; and that opinion is that the author has (so far) failed to ensure that, in the words of WP:Verifiability, "readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Self-published documents are not reliable sources. Caruana may well be the most notable artist visionary or otherwise since Michaelangelo, but to establish that notability you have to quote reliable sources that say so.
Assuming you are the same Florence Menard mentioned in the article in the text "In 1996, he met Florence Ménard (b. May 24, 1972 in Le Mans, France) and the couple moved to Paris", you have a conflict of interest. When you review the material at that last link, you will see that you probably should not directly create or edit Wikipedia articles related to Laurence Caruana or to artists with a relationship to him.
Earlier today I left a 'welcome' template on your user page with links to some helpful information about editing Wikipedia. Right now, I've spent more time on this than I intended, so I'll just restore the tags you removed, add a {{COI}} tag, and copy this section to the talk page so that other interested editors can be informed. Please don't remove the tags. Any further discussion should take place on the article talk page. It's likely that another editor will see the discussion and help get the article back on track. --CliffC (talk) 02:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I can now see that there has been a huge misunderstanding. First of all, when I made the above posting, I did not realize that you were an editor for Wikipedia. (I wish that you had stated that clearly at the beginning of your user page). I assumed you were an anonymous contributor to wikipedia, putting an annoying banner across an article that cost me three days' work. So, I was angry and wrote it in an angry tone. That was a mistake and I apologize.
I also made a mistake assuming that it was you who asked that references be added. I now see that it was another editor. Again - my mistake; my apologies.
Now I find that the the whole issue has gotten entirely out of hand. In response to my (mistaken) angry tone, you have acted in ways that have harmed me deeply. It was wrong for you move the above posting to the discussion section of the article on Laurence Caruana - without even consulting me first. I admit here that I made mistakes. I do not appreciate having those mistakes transferred to a larger forum. Quite simply, it's embarrassing. I also found your subsequent actions a further embarrassment to both Laurence Caruana and myself.
By profession, I am a press attaché. I promote exhibitions in museums here in Paris to all forms of the media - newspapers, magazines, tv, radio, and also the internet. I decided to use my skills to write an article about someone whose work I strongly believe in. Again, I have discovered that this was a mistake on my part. As you clearly pointed out on the discussion page, I am the Florence Menard who is married to Laurence Caruana. So, there is a conflict of interest because I am not a disinterested third party. In other words, I can use my skills to write articles about people I do NOT know, but not about people who I DO know. (What logic!) If I had hidden my identity behind a pseudonym (like thousands of others, including yourself), rather than being honest and putting my name to my work - you would never have made your point in the first place! Your actions of transferring the posting you made here to the discussion page of Laurence Caruana only served to make me feel further embarrassed.
I have removed the article because, according to you
  • 1. The subject lacks sufficient notoreity
  • 2. The author is not an unbiased third party
  • 3. The citations do not come from published sources.
But, to be honest, I have removed both the article and the discussion because I want to save Laurence Caruana and myself from any further public shame. I strongly regret I ever acted on such good intentions, without reading all the rules and regulations first. Seeing the banners over the articles and the misunderstandings on the discussion page have only led to a lot of frustration, lost sleep and lost time. I want to erase everything I did and try to forget it.
Personally, I believe the internet is an open forum where we can find all kinds of information. Its up to the reader, not some higher authority, to use his or her own judgement concerning its veracity. (By the way, everything I wrote about Laurence Caruana is true and even verifiable - though not according to your standards). The benefit of an open forum is that we have access to all kinds of information that we wouldn't normally find in print. I disagree with your opinion that people mentioned in wikipedia must be 'notorious', and that citations must come from 'published' sources. You're only enforcing certain institutions' claims to be an authority. We already have Who's Who, Dictionaries of Proper Names etc. to tell us - authoritatively - who has made an impact on culture. Soon we'll have Knowl as well - written only by 'experts'. What makes wikipedia unique is that it is an open forum, where we can find lesser known, contemporary people making an impact on culture now. At least, that is what I believed when I wrote this article. Your actions have taught me to think differently. It seems that only the notorious, with their sources in print, are to be found in wikipedia (at least according to you). I disagree. But I have removed the article nevertheless.
Signed with my true name.
Florence Menard

82.231.42.43 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Your first assumption, that I am "an anonymous contributor to Wikipedia", was correct, as is your later realization that I am "an editor for Wikipedia". All contributors here are editors, and have no particular standing except by reputation and past contributions. Some editors are also administrators who have the power to enforce the rules, block users from editing the encyclopedia, delete articles, and more. If you ever need the intervention or expert opinion of an administrator, editor assistance requests is a good place to start. I am not an administrator; I am just a contributor here who is interested in making a good online encyclopedia, and I sometimes rub up against other contributors who have their own agenda or are promoting a product or person. You commented earlier on the number of people who have posted to this page calling my judgment into question; in my opinion if no one was arguing at least occasionally against some of my edits I would be doing a poor job of helping to keep the encyclopedia a place for unbiased information, and not a collection of business listings or myspace-like personal profiles.

It is standard practice to conduct discussion of an article's content out in the open air, on its talk page where any interested party can comment. You and your husband have no reason to be embarrassed; you jumped right in and started editing without being familiar with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines, something that happens every day. I was going to suggest at this point a way to make the article and its talk page disappear until someone writes a new Laurence Caruana article within the guidelines (where you have written 'notorious' above I have assumed you mean 'notable'). It appears that your blanking (as the original author) of the page has caused the article to disappear automatically, so nothing need be done. You write well, and I have absolutely no doubt that your husband has accomplished all that you have written. I wish you both the best. --CliffC (talk) 03:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I will not be returning to this page, so don't bother writing a response. In fact, I don't think I ever want to look at a wikipedia article again. Your last piece of writing left me with a very sick feeling in my gut. It is sad that on the internet and at wikipedia we can run across people like you. I'm sure, by the way you write, that you think you are doing good - running around like a self-appointed policeman, quoting rules while slicing left and right with a razor blade, cutting down other people's contributions. Did it feel good - to destroy three days' work? Do you think wikipedia is now a better place because of your actions? Maybe one day you will realize that through the web we have the opportunity to spread positive energy and good thoughts. I had the misfortune of coming across someone who harmed me deeply. And I don't even know who this person is...

Florence Menard (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, this discussion has been as upsetting and distasteful to me as to Ms. Menard, who came to Wikipedia with an agenda and a basic misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works. Although spreading "positive energy and good thoughts" are wonderful personal goals, they won't make for a very good encyclopedia. Wikipedia policies will not change merely because they might seem illogical to a new editor.
Based on what I have read about Mr. Caruana, I would welcome a fresh article about him, and not involve myself with it in any way. I have tried to be WP:CIVIL through all this, in the face of derogatory comments. Anything I could add here would just repeat something already said above, and perhaps also be deemed as hurtful, so I'll say no more. --CliffC (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Assata Shakur

Re This edit: can I see the source you found for the claim that neither side was allowed to question jurors and that the judge did? The source previously cited substantiates the claim that you removed. Savidan 01:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll have to dig a bit though, it's been a while since I found that out (probably from digging through NY Times PDFs). The Wikipedia article's statement "Shakur's defense attorneys were not allowed to question prospective jurors" is what inspired me to ask for a copy of Kirsta's article, because it seemed so implausible. That is indeed what Kirsta says in her article, a statement that is technically true, but only a half-truth. --CliffC (talk) 03:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Here we go, all from the NY Times.
IMO, Kirsta does some other fact spinning that could stand a closer look. --CliffC (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Reading those, it doesnt appear that Kirsta is correct, but (as you mention) not the whole story. It does seem like the dispute over the questioning of the jurors deserves some mention in the article. I'll consult your sources, look for others, and see if something more balanced can be added. Thanks. Savidan 05:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, the NY Times in the second cite above describes the questioning as "wide-ranging" and says that both sides agree it has been "searching", so I don't know that the initial dispute even deserves a mention without having to burn up a lot of wiki-ink to explain how it went away. The four or five example questions asked by the judge, given further down the column, seem the right things to be asking white potential jurors. I view Ray Brown's proposed additional questions as just something he threw against the wall as possible grounds for a future appeal, knowing they would be rejected. --CliffC (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] EAR

Along those lines, do you want rollback? :) JustinContribsUser page 03:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I would normally get rid of such writings on my own, but my homeowner's policy has a specific exclusion for lawsuits brought by the Astors. So, yes, please do. :-> Cheers, CliffC (talk) 05:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
+Rollbacker. However, I realized you wanted someone else to do it. Well, the option's open to you. But first, those look like good faith edits, even though they have a COI. What's wrong with them? JustinContribsUser page 17:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think we have confused each other. I did not click on your "those" link above; I assumed you were talking about my EAR edit to subject "my mother, charlotte fisk", not the nearby subject "Matthew Crane" that your "those" link points to. My EAR edit pointed to these edits which seem poorly formed, unencyclopedic, possibly a violation of BLP and probably an ad for a forthcoming book. If it turns out that we are indeed talking about the same edits, what next? --CliffC (talk) 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the edits in question were cleaned out, but not by me. I'd rather not get involved where a user is threatening legal action, I'll let the admins handle the touchy stuff.

J-stan, thanks for the privilege, I'll try not to go nuts with it. --CliffC (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

J-stan, you might want to fix your link at the top of this section. It links to the most recent diff, not the diff you probably intended.
CliffC, I replied to your assistance request. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] phishing

I added an important global tool to the set of technical solutions for phishing, which you have taken out. There is nothing there that constitutes advertising! Every browser now day s has a built in password manger that all consumers can benefit from. My analysis is completely academic with references. ZEUHUD (talk) 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)ZEUHUD

Sorry, but most editors here are good at recognizing edits like this, where the main goal seems to be to provide bedding for a product mention or link. Please take a couple of days to review WP:EL and the other Wikipedia links I put on your user page. If you happen to know User:E8MXNX, who seems to be editing article password manager with a similar goal of publicizing SignupShield, please pass the word that Wikipedia is not a free billboard. You might have a conflict of interest as far as SignupShield goes, are you associated in any way with the company? Meanwhile, I have reverted your latest edits to Phishing, please take it up on that article's talk page and get consensus before adding the link again. --CliffC (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Just a thought...

Whoops! Made a mistake there. I undid that. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landing Page Optimization

Cliff, did you read either page? The link is highly relevant to Landing page optimization. Nowheres on your user page do you even claim to have any experience with Internet Marketing. What are you basing the below statement on?

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Landing page optimization. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. --CliffC (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)"

Its not used for advertising or promotion. I'm not affiliated with the site. The site promotes nothing but Internet Marketing best practices

The Wikipedia page is about landing page optimization and the external link is about how to go about it. I read the article found it useful and I believe others will to.

Granted the first time I put the link up it was on Landing Page which may have not been the best place for it, however it does belong on landing page optimization.

[edit] Question about Revision to "Intuit" page

Cliff, I'm new to editing Wikipedia, but as far as I can tell you made an edit to the "Intuit" page to remove a section on an Intuit product called "Billing Manager" (Revision date: 16:08 20 February 2008). Could you explain why it was removed? I'd like to have a description for this Intuit product on this page, so if you could provide me with any feedback about a better way that I can describe the product I would appreciate it. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry about that, I had just removed a spam link from the article and noticed the "Billing Manager" addition (this one) through the narrow "recent changes" window on the history page. Its wording and the mention of IMS made it sound like an outside company, my mistake for not reading closely. I see that someone has already rewritten and re-added the entry. My apologies. --CliffC (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cliff, it's not a problem. Like I said, I'm new to Wikipedia, so I just wanted to make sure I was doing things correctly. Thanks for your quick response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.204.229.11 (talk) 05:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Question about Baby Boomer Page

The Boomer Capssule www.boomercapsule.com is an important legacy site for the Baby Boom generation. It is far more important than other external links you have at Baby Boomer. Why is my contribution edited out? Bagori (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest reading closely the messages left on your user page and following the links provided, especially those to WP:EL and "promotional links"; and also WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #9, as the site seems to require Flash.
Please add content to Wikipedia, not links. --CliffC (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Boomer Show Link

I take great exception to your categorization of The Boomer Show link as SPAM.

The Boomer Show is a television show specifically geared towards Baby Boomer family, health, fitness, finances, relationships, retirement, lifestyle, work, changing careers, travel, music, movies and celebrity guests including Ed McMahon, Rita Coolidge, Mike Love of the Beach Boys, Jocko from Sha-Na-Na and other celebrities of interest to Baby Boomers.

It’s a TV show seen by millions of people who use cable or satellite services

The Boomer Show is the #1 Google search result for “Boomer Show” legitimatizing its stance as a site of interest to Baby Boomers.

The Boomer Show webpage/s has NO BANNER ADS The Boomer Show webpage/s have NO LINKS TO EXTERNAL SPAM SITES The Video on the webpage can be viewed for free and HAS NO ADVERTISEMENTS All the content on the webpage BELONGS TO THE SITE OWNER The link was ADDED TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LINKS QUEUE

If the above standards were set to all the other links in the article we would be the only one left! I’m sure you have made many legitimate corrections in the past but with that comes a percentage of false positives.

I will thank you in advance for rectifying your oversight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScholarlyInSoCal (talk • contribs) 19:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Message copied to Talk:Baby boomer and replied to there. --CliffC (talk) 21:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] D'oh!

After all the work I did to determine that Rene And Georgette Magritte With Their Dog After The War shouldn't have an accent mark and that all the words should be capitalized I went and spelled it wrong! Thanks for noticing. --House of Scandal (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invite

Century Tower

As a current or past contributor to a related article, I thought I'd let you know about WikiProject University of Florida, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of University of Florida. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! ~~~~

 
Jccort (talk) 03:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External links

I would like to discuss why you removed my external links. The website I am adding is an educational resource for teachers and students and is very helpful and relevant to the pages I'm adding it to.ArtandSocialIssues (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a link farm or a free promotional medium, even for non-profit organizations. I suggest you spend a couple of days reviewing the material at the links placed today on User talk:ArtandSocialIssues and User talk:CMAOhio, then come back and propose adding your link one-at-a-time on each article's talk page. Wikipedia needs content , not links. Please help improve Wikipedia by adding content, even though that may be harder to do. --18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently saw an addition by CMAOhio and a revert by OrangeMike on the Paul Cadmus page, which is on my watchlist. I liked the link, restored it and told OrangeMike I'd look over CMAOhio's additions and will consider adding them back, but in each case, I'll look at the link and see if it seemed appropriate to the article. That should remove spam & COI issues and improve the encyclopedia. I'm not criticizing anyone here, and thanks for your work. Noroton (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were aware of this, but the link is part of the official Columbus Museum of Art site, and at least one of the articles it was added to was the Museum's article. For what it's worth. Postdlf (talk) 20:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

(Discussion of this museum spam continues at User talk:ArtandSocialIssues and User talk:CMAOhio.) --CliffC (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:FistFinger800.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:FistFinger800.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 03:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Network monitoring

It has been suggested that Deep packet capture be merged into Network monitoring. I need you to discuss this here: Talk:Network_monitoring. Kgrr (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help - I have no interest in Network monitoring per se, the article happens to be on my watchlist because it draws a lot of spam. --CliffC (talk) 19:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removing External Links from subject: Enhanced External Counterpulsation

I understand your external link policy and why my link was removed. But I don't understand why you allow 2 dead links to remain and a link from our competator. I guess it's OK for some businesses to adverstise on Wikipedia but not others. If you're going to apply this rule I think it should be applied evenly and fairly.

Topic: eecp

Dead links:

EECP & Heart Health, Piyavate Hospital EECP, Non-Invasive Method for Curing Coronary Vessels written by Ershad Sharifahmadian, (The comprehensive explanation about Enhanced external counterpulsation in Persian)

Comeptator link:

EECP

Regards, acsholter

Acsholter (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing these out. Most editors, myself included, only look at links when they are added. If no one notices that a new link violates the guidelines, it will stick around until someone does notice, as you have. This can take a while for articles like this one, perhaps not widely read or followed. For discussion, I have temporarily copied and numbered the external links from the current version of Enhanced external counterpulsation below.
1 *EECP & Heart Health, Piyavate Hospital
2 *Enhanced external counterpulsation at SurgeryEncyclopedia.com
3 *EECP, Non-Invasive Method for Curing Coronary Vessels written by Ershad Sharifahmadian, (The comprehensive explanation about Enhanced external counterpulsation in Persian)
4 *EECP
5 *[6], (An explanation of EECP for non-medical types, plus observation data for one coronary disease sufferer)
1 - isn't dead as I type this. I have noticed that sites on the other side of the globe (this one is in Thailand) sometimes seem to be off the air or unreachable for whatever reason during the wee small hours over there. This site seems to add value to the article
2 - seems to add value to the article
3 - is indeed dead, I have removed it
4 - is indeed a promotional link, I have removed it
5 - is a blog link, blogs fail WP:EL unless "by a recognized authority" demonstrably a Wikipedia reliable source. Google shows few hits for blog author "HP Masher", I have removed it.
Again, thanks for pointing these out, and I hope you will enjoy editing here. --CliffC (talk) 03:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tangoterms external website

You deleted the www.tangoterms.com external link in the several articles where it showed up and you chastised the anon IP editor for spamming the link. What complaint do you have with the link itself? I found it to be totally absent of commercialism or advertising. Binksternet (talk) 16:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

If the anon IP editor takes time to follow the links placed on his talk page, he'll see that his edits violate WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, #4, "Links mainly intended to promote a website".
I have no objection to the site itself, in fact it looks pretty good. If the IP will take a look at Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer ("Some people spam Wikipedia without meaning to"), he'll see ideas on how to add his link without setting off everyone's spam alert. One way is to contribute actual content to the articles and not just a bare link. I'll copy this section to his talk page. Regards, CliffC (talk) 17:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Obs

LOL. Thanks. I promise to try to avoid all future prentense. I see you've got some good observations of your own on your user page. Some of them are damn funny; there's plenty more to be written about around here! Cheers, Antandrus (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Apology - Red Robin Page

After reading both your and my comments on the Talk:Red Robin page, I feel the need to apologize. I didn't mean to offend you by my questions. Sometimes when I troubleshoot problems, my questions can sound insulting or demeaning, and that was not my intent. I also didn't mean to offend you by asking if you notified Red Robin of the issue. I didn't mean that I thought you were that type of person. I misinterpreted what you had saying about "hoping they watch wikipedia", and I apologize for that. I don't doubt that you and your friend have been able to reproduce the problem. I'm baffled as to what is happening to cause the problem. I think your assessment that there's some sort of cookie issue is probably correct. Like you, I will continue to watch for the problem. Anyways, my tone was short with you and I want to apologize for that. -- Jwinters | Talk 22:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, and no apology really necessary. I could have been more complete in my problem description, at least to make it clear that I had contacted Red Robin without getting a response. I was probably weary from trying the sequence various ways to reproduce the failure, then writing down all the required steps. In my own troubleshooting experience I got flamed once or twice for asking the basic "have you got it plugged in" type questions straight out, so I began asking indirectly with "well, assuming it's plugged in, ha ha..." then moving on from there. Regards, CliffC (talk) 05:13, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EAR

copied from your request on WP:EAR re: Pentyrch

Seeing that no one has replied, there probably are not many people who watch this page who are familiar with the topic. I have asked someone who knows the topic (or at least where to look for correct info) to have a look. You may also want to file a request for comment. Pastordavid (talk) 15:12, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't have any actual interest in the subject, I came across it when following a vandal from another article. It seemed unlikely that "the villagers of Irish descent were rounded up and marched into the sea" in 1962, so I removed that claim, but I think some other imaginative writing may still exist. Your approach of asking someone in-the-know to take a look sounds like the right one. Feel free to close the request. --CliffC (talk) 04:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About adding "Definition" section...

Hi, CliffC! Thanks a lot for your remark! I should take a look at WP:LEAD more often and for more specific issues (not only definitions, of course). Of course, I'll look for all my "Definition" sections added, so as to delete them. If you have any other comments, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards from Mexico City. Gustavo--correogsk (talk) 06:54, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Gustavo. Best regards to you also. CliffC (talk) 04:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Contrived see also

Hello Cliff, at first your removal annoyed me, but then i realised i might have been a bit too zealous in de-orphaning. Still, as therapy for stress fractures aquajogging could've been added... Anyway, it's a matter of definition. Shoombooly (talk) 20:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, sometimes it's a pain to try to find a connection for an article marked as an orphan. Maybe in Sports medicine or Physical exercise, or one of the articles they link to? Best, CliffC (talk) 21:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)