User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there

Dirk Beetstra        
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.


There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

  • If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
  • Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz).
  • Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
  • Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.


I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Vandalproof.png Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
Choco chip cookie.jpg This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive

Talk started 20/3/2006
1 - 7/9/2006
2 - 29/11/2006
3 - 05/02/2007
4 - 05/03/2007
5 - 15/03/2007
6 - 29/07/2007
7 - 06/11/2007
8 - 31/03/2008
9 - 22/09/2008
10 - 03/02/2009
11 - 17/05/2009
12 - 13/11/2009
13 - 27/5/2010
14 - 13/12/2010
15 - 5/7/2011
16 - current
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -


Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active Wikipedians.


Was it you who recommended that I let things settle, before reattempting to initialise discussions? Plasmic Physics (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Not sure, might have been. You'd have to go through the diffs of the past. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 08:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
I need a mediator in order to make any meaningful progress with the Chem-Project; are willing to be it? Plasmic Physics (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Not unwilling, but I do think that someone who has not been active in previous discussions/disputes would be more suitable (I am certainly not neutral, nor uninvolved anymore). Moreover, my activity to Wikipedia is not necessarily at its maximum due to personal circumstances - I might not be able to respond timely in the near future.
Well, you certainly are less biased than most others. The problem is that everytime I mention the 'c-word' overthere, it instantly turns into a mud slinging contest. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
I do note, that there is possible meaningful progress - there are things that you can do - without getting into disputes. I do, however, see in your contributions a lot of work in your userspace regarding categorisation of compounds, where you work (or suggest?) on the whole categorisation / naming that brought you into the disputes in the first place, and which I do not see gaining at any time any support - "Cycloalkenediones, dioxocycloalkenecarbonitrile, dioxocycloalkenecarboxylic acids, (dioxocycloalkenyl)alkanoic acids, (dioxocycloalkenyl)alkyl alkanoates, and naphthalenediones" - that is all WAY too specialised and defies the function of categorisation (people are never going to look for "dioxocycloalkenecarboxylic acids" or "dibromoalkanols" - and it begs for the question what you would do with compounds who would have both functionalities ...) If you are going to discuss that on-wiki (something that you technically IMHO could do to see if that work, if implemented, would go somewhere) before considering it would be way more constructive than to set it up by yourself - I can not fathom what would happen on-wiki if it would have been implemented. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 11:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
The categorisation in my userspace is just for my own heuristic purposes; I have no intention of pushing the concept for consideration or application in wikipedia. That categorisation scheme is not complete in any case, it is the third or fourth draft. Each draft is created from the old one. So it contains many duplicates and mistakes. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

How do we start? Plasmic Physics (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Start with? Finding a suitable mediator? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I guess so. Plasmic Physics (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think that you could ask that in the projectspace, see if there is someone willing there - or find someone outside yourself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


Why is the domain: "" listed as possible spam?

  • It is not listed on any of the pages, mentioned on any of the pages listed at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ by User:COIBot.
  • It is a reliable primary source of information pertaining to elections in Michigan. It is where the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE posts ballot listings and official results. Since the MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE certifies the ballots and results, it is the most reliable source available on these election related facts.--Libertyguy (talk) 21:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
  • It is probably an accidental triggering of the monitoring AI, it saw several anons and new users mass inserting a link that otherwise really hasnt been linked to on wikipedia before. That behavior is typical of spammers, however there are occasional incidental overlaps with good faith users. However it is very difficult for an AI to make such a call, so it just logs it and lets humans review the case. Werieth (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed as Werieth says, and as is mentioned in the templated remark on top of the page: a case of a previously unused link added by an account who has not added too much of links which triggered the bot to report it. Although regularly mistaken, it is very, very typical behaviour observed by spammers (and less for 'good' links - such links tend to be added by multiple, generally more established editors). Although here certainly not the case, good reliable sources from respectable organisations can still be 'spammed' (i.e. added for the sole purpose of search engine optimisation).

I'll clear this one in the bots - this type of posts to me is what makes the bots spend more time on the stuff that might be spam, and ignore the links that .. can be ignored. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I've whitelisted the whole '' domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Question about user talk pages[edit]

Hi Dirk, I couldn't find the answer to it possible to edit a user's talkpage? Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccount2311 (talkcontribs) 15:38, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if I understand what you ask .. you just edited a user's talkpage (that is, mine). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:52, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your reply! It seems that the talk/editing command didn't show up on the last couple of visits, but that seems to have resolved itself. Nvm :) -WA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiaccount2311 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

An old issue[edit]

Check out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I've all the time thought that I heared quacking .. but I never could catch them editing close enough together (but then, I had no idea that there were SO many socks ...). I hope this settles it finally, there was a lot of bad editing going on over there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chemical-importance[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Chemical-importance has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


I just stumbled across this bot and had a thought. I wonder if it could be enhanced to cover other types of obviously COI edits, like large deletions in controversy sections or new users adding blatantly promotional language. For example, I do a lot of cleanups by searching for articles that mention "industry-leading" or "turnkey." It might be worth flagging new users using language like this. Just figured I'd share the thought that came to mind. CorporateM (Talk) 02:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions.
There are some filters in place which do similar things - see for example Special:AbuseFilter/354, Special:AbuseFilter/172 (both originally mine). It would be quite doable to write one that detects what you suggest.
COIBot does not really monitor content, it just tracks whether there is overlap between username and pagename (and a bit more advanced things like that). Doing what you suggest may be a bit heavy on the servers (though it would be a matter of adapting one of my other bots for that ..). Still I think that an abuse-filter is more suited for that.
Lets see how heavy an AbuseFilter would be .. thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:42, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Awww - you know I think I brought this idea up elsewhere and they mentioned the issue with an edit-filter potentially being too heavy on the servers.
While we're chatting, one of my little projects is: Template:COI_editnotice. Because I often contribute to Wikipedia in a PR role, I'm a little less bold than usual, but I think it's ready for a test run. I wonder if you had any guidance on how to put the template to a vote for a test-run and request a bot, etc. CorporateM (Talk) 15:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
That is indeed an issue with such an editfilter .. it would require a complex regex, and that would be heavy on the server.
I'll have a look, though I am quite limited time-wise at the moment. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot request[edit]

I don't know if your bot can do this or not, but here's the problem. Template:CongLinks, used in External links, has a washpo parameter, for Washington Post. The broken links are all alphabetic (plus underlines and possibly commas) but the working ones are a mix of alpha and numbers in two versions. Blanche Lincoln is broken, Dick Durbin works, and anything that looks like f9d0a3fa-4bbc-11e2-8758-b64a2997a921 works. Can your bot go through and blank out only the broken (old) instances? (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a bot for that (though I could write something for it, if needed). I would suggest however to go to the Bot-task-requests (probably linked from Wikipedia:Bots), there is a bot there that does this type of tasks, and that bot-owner can probably pick that up quite fast. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, I've now posted there. (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)


Can you please explain this? [2] Probably it was my mistake, as I am not expert of wikipedia policies (I hope this is the right way of contacting you...), but the discussion in the bottom only contains a "archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section", which is what I did. AnnSec (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:00, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Good morning. Thank you for your question. On normal talkpages, discussions go at the bottom, and that is why I am moving this discussion to the bottom and answer here. For the Spam-blacklist and similar pages (which have multiple discussion sections), the discussion goes in the appropriate discussion section, and there at the bottom (as is also explained there in the instructions). That is what I did there. For this page, I had to look what happened, I did not expect the 'new' discussion to be at the top. Almost everywhere (unless there are specific instructions to the contrary) the new discussions go at the bottom, you can see that in the time that the initial post is posted.
For the '... archived report. Please do not modify it' - I think you are referring to the other discussions, some of which are closed (they are in a box with a different colour background). You were completely correct in starting a new section for your request.
One thing, could you please sign your posts? You can do that by typing 4 tildes in a row, the Wikipedia-software is automatically converting that to your name (plus a link to your userpage) and a timestamp.
I hope this all explains, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you AnnSec (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Administrator Barnstar Hires.png The Admin's Barnstar
Thanks for the custom search link. I've asked WikiProject Horror to adopt it. Diego (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

COI Template[edit]

Hi Beetstra. I was hoping you might be able to help me with a bot item. There is strong consensus here to apply Template:COI editnotice to Category:Companies based in Idaho. It's a Talk template that provides advice to PRs that represent the organization. Companies in Idaho is a test sample before applying to all Orgs.

How do I get a BOT to apply the template to the category? I submitted a request at bot requests, but it just got ignored and archived. CorporateM (Talk) 19:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User talk:ElSaxo[edit]

This user is appealing their indef block, and I have placed the request on hold for further discussion. Since it appears you tried to talk some sense into them before any comments you may have now would be welcome. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oops. Forgot to answer, have been away for some time. I see he is unblocked - I am fine with that, it has been some time. I hope he knows that repeats of the previous abuse will get him blocked without question. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

International Water Association[edit]

How do we add the IWA's Water Wiki to the IWA entry, since the IWA have managed to get their Wiki black-listed?

I assume they were black listed because someone over-enthusiastically added links to their material; but their Wiki does contain useful information for people interested in water & sewage treatment.

When I first tried to add the link I got a message saying it was blacklisted and to put in a request to the blacklisting part of Wikipedia. When I did that I had a reply saying just put it in, removing the http:// part of the address. So I did.

You then deleted the reference. So, again, how do we add a reference to a useful Water-based wiki that is sponsored by the IWA to the IWA entry?

Bendel boy (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you understood wrong, the reply was to tell us which link in that discussion on the blacklist page, not use that as a way of circumventing the blacklist on the page where you wanted the link.
What I recall of it, was that it was abused, and that got it blacklisted. If you want it added, open a discussion on a relevant place (the talkpage of the page you want to add it to, an appropriate wikiproject, or directly at the whitelist request for the specific link), and convince others. That is what should be done, and what other did not, and that resulted in blacklisting. Do remember, it is a wiki, which are discouraged pages to link to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

SO, I've put it on the talk page.

The Water Wiki is (i) sponsored by the IA and (ii) contains useful information in water & wastewater treatment. Its inclusion as a link provides access to another set of wiki information for people interested in water/wastewater treatment. Why is it so wrong to have it as a link on the IWA page? Perhaps you can reply on the IWA page; it looks as if no-one reads it, unless I try and a link! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendel boy (talkcontribs) 21:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

*.onion in the blacklist[edit]

I saw your comment when it was added to the block list, and had a question. In it you say that .onion links are regularly abused, but did not give any source to it. I have been observing Tor (anonymity network) (no abuse this year), .onion (also no abuse for 2013), The Hidden Wiki (two ip one time edits, and one good faith edit by User:Dionyziz), and Silk Road which is currently under RFC to decide how to deal with its official link. I was thus wondering if I just have been missing the regularly abuses, or if this is the scope of the abuse cases regarding .onion links. Belorn (talk) 08:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Both on the hidden wiki page, as on the silkroad page, there is no question that there was abuse in the past (not sure how long ago). At least for silkroad, that involved false, phishing links. That type of abuse is for me already close to enough to say that we just blacklist the domain, allowing only specifically checked links, i.e., whitelist those which are correct. I do agree that I did not look into all of the latest (I see that there are a lot of additions in the db), nonetheless, that it comes up again in a blacklist request, quite fast after the previous consideration to blacklist the whole domain did not really help. Moreover, there were (though it changes) strong voices to not even link to the official silkroad link (which I even objected against, I do think that the official link belongs on the page).
I know that you are a user who would like to see it off the blacklist, but remember that attempts to insert phishing links, or attempts at inserting malware links does damage readers, and we should protect users against that. I really believe that whitelisting only the good stuff here is a good thing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying. At the moment, I am trying to first collect all the facts before deciding if I should propose a removal. After posting my initial question, I realized that I am actually a bit surprised that the abuses on hidden wiki and silk road could happen at all. There was supposed to exist a blacklist on the hidden wiki from last discussion, and I know there exist a soft blacklisting on \*.onion through XLinkBot. So for now, Im trying to figure out why those two didn't work in preventing both the phishing links on silk road and the two IP edits on hidden wiki. Belorn (talk) 08:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that asking for de-listing is going to be futile, the abuse with phishing links is simply bad enough. You assume that spammers, those that add external links for their own benefit, will just stop at 'oh, I can't link this, lets go home and cry for a while' .. it is how they make money, those who add that type of links do it to make a profit, a living, and they, generally, persist. And Wikipedia is designed to have a workable workaround: whitelisting of the correct links. There is very, very limited use of .onion links throughout Wikipedia, there are just 4 or 5 .onion sites which are notable enough, and the number of references or other external links hosted on .onion are also going to be very limited (the odd reference, OK, but as an additional external link .. it simply fails, and where a coherent argument can be made, there is then also for those whitelisting possible). And if XLinkBot can't stop the abuse, then it shows that the 'abuser' has high interest in pushing his link, and hence more need to blacklist their links.
Just as a comparison: redirect services are blacklisted on first abuse. There is simply no reason to keep them. So while the actual abuse is very small and contained, and could possibly be stopped in other ways, the type of abuse is of approximately the highest level, and there are practically always workarounds (link to the expanded link, or where there is specific need, whitelisting). I view phishing or malware attempts at the same level: the abuse may have been quite minimal, and there is a bit of use for such links, the level of disruption, and possible damage to our reader, is very high.
Also take into account the alternatives: either you keep hunting and blocking editors (IPs are cheap, and blocking IPs can result in the collateral damage that other users of the same IP can't edit either ..), or protecting the page (which also disrupts editing, and may need to be upped to full protection, making editing of the page impossible - just last week I saw a case of sockpuppets, who did 10-15 edits just changing random numbers on pages, and then, when being autoconfirmed, pushing their intended edits - it is easy to disrupt a lot for your cause). Enabling only the correct link, through whitelisting, may be a better solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

OneMadScientist - Says - Thanks For The Welcome[edit]

I dont know if this is the best/correct palce to respond to your kind welcome but, Thanks, I appericate it VERY MUCH!. Best Regards from OneMadScientist--OneMadScientist (talk) 13:38, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it is the best, correct, and most appropriate place ;-). You are very welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I just needed to say to someone who should understand this issue and understand what I was saying. I am being labeled as some sort of rude stupid idiot buy people who disagree with me but it seams lack even the ability and basic understanding to put forward a coherent statment in there own defense and others agree with them because?? I am a barbarian?. you can see I going a bit nuts here. Anyhow BestRegards--OneMadScientist (talk) 19:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey, OneMadScientist. Don't have a lot of time now, will try to answer in full later (maybe tomorrow). Do remember, we are all volunteers here, and there is, unfortunately, a pretty sharp learning curve here on Wiki. You will run into people with a different viewpoint in chemistry (one of the situations I ran into 6-7 years ago was at distillation. I was looking at it from a synthetic chemistry viewpoint, where another editor was looking at it from an industrial viewpoint - although the basics are the same, and we follow the same principles, it did take us a lot of time to get onto the same page - the page on distillation in the end got really much better from it). Also, sometimes it is better, when you are not, for whatever reason, 'capable' to solve the problem, just to make a note and move on (someone, someday, will come to solve it). There is a lot 'wrong' on this Wiki and actually everything needs improvement.
Relax, move on. Improve what you can improve, you may get reverted sometimes (that also happens to me - if so, post on the talk, hope for a positive discussion). Repair what you really can repair yourself, things that you think are wrong but don't really know, go to the talkpage (or for really bad errors, one of the Wikiprojects for a faster response) - you'll see, we're all here to help each other. Hope you're here to stay, happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I thank you for taking the time to respond to my post. Thankyou --OneMadScientist (talk) 11:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

bot-maintained drugboxes[edit]

Hello, I started a discussion over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology about the idea of creating a bot to create and maintain instances of Template:Drugbox. User:Boghog rightly pointed out that you would have some valuable perspective here. When/if you are able, we'd love to hear your thoughts... Cheers, Andrew Su (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi! I'll have a look. One thing, be careful with how you bot-maintain drugboxes .. keeping track of data is fine (that's what CheMoBot does/did), filling boxes with data is also fine, but overwriting data with other data, even if you know that 'your' data is correct will probably be frowned upon. My bot would, with a bit of re-programming, technically be capable of really keeping certain values in a certain way (that would just be a minor re-programming), but I am afraid that that would regularly run into problems with editors who have another not-incorrect version of certain data (there is not thát much that is really immutable, there are different flavours of names, different flavours of how to report a melting point (which in itself is already 'depending' on the way of measuring, boiling points are worse as they depend on pressure enough to vary between Australia and Saudi Arabia), etc.).
I'll have a look one of these days, the bot went offline (me changing jobs, me being fed up with how bot-operators on en.wikipedia are treated, and me having to port my bots to another box with different configuration (with the unannounced changes in the underlying MediaWiki software adding to it, which is a pain considering how the data is parsed), other issues with 'verified' data, etc.) and I did not bother to re-start that bot at that time). I'll have a look to see if I can run it 'off-wiki' first for some time again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Greetings and... slash-and-burn[edit]

Greetings Beetstra. I see that you're more or less following the latest movements over at Slash-and-burn and I don't want to interfere with anything that you're sorting out there. However, I really think that those editions should be reverted, a) 'cos they're basically just a copy-and-paste of an article at Wikisource which is, b) in itself a pretty deficient translation, c) much of the newly added content seems to me to be pretty irrelevant to the actual article, and d) the style in which it is written (copy-pasted) is that of an interesting general cultural work on "Finnforest culture", but not really that of an authoritative encyclopaedia article. AGF prevents me from adding further comments to the list, and as I know nothing whatsoever about the subject in question, I'll leave it up to your better judgement to go from here. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

I am the same there, not a specialist in the subject. But the WikiSource is not a source, that would be the original information. Maybe the rest also needs to be cut, but that I don't know. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for feedback. Looks like I'll just have to be bold :) and intervene. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Historical verses present usage[edit]

I noticed in the RfC discussion about categorization you weighed into this discussion. Currently we have CfD discussions about Category:1905 establishments in Israel, Category:1889 establishments in South Africa, Category:1781 establishments in Mexico, Category:1939 establishments in Moldova and Category:1864 establishments in Germany all of which involve issues of how to treat historic establishments in countries that either did not exist at the time or had different boundaries. I thought you might want to weigh into some of these discussions. There are also those about such categories as Category:1989 establishments in the Democratic Republic of the Congo which are slightly different because they only involve place name change.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

It's an utter waste of time. These categories are rubbish, they don't make sense at all. Even someone from a history project found them historically incorrect. But it is a scheme that is applied throughout, and those who apply it will defend it as 'good'. These things should be ungrouped to Category:1905 establishments (which is correct) and Category:Establishments in Israel (they are now establishments that are now in Israel ..). It gets even sillier when you have establishments which have been disestablished since, and both of those dates are before the area/country exist, still they are categorised as establishments in the country now. And then we are told not to be too rigid when we consider that.
I think I was the second to nominate a handful of these utterly silly ones, and all the editors who apply this scheme jumped on it to oppose deletion/renaming. You're now likely the third (maybe there were more inbetween). To me, it signifies there is something fundamentally wrong there. Maybe an RfC is needed to get a broader input on this topic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
I remarked on quite a number of them. Additional concern, as soon as you go a bit back into areas of the world where hardly anyone lives or where civilization did not really start constructing durable establishments, year categories fall away, don't exist. There is somewhere a 2-centuries-before-Christ category for something that contains 1 establishment. Question 1: how precise are the years/decades, question 2: was it a country anyway at that time, and what sense does it make to make a year (or decade, if it is that precisely known) if the 50 surrounding decades do not contain anything. For many countries there is just 1 single establishment in that area built somewhere before Christ, but if we know it was in 357 before Christ, it will be split up to the lowest level possible because of the rigidity of the system. [[:Category:Establishments in <country> established BC]] would be enough, as it is containing at max 10. IF, and only if, it really goes over the 200-limit (of the normal view) it makes sense to split it up. Have you seen how far you now have to browse down from the top establishment container? 5 levels to find 1 article? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Further to the previous rant:
Note that of the 0s BC only 1 and 4 exist, if you go to Category:2nd-millennium BC establishments you see that only 5 of the century categories at the moment exist, the 17th century one in there is I think only there to hold 1 page. Sure, more may come, but I insist that it is unlikely to fill year categories in such categories with more than 5 in the very, very end of the category scheme. Is that really needing such an elaborate scheme - yeah, because that is how the scheme is designed</rant>. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Link to RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Categories/Archive_3#RfC_on_"Years_by_country"_categories. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


Some strange examples
  • Börringe Priory - did not exist anymore at the last country name change
  • Guan (state) - established and disestablished, obviously in Guan .. it would have been located in current day China
  • Bođani monastery - possibly the only subject established in 1478 in Serbia, supported by a significant category tree.
  • Category:1st millennium in <country> - for the first article, 11 categories, for the second, depending on the decade/century - 4, 7 or 10 added categories. Likely needs about 200.000 subjects to have an average of one per category for the whole tree.
  • Borsa Italiana - the Italy it is categorised in is not the Italy that exists now (it was actually the Kingdom of Italy).
  • How accurate are dates of establishment when something happened 2000 years ago (calendars have been sometimes redefined since then)?

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research: the group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account. Thank you Cochrane!

If you are stil active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:03, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

One of these days[edit]

Could you look in on the strange edits by Plasmic again? No rush, nothing in particular but everything is tainted with nutiness. Really disappointing.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey Smokefoot, was just reading about ..challenges..! How's things?
Sigh. I'll keep an eye open, do we need another high-level discussion again, like AN/I or on the WikiProject? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
... damaging for the project and damaging for readers... The threat to Wikipedia is not overt vandalism but persistent mediocracy. We'd need a full time lawyer to deal with this cancer. --Smokefoot (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
FYI, talk:methyl radical. EdChem (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
@Smokefoot - that is why I think we should abolish the ArbCom, damaging for the project and damaging for the readers, persistent mediocracy and no lawyers resulting in poorly crafted results and resulting cancers. PP is under a restriction at the moment .. and has been commenting in such a way about it that it is clear they does not understand the why of that. Likely this ends in another restriction at some point, until he gets banned from Chemistry related subjects.
@EdChem, I'll have another look at it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Establishments by year in place[edit]

I think though it is pretty clear that Category:1986 establishments in India is a workable category. I am thinking though we need to come to a decision to not implement the categories to the extreme. My current thought is A-we should have no pre-1800 establishments by country categories. B-between 1800 and 1900 we should divide by continent, and only divide further when there is justification to do so. I am not sure that there is any workable place to make that proposal though. If you want to pursue this, I would suggest you start by proposing say the 8 categories in Category:Establishments in France by year that are from before 1000. They all only have one article. You want to do it with categories that do not have any definition problems, although arguably that far back what is France might be in dispute. For what it is worth, 1858 is currently the earliest French category with as many as 10 articles. However, my experience is that almost all these categories are much smaller than even our current articles would if fully categorized make them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

  • I made some of these arguments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 6 where I tried to convince people to entirely scrap any by year categorization for 973 and 993. I still think it is pointless over-categorization that Category:993 establishments has only one entry anywhere, and yet that was put in a sub-category. Still no one listened to me, so nothing was done. I do not think anyone responded to my points at all, they were just ignored, which is quite frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I question that already, it is a cross-section of Category:1986 establishments and Category:Establishments in India. These categories combine 3 properties, of which 2 are dependent on each other (name of country is often dependent on time). But I can see some value in the scheme, for sure.
Next problem is, that some establishments are established in other country-names than where they are now, and for some, they have been establishments while that place was in 3, 4, 5, .. different countries, resulting in that it needs to be categorised in all those, leading to an enormous number of categories, and some are useless - Russia had a lot of 'countries' under them for a long time, same goes for German occupation during the short time of the second world war. For sure before 1900 things become problematic, but there have also been a lot of changes up till the end of the second world war, and a second set when the USSR broke up. The Americas have been much more stable, but Africa also had those times (and there there are areas where things are still slowly moving).
Then the problem of size. Because of the scheme, it is split ad infinitum from the beginning, resulting in a 1040 BC establishments in China category (forgot the exact year). This should, strictly, be approached by a 'breaking up large categories' scheme. 'BC establishements in China' -> more than 200 (or 100, whatever, but a fixed, established limit) articles -> split up by millenium. One of the millenia fills up to more than <limit>, then split up by century .. one of the centuries fills up to more than <limit>, then split up by decade. But that is not done. The first article in the millenium tree gets a whole set of 11 categories to accomodate it, immediately without consideration how many there will come. The second article, unlikely in the same century, needs another 7. 18 categories to accomodate 2 articles (if it is in another millenium, it is 21 categories). And then trees like for the Vatican, or Monaco or other tiny mini-states that are around .. they get a tree while in the whole 3-4 millennia that area of the Vatican was occupied by humans I doubt there are more than a 500-750 notable subjects established - there is just not enough space for it. 4000 years, how many categories are possible there, how many do we really have to create, and how many will have more than 1-2 articles in them. But it is the grand scheme .. Probably the argument on the other side is, that 'a reader may be interested in what happened in specifically 1040 BC in China'... but serving the reader must have a limit somewhere, the same reader may also have an interest what happened in Beijing in 1040 BC, and we do not have a category that goes down to city level, so Wikipedia can not be used to find that ...
This scheme is problematic and should have a good second thought . The problem is indeed where. There was that RfC last year, but that did not get any real discussion going. Maybe a better RfC on the WikiProject Categories, or a combined WikiProject Categories/WikiProject History-RfC (which is what I have been asking for). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the Category:1986 establishments and Category:Establishments in India - those will be enormous for sure, but then advertise clearly how to use CatScan on those to cross-sect them with the right information. Or find a better course-grain for it - Establishments have a 'type'. The fine-grained-ness of the categories now actually makes it impossible to use Cat-Scan for those who do want other cross-sections (I think that the cross-section of Category:1986 establishments and Category:Radio stations would need 4 levels of scanning (maybe even 5) to be sure to get through to the lowest occupied levels of the tree that is under it (1986 establishments - 1986 establishments by country - 1986 establishments in the United States - 1986 establishments in Delaware). And if you want the '1986 establishments in India' you don't want to ask the reader to use CatScan to cross-sect '1986 establishments' and 'establishments in India', you want to provide the service to them by giving them the right category, but if the reader wants 'radio stations established in 1986 in India' you need it CatScan, because we are not going to fine-grain to that level (are we?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
By nature, if you want to actually have all 1986 establishments in the United States, you'd need a tool to take all the articles out of the 50 sub-categories. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Question about LinkWatcher[edit]

Does LinkWatcher report all links in notices to the wikipedia-en-spam channel, so does it exclude whitelisted users and/or links? The reason I ask is because I use the channel as input for User:WebCiteBOT. Of course the links we most want to archive are the ones most likely to be useful long term, which is kind of the opposite purpose as the IRC channel.

Thanks, ThaddeusB (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Orangeburg, SC and external links[edit]

Hello Dirk,

  I have added the adjusted links to the Orangeburg, SC wikipedia page...!/pages/Local-Music-Scene-Orangeburg/157694421071087

The top link is for Jerry Axson who is a notable figure born in Orangeburg, SC who now maintains a Facebook page for all musicians and bands ever coming from Orangeburg, SC. The site he maintains is the only site of its kind for the City of Orangeburg therefore he brings value to the City by representing historical facts on and about the artistic culture of the City.

The second link is for the actual Facebook page he maintains for the musicians and bands coming from Orangeburg, SC

If you have any questions please contact me back and I would appreciate any help you can give me concerning adding this line to the Orangeburg, SC wikipedia page. Sincerely - Jerry Axson Shymbeebymbee (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Who says that you are 'notable' .. any independent references for that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Notable from the standpoint of Wikipedia? is that your frame of reference for your question? If it's a problem simply forget about the "Jerry Axson" external link but I do request retaining the link to "Local Music Scene Orangeburg". Thanks. Shymbeebymbee (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, notable from the standpoint of Wikipedia. And that also goes for the 'Local Music Scene [of] Orangeburg'. Why would we need to mention these subjects? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Local Music Scene is a chronicled history of the past 40 years of local artists, musicians, and bands that have came out of Orangeburg and played in and around Orangeburg. These are generations of individuals who were born in Orangeburg, went to school in Orangeburg, have grown up and worked in Orangeburg. These same people contribute daily to the economy and social structure that is the City of Orangeburg, SC. If you go to the page you will see this history being represented in the postings I am compiling of these people, the biographies of the individuals and the bands they participated in, the pictures I am organizing and posting of each represented individual and band, the videos I am posting of captured live performances that took place in and around the city of Orangeburg, and the sound samples I am posting representing a portion of these artists body of work which does add to the cultural signifigance of Orangeburg, SC in that some of these original songs were written about Orangeburg or have reference to growing up in Orangeburg and being a part of the culture of Orangeburg. I hope this helps you to understand the artistic and cultural importance of the page I'm wanting to link and if you visit the page please notice the notes and messages left by Orangeburg natives commenting on events that have directly affected their lives growing up in Orangeburg, SC. tHANKS Shymbeebymbee (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So. That still does not make it notable, nor should it be linked from the text, nor should it be linked from the external links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk for your help in this matter but I feel we've reached an impass and I'm just not getting any really clear explaination from you on why this does not qualify and I would like to note at this point that Steve Adkins is listed and linked here and he is a retired local musician so forgive me but I'm having difficulty weighing the qualifications you mandate for what is and what is not listed on the page. Could you please direct me to someone above you that I might speak with concerning this? Thanks and have a good day Shymbeebymbee (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no 'someone above', please have a good look at the policies and guidelines quoted here, on your talkpage (WP:5P is a good start as well), or raise it at one of the noticeboards (WP:ELN may be one). That it is somewhere else might mean that that has to go as well, depending on the situation (Steve Adkins seems to pass our notability threshold .. which I explained earlier). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not a problem Dirk and I do appreciate your taking time to respond. Shymbeebymbee (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


Hey what's going on? I feel lost in the DMV. I got approved but it still doesn't work.

See here:

TCO (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

P.s. Go chemistry.

Hi TCO. I've added it, referring to the archived discussion. It is a general problem on the white/blacklist .. so much to do, no-one there (and the once that are there get sometimes verbally abused by editors/spammers, so that is not helpful either). Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks big guy.TCO (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Still not working. Try linking any of the articles from here ( and it does not work. Tested several times. 16:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
You wont get such a broad whitelisting. was what was whitelisted. Werieth (talk) 16:11, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Exactly, TCO. Only the specific link was whitelisted. Whitelisting by topic is not going to happen (yet), as many documents on are written for personal gain, there will be also some in a certain topic, like gymnastics. Some documents there may be of utmost importance and not replaceable, but most within a topic will be. And believe me, for what I have seen on the whitelist request page, most of the material on is replaceable. There are, way, better sources out there. That they have improved their reviewing process does not mean that it suddenly becomes an irreplaceable source, and fact remains, that people write for because they make money with it, making your own analysis of other sources and publishing it there makes the information there correct, and it will pass their local reviews, however, we would still prefer to use sources that are not written for that incentive (and are possibly WP:OR ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:57, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


Please participate in the discussion at Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica. I would very much prefer to discuss the issue on the talk page rather than use edit summaries to exchange arguments. --Conti| 18:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

It not spam[edit]

Hello, Dirk,

My name is Tatiana. I make a contribution to the free encyclopedia Wikipedia since 2008 with good intentions and I never had remarks.

I would like to ask you : Why your Bot COIBot characterized links as "the conflict of interests"? It is a error. No conflict of interests. It not spam. (Report for (XWiki spam by )

I would like to explain to you. I noticed that links which were put by me earlier, became dead (the empty page) and I replaced them with live links, having carried out a lot of work. I care only of the facts, which have the right to be present at the free encyclopedia Wikipedia.

For example: Stamp of Monaco - "Effigy in profile of H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco".

So was:

So became:

Or other example: Stamp of Monaco - "150th birthday of creation of l`Orchestre Philharmonic of Monte Carlo".

So was:

So became:

Now you see a difference? This same image of the Stamp of Monaco, only the page exchanged.

Or still example: I replaced the image of the Stamp of Monaco "Block of H.S.H. Prince Albert II of Monaco' marriage to Miss Charlene Wittstock" on the same image Stamp of Monaco of the best quality.

So was:

So became: (...)

It not spam. Please, I ask you to correct an error of COIBot. Thank you in advance.

(Excuse me for my English.)

With the best regards, Tatiana, Monaco (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tatiana! Thank you for the explanation. Don't worry, your English is quite good (and I am not native either ..).
The bots only flag and report because they sees actions which are often a sign of spamming, but there are false positives. Although I have my concerns here (using documentation on a free webhost as a replacement reference for the original source, it may be better to find an archive of the original, also, if the original was used as a reference to write the information, then that is still the reference, even if the online information is not there anymore (thát does not invalidate the reference ..), adding another would then be a better practice), this is indeed not spamming. Don't worry about the report, it is not a proof of spam, it is a mere report of actions, and it is likely to be ignored. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your attention. Unfortunately, I didn't find an archive of the original.

With the best regards, Tatiana (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverts at asafoetida[edit]

Hello, would you please check out the article on Asafoetida as some info was reverted with the reason "text and sources do not match" also some citation needed tags were removed and other things were changed to the articles detriment. If the reverting "editor" actually checked these sources (references) they do actually back up the info added. I think this reversion action was totally unwarranted, unconstructive and thus I can only assume was performed out of dislike for the editor that made the changes. Not a constructive "encyclopedia building" move IMO. Thank you and best regards. -- (talk) 05:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

I see that the editor who did that revert is already on it, it is probably best you talk with them. I am not familiar with this specific subject. Will try to have a look next week. I however don't think that reverting such edits is the way to go, it is better to properly discuss it on the talkpage first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/[edit]

Just wanted to give you a heads-up that COIbot created WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ in mainspace. Ishdarian 23:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey, that is a long time ago that the bot had that glitch, thought I resolved it though. I have speedy-moved it to the right position, removed the 'issues' and speedy, and merged in the previous reports (I think that is the best solution). Thanks for the heads-up, will have a look if COIBot is telling me why it did this (I actually though it could not do that .. not reading settings should mean that it does not know that it is allowed to edit .. will double check). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Histogram Adjustments in MATLAB (link removed)[edit]

Hello, Why did you remove the link: ? didn't you find it relevant to the topic? the link is to a three parts guide to histogram adjustments in MATLAB, and I find it very useful and relevant. Please consider to undo your editing please, checkout the guide, I think you will find it is comprehensive and well written and with excellent examples. (BTW: I'm not the author) Thanks and all the best, MaxPlank111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxPlank111 (talkcontribs) 09:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

MaxPlank111, thank you for your question. It may be useful, but we are not writing a linkfarm. We do not just link to material about a subject, we write about a subject. Moreover, I do really not believe that that link is so important that it needs to be on top of that list, and I also believe that there are way more links out there that may be of interest (but still, that is not our goal). Please have a look at our external links guideline and 'What Wikipedia is not'. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Image Histogram link that you remover[edit]

Hello Dirk, Why did you remove the link I added? I find it very relevant and useful. It is a three parts posts on Histogram Adjustments in MATLAB, very well written and with nice examples. Please reconsider your removal. Thank --MaxPlank111 (talk) 10:21, 14 July 2013 (UTC)MaxPlank111

I just answered in the post above this (now combined sections). Sorry, those links simply fail our inclusion standards, blogs are generally discouraged, and we are not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

John D. Lukacs[edit]

Could you put this article on your Watch list and help revert the COI editor's edit-warring until he gets blocked or whatever the admins decide to do with him? He's been reported (by another editor) for 3RR but no action there yet. If so, thanks. Softlavender (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the editor for 31 hours for edit warring. Lets see .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Old bug on AbuseFilter[edit]


FYI: I think the cause of this problem you had with AbuseFilter in 2009 is bugzilla:50107. Helder 17:51, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

For your anti-spam efforts[edit]

WikiDefender Barnstar.png The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For your constant efforts defending our project against the never ending hordes of spammers -- Kendrick7talk 05:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Kendrick7, it's always nice to read signs of appreciation, you're the second in a short period. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

At it again[edit]

User:JLUKACS1 is COI editing his own non-notable article again John D. Lukacs, and is massively edit-warring despite repeated warnings. Not only that, he has created another promotional article, about his own book, Escape from Davao. Please help. Can you put these two articles on your Watch list and also help revert/warn/report/etc. the user? Thanks. Softlavender (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Softlavender is engaging in massive edit-warring on her own initiative. This user seems to be displaying a strange, irrational obsession with me and my activity on Wikipedia that is bordering on harassment. I have provided my own warning to the user in regards to their inappropriate behavior. There is no law prohibiting me from accurately editing my own Wikipedia entry. I am not engaging in any promotional activities, nor I have submitted any inappropriate or unsuitable materials. I respectfully request a review of the material that I have submitted and that this user be blocked from editing the article John D. Lukacs and Escape From Davao in the future. Thank you for your time and assistance. JLUKACS1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

JLUKACS1 .. because of your conflict of interest, especially you should not be edit warring on the subject, and especially not after you have been blocked for that edit warring. Pleases stop. Because of your conflict of interest, you should, strictly, go to the talkpage and discuss, not revert, not claim ownership. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Request to take part in a survey[edit]

Hi there. I would very much appreciate it if you could spend ~2 minutes and take a short survey - a project trying to understand why the most active Wikipedia contributors (such as yourself) may reduce their activity, or retire. I sent you an email with details, if you did not get it please send me a wikiemail, so that I can send you an email with the survey questions. I would very much appreciate your cooperation, as you are among the most active Wikipedia editors who show a pattern of reduced activity, and thus your response would be extremely valuable. Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Beetstra. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.

Spam whitelist request[edit]


It's good to see you back around at the Spam whitelist page. I appreciate your time and hope you will have a look at the request I made there over a month ago, which still has not gotten any response at all. It looks like only two volunteers have been doing most of the work there in the past month or so, and they may be a tad overworked. Please let me know if I can be of any assistance. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 03:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II[edit]

I owe you an apology. I was in error. I was running an outdated version of the blacklist engine that generates the regexes to scan. It was brought to my attention on my talk.—cyberpower ChatOnline 02:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

getting all external links in "real-time"[edit]


I'm Vinay Goel, data engineer at the Internet Archive. We're starting to work on a web archiving project where we crawl external links from Wikipedia articles at the time they're made (so near real time).

Looking at the Recent Changes feed, it looks like I'd need to parse the 'diff' page to find any new links, or in the case of 'new' pages, parse the new page to find all external links. I was referred to you by legoktm (from #mediawiki freenode IRC). legoktm mentioned that you maintain a spam watching bot that extracts out new outgoing links from pages on an ongoing basis and it'd be great to piggyback of the list you generate.

Can you help me gain access to this list?

Update: Generating this list at our end. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Vinay Goel

Hi! Thanks for the interest. The bot outputs to IRC, and does that in real time (and you are free to source that output), however, it is filtering out 'good stuff' so we do not get an overflow. And I presume that actually you would be more interested in the good stuff.
I am actually filtering not the diffs, but I am pulling the parsed versions of the current and previous edit, and compare those. That gives a more complete list of added links.
May I know why you are interested in that in real time? You plan to archive all outside info that is linked from Wikipedia .. that would make it a spam incentive to have your links here so you would pick them up? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Strange. You are the Vinay Goel who has worked for the Internet Archive since '06, but you post the same question to two users (diff), which is inconsiderate and don't login. And yet you are posting from IA's (big) IP space (208.70.24/21) and Comcast's Bay Area IP space. Can you please create an account and use it?
Have you looked at the history of the many other efforts to crawl external links from Wikipedia articles and web archive them? You really should. I can provide pointers if you like; ask here or on my talk page. I agree with Beetstra; it would be more valuable if IA crawled, preferring older external links in Wikipedia that haven't been archived, rather than brand new ones that may well not merit archival at all. I hope you return and rejoin the discussion, (talk · contribs). --Elvey (talk) 00:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I restored the content to the status it had for years[edit]

I have removed the two additional links and restored the status to that which existed before this whole kerfuffle.

Please revert your last revert.

Please make any further comments in the section on article talk. (talk) 04:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The text is perfectly fine, there is no need for the links to the videos. That it was there for years is not a reason to consider that it should be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:19, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in the discussion on the article talk page. I have started a section. You can make your point there. I know you are into spamlists and admin stuff and revert rules. But I am actually citing policy in saying to participate in the discussion on talk. You are actually being a revert warrior if you don't participate and if you use warnings and final reversion to "win". (talk) 04:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I suspect you did the revert without actually watching the two videos (want to bet a beer on it). In other words, you made an editorial decision without really looking at the content and thinking about impact on the reader. Actually watch the videos rather than having this suspicion of spam or an anti-EL in general attitude. And ELs are warned against, but NOT forbidden always. and this is a time when they are used for reader benefit.
And sure the text is fine...I wrote it. I know what I'm doing... (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for that trust, it shows at least where you stand. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi Beetstra! Sir you recently give me a warning:-

Warning for Pasting links in Wikipedia

For not paste extra links to wikipedia. I want to know when i will allowed to paste links in Wikipedia. Now i not paste links again and again. Sir please help to know when this warning is dismiss.

Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinjangra0 (talkcontribs) 10:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The reference you were giving is not a suitable reference, and certainly not for that place of link. In short, that link simply does not belong on Wikipedia, it fails all relevant policies and guidelines (not a reliable source, not a suitable external link, and the policies and guidelines linked therefrom). Maybe you can expand the articles you have been adding links to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Note, the warning is with respect to this specific blogspot, although the rules are the same for other sites, it would depend on the other links you might want to add whether they are allowed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Beeststra! Thanks for help

Now, if i paste the link of blogspot again in other article, the blog get blacklisted by Wikipedia or from Search Engine. Help me to get rid out from these problems.

Also tell me how can i got, that my URL is matched with Wikipedia Reliable Sources and i will allowed to paste links on Wikipedia. Can you delete my site URL from or Can they get automatically deleted from Wikipedia. Sir i request you to get these URL removed by Wikipedia or they get block.

Help me Sir, Beetstra

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinjangra0 (talkcontribs) 19:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

stalker Sachinjangra0, links to the blog on Wikipedia are simply not a good idea. You've been told that and have been continuing to add it. As a result the blog has been blacklisted, and still you continue. I suggest you drop trying to get the blog linked on Wikipedia, and start working constructively - on things that are in no way related to the blog. No is no. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Sachinjangra, the link is not blacklisted, but removed by a bot. And we will now monitor further additions. I suggest you stop adding the link, and start reading this site's policies and guidelines (they are linked from your talkpage and in other discussions you participated in). We're not here to facilitate links to your blog, it does not meet this site's policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:48, 24 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

cyberpower ChatOffline 22:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js[edit]

I am inviting you to comment here, since you work regularly with blacklists.—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it is a fine idea, though whitelisting would really be better for those links. In some cases the links get lost, while they are appropriate (edit conflicts after a vandal edit, e.g.). When they are lost, they can not be re-added.
One point though - I think that the template should suggest whitelisting the offending links. People are now arriving at the blacklist for de-listing, and are often send through to the whitelist, as the base domain was plainly spammed, but some individual links may have been appropriate. I'll have a look at the latter. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
The instructions are on the Template itself. Feel free to modify accordingly to instruct the users better.—cyberpower ChatOnline 11:55, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Since you work here a lot, would you be interested in handling the exceptions requests as well?—cyberpower ChatOnline 16:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Please can you disable this bot pending consensus on how it should operate? At the moment it is spamming its way round Wikipedia at a rate that is unacceptable.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I can't - except for blocking it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
There is no consensus for this bot at the moment. It is spamming pages with tags that other editors do not want at a rate that is impossible to deal with. Please block it. There is a thread at ANI about this.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
The bot is not malfunctioning (moreover, it is running more than one task), so there is no reason to block it. Let the AN/I thread run its course, and there has been ample time to discuss this task. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It is now disabled. This type of mass bot tagging is a form of spam in itself, because regular editors cannot keep up with it. It is also unnecessary to yell "help! blacklisted link!" at the top of every page it finds, when the talk page would be the best place to do it.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It is yet another maintenance tag .. do you also say this of other bots who add maintenance tags? Editors obviously also cannot keep up with that. However, having links on a page that are blocked by a blacklist can give considerable problems with the edit experience of novice editors, more than that a page is an orphan or is not having any wikilinks .. and having those tags that are making people consider to do something about that problem on the talkpage will have the same effect as the other maintenance tags when they would be on the talkpage - they would also be summarily ignored.... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:19, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
It depends, because links are blacklisted for a range of reasons. as Fram pointed out here, blacklisted links are not always a matter of urgency. I can't see much wrong with the link removed here, and a bot process does not review the decisions manually. This is why it should not edit pages directly, as it will make mistakes and get into edit wars.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
I do disagree somewhat, I think having blacklisted links on a page is a bit more of an urgency than not having incoming links, or not having wikilinks (though indeed less urgent than a page that is violating copyrights, indeed). Nonetheless, no-one is really making a big case out of having those tags (some people remove it). I agree it should not edit war over it though.
Problem with tags is that people generally remove tags, without solving the problem. That has been a general problem overall, even without considering what the problem is. I recently had to go to the whitelist, add a link, revert a page to a non-vandalised version with the blacklisted link in it, remove the whitelist rule and ask in a proper way for whitelisting as I was not familiar with it. If a bot would have tagged the article, someone else would have asked for the whitelisting before, and I would not have had that problem, I would maybe even already have whitelisted it then.
While removing the tags, I hope you did ask for whitelisting or exemption ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:39, 26 September 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 25.
Message added 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)


I'm wondering - Where is the new section link at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist ? Why is it missing? Any idea?

(I figured out : Where the section edit links on the archives of MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist went… (example)) --Elvey (talk) 02:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Bot gone wild[edit]

You should read my 1714 30Sep2013 post at “Bot gone wild”.Sammy D III (talk) 18:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Chapter for ACS book[edit]

Hi Beetstra, I sent you an email a while back about a book chapter on Wikipedia chemical data - would you like to contribute? I'm particularly interested in you writing a section on Chemboxes in general and CheMoBot in particular. I didn't hear anything back, so I'm not certain if I have your current email address. The deadline is coming soon, but please reply here if you would like to contribute. I thought it would look good on your CV! Thanks, Walkerma (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would loveto, Walkerma ... But I am afraid I have no time at all. I'll have a look today. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks anyway! One thing - do you happen to know roughly how many chemical substance articles we have now? Walkerma (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Linking to YouTube[edit]

It has been interesting reading your posts at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard‎. At Uncyclopedia, we have the same problem of anonymous users posting "relevant" YouTube videos in articles. You ask why, and my answer is that it is done so that users who are unable to contribute (in our case, to write original comedy) can become "contributors." Spike-from-NH (talk) 21:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, funny that people think like that. Well, it makes real spammers also contributors, doesn't it? Itis even what they sometimes claim .. And in fact they are not really wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:16, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi Dirk. I hope you're doing well. I just thought you might like to see this conversation on my talk page: User_talk:Edgar181#SMILES_vs._smiles. -- Ed (Edgar181) 16:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


Hi, are you still in charge of UnBlockBot on IRC? I haven't seen it around for quite a while. --Closedmouth (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I'll try to have a look one of these days .. don't have much time for bot-maintenance lately, and it has been some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)



Site [1] has been blacklisted. I don't understand why. I would like to add it in EXTERNAL LINK on pages about Ocean and Planisphere. This site contains neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues. How to remove it of the black list ? Thank you for your answer (talk) 17:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess you'd have to ask for removal at the talkpages of the list where it is listed. However, what you indicate is not the sole consideration of why a link 'should' be there, nor (and I presume that was the reason why it was blacklisted) a reason to spam it to every page where it is 'reasonable' - you could also consider whitelisting specific links for specific pages on the wikis where it may be of interest. You do seem to have a conflict of interest here as well, which makes me think that others should maybe do the consideration of adding this link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
  1. ^

Speedy deletion nomination of WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/[edit]

A tag has been placed on WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

A rougue bot (User:COIBot) seems to have made this in the article space

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Oddbodz (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Curious .. sometimes the bot mistakes where to save. Anyways, I'll handle it (I'd preferred a move to the right position). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:14, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


I'd like to hear your take on the request at . Some don't seem to agree that "we do not block because we don't like links, or because they are unusable or because they are unreliable sources." --Elvey (talk) 22:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented - still, the remarks there do not disagree with my "we do not block because we don't like links, or because they are unusable or because they are unreliable sources." - was not blacklisted for any of those reasons - whether it should be whitelisted is another matter. For whitelisting a whole site, I would indeed suggest a broader discussion, and proper research that it is not replaceable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikitech tool labs and perl libraries[edit]

Hi. I have noticed that you have added some perl libraries to the tool labs and I was therefore hoping that you might be able to provide me with some pointers. I am trying to install diberri's template filler on tool labs (under the citation-template-filling project) but I am having some problems accessing a cgi perl script that requires a local perl library that I have installed. The script runs fine from the command line when logged into the server, but when I try to run the cgi script using an external web browser, I get an internal error. This is problem is clearly a perl library access problem since test cgi perl scripts run fine until I try to do anything with the library. Do you have any suggestions? Alternatively do you know of someone else I could contact to solve this problem? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:04, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I had a similar problem, the locally installed libraries don't work. They have to be installed globally by one of the system operators - I filed a bugzilla bug for it (still have to follow up on that one). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. It appears that we may have had different problems. I finally got the template filler to work with locally installed libraries (link is here). The key to getting the template filler to work was to add the following line to the cgi script:

use CGI::Carp 'fatalsToBrowser';

Adding this single line gave some very useful feedback that indicated despite using cpanm for the installs, there were a still a few unfulfilled dependencies. After installing these missing modules, the script finally worked. Boghog (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Chembox new header[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Chembox new header has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:53, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Forgot about this one, it is fine, you can speedy it I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Silk Road spamming?[edit]

Hi Beetstra,
I came across a new page by Katineee (talk · contribs), Marine Silk Road. I saw that you had warned them against spamming back in June. If this is the related edit, it seems they may be at it again. At least, the new page includes an external link to ''. 220 of Borg 05:25, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks User:220 of Borg, as it was copyvio from [3] I deleted and rev/del'd the text and turned it into a redirect to Silk Road. Dougweller (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
And seems to be some sort of tour site - a sales site. 14:40, 8 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talkcontribs)
Thanks, Dougweller. I had suspicions, but I didn't think someone would write a whole page just to spam one link. I was right, they plagiarised a whole page to produce a ' coat rack' to spam one link! Is that about right?
They also altered my comment to Beetstra, though I have reverted and warned Katineee. Not here to improve WP, methinks. :-\ 220 of Borg 23:55, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

data re paid advocacy?[edit]

Hi, as you know, there are conversations going on about paid advocacy. Some people say "we have to act this is a huge problem throughout Wikipedia!" and others say "this is SO not a big deal." We all suffer from a lack of data. So I am come here asking: do you keep any kind of data from COIbot that could help the community have a grounded-in-reality discussion about the extent of paid advocacy and COI editing? It would be really great to be able to say something like: X% of edits to Wikipedia are tendentious; Y% of those are from paid advocates" or the like. That would be the super-juicy data bringing together COI and content policies. I initially posted this to STiki and they kindly directed me here. In addition, it would be great to know of anything else that would help cast light on the discussion. Thank you!Jytdog (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, it is the old discussion. Paid editing takes many forms, true SEO, people who edit while they get paid, people who edit while getting paid by the organisation that they edit the pages of, people who do not get paid but edit pages that may impact their future, people who edit because being known on the web would improve their personal pay (rather than directly have an impact on the company they work for).
I however do not have hard numbers - they are around, people who edit purely to get better from it. My take a bit is:
  • people who get paid to edit Wikipedia - as long as they do follow our 5P, I have no problem with that
  • people who get paid to edit Wikipedia - if they 'spam', fail parts of our 5P (which generally means that their edits plainly fail core guidelines), they should be stopped, blocked, banned
It is however a grey area .. people who get paid by a company are generally specialists in the subject, and they should be editing, but they should be editing according to our policies and guidelines, and being a bit more careful.
The problem is similar as what happens with the specialists that come in from libraries, musea, external databases, etc. etc. Generally, they are not-for-profit organisations, and their info is very welcome. However, when they start spamming their external links to items in their online collection they are going a step too far sometimes (an example that I once saw was a general local museum starting to add links to their items throughout - one of the links being a quilt made by someone local, and that link being added to Quilt ..).
For me, the focus should be on 'does an editor follow our policies and guidelines', if not, they should be 'put in line', if they do, it is not an issue. Problem with 'paid editors' (in all their forms), is that they tend to stray into the grey areas of guidelines (they have unique material on subject A which makes a good addition to our page on subject A, but also some material on subject B, which is nothing special and does not add to all the material we have, but still they feel the need to add that as well ...). I do therefore think that paid editing is an issue, and that those paid editors should be made aware of our policies and guidelines and that they should be very carefully adhere to them, and when unsure go to talkpages, or be in contact with WikiProjects or other 'independent' editors on the subject in stead of editing the article themselves.
We have paid editors with a vested interest in the subject, and I have been working together with them for a long time in chemistry - it really is a matter of making sure that they know the boundaries. It really works great with them, and most of them I have just, early on, notified of the existence of WP:COI. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, and with your additional thoughts too! Such a bummer that there is not data on the extent of the problem. I hear you that paid editors are valuable. Do you think paid advocacy can be banned and that we can separate it reasonably well from paid editing? Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome. No. They can not be separated, they often operate in the grey area between and SEO is a job - you sometimes don't know that a paid advocate (an SEO) is an SEO - on the other hand, you have people inappropriately putting their links everywhere out of pure ignorance of our policies and guidelines, looking like they are spamming hard, while they actually do it in good faith, they think that the links they add are fine (sometimes it is someone who runs into a website somewhere on the www, finds it informative and spams it to Wikipedia inappropriately - they are not even affiliated with the site. And that is the whole problem with the statistics of it as well .. Hope this helps, I may drop by at the RfC. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. I am not clear on what you are saying. Are you saying that it is not possible to separately define "paid advocacy" and "paid editing" (which is what it would take to block one and not the other) or are you saying that some paid advocacy produces great, 5P-compliant work and we do not want to lose that by blocking such activity? (btw, by SEO I take it you mean "search engine optimizer"? Sorry for my acronymic ignorance.) Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
It is what I mean, yes - some paid editors are producing great work, following our 5P (we work with a handful of editors in the Chemicals Wikiproject that are connected to external organisations), whereas some people blatantly promote a (great) website where they are not affiliated with, but just because they like it and think it is informative, yet others promote a cause just because they like it.
SEO is indeed "search engine optimisation", SEOs are companies that get paid by an organisation to improve the 'being known on the www' for the company. Such SEO companies sometimes come to Wikipedia and create articles for companies or spread their external links. That is a form of paid editing. Some SEOs are blatant, others are more sophisticated and are difficult to catch - there are 'SEO-manuals' out there on 'how to spam Wikipedia without being noticed' (and if you have knowledge of such documents, you realise there is another grey area in that - some editors become well established editors first, creating a lot of good content, and then slowly start to implement their job and start to create pages for companies that are not-too-notable, but since they know Wikipedia, and are trusted, their pages tend to stick. Still, their ultimate goal was to promote something on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for discussing your experience. So interesting! Sorry I am still not clear, I asked you if you are saying A or B and you said yes! Maybe you meant "both"? A) was: it is not possible to separately define "paid advocacy" and "paid editing"; B) was: some paid advocacy produces great, 5P-compliant work and we do not want to lose that by blocking such activity. Are you saying A or B or both? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant there is that there is no clear difference between paid editing and paid advocacy - some 'paid editing' turns out in 'paid advocacy' in the end, some 'paid advocacy' produces good work along with hidden advocacy, some advocacy is not paid though utterly not 5P compliant, and then you have 'editing paid advocates' who work and follow 5P (edit neutral, create 'notable' material, etc. - even though they in the end do get 'benefit' out of their own material, but that can also be (and is in the cases I am thinking off) to the benefit of Wikipedia!).
Paid editors and paid advocates have to be informed, early on, that they have to follow the 5P, and more strictly than a 'normal' editor (more discussion, less bold editing, not 'I doubt that this is good, but lets be bold' but 'I doubt that this is good, discuss' - and even 'Hmm, I think this is good, but maybe this is something that others could have doubts about, so discuss'). I would even advocate that for editors from non-profit organisations who can give us material that helps Wikipedia forward, and where the organisation does not have a significant benefit from being linked from Wikipedia or being mentioned on Wikipedia - first discuss, preferably with a suitable WikiProject, make yourself known to Wikipedia, get to know how and what to contribute, what Wikipedia thinks is notable, where your expansion actually adds and where not (as I mentioned earlier, a link to the quilt in your local history museum in your 10k inhabitants town is NOT an addition to Quilt, however, the letters of the exchange that 'John WP:N. Doe' (inhabitant of said town) with the president of 'Far Far Away' that are in that same collection could very well be of interest and are likely a good source of information to expand the article we have about John do note that some not-for-profit organisations do get benefit from having their name mentioned here on Wikipedia - it does show their efficiency to funding agencies, or even the increase of incoming traffic to the webserver of the organisation could show efficiency of the IT department, saving jobs or increasing pay to the employee(s) ... suddenly that is paid advocacy as well :-) Also, if it is the public relations officer that is creating non-notable articles on Wikipedia is something different than someone working with the collection itself). (note, the quilt-case and the public relations officer cases are real cases from the past - they are difficult in deciding how to approach: you have to 'tell them off'/revert their edits/delete their articles, but still keep them as they do have good info available - and I think that is the real crux of the discussion about paid editing/advocacy). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
OK, so it sounds like you are saying A) and B), for sure. And additionally C) tendentious edits are made by both paid editors and paid advocates. Thank you for explaining more! I don't know if you are aware, or will find it important or interesting, but here is what Jimmy Wales wrote on his Talk page recently: "The board is preparing a statement. The numbers are weak for commercial editors, and the arguments they have made are not carrying the day with the community. There has been a need for refined understanding, and that refined understanding is now spread through the community quite widely. No one supports paid advocacy editing other than a tiny and noisy minority. The writing is on the wall.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2013 (UTC)" and afterwards ""Commercial editing" is a relatively new term someone introduced last week. I tend to continue to use "paid advocacy editing". This is editing of article space (proposing things or discussing with us on the talk page is not the issue) by someone who is paid to advocate for a person or organization. It does not matter if the actual edit in question is allegedly "merely factual" because doing that invites a huge and messy complicated argument about what's merely factual. If someone is paid to edit in their area of expertise (the canonical example is a university professor who is encouraged to edit by a university as a part of public service) that's not paid advocacy editing but it is paid editing of an unproblematic kind. Whether you call it "commercial editing" or "paid advocacy editing" it is relatively easy to identify and define, with relatively minor edge cases, and that's why it makes for a good line to draw for policy purposes. And to round out this quick summary: advocacy editing which is unpaid is also a problem - and some would argue it is a worse problem, but it is a different problem for which different solutions are needed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)" On the 19th, the WMF board released a statement and published a cease and desist letter sent to Wiki-PR, one of the "paid advocacy" houses, which you can see here. After which Jimmy wrote "There are a handful of noisy people who always insist that it isn't against the rules. They may be safely ignored. The only real question is how do we precisely formulate the policy that already exists. Remember the interesting and unusual way that Wikipedia's written policies are usually formed. They are a description of extant practice, rather than handed down dictats. The community without any trouble whatsoever banned Wiki-pr from editing Wikipedia without any hesitation. The philosophical dithering that goes on is generally driven by people who I'd prefer to see leave Wikipedia because they are the problem, or by people who have been drawn into thinking that this is a complex issue worthy of lots of hand-wringing. As I have said, the supporters of paid advocacy editing have already lost. They just don't realize it yet.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2013 (UTC)" As you can see, Jimmy, and apparently the WMF Board, think A) Paid advocacy and paid editing are distinguishable (except for some "relatively minor edge cases") and B) even if paid advocates make some useful contributions, it is a greater good to clarify that paid advocates cannot directly edit articles; and C) tendentious edits are a big problem, but is a separate one. Thoughts? (again, sorry if you do not find this interesting or important) Jytdog (talk) 09:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
btw, the only surviving COI policy proposal, which would ban paid advocates from directly editing articles, is here. Jytdog (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I can live with the idea of totally banning paid advocacy (hey, I have blocked and de facto banned SEOs, spammers, and blacklisted their promotional material for years now) .. but I don't think that it is that easily to distinguish from paid editing per sé. Regarding a 'university professor who is encouraged to edit by a university as a part of public service', we just had a discussion regarding a university person who was blatantly promoting his stuff (socking and all) - try to figure out whether he was .. encouraged by the university or not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not that banned editor I am talking about was encouraged .. his editing was inappropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I completely hear you; I work in a university and boy are there some tendentious folks in faculty roles. Your experience is so valuable as is your description of it, which I admire for its fairness. I do hope you consider joining the discussion about COI policy, prefacing your remarks about what you have learned and how that could inform policy with what a description of your work here - I was unaware of you before and would not have understood what your remarks are based on (but my Wiki-world is pretty small). Thank you again, for all your work, too.Jytdog (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I am generally mostly busy on the anti-spam front and in chemistry-validation (I see you are in biotechnology, not too far away from that field) - I see both sides of the coin, they are funnily opposite to it. I'll see if I can comment there, if I find enough time for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes! I want to get back to article work - have been too involved in this COI policy stuff for too long. Yes biotech is mostly where I work, especially ag. I am also interested in drugs and dietary supplements and health effects of chemicals and especially focus on health claims; our interests do overlap to the extent those articles discuss chemistry. I took a tour through phenols and polyphenols where a somewhat crazy person editor had done lots of strange things; those articles could use chemistry love for sure, if you get time.Jytdog (talk) 13:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to add .. paid editing and paid advocacy are two distinctly different things, and in basis are separated - the former is fine, the latter should be banned, blocked, eliminated, as it is in complete violation of our core policies (WP:NOT, WP:NPOV etc.). However, in reality, they are very difficult to separate, and even more difficult to detect where they are operating. Is the university professor an advocate or an editor, and is the news-paper journalist an editor or an advocate, or the SEO-employee, is he an advocate or an editor? Where is the distinction between User:John Doe123456 and User:Company Employee 123456 - the latter may be a neutral editor, the former a POV-pusher. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional thought! Real questions, or rhetorical? I have 2 non-rhetorical questions for you! Your userpage says you work for Sabic, which has (like universities you have worked for, and like most companies, profit or nonprofit) includes a Conflict of Interst policy in its Code of Ethics. What is the purpose of Sabic's policy? How are the questions you ask above, relevant to Sabic's policy? Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Regarding paid advocacy and their tendency to return and push on - they are unstoppable, please see User talk:MER-C#Agora (including creating articles which in itself are notable and probably stay, so they even meet their goals ..). I think it is great that Jimbo wants to ban paid advocacy, but just having a policy forbidding it, and a 'cease and desist' is by far not enough, I think there is a task for the foundation there to act when cases are brought to their attention by editors - I wonder if they would or could. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

or maybe you prefer the nutshell version?[edit]

  1. A boht may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
  2. A boht must obey the orders given to it by human beings.
  3. A boht must protect its own existence.

Hope this helps clarify.  :-)   — (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

This made me smile, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Sure, glad you liked it. <grin> <bow> Hey, are you still on semi-wikibreak because of the unspecified ahrbcohm drahmahz? (plus where is your voting guide? but yeah WP:REQUIRED so nevermind) If you are done with your break, welcome back first of all, but also maybe remove the sign up at the top of the talkpage, I'm always hesitant to contact somebody who has a big-red-wikibreak-notice on their page.  :-)   Anyhoo, my next mission is to rewrite Clarke's three laws to be applicable to ArbCom. (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I am still on a very low activity level (you've seen XLinkBot being down for weeks ..) - and yeah, ArbCom .. they should just be abolished, the community can do all that very well by themselves, we don't need them at all (<- there is my guide). Note, ArbCom is the total opposite of Clarke's three laws, they do not protect the community, nor do they protect the individual - They are more our version of Mythbusters (Case 1: 'does it explode?', 'Yeah!', 'OK', Case 2: 'and this?', 'No :'(', ..., Case 2B: 'does it explode now?', 'yeah, now it does' .. (ad infinitum)) ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas from Cyberpower678[edit]

cyberpower OnlineMerry Christmas 22:50, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks @C678:! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy 2014 from Cyberpower678[edit]

cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 00:07, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Also to you, @C678:, I hope your real life will be healthy, happy and prosperous, and your edits will be saved well, and your bots will run smoothly and bugfree! --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I haven't received anymore comments regarding spambot, so the stirred up dust must have settled again.—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2014 04:40, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
It seems to run fine - now hope that people will actually request whitelisting (they trickle in, but I do not have the feeling anything significantly faster than before). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
I hope so. After countless hours and updates I've made to it to make it but free, and the additional redundancy check to reduce the information delay gap from 48 hours to 2 hours at most. :p Maybe we should start a new Wikiproject called "WikiProject against blacklisted links"—cyberpower OnlineHappy 2014 20:06, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I was thinking, should I have Cyberbot II generate a Database report on a page listing links affected by the blacklist, to make it easier to detect collateral damage?—cyberpower OfflineHappy 2014 13:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
That would be great! Those active on the whitelist could occasionally go through that list as well for blatantly obvious cases (link to homepage of subject on subject page -> find the about, whitelist without procedure, it is something that LiamDavies was mentioning), and, as you say, the collateral damage ones (though sometimes they are not that obvious). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

why was my revisions deleted[edit]

I am new to this and the page is quite old and needs updating. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endotoxintestsolutions (talkcontribs) 17:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. Well .. You are blatantly referring to a copy of an advertising feature - not even to a peer reviewed article that has received significant coverage, using a username which strongly suggests a role account. I am sorry, I forgot to warn you of the Wikipedia policies. I am going to revert again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:10, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Dirk

Thanks for getting back to me. I am not sure how to proceed. The information I added is on new technology without using horseshoe crabs that is accepted as an alternative to the FDA. I did not put product information or company information in the description. As a reference I added my website but can easily remove that and place a referenced article as I had done in one instance.

If you could let me know what I need to remove or if you could for me I would greatly appreciate it. I am not a spammer.


Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endotoxintestsolutions (talkcontribs) 18:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you first either create a new account that does not suggest that you are connected to a company selling a test (or have this account moved). Secondly, maybe you should read through the policies and guidelines that I linked to on your talkpage. Wikipedia is not a news-site, it is publishes about notable subjects, referenced by secondary and tertiary sources. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk,

I will change my user name. I will forward information directly to you first for review before I submit anything that is referenced by a 3rd party. Hope you have a Happy New Year and I apologize for wasting your time today.

Take care

Robert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endotoxintestsolutions (talkcontribs) 19:49, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Jarre obituary[edit]

Hello Dirk. I repeated my question at the send of our Jarre discussion. Not sure you have answered it! If you do, please do so there, not here.

Hope you enjoy life in KSA: I have visited SABIC in Riyad several times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I commented, but since I am not a specialist on the subject, I'd prefer other regulars on that page to have their say - I acted there as a person who challenged the addition of the third external link with 'the same content' (it may be a bit more, whatever, I'll leave that again up to others), and question the other two as well.
KSA is good. Where in Riyadh did you go, STC or HQ, and why? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Dirk... I notice that several posts in the ongoing alkene discussion imply that the gold book is consistent with a broad interpretation of the term, and that this arises from text outside the quoted section. I would appreciate being pointed more specifically to the relevant text, if you don't mind. Thank. EdChem (talk) 01:23, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

I am on my way, let me see how Andrewa is doing. To everyones defense, it took me until yesterday as well to realize there was something wrong - we all have been saying that the world at large is telling us that EVERY chemical compound with a carbon-carbon double bond is an alkene (per the intro of Wikipedia, per most other tertiary sources like the Encyclopedia Brittannica), and that IUPAC has a definition out there which is SO far out of line with that .. 95 year, a 1622 page document, and SO far off .. naah? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:03, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Started to type, but got caught up, and have to go to work now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Changed my mind a bit - I prefer to let the discussion run its course, hoping that we get some insight or possibilities of improving (with the risk of sounding belittling in the end, but I'll make Andrewa aware of that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:18, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
I am open to learning something new, as always, and have already said that ambiguity for our readers is something we can and should address if practicable, so I am with you. I am just unclear on the comments on the IUPAC text, though I gather that will be clearer in time. I am not impressed with some of what Andrewa has said, but I agree with you that this doesn't mean there isn't something worth addressing in there. I look forward to your further comments as time permits. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:51, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Re the question to Andrewa on the first sentence, would you see that Zeise's salt and other organometallic η2-olefins are excluded from the definition by "organic chemistry" at the start of the sentence? EdChem (talk) 12:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
2-olefins' <- olefin? Guess they are not excluded, also not if you read the definition you know it is included. It contains a Carbon-carbon double bond (though, one could argue about the bond-order, maybe it is a metallacyclopropane <- WHAAAAA, an alkane that is not CnH2n+2!!!!! .. call IUPAC ..  :-D --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
By the way, you've got mail. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up... I've responded. EdChem (talk) 14:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
FYI, I have sent an email. EdChem (talk) 07:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Replied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for the Review of Content in Spam-whitelist Page[edit]

Hello sir,

My name is Srikanth. I am Contributing to English version of Wiki for more than One and half Year. I am in a Trouble sir :( i.e., I added the Content to the Page : 2 Months ago. But Sadly no User nor Admin given their Replies. So that my Humble request is :

If you have Free time, Please See that Content and Give your Reply Sir:) Actually i Requested Some Admins but no use. So i am Eagerly Waiting for your Response Sir. Thank you for Reading this Patiently :)


Raghusri (talk) 13:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. Sorry, I have declined the request, it is way too broad seen the abuse that took place recently. I would suggest that you only ask for very specific links, and only if you can demonstrate that the information is really not available anywhere else. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request - Phosphoric acids and phosphates[edit]

It looks like there is no problem with my suggested move of Phosphoric acids and phosphates to Phosphoric acids. If you are cool with this, can you please make that move. On the weekend or before, I will repair the contents. Thanks, --Smokefoot (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I did so. One problem - I had to recreate Phosphoric acids and phosphates since there are many pages linking to it. The page (Phosphoric acids and phosphates) needs to be orphaned (no incoming wikilinks from content namespaces) and one can then request speedy deletion (improbable redirect). I'll try to have a look over my weekend, but please help with that as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Dank je. OK, I checked "what links here" for Phosphoric acids and phosphates and when I found a real link I changed it (except for personal and Talk pages) I think that I caught them all. You understand more of the machinery here: when I recheck "what links here" for Phosphoric acids and phosphates I still get a long list but my guess is that the search tool is identifying old versions. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Why was Phosphoric acids and phosphates moved to Phosphoric acids ? Is there a discussion of this move somewhere I can read? Will there be a Phosphates article too? H Padleckas (talk) 02:59, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Right now Phosphates merely redirects to Phosphate, which mostly covers the orthophosphates and not too much else. H Padleckas (talk) 03:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I announced and described the proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Phosphates: help and advice sought. No comments were made so after a few days, I decided to act. The plan was to subdivide. These things are never too late, so if you have objections or ideas let us know here. My thinking was that we could put the anions into phosphate, which might be pluralized. Maybe my idea was a bad one.--Smokefoot (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I consider that phosphoric acids and phosphates are inter-related, and the original article was written that way. Each type of phosphoric acid has a corresponding type of fully neutralized (deprotonated) phosphate. Furthermore, each type of phosphoric acid has multiple sites of acidity (protons that can dissociate), and there are multiple intermediate ions going from a fully protonated phosphoric acid to its fully neutralized specie, the phosphate. Accordingly, there are multiple Ka and pKa values for each type of phosphoric acid, and likewise multiple Kb and pKb values for each corresponding phosphate when going in the opposite direction (i.e. protonating corresponding base sites). It was a significant purpose of the article to point out the intermediate species and the interconversions. Of course, there is a separate single-compound Phosphoric acid article covering the very common mono- or orthophosphoric acid, for which a single compound Chembox is included. More or less analogously, the Phosphate article covers the mono- or orthophosphate, with little mention of polyphosphates for which there is a separate article covering the anions and esters. H Padleckas (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've answered there - basically I think that there should be an article describing the concept of 'polyacids', and separate articles (certainly for the phosphoric acid based ones) describing the different anions. The concept is there for many (sulfuric acid, carbonic acid, citric acid, maleic acid, malic acid), so an article on the concept is appropriate, and for some of the acids the anions are 'notable enough' to warrant all their own articles (certainly true for phosphoric and sulfuric, and probably for citric - all are 'sold' in mono-, di-, and sometimes tri-basic salts). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I am going to undo my changes and revert everything back to what HP recommends. I hadnt thought about the situation his way. We can reconsider everything in the future. It is a huge area but it is probably a bad idea to separate the acids and their conjugate bases. Also some of the most important species, H2P2O72- are anions and acids.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Smokefoot. I might be back with a couple comments later. H Padleckas (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Dirk B., thank you for your participation in moving the Phosphoric acids and phosphates article back. In case you're interested, my first name is Henry, but you may already know that. I am trying to write up a response to your comments/concerns mentioned above and in a similar section in WikiProject Chemistry#Phosphates: help and advice sought. I plan to place my response in WikiProject Chemistry#Phosphates: help and advice sought. It may take me a bit of time. H Padleckas (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just finished a bit of a lengthy response in WikiProject Chemistry#Phosphates: help and advice sought to your thoughts and questions. Considering these observations and a review of the cited articles, do you still want to write a new Polyacids article? Maybe we should, with time, investigate alumina and silica network acids first? No hurry on this, I think. H Padleckas (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Henry. I knew that indeed, we've both been around for a long time. I'll have a read at the Chemistry WikiProject about the polyacid case, but I agree - we don't have any deadlines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

periodic tables[edit]

Please look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Element infobox and comment if you wish.Petergans (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)


please help me with this page am not able to identify the mistake in this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revathy Iyer (talkcontribs) 10:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are pointed to the policies and guidelines in the remarks that are at the top of the page - and I don't think I can help you with the contents. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Errors in the spam-whitelist log[edit]

Hi again. MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Log has a couple of errors.

  • this item was added in December, not November, so a new section for December should be added, with just this one item in it.
  • The section header ===January 2014 is missing its 3 terminating equals signs.

I could fix minor stuff like this if you don't mind lowering the protection of the log to WP:template editor level. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll make the change.
I am not against the change of protection level for the log - however, I think that needs discussion on the MediaWiki talkpage. Thanks for the offer! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Odd links[edit]

Hi Beetstra, User:wnt has created Spamblacklist/Log because of COIbot creating links to it. Any chance you know what is going on here? John Vandenberg (chat) 08:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a redlink. Do you mean MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/Log? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Obviously not .. @John Vandenberg: I really can't find the page you mean. The page you linked also does not have deleted revisions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
So sorry .. it should have been Spam blacklist/Log. I've no idea how that space disappeared. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah .. now I see it. A mistake in my bot settings. this solved it (COIBot uses settings from meta, but those are overwritten for local wikis if they have it, I forgot that for this specific 'translation'). I'll check when it saves a report again.
Hmm, the old reports (some of which are stale and forgotten, but not necessarily useless) will now still point to the wrong page. Worth having a bot updating those thousands of pages (COIBot will update those which are still active and/or 'reactivate'), or let it be? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
check - it is now working as it should. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
If it isnt too much trouble, I'd love it if those pages can be updated so that the WP:CNR Spam blacklist/Log can be deleted, lest it becomes a precedent. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
For me, both can be deleted and salted. They are not crucial to the working. In the meantime, I'll file a request to update the pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg DoneBot1058 has successfully completed its (first) mission. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Great job, Bot1058. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:53, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I saw this conversation - when I went to look who maintained the bot before, I saw "Status = Wikibreak / No signs yet that the Arbitration Committee is in any form willing to change for the better (as expected). Good luck further." at the top and got the impression that you must be yet another of the longstanding editors caught up in some teapot tempest, so I took an ad hoc measure. But certainly asking you to update the links is the better solution, and I should have looked more carefully. Wnt (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, though I still think that, not really on a wikibreak anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:19, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Further correction[edit]

Per this diff

Yes check.svg Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

removal of new page - guidance requested[edit]

hi, i spent a lot of time creating a new page which you deleted earlier today. it appears it was deleted due to Reason "G11" - however, i had not yet finished writing it and was going to add the appropriate external sources to validate the bio i had written on myself. I have sources from the WSJ and other online properties which have highlighted my work including numerous awards, however i had not gotten there yet.

I used Mary Meeker, Peter Coffee and Guy Kawasaki as guidelines on my bio as they are also in my field which is why i was surprised it got deleted so quickly.

is there anything i can do to fix/adjust the page and get it back online?

As the market has labled me a thought leader in my space (not my words) i wanted to have my bio in wikipedia.

any assistance you can provide me would be GREATLY appreciated.

Tiffani Bova — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbova (talkcontribs) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Tiffani, for your remarks. The page was overly promoting and not written in a neutral way at all, which is important for Wikipedia. Best that the articles are written by someone totally independent of the subject, and I doubt that the bios of Mary Meeker, Peter Coffee and Guy Kawasaki were written by the subjects themselves (and the article on Peter Coffee is not the best example, the other two are better).
You could try and re-write it through the explanation and 'wizard' here: Wikipedia:Article_wizard (or request it to be written for you, also on that page). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


There has been a lot of back-and-forth warring over "Uncyclopedia", with Wikipedia editors with vested interests in both the old site at and the newer independent site attempting to shape the Wikipedia article to suit their outlooks. On the Wikia side, this consists of User:Spike-from-NH (who is currently an administrator at that site!) and (although not recently) User:PuppyOnTheRadio. On the independent side, there are at least three, including two who are directly involved in the upkeep of the independent site, namely User:Isarra and User:Legoktm. I would like to request that you (or any suitable admin) please tell all of these knuckleheads to knock it off, in the interest of objectivity. People who have direct stakes in the successes of these sites and who are this hard-headed should not be editing the article about their sites.

Also, can someone please come to an independent, objective decision as to the inclusion of URLs in the article? The fact is, when the community started a "fork" of the site, five users stayed exclusively at the Wikia-hosted site, while the majority of the active users (including at least five administrators) either moved exclusively to the independent site, or joined the new site and continued to edit both. User:Spike-from-NH seems determined to prevent any mention of the independent site. If this is to continue, I would recommend that all references to current domains are removed from the article.

Lastly, I don't understand why the word "fork" is being used in the article; the linked definition of "fork" deals with software projects, not necessarily literary projects. "Fork", as it is used, is a euphemism coined by Wikia. Can words be defined by fiat? 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, can you provide some independent reliable sources for this? I was shocked to see that an unaccepted paper was used as a reference for this, but if there is no independent mention of this, then it is simply not notable - in that case, the page Uncyclopedia is about the original uncyclopedia, not about the 'fork' (or however you want to call it).
Also note, that the 'fork'ing was mentioned at twice until it got removed yesterday. That the forking happened was not so important (see again the sources) that it needs mention in the lede.
We don't work by decisions, we work by consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
There aren't any independent sources to verify this information, as Uncyclopedia doesn't seem very relevant as a website anymore, outside of its user-base. Wikia has not made public the site-rankings for its individual subdomains for several years now, and the 'fork' is apparently penalized by Google for containing "duplicate content". This makes it hard to tell how relevant either site is, from a traffic standpoint. From a search-results standpoint, Google results are dominated by Uncyclopedia articles, so that's almost a wash as well. I would submit that if the 'fork' is not notable, then the Wikia site would be hard pressed to defend its own notability. How did Uncyclopedia get a Wikipedia article in the first place, anyway? 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 06:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I will also note that almost all of the article's citations are from Uncyclopedia itself, which could be an issue. 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)The first question is indeed what I expected - it seems not notable enough for mention on Wikipedia.
The second question is a different one. I see that there are many references (non-wiki ones!) from before 2013. Although I did not dig through those references, it seems that the subject 'Uncyclopedia' is certainly notable (at least, was notable), but the internal politics, forking and current status in itself not really. That something was notable in the past but not anymore is not a reason for removal/deletion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
After ec: no, that is not true. A lot is from wikis, but certainly and by far not all (and if used correctly, wikis can still be good references). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Regarding your question of notability: there is/are page(s) on both wikis describing the "fork"/"move", as well as the reasons for it, and the subsequent reaction by Wikia. Would those qualify as appropriate citations for the sections in the lede? If not, why not? 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 07:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
P.S. I apologize for not seeing the non-Uncyclopedia citations; I didn't scroll down to the references section, and the early sections of the article are dominated by Uncyclopedia citations. 2601:1:C100:306:587D:563E:BF2E:F565 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
They are suitable for the fact that the split happened (with care, they are a self-published-source on a wiki), but seen that the outside world, frankly, did not care the least indicates that that is about it - a short sentence telling about the split. I wonder if it is even notable enough for the lede, or just as a short one line paragraph in the history section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:46, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


My name is David Jansen. I am member of the board of directors of the National Polish American Sports Hall of Fame. You sent me a message recently that you are removing some of my edits to individuals that we have elected to our hall of fame. Why? I thought I had the proper reference identified when posting the edits> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jansend (talkcontribs) 16:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I haven't removed anything yet, though I am concerned. My main concern however is that you are connected with the material that you are linking to (which in part results in the second concern - is it of value to Wikipedia that all those pages have this mentioned at all?). That second concern however does mean that some of the material may need to be removed again. I do note that National Polish American Sports Hall of Fame itself is still a redlink, which adds to the total concern. I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi there, re this: if you had replaced the tag pairs <sup>...</sup> with <ref>...</ref> footnotes/references, your addition of the {{reflist}} template would have worked. I boldly did just that :-) - Cheers - DVdm (talk) 13:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. I just wasn't sure if it was an editorial choice for some reason. Did not have time to look into it further, so I just reverted myself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


Hello, long time no speak! How's it going?

I had an OTRS email from a guy at Lynx (transportation) (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views); ref ticket:2014012610006873. They seem to have a valid concern re content, I have asked the respondent to contact you for help as you are one of the safest pairs of hands on the project. I hope this is OK with you. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Fine, how are you?
Hmm .. thanks for the compliment, but I don't know too much about the subject - for as far as I see it is a piece of info that is referenced, I'd ask him to make his case on the talkpage of the Lynx page.
Oi, there is copyvio there .. wait. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Had a look, it appears not to be covered by the references - hence I moved it to the talkpage for discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I was editing in breaks between real world stuff and didn't have time to dig into it. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Entry in the whitelist[edit]

Goedendag Dirk! Hoe gaat het ermee? (translation, for stalkers)

As you are one of the guys maintaining the whitelist, could you take a look at my request if you have a spare minute? That would be great! Cheers, theFace 12:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Hoi TheFace. Goed, en met jou?
I'll try, but it generally takes more than a minute, and seen the site, I am not able to check here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh... because you are living in Saudi? Right. Well, it doesn't matter, because I just looked at it again and the Terms of Service page in question actually doesn't support the statement in the article. Not anymore at least. So I removed the link. PS: I have been renamed yesterday. - Manifestation 15:59, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Yep, .. WP:ELNO#inaccessible (WP:ELNO]] #7) is suddenly much easier to evaluate (yes, a significant part of YouTube and even parts of Wikipedia are inaccessible here). Puts the remark 'but my link is informative and useful' into perspective (my answer is already 'so what? Does it ADD something that can NOT be missed and can not be included itself?'). (I know, you are talking about a reference, for which those rules do not apply in any form - though I think it is the task of a whitelisting admin to show that the claims in the request are true).
OK, well. Maybe another link on the site can be used, or did the situation itself change? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for the Reason Behind Adding in Wiki Spam List - Revision as of 09:45, 16 October 2007[edit]

Hello Beetstra,

Hope you are doing well. :)

I have a request, kindly provide me the reason behind adding to spam list. So, I can able to correct or improve my website for the same and got our website removed from wiki spam-list.

Thanks & Regards

Pramod Sharma

Executive at Pramod210 (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

The content of the site has nothing to do with the reason it was blacklisted - it was blacklisted because it was inappropriately spammed/pushed to Wikipedia (in fact, a whole set of sites of the same owner were spammed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Apologies for the spamming. Could you please suggest me, how to de-list our website from the spam-list of Wikipedia. I will be thankful for the same. We are promising you for future that Wikipedia will not find any kind of spam activities from our side ( Pramod210 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
If regular editors find it useful, they will ask for whitelisting or de-listing - until then I do not see need to de-list it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)


Wemoni (talk · contribs), a user you blocked almost two years ago as a SOA, has requested unblock and says he'll edit productively. It's been a while and I'm willing for us to give him a break. Any thoughts from you? Daniel Case (talk) 20:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. Thanks for the question. I had a look around at the situation, and I think the block pretty much served the purpose (though not fully ..). I'm fine with the unblock per WP:AGF. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Nebraska gubernatorial election[edit]

Please clarify your statements and actions at Talk:Nebraska gubernatorial election, 2014#Linkfarm . Thank you. (talk) 14:27, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've done that throughout - violations of the 2 pillars WP:NOT (linkfarm, soapbox) and (often, as in the case I encountered in Nebraska) WP:NPOV (often undue). Also fail the guideline WP:ELNO. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Answered your question in wp:eln, and asked a question[edit]

You write "what does that have to do with tea in general"? Well, all tea (from the camellia sinensis plant) contains Teanine, which is the chemical responsible for the brain wave effect. It is probably the primary reason people drink tea, so yes, I think it is necessary for the understanding of the subject tea.

Without the video, it would be hard to legally show that picture showing the effect on brain waves. It won't be included ion wiki.

How about at the end of the Healthy Diet article? Look at the huge Health Topics list (certainly not something that could be reproduced inside the article).32cllou (talk) 08:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [[4]]32cllou (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

We'll keep the discussion in one place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Of links and tea[edit]

Hi. I'm sticking this on your talk page because I'm afraid of further muddling an already muddled discussion on the noticeboard. From your latest comment there, I get the sense that you're confusing me with someone else who participated earlier in the thread. I jumped into the discussion a few days ago offering a second opinion that completely supported what you'd already said (and expanded on it a little, trying to frame it in a way that might be more understandable to the editor who wanted to include the inappropriate link). Since that time, you've accused me of making unfounded accusations, and now you're offering me advice about "getting material . . . on Wikipedia" that I've already indicated doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please take a few minutes to review who said what in the thread, because you're preaching to the choir. Rivertorch (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I have time (which I am short of) - threading is sometimes confusing. My apologies if I misinterpreted it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
No worries. I'm hardly here myself these days, and I can definitely relate to having no time. Rivertorch (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Let's have a virtual tea (* gets up and walks to coffee room *) together and enjoy our brainwaves :-D. I'll try to find time to look at ELN as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Uncyclopedia 2[edit]

In response to an Original Research tag by David Gerard, I made a deletion that seems to support your goals for this article, and which is continuing to catch hell. You might like to visit the talk page again. Spike-from-NH (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

'my goals' - don't think I have goals for it, I only question certain material and it's notability. I will drop by again to have a look. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica[edit]

Recently, ED switched from to, placing the old ".se" URL leading to the about page to nothing. It was near impossible to give a proper link, since the new .es URL is blacklisted. Why do we keep the old URL, even though it dosen't work?

UmJamLam (talk) 00:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

First, the last time I checked, the .se did still work. And if they changed the url, then the way forward is to change the whitelist rule, since the .se is whitelisted, that should be a mere formality. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata needs data[edit]

Hello, I thing you are the right guy I need so I contact you directly. I am looking for the Excel file containing the different databases ID (PubChem CID, CAS number,...) for the chemicals in WP:en. I am trying to get similar lists from the different WPs in order to create an unique list which will be used as raw database for an import in wikidata. The first step is to identify each item in WD about chemical and we want to use PubChem CID for that. Once we can identify each chemicals we will extract data from PubChem database and import them into WD. So I will need the list of chemicals in WP:en with the associated Q number (wikidata identifier), CAS number, PubChem CID and the english chemical name. I have already that list list from the WP:fr and I requested the same from WP:de. Thanks for your help. Snipre (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Dirk. Looks like the guys from Kable are working hard to add links to Wikipedia. I posted my report on this link. Just giving you a heads up as I posted on the middle of the page... not sure how to do those reports. Thanks! Legionarius (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I just saw the report - it is fine. I am planning to bash that with a sledgehammer, this is plain SEO spamming, abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I'll blacklist the whole set shortly to put some spanners in the system. Agora and CBROnline are two big publishing companies who are around here for a long, long time, which had their links blacklisted way back, and are still around with more of their stuff. I'll block the accounts as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Way to go! :) Legionarius (talk) 11:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Now people will start yelling at user:Cyberpower678 for reporting blacklisted links.  :-D --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Malformed entry?[edit]

He Beetstra, in this edit, it looks like your entry for \bwater-technology\\b is malformed (an extra \b) unless I'm missing some regex subtlety. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it is a mistake, though the regex works (except it would also catch now). I will repair the entry. Thanks for spotting that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


I see you added to the spam-blacklist, as part of a larger effort to remove spam. Just letting you know I have requested a removal (or modification to the blacklisted link) here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting problem - the owner (CBROnline) is actively spamming Wikipedia. Maybe we should bash the spammers around using XLinkBot on this then - or using an edit filter. I hate it when big companies do this. I'll have a look later, no time now. Maybe someone else beats me to it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Would you like me to remove my request? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 16:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I saw complaints about offshore-technology... I changed refs on the article in question (Corrib gas project) but saw another offender there too - Legionarius (talk) 17:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
There are many of articles affected by your additions to the blacklist (the bot put a note on the top of many articles). Many sites from the London-based informational research firm Kable (??? are somehow being banned from using as citations when they are legitimate and contents are sometime difficult to find replacement sources. Kable and all of their sites are legitimate and they are reliable sources used by the respective industries. Why blocking the sites? You said the owner (which user?) is actively spamming Wikipedia. As far as I know, CBROnline and Kable are not related. In any case, even if they are related, how we can prove that that user is actually the owner of Kable (or CBROnline)? Could it be one of Kable's competitors? If someone pretend to be the "owner" of and start spamming Wikipedia, should we now put on the blacklist? I think the appropriate action is to block those questionable users, not to put the affected sites on the blacklist especially without any discussion prior to adding and also with no reason provided in the blacklist log. This could cause mayhem to all legitimate contents on many articles of Wikipedia. At least some of the articles on my watch are penalized by this. I'm sure many others are on the same boat. I don't know about the process of removal from the blacklist, but this should be done as soon as possible before editors with good intention try to find replacement citation with less reliable sources, or worst start removing some contents. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 02:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I take it back on my assumption that there was no discussion before adding to the blacklist. The discussion was rolled up into the CBROnline discussion. However, everything else I said still stand. Now that I know where this was coming from, I will continue the discussion in the those adding and removing threads of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. You are invited to participate in the discussion of the blacklist removal requests of those ??? sites. Thanks. Z22 (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

First, Kable and CBROnline are clearly related, so that stands. Secondly, whether it is Kable/CBROnline or a competitor is not an issue for Wikipedia, we are supposed to stop the disruption to Wikipedia, not to support their businesses. I'll look further at the discussions - but the abuse of Wikipedia has to stop. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/[edit]

Does this list of reports need to be kept around? Or can it be deleted? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

For some it does no harm to delete or blank them - though they do not much harm being there either. This specific example is an easy choice (could safely be deleted), but it may be more difficult for others, some really good sites where nevertheless inappropriately promoted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification (Rich Farmbrough bot issue)[edit]

An arbitration clarification request(Rich Farmbrough bot issue), either involving you, or in which you participated has been archived, because the bot request has been withdrawn.

The original discussion can be found here. For the arbitration committee --S Philbrick(Talk) 14:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed. A pity, still no clarity. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I see that Hasteur has the same thoughts here. Ah well, what can I say: as usual, this is how the committee operates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:53, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[edit]

Hi Dirk. Thanks for blacklisting and But as you predicted, the IP ( (talk · contribs)) that tried to remove the meta report has started spamming a similar new domain, Could you please blacklist that one too? -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. I'll do that in a minute or so. I will also look a bit further into this, get the rest of the website identifiers and see if there is more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Acetic acid[edit]

What part of the reaction mechanism indicates that OH is the primary site of reaction? Do you understand how the reaction mechanism differs from the heuristic interpretation? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you even know how thionyl chloride converts a COOH to a COCl2? The C=O plays only a minor role in that, it is actually the acidity of the OH that is doing the part of the trick. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a good diagram in acyl chloride#synthesis that demonstrates the cleavage of the C=O bond. Reconcile that with your view. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Perfectly in line with my view. Thanks for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


I know that you are not unfamiliar with the editing guidelines, so would you care to explain why you are steamrolling my edits, unwilling to discuss your difference in opinion? Plasmic Physics (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It is all discussed on the talkpage of the chemistry wikiproject. WP:BRD says it all - you make a bold change, someone else reverts it, then it first gets discussed. Not the other way around. Moreover, it is explained in my revert why I think that cyclopentadienyl should be about the anion, not about the radical. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Despite your view, cyclopentadienyl does not automatically refer to the anion, and as stated there is already a page devoted to cyclopentadienyl complexes containing the anion. Having two articles so similar in scope, is superfluous. In any case, the anion is called cyclopentadienide, for which I have sources. Correcting mistakes, is not a bold change, which is why it was not first discussed. If any discussion had to take place, it would have to be whether or not an incorrect assumption, and/or implication was made in deciding the scope, when the article was first created. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
No, that is not how Wikipedia works, it still shows the way you think about following IUPAC to the letter, and which strengthens my considerations that I expressed at the Chemistry WikiProject talkpage. Anyway, BRD still applies, you changed it from what was initially decided to be the topic, I reverted, we discuss. Not, you revert again and keep the version you think it should be - we come to consensus (and that still implies that you could be right, but that is not determined by reverting an explained revert of a bold change. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

(e.c.) Hi Dirk, I have mentioned PP's above post in comments at the WikiProject discussion, and didn't echo you. I figure you'll see, but just in case you don't, I'm letting you know.  :) EdChem (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Saw it :-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Jerseyville, Illinois may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • serving Jerseyville are [[Ameren]] ([[natural gas]] and [[electricity]]), [Grafton Technologies]] and [[Frontier Communications]] (landline [[telephone]] service and [[Internet access|internet]]),

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 05:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Collabro - Link Removal[edit]

Thanks for drawing my attention to the issue with the external links on this page; for some reason I thought Twitter accounts were acceptable if they were the "official" account of the individual or group in question but now I can't find where I thought I read that! The query I have relates to the YouTube video; as far as I can tell this is OK, as it's not possible to include it in the article, it's licenced from the programme maker so no copyright issue and it's relevant to the subject. Can you please clarify? Many thanks! --Rachel P. (talk) 00:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi Rachel. The only link I was actually considering was the Facebook - it seems to be the only and best 'official' site for the band. YouTube ticks quite some parts of WP:ELNO, and here I wonder whether it actually adds anything really to the page.
My biggest issue with the page is notability. The AfD that is going on (did not check the comments there) and the general subject of the page makes me think consider that the page should be deleted - notability is practically zero, and if the most official site they have is a facebook then that shows how official they consider themselves (it may change in time, but that is a WP:CRYSTAL-problem). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Robert Burn[edit]

Het spijt me Dirk, but I did not understand why you removed that content. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Goedemorgen, Drmies. I am not suspecting anyone socking, I know that someone has been long-time block evading, Courcelles has been checking with me and agrees (though all evidence is online, they self identified). They were using the IP in the time that they got blocked, and haven't stopped using the IPs since. In the past (before the block) I found this editor logging out to make WP:POINT violations (which earned them their first SPI, and a block of the IP they used then), and that is one of the issues here still as well. They do deliver some good content, but there are problematic edits inbetween as well. I've blocked the IP again, this time for a longer time (their other IPs are blocked very long). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Dankjewel Dirk. Hey, I had a Dutchman visit us the other day: I had forgotten how tall we were (I'm only 1.77). But in true Dutch style he brought no gifts, and I had so hoped he had a few pounds of Gouda in his bag. Ah well. Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Heh, I am not that tall either (only 1.71 even). But I have friends which pass the 2-meter line. I'll have to wait until the summer until we see tall people again, it is difficult, if not impossible, to get people into KSA (family works, friends is probably totally impossible). Good thing: there is Gouda here in the local supermarket! Even products from Friese vlag .. (the ones you don't find at home like condensed milk). Some of those products are scarily expensive though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

In re PP edit controversy[edit]

What you will see at the following link was written at the time of your long discuss with PP, but I just discovered it as not posted. Despite the elapsed time, because of the ire/stubborness on both sides, I decided to post it anyway. See my interspersed italic comments, and then the final proposal.

You are the second most important party needed to agree—mostly needed is PP of course. But if you do not, either before him, or after him, with a simple "I can agree to these things", then I think the conflict will inevitably re-emerge.

Note, in the interspersed comments at the site, after PP himself, you are the one individual that I am hardest on. This is in part because I perceive you the most knowledgable and mature, and can take direct speech, but also because while you and I appear to agree on some things—e.g., that arguing the oxygen atom to which proton is attached is "angels on the head of a pin", in light of modern research—we perhaps disagree on others. The two main points of contention, looking back, seemed to be that you kept making statements:

  • a) about the most important mode of reactivity of carboxylates being their acidity, and I felt these naive—because from my training and teaching, their acidity are inextricable from their carbonyl orbital influences and so from its reactivity, and indeed, that formal deprotonation can be suppressed by chosen conditions to emphasize carbonyl electrophilicity (with many modern reaction examples available to make the point, but old ones as well, e.g., pericyclic TS's in RCOX preparation, [5]); and
  • b) that made you seem unwilling to cede the point that both the Cp anion and cyclopentadienyl (radical) were valid topics for coverage, whether on same or separate pages.

As well, as you will see, I utterly reject a lexicographic approach to determining encyclopedic priorities, as you seemed to be arguing. Too many people know about the disgusting Santorum neologism, and that does not make it important or noteworthy, in any fundamental sense; it is simply a construct of a modern "gaming" of the commercial search tool Google. And the fact that no one has heard of Teruaki Mukaiyama (such that there is no biographical article for him at Wikipedia), or that no one understands the fundamental importance of whether theory and experiment come together in their predictions and observations over the delocaliztion of remaining electrons in the cyclopentadienyl radical (see for instance [6])—these do not matter a whit to me. People that know chemistry the most deeply, know that these are substantive subjects, and substantive subjects deserve encyclopedic coverage.

But maybe we agree on these things, and I am misunderstanding your responses to PP. In any case, in going over it all thoroughly, I propose a way forward, that I think all should be able to agree on. It is here, after the interspersed italicised comments that I (thought I) offered during the course of the discussion: [7].

Cheers, hope you can agree to the proposal, and respect your involvement. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your interspersion here, I appreciate that an independent party is looking over the situation.
I however do respectfully disagree at some points, and I do indeed think that you are misunderstanding my responses to PP.
  • the C=O and C-OH functionalities in a COOH group are thoroughly connected, the base of the problem with that sentence is not whether the C=O is more or less reactive than the C-OH (PP's approach), the base of the problem is not the choice of example (which would be another solution, but it still does not take away issue that one then chooses which one is more reactive), the base of the problem there is that they can not be separated. That was not recognised by PP.
As I expected, we (as all chemists should) agree on this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
  • No, I am not unwilling to cede the point that both the Cp anion and the cyclopentadienyl (radical) are valid topics for coverage. That is pertinently untrue.
Again, as a double negative yields the positive, as I hoped, under calm skies, we agree on this. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
You can (utterly) reject the lexicographic approach to determining encyclopedic properties, that is fine. But that is not what I am arguing either. That is a wrong interpretation of your side. However, it is getting close to what PP was doing, using the systematic 'lexicographic' approach, directly countering Wikipedia's manual of style.
This is a little more surprising, and so I have indeed misunderstood you, and I am glad we do not have to chase ever-changing web meanings, and can, as an encyclopedia should, focus on the clear distinctions elaborated by good nomenclature—however clunky the naming might at times be, the old guard at IUPAC recognize three fundamental physical forms, CpH-derived (anion, cation, and radical), and these all should have homes. (Not because it is nomenclature, and not because it is IUPAC, but because these 3 species are physically real, have fundamentally interesting chemistries that are not completely walled off from one another, and have historical sidelights as well.) This "forest for the trees" approach (seeing the overarching concepts, key examples, etc.) seems to be something we also agree upon. Cheers to that, in particular. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
The course that Wikipedia is taking is not always that we use the 'correct' name, we use the name that is commonly used for things. The cyclopentadienyl anion is commonly known as the cyclopentadienyl anion, not as the 'IUPAC correct' 'cyclopentadienide'. That is the route given by WP:MOS, and by WP:CHEMMOS. We put Acetic acid at Acetic acid (the IUPAC allowed name, and the commonly used term), not at Ethanoic acid (the IUPAC systematic name, not commonly used). We do not follow the IUPAC naming suggestions (though, we should, with due care implemented, use the 'often used systematic name' - though there one runs into WP:OR problems when applying the rules of IUPAC to derive names; moreover, the IUPAC rules are often misunderstood as a discussion about alkenes has shown lately). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I also disagree that I am the second most important party. I am not the one reporting PP, that are, generally, other members (first User:Smokefoot, later User:Dmacks, previous cases are also reported by various editors. The second most important party is the community.
Of course concur there; but you have interest, energy, and standing in this particular community, where I largely edit on its sidelines. (Though I seem to have landed in the thick of it here.) Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'll read through your proposal, but I think here I see that you are starting off from the wrong presumptions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
If we do not disagree on the foregoing, then we are even more on the same page than I imagined, and so there will be little or no issue to the proposal points. Critically, this still leaves the couple fashioned to try to encourage PP to not attempt further "end around" plays to avoid the will of the community (i.e., by his changing articles despite being cognizant that consensus on his opinion cannot ultimately be reached). So, please, see the page of the original proposal—is there another step to be taken, now, with PP? If not, I'll let the matter lapse. But note, the TiH2 or another such edit creates the moment for community action; I'll oppose a future ban or block for historically distant activities of PP, certainly if a more collegial step like this proposal is never taken. Cheers, your call (either personally, or to redirect to the others you mention, for I do not really know them). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 06:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
As I argued there, the proposal is basically following our policies and guidelines, and that is what we expect anyway from all our editors (including Plasmic Physics). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I suggest that a careful response should be provided to this comment at WT:WikiProject Chemistry. Have a quick scan of this football page for one case that was completely resolved. The chemistry issue should be much simpler to handle because it does not involve two tribes battling each other. Johnuniq (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Jmol models in Chembox[edit]

Looks like you were involved in adding you have any recollection about their setup? See Template talk:Chembox#Upgrading external jmol. DMacks (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Replied there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:38, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


This might not be true any longer; I believe that mentioning DMOZ by name was removed last week (or thereabouts). (not watching this page) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Could be, but that still does not warrant it being mentioned int he See also .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:48, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Further input still appreciated[edit]

At Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Honorverse_wikia. In particular, you were cited at Talk:Honorverse#Can_we_link_honorverse.wikia.com_from_external_links.3F and we still disagree there, even with regards to which position your comments support. Any help in breaking this deadlock would be appreciated, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Spam-whitelist request[edit]

Hi Beetstra. I've seen your (tireless) contributions over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist for some months now, and wonder if I could ask for some attention at a page I've nominated there. Quadell was kind enough to add his vote of confidence, but with so much time time having elapsed since then, I'm wondering when the page might get the green light, or not as the case may be. Apologies if this request is somewhat presumptuous – feel free to put me in my place, if so! JG66 (talk) 17:54, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I will see if I have time to have a good look at that request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[edit]

I am trying to figure out how to find the justification for putting on the blacklist. I can see from User talk:Gcaptain that there were some warnings there. I see a warning from you. I don't see any warnings however that that the site will be put on a blacklist. Nor can I find any discussion elsewhere on blacklisting the site.

If there was a discussion, can you help me find it?

It seems to me that if there was a misunderstanding over how the editor of that site should comply with our conflict of interest policies that should not bar other contributors from using articles from the site. It is a good site. The editor is a serious person. He may not rise to wikipedia level notability but other sites, like the United States Naval Institute, reprint some of his articles.

So, can you help me out?

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 03:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall where the blacklisting discussion was (should be somewhere in the archives), but I remember continued linkspamming dispite warnings and unresponsiveness of involved accounts (it was not only the named account, also IPs). I am afraid that individual requests have to go through the whitelisting requests (for specific, individual articles). I'll have a quick scan through the records to see if it is significantly tried to be added by editors to warrant de-listing (also depending on how long ago the situation was). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)


I can't see any rational for this removal - the link was a valid, legitimate, directly related historical film about the subject . Prof.Haddock (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I still don't see how it adds information over the contents of the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Edited dead link[edit]

Hello, Just wanted to know what is the problem with my edit on this post I've just fixed dead link and replaced it with working one.

Thanks in advice ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talkcontribs) 14:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

As was said before in a revert, I strongly doubt that your site was the source of the information, and it does not strike me as a reliable source. It is a social networking site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I found that dead link and spent some time by rewriting the original source so Wikipedia will have less dead links. I think nothing wrong with that, or am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talkcontribs) 06:56, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Rewriting the original source? A plain archive copy from an respectable archive site is a better solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That was what I did. I just a little rewrited some points to make it not copy paste due to copywriting rights. But you can't find that post live anymore, I mean original and in this case you have only two options to deal with dead link: remove the reference from Wiki or rewrite, copy from original source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talkcontribs) 07:17, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

And that is why we need that to be done by a proper archiving service that does not rewrite the source, not a random site where the maintainer changes the text to avoid copyright issues. Where did you get the original anyway? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I took it via web archive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talkcontribs) 07:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, then THAT is the proper addition, there are parameters in the template for the archive. Please leave the original in case it comes back online again or so others at least know where the original was. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to leave the original near the working link I created? For example reference to the new link and near it link to the original source in case it comes back online again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrGarkaviy (talkcontribs) 07:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

That does not take away the concerns that you rewrote an archive version, right. I think that you should link to the archive, not to the version on your site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I still think that there is nothing wrong with fixing dead link in this way. Wikipedia is looking for the right references and many old articles have references to non existing pages. I did not change the article just found a way to show the text that potential visitors want to see --MrGarkaviy (talk) 08:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

They can see it at the original archive link as well (which people would have to visit anyway to see whether your edited copy is the same as the officially archived one (for the latter, one knows that it is the same as the original). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that many people and visitors of Wikipedia know about archive tool. What if it would be 100% version of the original article and not rewrite?--MrGarkaviy (talk) 09:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The use of archiving is being discussed throughout Wikipedia, including setting up our own archiving system (which, to a certain extend, we have as WikiSource), discussions on archiving sites (like WayBack), templates are capable to use links to archives.
Even if it is an exact copy, I would prefer the official, established archiving sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Thank you, Dirk, with user pages in unbelievable languages, for demanding "change for the better", for welcoming and warning, helpful bots, categories, project tags, articles starting with a chembox, for "the positive side of fighting spam" and better chemistry among editors, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you. This really makes my day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


I need help editing my page. I don't know how to add my references or imdb listing for external links. My biography is written but I don't want it deleted and I have just as much if not more information in the category Hollywood Agents. So can you please help me? Nancy Abt as page Fancienanc Fancienanc (talk) 08:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The text that you were writing now is really way, way too promotional. Please try again through Wikipedia:Articles for creation (click the "Click here to create an article now!" and let that lead you through the process (though, I would still adapt the language). References you can first add as full links at the bottom (create a section "References" for it), and similar for the external links to e.g. imdb (those go in another section: "External links"). Good luck! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 18[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Infinite. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)


Hi Dirk,

Thanks for commenting on the Synctool article. I'd like to improve the page to meet quality standards, but I'd welcome some insights on for instance which parts of the page you would characterize as advertisement-styled. Could you have a look at please? Thanks in advance! -- Onno Zweers (talk) 10:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The biggest problem at the moment is that there are no independent references - if they do not show up, I wonder whether Wikipedia needs an article about this subject. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Jami Ferrell[edit]

Dear Beestra,

I am flattered you took an interest in updating my information recently. Considering your limited internet access time, your busy world traveling, limited time in general and your chemistry studies (reluctant though you are to get into that subject with others), I am curious to know why you chose to use your very limited internet time to update wikipedia on an old American lawsuit that had nothing to do with you, your country, your fellow citizens, or any land upon which you have ever stepped foot. You have interesting timing. Producers of an American tv show contacted me within a month of your lawsuit update. Curious coincidence, is it not? One might almost think my Wikipedia information was being groomed for something. That wouldn't be very ethical reporting would it? I do hope you show more care when working with your chemicals than you do when providing information to wikipedia. Haphazard work can sometimes blow up in your face.


Jam iFerrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D300:53C:F19E:1E3:688F:633D (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I did nothing of that, I just brought the whole of the page in line with our standards (see diff) - those links that were there on that page, and on all the similar pages, were totally inappropriate, and should not be there. You can think whatever you want about my motives for removing them, but you will see that it has nothing to do with you personally (as is already witnessed from the rest of the edit performed on that page) and edits by me in the same timeframe. Please take care with your assumptions (and the rest of your editing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dirk Beestra,

I have added/edited nothing on wikipedia except openly addressing you here and writing to wikipedia for permission to use my real name. I have no clue as to what links and pages you are referring.

I am questioning you not about removed information but rather the inaccurate information that remains. You are listed as adding information in June of this year about a random lawsuit that occurred 3 years ago. The executive producer of an American show, "America Greed," contacted me within one month of your adding the information they plan to highlight on their upcoming season. I have the e-mail from Mike West to prove that.

Based upon the information you provided here about yourself- your interest and pursuits, your lack of time and your limited internet access, none of that information provides any clues as to why you would take any interest in a random bankruptcy case occurring in America years ago. I openly questioned your motives for the recent edit and you avoided the question.

Knowing very little about wikipedia I began researching it today so I could learn how to correct the misinformation. If push came to shove, I have no doubt wikipedia could prove through IP addresses that I have never made an edit or submitted material of any kind to wikipedia's published information. I would assume through your statement, "... brought the whole of the page in line with 'our standards'..." that you are connected with wikipedia enough to be able to verify who made the mysterious edits to which you refer. One would hope, if you do work with wikipedia, you would show greater care validating your accusations before publishing them. The information you and others have provided under my name is incorrect and will be updated.

  • The government did not indict Durham for running a ponzi scheme. The government dismissed their ponzi based civil suit around November 25, 2009.
  • The lawsuit was less than a quarter the amount you posted and that would have been very easy to confirm had you checked your sources.
  • I was not Durham's girlfriend anywhere near the time he was indicted. Durham was living in LA with model actress, Eric Taylor, years after I dated him. I have lived in Indiana since 2003. Images and articles of the pair living and socializing in Los Angeles are readily available online.
  • A magazine article was listed as the source for information stating I was married to Simon for 3 weeks in 2000. That article does not state the marriage duration or year. A source was quoted that had nothing to do with the claim.

Ultimately, considering what little information is provide of my life, very little care has been given to real, easily obtained facts. You were clearly not motivated by a drive for accuracy in recently updating my information.

I was not surprised to read many edits and additions to wikipedia are hired out for personal motives.

Frankly, that would coincide well with the timing and motives of tv producers wishing to add validity to salacious claims they soon plan to release about the life you were "editing."

Your timing was a little too close to producers interest, within one month of a 3 year old case. I am humble enough to realize my life is of very little importance to the general public. Considering your limited time and limited internet access, shouldn't there have been more important subjects worthy of your attention and editing skills?

Sincerely, Jami Ferrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D300:53C:F19E:1E3:688F:633D (talk) 18:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jami. I'm sorry to hear that there has been information on Wikipedia that you are unhappy with, particularly if it has been causing you problems. I can assure you however that Beetstra had nothing to do adding the offending material - it was added by User:Igordebraga in this edit in April. Information about living people requires reliable sources to be included and in this case I think that Igordebraga was wrong to include what they did given the low-quality of the sources and the fact that you are hardly mentioned in the sources. I have therefore removed the information and will do my best to make sure that it isn't replaced in that format again (if at all). I'm sorry again that this has caused you grief, but as a volunteer run website these things do unfortunately happen. An apology to Beetstra wouldn't go amiss. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

My sincerest apologies, Beetstra.

I am new to the inner workings of Wikipedia. Going back to the page's history, on June 30th, 2014, Beetstra's name was tied to the new input regarding the lawsuit. If I now understand it correctly, Igorebraga added that misinformation at an earlier date and Beetstra simply approved it on June 30th, 2014. That being the case, I was certainly wrong in my assumptions and again heartily apologize to Beetstra.

A most sincere thank you is also in order to the individual(s) that removed the questionable lawsuit information. That was very gracious considering I erroneously attacked Beetstra. I hesitate to bring it up as you have been more than accommodating with me but you guys have my dating history all wrong too. I married Sam Simon in September of 2003 and divorced in 2004. He followed Hefner/Nicholson (they were late '90s). If, while you're in the cutting mode and know where to find me, you would want to just wipe out my entire romantic history that would be fantastic (clearly that hasn't gone so well either). ;) If not, no worries, I will go through the proper editing channels like the rest of the world.

Thank you again and best wishes to all of you at Wikipeida. Jami Ferrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D300:53C:68F7:D4CF:D2DB:35E2 (talk) 21:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Jami Ferrell. What you were looking at was the last contributor to the page. That does not necessarily mean that that is the editor who added information that has added offending information, it also does not mean that that person endorses all info that is on the page. The last person may just have repaired a typo or, as what I did, remove something that was not in line with a certain policy here on the site. I, intentionally, did not concern myself with the prose on the text, I did not judge about that (I maybe should have looked at that a bit better).
I commend you for the line of action you took, talking to another editor about wrong, negative information about yourself that you felt needed to be removed. I am sorry that I did not understand what you actually meant - I should have looked further as to what you could possibly mean, and I apologize for not seeing that. We'll have a look about the other information as well. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Dirk Beetstra, You have responded far more appropriately and considerately than most when faced with bizarre and unfounded accusations. Had I made more effort familiarizing myself with the situation all confusion and my regrettable blunders could have been avoided. Reading more carefully through your exchanges with others in the field of chemistry, I see that I was mistaken with that assessment as well. I found you to be quite sharp in general and capable of handling the subject with skill and ease. I do appreciate your patience and assistance. Yours, with many thanks, Jami Ferrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:D:D300:53C:68F7:D4CF:D2DB:35E2 (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)