User:Versageek/Talk/Archive/2

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page

---

Response to message sent about external link contributions

Hello Versageek

Thank you for your input on the contributions we have made to external links lists on a couple of articles. We have read the relevant guidelines and we do not feel we are in violation of any of them. The link we have added was deleted multiple times by individuals who apparently did not investigate it's relevance sufficiently and made summary judgements regarding it's intent.

The link does not perform any advertising or promotional function and is not directed towards personal gain or promotion. It is a link to a page that the advocacy group Democracy by the People has put great painstaking effort into creating as a free and open resource for those researching the topics directly related to the Wikipedia articles to which we added the link. Our page provides links to over 600 websites and articles related to the topic, and is the most extensive such list in existence on the web.

We think you can agree that this is a valuable resource for Wikipedia readers to advance their pursuit of knowledge and learning regarding the topic and it's inclusion in the relevant articles is in line with the goals of Wikipedia. Democracy by the People has no advertizing on it's website, and has nothing to gain but the free and open dissemination of information about direct and participatory democracy to interested parties. That is the sole motive for our existence, and for us adding the link, and represents no conflict of interest.

The external links lists in both articles contain links to similar sites of similar organizations that provide the same type of free information and lists of relevant links, so We fear that we have been targeted by overzealous individuals, perhaps due to an error we made in an earlier contribution which perhaps has made us a target. We quickly did our best to remedy that error, and we think that if this current contribution were evaluated on its own merits without prejudice, it would not be judged as suspect. We welcome any further input on your part, especially if under further investigation of the situation you find that you are in agreement with our assessment and could serve as an advocate on our part in relation to your Wikepedia peers.

Thank you and best regards --Democracybythepeople (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Shobana Chandrakumar's page changed

No derogatory stuff anymore; only the truth as published in the media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shishirsingh1 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

William Jefferys entry

Thank you for your comment. The documentation that supports what I said is available below: http://paginas.terra.com.br/educacao/criticandokardec/racism_in_avoid_l_forum.pdf

Best,

- Julio Siqueira (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ADHD

I should be delighted to have your help. Self-appointed guardians of a certain page have repeatedly deleted edits I have made, on what I believe to be spurious grounds. I should liek to refer this to a neutral arbitrator. I should have said I was Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted you again.. please don't continue making the same changes to the article. It will only lead to you being blocked for edit-warring. I have placed a {{disputed}} tag at the top of the page - so everyone can see that someone disagrees. The next step is to use the discussion page to determine how to reflect the dispute in the text without resorting to weasel words. --Versageek 23:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

what is a "test edit"? all i did was edit a page, because it said "edit" so i wanted to EDIT it! wtf is wrong with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad5161 (talk • contribs) 23:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

It might be useful to have your attention to Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder again. I've been trying to bring the article to a neutral position without unbalancing it, and it is starting to become more difficult, as POV editors from two extremes are pushing hard in opposite directions. The user you warned before, User:Clockback, is heavily contentious in Talk, claiming that the truth is being excluded from the article; he was originally restrained after his 3RR warning, but has now returned to making edits that he knows will be reverted as inappropriate, and he just acknowledged that he was doing this as a "test." diff. User:Scuro knows policy better, but is a fast-reverting editor with a POV, which he has expressed many times: any criticism of "ADHD" is fringe. I was only able to keep a mention of the controversy in the article, facing his reverts, because I found reliable source for it, and the word "controversy" wasn't allowed by him, but he has, so far, had to settle for "diverse views," since that was in the source. He is almost an SPA, contentious from the beginning, see Special:Contributions/Scuro. Giving that I'm seeing clear POV edits from both sides now, it's becoming difficult to maintain the article without 3RR violations on my part. (But there are some other editors assisting, which helps.) The strong POV editors have resisted attempts to unify them in seeking an article which is fair to all notable points of view. I developed a plan, which was to put the brief mention of "diverse views" in the intro, leaving the article more or less alone, i.e., not putting weasel words in every claim, or inserting every critical comment available, but then focusing on the article Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies where the notability problem is far less significant, and, when that article was solid and reliably sourced, summary style could be used to bring what was appropriate back to the main article. In any case, advice as well as support with the article, perhaps protecting it, would be useful. (Or semi-protecting it, an IP editor just took out the reference to the subarticle on controversies with no edit summary, it's beyond me why there is such fervor among the anti-fringe crowd. I can understand Clockback's crusade.) I have warned Clockback and I intend to warn Scuro and another editor, the latter for incivility in an edit summary.diff. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Really - and writing things like "Peter Hitchens's comment is dense" isn't contentious?? I got "This is a complex discussion, it is necessary to be able to read in order to follow it" and "Ever hear of Messies Anonymous?" in ADHD talk from Abd. I consider his last comment simply trolling for a ban on Clockback and my last edit to the ADHD controversy article has been immediately reversed by Abd. Like Scuro I find this edit warring and long lectures on policy unnecessary. Miamomimi (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of links

Recently you deleted all my contributions? I put the links [www.GetitDoneRight.ca] and [www.ualocal67.com] to United Association. Local 67 pays dues and is a part of the United Association I think the link is justified. As well the other link is the Canadian division of the United Association. Please explain why theese links can not be added. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dontbfooled (talk • contribs) 15:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a directory, links on articles should provide encyclopedic information about the subject. If you feel your sites should be linked on those pages, please inquire on the article talk page. If others agree with you, they may be re-added. --Versageek 16:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

== additions to Category:Recyclable materials ==

You are right. I was kind of thinking maybe to make a Recyclable Products category, but that could get a little extreme. I had planned on whittling it down a bit. Thank you for the feedback. I think i'll go work on it now.Quickmythril (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of authority in Trita Parsi's page.

I find the process that you (Versageek) is following very unfair. I beg you to at least discuss what I have argued there and give it al list an appearance of a more democratic process! The section under political controversy is cut and censored so much that it is a meaningless paragraph now. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Unfortunately, I am dealing with a complaint by the subject which now involves lawyers. It is not my objective to suppress legitimate criticism, however I must insist that content critical of Parsi and the organization which he heads be verifiable and sourced (preferably from main-stream media/news, not political opinion sites), and the sources meet the criteria set in our Reliable Sources guidelines. --Versageek 04:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Then please define a fair process in which the other side of Trita Parsi can be discussed too. If A famous Washington Lawer (Roy Coffee) in a letter published in media claimes that he worked with Trita Parsi and Bob Ney to create NIAC (disbuting what the subject claimes) is that legitimate? Have you typed Parsi's name in google to see what comes up? and then Wiki intendes to offer a clean white washed one sided image of Trita Parsi? Please point to a fair and balanced way. Omid.Biniaz (talk) 11:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Omid

Ingushetiya.ru, former Www.ingushetiya.ru

Hi! Please be more careful when speedeleting articles. Simple google search gives results like these (http://rferl.org/reports/FullReport.aspx?report=567&id=2007/02/567-10-06, http://www.jamestown.org/chechnya_weekly/article.php?articleid=2373790) that prove the notability of this portal. One doesn't even have to know Russian to determine this. Respectfully, Alæxis_¿question? 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

MyWikiBiz.com on the SquelchBot blacklist

Who recommended that MyWikiBiz.com be put on the SquelchBot blacklist? I am going to guess that it's someone with a conflict of interest regarding the owner of the site, and that it wasn't vetted through any public discussion. I'll look for your answer here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.72.53 (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

That domain was added to the blacklist by User:Betacommand. --Versageek 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I fully endorse that decision. Mywikibiz is a site very prone to spam, and therefore new and unregistered users are reverted when adding this link. Established editors can add the link when deemed necessery. The statement on homepage says enough in this regard: "You earn money here. Author a really popular page, embed your own Google AdSense ads on it, and you keep 100% of the revenues generated from that page's advertising.". Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of Rocketboom. Wikipedia already has an article about it at Rocketboom. You mention Ellie Rountree in the article, but you have it going to a red link page that doesn't even exist. The guy who runs MyWikiBiz made a page about Ellie (http://www.mywikibiz.com/Directory:Ellie_Rountree) on MyWikiBiz, and we think it's pretty awesome. What damage is being done to Wikipedia by having a link to something the community has already determined is important and notable enough, but hasn't bothered to make a page about? I just don't understand -- isn't this supposed to be an encyclopedia that helps readers find information they're looking for, or is it just a game to punish other websites? - Makeacontribution (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Information should be included (if it is notable enough), if you want to find information, dmoz is to your left, [and google is to your right. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, we are not a linkfarm or an advertising service. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your hopes that this "explains" are quaint, but unfulfilled. I am an established editor since March 2006, and my attempt to add a useful link about Ms. Rountree was similarly rebuffed by this bot. I am thankful that you've included links to DMOZ and to Google, both are extremely useful resources, as is mywikibiz for some of the semi-notable people and institutions that have not yet made their way to a full Wikipedia article. I happen to think Wikipedia's purpose is to share human knowledge with readers seeking it. You seem to have a different agenda. So, again, why are we blocking mywikibiz, yet tolerating over 11,000 links to Wikia -- a site that as recently as four days ago was promoting and protecting adult fantasies of physically abusing pre-pubescent children? I don't recall mywikibiz hosting pictures children being beaten red to the point of tears. Wikia also personally benefits three noted Wikipedians, so there is a clear conflict of interest. The number of links to Wikia has nearly tripled in the past 18 months. How do you define spam-linking, if not by that? Please add Wikia to the Squelchbot, and I think all will be fair and balanced. Or, remove mywikibiz (a huge threat, with its 12 previous external links. - John Russ Finley (talk) 04:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you

Thanks for cleaning up after SquelchBot at Jolie Justus. It's very annoying to be an IP, some days... (no logging in from work). 205.167.180.130 (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Help Removing the Pictures Of Holy Prophet Muhammad

Hello Dear,

Being Muslims, Islam prohibits pictures of any living being but specially pictures of Holy Prophet will cause panic among the Muslims throuhout the world.

Pleaes remove all the pictures of Holy Prophet Muhammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjankhan (talk • contribs) 05:16, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oleo

Hello I tried to ad a link to the page on Oleo of Phineas Newborn Jr. Playing the song on youtube. Please relink and undo the bot's work. Thanks--74.138.83.10 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		The da Vinci Barnstar may be awarded to anyone who has enhanced Wikipedia through their technical work. Awarded to Versageek for the resurrection and enhancement of such a good bot, XLinkBot. --Hu12 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If the bot gets a new name, Please feel free to change that above...--Hu12 (talk) 13:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I have to give Beetstra the credit for enhancements. I support the infrastructure & keep the bots running. Now, if we can just emerge from the testing period, I'll be happy! --Versageek 03:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting my contributions to Wikipedia

Question, why are you targetting me by deleting my contributions to Wikipedia? I thought anyone could contribute, thanks for any reply. Wfgh66 (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please see: this discussion & others linked from there. --Versageek 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, have I been included on a Spam List, why - what have I done wrong? I do not understand - can you please explain? The links to my website that are now being deleted were mostly placed in the Wikipedia articles by other people - contributors and other Administrators like LoreMaster and Paul Barlow. And links to pseudo-historical websites remain intact. My website is not pseudo-historical or of a romantic history nature. It is rigidly critical and concentrates on producing unique primary source material, why have I been placed into the spam category? Can you please explain. This would be highly appreciated. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE CAN YOU GIVE ME A REPLY, This is very important. Thank you very much, respectfully, Wfgh66 (talk) 06:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, see, 77.49.252.57 is removing links to my website that were placed by others. You can verify this for yourself. respectfully,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gérard_de_Sède&action=history Wfgh66 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Joe Pulizzi

Hi! Noticed your recent revision and I'm glad to have someone besides the creator and I step in there as s/he's asking some questions that I can't quite answer, especially re: the bot edits. Can you come help me answer the questions so we can get the article going wherever it needs to go? I have no vested interest in it, other than fixing it and keeping the creator from going insane from the bot reverts. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links like:
The planet Earth's temperature extreme records are:
See the reversions at Planetary human habitability
198.163.53.10 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If you read the message the bot left on your talk page, it tells you why your edits were reverted.. they contained a link to blogspot.com. I have reverted the article to your version, minus the blogspot.com link. --Versageek 18:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Business Broker page

As a business buyer, working with a business broker, I found this page of fantastic help. www.alpinebusinessbrokers/funding-a-small-business.html. I tried to add a link for others but it keeps getting removed. I notice other links from other brokers that are also good information, such as the link to www.brcslc.com on the role of the escrow attorney. The link above was very easy for me to understand and in simple straight forward language laid out in a very easy to understand format, with additonal links and helps. Please consider adding this link to help other buyers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.243.172 (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Career Pathways

thank you for the information on the deletion of the career pathways page - we are going to work on the definition today and use the writing better article guidelines to help. -Janan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janan douglasgould (talk • contribs) 13:24, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

getVEQ.com

I believe you deleted my page "getVEQ.com", citing that my post did not comply with the guidelines. I read the guidelines and I also modeled my page after other similar pages which are currently active, such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insider_Pages http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citysearch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp%2C_Inc.

Can you provide details on why my page was any different than these? I really do want to learn and comply.

Thank you. --Cmg07068 (talk) 00:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read our web content and corporate notability guidelines. In looking at the three pages you mention, Citysearch is probably the weakest in terms of establishing notability, Insider Pages had coverage in the New York Times, and Yelp has much press coverage, as well as having received a "Webby" award. Your page was deleted the first time because it read like an advertisement, and the second time because it failed to establish notability as defined in the guidelines I mentioned above. --Versageek 00:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

TEL I.T. NETWORK

TEL I.T. NETWORK:

An Administrator is the best judge to decide if an article is worth for deletion. So I shall have no objection if an administrator finds an article worth deletion.

Thanking you - Soumendra Nath Thakur (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Warning about copyrights infringement about Caracal pistol page

Hello.

"Please do not add copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Caracal Pistol. "

I did not infringe any copyright since I am the author of the text I used and that is used in non commercial Caracal informative site I linked to exactly the same way I linked to a non commercial informative thread about the MP 18.1, the one I own being one of the 7 pieces known registered pieces in the world and the only one to be in full working original conditions. My professional activity as a fireams and ballistic expert allowed me to searh in depth the genesis of this new type of weapons during WW1 and after more than 15 years of search I could even find the descendant of the actors who played such an important role in history and technology. I am actually the only person in the world to be able to post pictures and videos of many mythical weapons like I did on some forums (I would like to upload some pictures on Wikipedia but I am not at ease with the upload process yet) The reason behind being able to do so I the fact that I spent years searching both for professional reasons and personal interest, my activity allowing me to own, use and study the material I post about.

I would like now to share this knowledge I acquired since I am changing course in my professional orientation and most of those in quest of informations in this field and more widely in History will greatly appreciate to have finally reliable informative datas and not hearsay and endless cut and paste from non verified sources.

Sincerely Edmond HUET —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quickload (talk • contribs) 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Query about deletion of You Tube link

XLinkBot removed an external link to You Tube in the article titled Glider. I didn't add the link and personally I would have put it Gliding, but I would like to understand what judgement the bot applied. Articles can be illustrated with photos, but the only way to illustrate the sport of gliding with video would be by providing a link to some of the videos on You Tube. Quoting from the guidelines on external links "There is no blanket ban on linking to these sitesas long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (which would be infrequent)". I have no idea whether a link to gliding videos would rank as one of the infrequent exceptions, but I have gone through each of the criteria and cannot see which one has been contravened in merely illustrating the subject. JMcC (talk) 00:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Realistically, no bot can evaluate the content of a youtube.com video. XLinkBot reverts new and anonymous users who add links to youtube.com, as well as a few other popular domains. More often than not, links to these domains added by new and anonymous users fail to meet the guidelines (because these users don't know them), and many times they link to content which is copyvio material (clips of TV shows, etc..). We do leave the user an informative message about why they were reverted & ask them to review the guidelines. If they believe the link complies, they are free to revert the bot. It will only revert 3 times a day on a specific article - and it won't revert if the last version was by it or an anti-vandal bot. I'm not sure if this answers your question. We are still evaluating XLinkBot's operational parameters to find what works best for stemming the tide of inappropriate links without biting the users. --Versageek 01:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Did a few things for XLinkBot. Made {{/request|0#section_name}} for logging (modified the instructions^[1]] and created archives w/instruct^[2]. Ive posted as such in the discussion section^[3]. ;)--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot & WP:BITE

I'm interested that you enforce the style guideline wp:el with a bot. Have the pros and cons of removing blogspot.com addresses on sight been weighed up in any discussion? It seems to me to go against wp:agf to assume that such a link is not to an authority, for instance, or to a useful unproblematic site for which no better substitute exists . In the case which made me notice the bot, btw, I had corrected a typo, making a link by another editor "live". 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

youtube.com & XLinkBot

you realize that some users have quite properly been painstakingly going through links to youtube to determine which violate copyright and which do not? Why should you ride roughshod over work which adheres to policy and respects users? As with the blogspot issue i asked about several days ago without response, you are removing stuff on sight based on the newness of the user, not with regard to policy. I support a courteous bot like cluebot who reverts possible vandalism as necessary and, in my experience, judicious - but this bot that target new users based merely on URLs like youtube and blogspot surely is neither. Work like this should be done on a case by case basis. This is demoralizing. [4] [5]. I am all too aware of the chilling effect and guilt by association caused by edit histories full of ip reversions. You cannot create a hierarchy of users. Policy does not support it, and I would be surprised if you could convince me that there is a reason why a bot should be doing this. Phrases like "more often than not" do not override concerns which go to the very heart of the project. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

• I share some of your concerns about having these popular domains on XLinkBot's revert list. As I said in an earlier reply to someone else, we are still ironing out the operating parameters for the bot, It may end up that these domains are removed from the revert list, that the reverting for these domains becomes more limited, or that we introduce new features to the bot to address these sort of additions in some other, more user-friendly manner. --Versageek 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but your reply doesn't evidence that you've grappled with the facts laid out (I hope–feel free to query) above: that this bot does not and by definition cannot operate in line with policy, and is striking at core philosophies. I would expect you to at least have counter-arguments prior to running the bot.

One great thing your bot could do (I presume, I'm not a technical person) is flag edits like these and log them to a page where interested editors could inspect them? Would there be sufficient interest?

Is the bot patrolling just recent changes, or the whole database? (I'm concerned that previous work weeding out good and bad may be undone).

As I said above, I'm still open to the argument that there is a need so pressing and error margin so narrow for automation that it overrides these concerns, as in the case of cluebot. I just doubt it can be made convincingly. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and expand on this. The people who try to keep the addition of external links in line with policy are facing an almost impossible task, there are about 40 links added to wikipedia (mainspace) every minute. The majority of those links are fine, but there are many links which do not comply with one or more of our policies and guidelines (Wikipedia:External links is a summary, which mainly 'discourages', though some are plainly not allowed according policy; e.g. Wikipedia:COPYRIGHT: links to copyrighted material should not be there, period). Users who have been here a bit longer generally know about these concerns and will check that before adding a link, but 'new' editors generally are not aware of these policies and guidelines. If the links do not qualify for one of the spam blacklists, the choice of reverting and warning the user that there may be concerns with their links is an option (this practice has been active quite long on Wikipedia as User:Shadowbot and User:AntiSpamBot). It seems a bit bitey (though the first warning is a good faith warning), and for some of the edits it is, but as far as I have seen the majority of the reverts by the bot are correct (and also ClueBot and VoABot II do make mistakes). The bot only reverts once on an edit, obeys 3RR etc., so links that are OK, dispite the bots concern, can be re-added without further warning, and the bot quickly forgets it warned a user before (after a couple of hours). Only persistent adding links will get your edits being reported, and then still that can be reverted if they are deemed OK.

If it is indeed the case that some domains are too often mistakenly reverted, then they should be removed from the revertlist. Though I think that even for myspace, youtube and blogspot in more than 99.5% there is some form of concern which should be investigated (e.g. blogs would only be OK if they are the official blog of the subject of the wikipage, and even for those who seem to have the name of the article, often there is no proof that it is actually an official blog, and most are just not correct).

One possibility that I have been thinking about is to make the first revert on a user not a revert, but a good faith remark to the users talkpage (something along the line 'thank you for adding information to .., but the external link .. that you added or changed is on my revertlist, could you please check if the external link you added there does comply with .., .., .. and ... If the link does not comply with one or more of these, then please remove the link.'). If the user then adds the link to more pages, it may qualify as 'spamming', and can be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot and voabot do indeed make mistakes, and are not so circumspect re reversions (on the night i met xlink bot i was being reverted by voabot attempting to remove a list...) but i "forgive" them because clearly vandalism needs to be removed urgently. the first warning is a good faith warning ... The bot only reverts once on an edit, obeys 3RR etc., so links that are OK, dispite the bots concern, can be re-added without further warning I think reflecting on these two facts allays my concerns, so I withdraw them. Thank you for your time. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 20:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add, the 3RR and one-revert settings can be overridden using an on-wiki override list (one of the subpages under User:XLinkBot). If an administrator decides that a certain link/domain is particularly bad, then that can be used (but AFAIK the lists are empty). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent post

Attempting to stir up others with this post was completely uncool. I have reverted it.--Versageek 05:46, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was uncool to compare fat people with feces. That's why I posted it. If you took it wrongly, I apologize. Regards. Wiki Raja (talk) 06:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but we do not understand your reasons for removing our post.

Aloha Versageek

Mahalo nui loa (thank you very much) for your input on contributions we have made to a couple of articles. Prior to making said posts, we tried to be respectful and read what we believed to be relevant guidelines. Though the references you sent were much more informative than we found. We have since read the relevant guidelines you sent links for and we do not feel we are in violation of any of them.

Never-the-less, our post was removed. Frankly, we cannot devote the time to help with this project. If our posts are going to be so extremely scrutinized as to remove useful information too. If the NETFIRMS link is acceptable there, then we were in good company, adding useful information to the Wiki.

But, it seems maybe that so much concern is placed on self-promotion, that the value of the information is not relevant. So not only was our link removed, the information was as well.

In any event, we publish comments on many topics with Businessweek, ZDnet and more. Considering their concern for self-promotion, they have always regarded our posts as useful. If posting here is not appreciated in similar form. Then we must invest our time elsewhere.

Please consider replacing our post, and encouraging us to continue to add to this project. Or advise us to move on where we will feel the "love".

Have a wonderful week, and a successful year.

Aloha,

Franz Rodgers, CEO BYTEmeCITY Chairman@SuperKids.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.39.140.37 (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

issue with a editor on a wiki page

on the ogame wiki page we are having an issue with an individual constantly trying to advertize his website. on the page we have a description of the game as expected and a section with reviews faq's etc. also in that section is approved tools for the game. these tools while not directly supported by gameforge are endorsed by the english section of ogame. many requests have been made of this individual to discontinue but this has yet to happen. it seems you have also had a runin with him. 85.5.117.109 (talk) as you can see this is an IP issue. the ip does not appear dynamic as it is quite steady on the edits. we have attempted contact via the articles discussion page. i know on some pages this has been done and im not sure if it can be done here... but is it possible to make the ogame page editable by only registered users? any assistance in this matter would be appreciated. thanks. Anubis1055 (talk) 08:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Group B videos

Hi, XlinkBOT deleted very illustrative videos from Group_B#External_links. It's my impression that those video clips have been in the public domain for well over a decade. They date from the mid-1980s. Please fix your BOT so it doesn't do that. --63.98.135.196 (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi Versageek I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot has been approved. Please visit the above link for more information. Thanks! BAGBot (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's exactly the discussion I asked to be directed to, how disappointing that Versageek kept it from me. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't keeping it from you. I didn't think to point you to that discussion, (which closed a few hours before you posted your first message here), because it wasn't so much about the content of the revert list as it was about where the revert list was located and how aggressively the bot would revert. --Versageek 05:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stricken in belated AGF, but that's a weird characterization of that discussion. I think you remember technical ramifications more than policy ones. :P 86.44.6.14 (talk) 10:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

millipede

I was trying to post a video link on "Millipede"

And it was deleted.

I don't think it should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.169.10.78 (talk) 15:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this, but the television clip in the youtube video you linked to is a copyright violation, we can't link to URLs which violate other's copyrights. --Versageek 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

yummy poem

I have eaten

the plums

that were in

the icebox

and which

you were probably

saving

for breakfast

Forgive me

they were delicious

so sweet

and so cold — —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.44.6.14 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for making me smile! --Versageek 16:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I live to give! ;) 86.44.6.14 (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Pontypool

Why revert the edit by Culturenut that added an aerial photo to the Pontypool article? This article has certainly suffered from trollage a lot lately, but this was a legitimate external link. Do you have an aerial photo suitable fro upload to wikicommons? I don't. In its absence, I'd regard this link as valid. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The gtj.org.uk site itself seems to be an excellent resource. I have no problem with the regular editors of any of the pages I reverted - reverting me, or adding the links themselves if they find them useful. Unfortunately, that site has been spammed recently by a small handful of users. --Versageek 16:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:69.140.157.227

Your bot left a message on a talk page belonging to an IP being used by me. Please check there for my reply. 69.140.157.227 (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Logica

Thanks for the extremely speedy speedy delete. Cheers, ➪HiDrNick! 06:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

letterwhiz.com on blacklist

Hi,

I would like to get letterwhiz.com off of the spam blacklist, I made some mistakes by posting links to letterwhiz on a few wiki entries, and have learnt my lesson. What must I do to get this website un-blacklisted.

Thanks, -- J —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mountainnmann (talk • contribs) 06:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

deletion of Espacenet redirect

The redirect was created after a page move by myself[6] was reverted[7]. I do not think it is a useless redirect (in fact this is often the way it is referred to by outside sources, see [8][9][10]). In fact after I was reverted I put forward a formal move request at WP:RM and [Talk:esp@cenet]] and it looks like this is more than a valuable redirect; it will be where the page is located.

So I am requesting undeletion and if possible could you tell me what user requested that it be deleted? Regards Mcmullen writes (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted to allow the requested move to be made "(speedy delete housekeeping - making room for esp@cenet per unaminous move request at WP:RM after five days)". --Versageek 16:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Kat Young

Dear Versageek,

I am not sure why you decided to delete Kat Young post. I read the guidelines over and over again and think that there's a valid reason to have her on wikipedia. There are over 100 entries of porn stars on wikipedia so why this be any difference?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African-American_porn_stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_porn_stars http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_porn_stars_by_decade

I'm a big fan of Kat Young and would love to see her on wikipedia. Please advise on how to bring back the post and if any changes are necessary in order to make this happened.

Much thanks, David

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Holla.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Holla.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mynheer

Hey there, I saw that you deleted article Mynheer under the rationale of Wikipedia:CSD#G6, and I'm just calling to inquire exactly what you did, or are planning to do, with it. Quoting rationale for the creating of the page posted on my userpage:"Milord already has a page, so this is a textbook case for keeping Mynheer, as to retain NPOV"(and appropriate world view) Since G6 is the non-controversial utility rationale, I'd just appreciate your motive. Thanks.Merechriolus (talk) 03:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I restored it. It may still end up being deleted as a non-English dictionary definition, however, it should go through AfD. I have transwiki'd it to English Wiktionary (I'm an admin there, so I was able to import it). --Versageek 04:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, thanks. It might be deleted, it might not, but I'm just glad it can have a home somewhere.Merechriolus (talk) 23:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for reverting the vanadalism on my talk page, and taking appropriate action against the vandalizer. I appreciate it very much. Danny Sepley (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Admiration for XLinkBot

Just wanted to give you a thumbs-up for your excellent bot--its ability to quickly and fastidiously remove linkspam is impressive. ^_^ Rachel Summers (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

False positive?

Hi, Versageek. It looks like on this edit by XLinkBot, it was a false edit, and I reverted it. ClueBot has a similar thing to list false positives, except this is another bot. Thanks! SchfiftyThree 00:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --Versageek 03:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

South Maury Island

Thank you for alerting me. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam?

Why cannot I edit talk pages? When I save it it shows me something which says something about blacklists...Dimboukas (talk) 13:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Which page are you having a problem with? There is probably a note on the page that contains a URL that has since been added to the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. If you remove the "http://" part from in front of the URL - you should be able to save the page (and your message). --Versageek 14:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

this is the message I am trying to save:

“

Please support me when I claim that the article must also have in its infobox the map of its extent under Basil II. I tried to add the second map many times but it was always changed and I was also blocked. I have many arguments to expose about this subject

”

Dimboukas (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

What page are you trying to save it on? (please post a link to the page) I see you've left similar messages on some pages - but obviously you haven't been able to edit the one with the spam already on it.. (noone can edit it - it isn't just you.. ) --Versageek 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to make an edit at User talk:MishaPan. I cannot.Dimboukas (talk) 13:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, there was a link to hubpages.com on the page, and that domain was recently blacklisted. I unlinked it, so you should be able to leave your message now. --Versageek 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!Dimboukas (talk) 14:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an archive - please don't edit here.. new messages should be posted on My Talk Page