User talk:Beetstra/Archive 10

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Dear Sir,

We are a group from the netherlands that built a Message Queue service over the net. please do not delete our posts, as it is an important for us in the process of being known to the message queue community.

Yours E.Msk Toko50 (talk) 11:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not an advertising service, please read our spam guideline, our conflict of interest guideline and our 'what Wikipedia is not' policy. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I re-reverted your posts per above (and more) policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

I think you misunderstood the intention. The mentioned items are both Message Queue services exactly like IBM MQ. Please check both sites "Amazone SQS" and and decide for your self. This subject should reflect latest development in the technology, e.g MQ service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toko50 (talkcontribs) 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Toko50 (talk) 13:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe not 'advertising', but still 'promotion of information'. I'd like you to discuss with e.g. an appropriate Wikipedia:WikiProject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, just to verify, it is requested that we will open a new project with description of the concept, right? Toko50 (talk) 19:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry that I was not clear there. No, I would suggest you find an appropriate WikiProject to discuss the information with (you'll find editors there who are interested in the same information). You may also find the project via the talkpage of the pages you want to edit (they often have a banner on top), or via regular editors on the pages you want to edit (click the history tab, and see who are regular/common editors on the pages). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

About the link i submited

Hi Beetstra, i just receive your mail about my contribution on the "Atv Offroad Fury" article on wikipedia I understand you may think that is spam but it is not, Game-credits is a database about Game Credits (people who made the videogames) like mobygames is. I've read the guide about external links and u thought thae game credits link would be valid external links (i thought that it could be interesting to publish an external link to the list of guys that built the game.) If you think it is not intersting i apologize and i'll not submit any other Gamecredits list.

Best regards

SophieLyon—Preceding unsigned comment added by SophieLyon (talkcontribs)

You are only adding links to external links sections, and I have explained on the one talkpage post you performed that these links do not add too much to the page. I am sorry, the behaviour that you are displaying is regarded here as spamming. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

iupac nomenclature in Wikipedia

Thanks for the recent comments and suggestions. I am ready to assist if considered useful. To make redirects (as Smokefoot suggests) is OK, provided that the main article has the correct nomenclature. Many students now use wikipedia in their studies; if they search for a wrong name, they should be directed to the correct structure and name. Please advise me how I coudl be os some help. Reedijk (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I replied on your talkpage (user talk:Reedijk). Thanks for your question! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chemical data

Hi, I was wondering if your robot infrastructure provides an easy way of finding out how many chemicals have certain types of data and to build tables. For example, let's say I wanted a table with all the pKa's from the infoboxes (or all the heats of formation, or LD50s...). --Itub (talk) 09:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, that is doable, but difficult, as it would need to load all pages that transclude a certain box (which is quite lot of data that needed to be parsed; I think this would be better on an off-line dump of the current wiki). I could do it in a throttle it, probably, and do it once every so week/month (or on command). And make something like a 'stats' page for a box. What would you want to do with this data, and what data would you need? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Though, having a clue about how much data is verified would be nice to have .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm mostly interested in just the counts, to have an idea of how far we have progressed in providing certain types of information. For example, the LD50 field was added more or less recently, but how many articles really use it? But second, I think that in some cases it could be useful to have articles with comprehensive lists of a specific property. For example already have a (very incomplete) list of heats of formation. I think it would be nice to have a list of pKa's too. But to avoid duplication of effort and inconsistency, it would be great if such a list could be built automatically from the infoboxes. It is nothing urgent, just an idea. --Itub (talk) 09:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I could just try and see how much effort it would take the bot. Quickly, 4000 chembox news, parse one every 5 seconds, gives 20.000 seconds is .. 333 minutes, is 5 1/2 hours. Not too bad if I throttle it that way. But we can keep this in mind, I'd rather do this when we start having a number of verified boxes, so I can also give estimates on that (how much fields are verified, of which data we have the most, etc). Might be interesting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


Please read over User talk:Encyclopediaofalabama. Your accusation of sockpuppetry and abuse is completely unfounded. I have reversed your block. If you have any questions or concerns, please bring them up to me or an impartial third party. Thank you, ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

WHAT! My accusation of sockpuppetry and abuse is completely unfounded? I am sorry:
  • Both accounts do only one thing, adding external links to the same site
  • The usernames "EncyofAl" and "Encyclopediaofalabama" are both clearly the overlapping with the organisation name, which are not allowed per WP:USERNAME.
  • EncyofAL starts editing AFTER Encyclopediaofalabama is blocked for username-violation (Encyclopediaofalabama blocked at 15 september, EncyofAl starts editing on 16, created on 16). That is block evasion, and the user clearly did not understand why the first account was blocked.
  • Now about the username: there are two possible scenarios:
    • The user is involved in the encyclopedia of Alabama, in which case the user has a conflict of interest. User:Encyclopediaofalabama is pointed to that (11 september 2007), but keeps on performing the same edits (on 15 september 2007). I must say, the editor tried to start a discussion in the end, and I do see that that should have been followed up before blocking, but that block was not mine!
    • The user is not involved in the encyclopedia of Alabama, in which case this may be a Joe job. Such accounts should be blocked without any further ado.
Now regarding the links. You say the links are appropriate. That may be true, however, even for good links, it is better that accounts involved in a link do not add those links themselves, and preferably discuss. Moreover, most of these links may not have the best place in the article as an external link, they are probably better as references (hey, just as you guys imply: what better reliable source is there than a library; see also the intro of the external links guideline), and we are still not a linkfarm. Concerns:
  • Adding links to top of list: diff, diff, this link is more important than others? (also, format is a bit off, could need some guidance there)

:* Adding links to unreferenced articles, the place to use them as a reference I would say (most articles untagged s such, but )(removed, not seen that on tagged pages --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC))

I have been handling this type of accounts for a long time, and I have encountered both sides of the medal here, accounts who after being notified started discussing and became very productive, and accounts who never got it, kept accounts who keep pushing their name and info (next to adding these 'appropriate links' to external links sections; I know I am assuming bad faith here, but also non-profit organisations need money and they get that by making sure their name is known and their links are followed. That certainly does not have to be the case here, but it is better to discuss). I am sorry, link pushing is done with both good and bad links, and the only way is to discuss (per all the guidelines and policies we have). This editor did on the first account an attempt, but kept on going while he clearly did know there were problems, and evaded blocks.
Now I do not see on the user talk Encyclopediaofalabama why my block needed to be reverted, there is no information about that. I hope you can explain your actions in more detail, as I do not feel this as assuming good faith in my research on the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Addendum: if these edits were meant to bring this link to the attention of other editors, as they can use the data to expand the article, yes, that has to be done via the talkpage, or via an appropriate wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have adapted the above statement, I have now gone through every single edit of the two accounts and added those where I have questions about the appropriateness of the edit. I did not check the information linked to, I may do that later to see if the information they link to actually adds information to the article that is not in the article already. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I have now also gone a bit more through the timing. I see that after the block of Encyclopediaofalabama you removed the spam warning (which IMHO did explain why we have problems with this type of contributions, though I would this not describe as 'spam', but merely as 'link pushing'), and suggested him to make a new account and discuss. The user certainly did follow the first advice, unfortunately not the second, but proceeded with the same style of edits which were problematic in the first case. Further discussion on user talk:Encyclopediaofalabama is after the second account got blocked. All in all I still feel that indef blocking both accounts is appropriate. The user is always free to make a new account and start freshly (hopefully in a more productive and collaborative way), or go back to the first account and request unblocking of that account. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OWN, WP:BITE and a whole dose of WP:STOP WHINING IF SOMEONE CHALLENGES YOUR ADMIN CALL AND CERTAINLY DON'T START PICKING HOLES IN WHATEVER ELSE IS NEAREST. Your {{linkfarm}} just smacks of pique. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry? There certainly is no biting involved, the account was first warned with friendly first level messages (and I did not block the first account, did I?). Owning, where? And yes, we have {{linkfarm}} for a reason, as all the policies and guidelines that have been written by a whole lot of wikipedians. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand your displeasure at my actions, I hope you realize that I did not mean to trivialize the spam problem on Wikipedia or to discount your administrative decision. On my part, this was an attempt to encourage a new and uninformed contributor, as I also explained to the admin responsible for blocking the first account (see User_talk:Mike_Rosoft#User:Encyclopediaofalabama). I looked over the links added by the EoA representative and vetted the history of the organization. Sure, the first few contributions from these accounts were mere links, however the same is true of other newbies who don't know much about editing a wiki. I don't think that these constitue an attempt to use Wikipedia for promotion, these links offer access to another free educational project run by the Alabama Humanities Foundation and Auburn University. Looking over the EoA articles, I see that they meet a high encyclopedic standards that we, unfortunatelly, can only aspire to at this point.

A partnership with the EoA to create free content is very much in Wikipedia's best interests. I bent the traditional Wikipedia guidelines and warnings in order to present a welcoming unbureaucratic presence that is sorely lacking (as I'm sure you will agree) in our recent changes warning templates and overwrought and confusing block notices. I'm glad that you see the potential worth of at least some of these links, I think that if the EoA continues to contribute they will understand the necessity to discuss proposed changes to Alabama-related articles on the relevant talk pages. Should they choose to do so, I am prepared to monitor and take full responsibility for their edits. I will also alert members of WP:ALA about the new resource and see if the EoA would be willing to release text or images under a free content license. Thank you for taking the first steps and offering a welcome notice to the new account. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I must agree to a certain extend, this account did get a lot of warnings, but no-one at that point took the liberty of inserting a welcome template. If I roughly count, there are about 810 (if I count correctly) nudges that should have alerted the user to stop his current actions (halfway a block after which the account went on; and there may have been more if the account read the talkpage between popups of orange banners). I do recognise that the resource is valuable (and so are many, many of them). To give the two sides of the medal I have been involved in, on one side there is the representative of the Victoria and Albert Museum (who started similar, but is now a very, very productive contributor), on the other side a representative of the european library (who also started like this, but did not want to stop, and besides linking 'more or less appropriate' also inserted links to their personal pages 'tell me about the European Library!'). Hence, for me non-profit/free content/government organisation/etc. is not at all a reason to not call the linkpushing 'spam', and it certainly does not have to make it appropriate, and it is better to stop it before going on, first discuss, preferably with an appropriate wikiproject. As I describe above (bad faith warning), some of the organisations still need to be known, and still need money, and one of the ways for the organisation to show that they are known is by how many sites link to their site (nofollow blocks that here ..), and how many people visit your site. Adding your links to a highly ranked site like wikipedia will certainly result in more people visiting your site, and those numbers can get you more money. A bit more indirect, but just like adding links to a shop does.
The keyword is 'discussion', and since this account was nudged so many times, and just changed account after the block and continued with the same, I decided to block as sock (maybe more appropriate would have been block evasion .. but where is the line there). The overruling of the block, I could live with (I have the accounts on my watchlist, and do return to previous 'spammers/linkpushers' every now and then to see how things evolve, and I do expect that there are more who keep an eye on it after this), it was the, in my interpretation, remark that I did not research the situation fully that crossed the line. IMHO, even if the links might be of interest to the article, their use and the way they were included in the article showed often .. that it could have been done better.
Lets go on with a fresh start, hope that the editor will discuss more (as been said a couple of times, librarians/museum owners and other archivists have a lot to share). I don't see any new accounts yet, lets hope that this user discusses now before going on. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:10, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Chemical pages needing a structure drawing

Hi Dirk, I think your last edit to {{Chembox new}} broke the categorization... all pages transcluding the Chembox now show up as having no structure drawing :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's maybe why it did not show the ones which had to go in there (at least those I did want in there). I presume you reverted me, and I'll have a second look at it. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Err .. nope .. it was not my edit. That error apparently was already there. I undid my edits, and I have the same problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmm... that's odd. Category lag maybe, or an (unrelated) recent edit to a subtemplate? I have trouble following edits to {{Chembox new}} because of all the nesting :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it seems that
'{{#ifexists:Image:{{{ImageFile|}}}||put into cat}}'
does not do the correct thing if the the Image does exist. I checked the other templates, and when I undo myself the template works like it should. Not sure where it goes wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting reverting edits referencing sources at

Can you help me understand why you believe that the links & resources we added (see below) do not comply or are or not relevant to the respective articles? Thanks in advance. - Thomas, user "Whakate"

Revision history of Affirmations (New Age) (cur) (last) 14:55, 22 September 2008 (Talk) (3,281 bytes) (→External links) (undo) Article on and History of Positive Thinking

Revision history of Positive psychology

  1. (cur) (last) 14:58, 22 September 2008 (Talk) (17,324 bytes) (→External links) (undo)

Article on and History of Positive Thinking (we believe this is even of value for the research section)

Revision history of Time management (cur) (last) 14:38, 22 September 2008 (Talk) (23,845 bytes) (→External links) (undo) Article on Time Management and Time Consciousness (we would suggest that this is reviewed for editing the aticle itself)

Revision history of The Secret (2006 film) (cur) (last) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (Talk) (69,811 bytes) (→External links) (undo) Article on Self-help trends and The Secret (although this is expressing an opinion, is does argue with fact and references extensively)

Revision history of Getting Things Done (cur) (last) 14:46, 22 September 2008 (Talk) (17,559 bytes) (→External links) (undo) Facts based review on the common perception of GTD and Challanges alongside the movement (we believe this is worthwhile reviewing for updating the article also)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Whakate (talkcontribs)

Ah, I had a look, you are talking about the edits of, which I reverted, and whose account I warned.
First of all, this account only adds links to external links sections, which is regarded here as 'spamming' (though I prefer the term 'link-pushing'). See the spam guideline.
Second, I am not sure if these links are appropriate per our external links guideline, and we are not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory.
Third, as you edit now as user:Whakate, which overlaps with the link (I presume that you were earlier editing under the IP I mention above); I should point you to our conflict of interest guideline.
I would suggest you read through these documents, and then consider discussion. A good place to start may be a wikiproject (where people interested in the same subject get together), a list can be found via here: Wikipedia:WikiProject.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

QuickBooks comments - Thank You

I now understand that you took a well documented and reasonable approach to enforcing Wikipedia gudelines. I do not disagree with their intent and will try to comply in the future. The use of php templates is currently beyond me, but neutrality, documentation, being alert to possible conflict of interest and spam are not.

Thank you.

MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)--MikeBlockQuickBooksCPA (talk) 05:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I think all is fine. Having a conflict of interest does certainly not have to be a problem, as long as you engage in discussion (especially when additions are challenged), and follow the policies and guidelines here. I am sure that you can be a valuable contributor here (having access to all the books also means you have access to all the resources inside them (and probably know also about other ones as well which may be useful here and there). I hope to see you around, thanks again, and happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external link

I submitted this link yesterday and it was removed.

I assume this is because this is a commercial site but can see that you have retained other external links to commercial sites such as and

We feel that our link offers a great deal of detail on the Tignes resort - such as web cams, snow reports and historic snow reports, levels of skiing and lots more and we know that many people use the site just for research purposes.

We would very much like to be included in the Encyclopedia and we feel that we have some really specific content for your readers - as such would appreciate your comments.

Best regards Maryitf (Maryitf (talk) 10:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC))

Well, you were adding the link to a couple of pages, which is here regarded spamming (I prefer the term link-pushing; see WP:SPAM). Moreover, we are not a linkfarm, or an internet directory, and links should comply our external links guideline. There may be other links which are also not appropriate, or even less appropriate, but that is not a reason to add more of them (and they may have been added after more discussion, or we may not have gotten to remove them yet). I suggest you start a discussion on a talkpage, or contact an appropriate wikiproject. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external links i added

hi some of my external links are removed the links i added are completely related to the subjects and are very informative the website was an informative website and non-comercial i want to know why you removed them without any comments or reasons —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohsenadib (talkcontribs) 11:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there was already a warning on your talkpage, as is there a welcome template linking to some introductions on editing here.
But take this edit here: diff, you add the domain to Yazd Province, to the top of the list. It links to the mainpage of the site, in (what I presume is) Arab language (if I click 'English' (top left on the page), I don't get any more English then I had earlier). That mainpage is what you added practically everywhere (and I can't imagine that that mainpage contains information about all the subjects it is linked from; maybe there are more specific pages on the site, but you don't link to them.
So shortly (as is linked from all the warnings on your talkpage: please read our spam guideline, our external links guideline, 'what wikipedia is not', not a linkfarm policy and not an internet directory policy, and maybe also others that may apply. I suggest you contact an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject), and see if they think your site can be helpful. They can also help you in using the link more appropriately (e.g. as a reference). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Louisiana Music Hall of Fame


I am an advisory board member for the Louisiana Music Hall of Fame(LMHOF),a certified 501(c)3 not for profit corporation established to provide recognition, cultural preservation and educational programs for the rich music legacy of the state of Louisiana.

The current exectutive director is Mike Shepherd. He has asked me to send you this message because he is being blocked from some updating activity and is even being blocked from contacting you through this talk page.

Shepherd has been adding some links to the LMHOF web site (which is fast becoming a "virtual museum" of La. music) to some of the famous artists from Louisiana on their Wikipedia pages, and he tells me that the new links have been blocks due to spam issues, and that he is getting an explantion that LMHOF is a new user name, which is not the case. There has been a page up for some time, and some links had already been placed in the past. He was merely updating the proviision of links to the nonprofit's website on legitimate and appropriate pages featuring Louisiana musicians.

Since he is blocked from contacting you, he has asked me to do so on his behalf. Mr. Shepherd will be happy to email you a copy of the articles of incorporation, and you can simply visit our website to verify it is an educational and cultural site as I have stated. ( But we need to remove the blocks so that people searching for more resources on various musicians can have our website and its multimedia files available to them.

Please contact Mr. Shepherd at <email removed> or <email removed> to resolve this issue as soon as possible so he can complete this important task of updating the additional pages that have appeared on Wikipedia with links to our website since his last visit.

Thank you kindly,

Del Moon Advisory Board Member and Founder Louisiana Music Hall of Fame

<email removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I am sorry, the link additions are totally inappropriate. First they are pushed without discussion (see WP:SPAM, second, the link is to the mainpage, and that page does not tell anything about the artists the link is on, third, you have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI); that guideline does suggest strongly that you do not do such link additions yourself. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not a linkfarm or an internet directory, and certianly not a place to promote your organisation, even if it is non-profit. Please contact an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject), and discuss the link with them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Common Purpose

Please stop reverting the Common Purpose changes that I'm making. These are libelous accusations that are being made and have no place on Wikipedia. I'm a completely impartial user of Wikipedia and find it annoying that it is being used as a space for the spread of conspiracy theories. I stated my reasons for the changes that have been made on the discussion page - please refer to these before you simply revert my changes.


Charles J Blank —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

No, please you discuss on the talkpage, and wait for consensus there. The article has been edited continuously by anons and new users, I suggest that changes are only performed AFTER consensus with established editor is achieved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I've seen that you did respond to my comment on the discussion page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of external link


An external link I added has been removed immediately. That link was for a free online BMI calculator ( I think it is related to the subject and also it is not commercial.

Regards George Sopiadis —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Lo siento, no hablo inglés. Acabo de incluir un enlace de imágenes de Gonzalo de Berceo y no entiendo por qué lo quitan. Si es tan amable y entiende el español, le ruego me conteste a

Muchas gracias —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, this is the English wikipedia, and you are only adding links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Y no se pueden poner enlaces relevantes para el tema? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, but we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Please review our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Lo entiendo. Pero, entonces, por qué mantienen el resto de enlaces? Cúal es la diferencia entre el link sobre el Mester de Clerecía y el que ahora les propongo?, en ambos casos se destinan a un mejor conocimiento de la historia/literatura y la vida (entorno, lugar de nacimiento y vida) de Gonzalo de Berceo... En cualquier caso, no ha sido mi intención crearles problemas;pretendía hacer más amigable a sus lectores la historiografía social de Don Gonzalo. Perdón y no volveré a importunarles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, this is difficult communication, my Spanish is by far not good enough to understand this. As I said, the links do not comply with our policies and guidelines, as does not your way of editing (to many wikis). Please stop and discuss with Spanish speaking people here if you want to contribute. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another external links discussion.

As a neutral, third-party observer (meaning I didn't add the links and I'm not involved in the sites linked) I'd like to suggest you take a harder look at the links you removed from the Gauley River, New River, New River Gorge and Summersville Lake articles. The site that hosts the videos doesn't seem to be an overtly commercial entity, and the videos provide a sort of visual and historical context which is interesting, useful, beneficial, and not well-suited to incorporation within the articles themselves. - Ken Thomas (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

That is an editorial call with which I can comply. Still, the editor who is adding the links is adding them to external link sections only (which is questionable against our spam guideline, our external links guideline, this and this section of 'what wikipedia is not', and some of the linkadditions are cerainly questionable regarding placing. The site indeed seems to contain good info, and hence may be useful as a reference. I did welcome the user (together with a message that the linkadditions better be discussed). As a sidenote, I don't care if a link is commercial or not, if it is it may be more spammy, but commercial links can be very appropriate, and linkpushing of completely non-commercial links can just not be appropriate.
Specific examples:
  • diff. The subject of the page is Summersville, West Virginia, the link is to rafting on the river that runs through Summerville. I am sorry, that is not directly linked. The page linked to should be about Summersville.
  • diff to Rafting. The link again to rafting on the Gauley River in West Virginia, we don't need links to rafting on every single suitable river in the world (the link was replaced after another removal.
And so there are more. The videos are about rafting on the river (according to most of the edit summaries), not about the river, etc. I'd question them all, and to me they seem more suitable to attribute a statement like "the rivers are suitable for rafting". I hope the IP will start discussing, and I hope this explains my actions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

what is the name of the saints logo symbol??? (talk) 00:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)Deanna

Hmm, I am sorry, I don't have a clue, maybe the page Saints can help you further? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Portsmouth Napoleonic Society


Why have you deleted the links to this website? could you tell me how I go about getting the links "approved" it is not a commercial website and is only trying to share photgraphs of the battlefields.


Vic Powell Portsmouth Napoleonic Society PNS1814 (talk) 11:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question! I have linked the policies and guidelines on the talkpage of the IP that was adding the links. Generally, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. The links may be welcome as references or you could consider to upload pictures. I'll leave you a welcome template and a message on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


Thanks will look into the options. PNS1814 (talk) 13:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

reverted links

I was placing some historical audio interview links that are on our website and free to anyone for Regis McKenna, Mark Cuban and Ann Winblad and they were deleted. But I am not sure why. In addition I see that our site is on a bot list but I don't understand why. We offer free audio to a global audience. Could you shed some light? XLRQ (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2008 (UTC) Thanks Anita Scott

You, and several IPs were performing only link additions. We are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. Please stop adding them, such linkadditions are considered spam here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, missed a word. Also please review our conflict of interest guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, which I had previously reviewed. In the case of these historical interview recordings - I believe them to be provacative content that provides insight into the person. Should I take up the addition of these external links on the individual discussion pages? Or perhaps are they appropriate to add within the page content? Thanks for your assistance. Anita

I think a good thing for you would be to contact an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, or banners on top of talkpages where you think your information would be of interest, and discuss with them how the links can be used in the best way. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Editing "Thrace" and removing from external links

I can not understand why removing this external link. Please tell me why Regards, Stoyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have left you a message, but thanks for your question. The link does not coply our external links guideline, the info that you link to should be directly linked to the subject of the page, but you link to the main index. Also, as you are only adding external links (what can be considered spamming here), we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You have a valuable link there, it may be good to use it as a reference, and to get data from. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the good words. What about that?

  • Ancient Thrace, from website about Ancient Thracian Art, Culture, History, Treasures.

Regards, Stoyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Still, it may be better as a reference, see the reliable sources and citation guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is difficult to understand these requirements and rules of the encyclopedia. If you think it is not a good idea to have link to from wikipedia just tell me. I refuse to prove how useful can be external link to my site for wikipedia consumers. Thanks for the good attitude though:)

Stay in peace, Stoyan —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that difficult, it is just that we are not a linkfarm, external links only don't expand the encyclopedia, but content does. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikio links about Silvio Berlusconi

Dear Dirk,

I noticed my presence in the spamreportbot of september 2008(see hereunder) The account Matucana is mine and indeed I have more then one pc. Furthermore(This has to do with the content of my articles), I 'm three months a year in Italy and there I use a PC with a phone modem so that explains the different Ip's. I'm not a spammer, my name is Hans Ceustermans, I live in Kessel-lo,Belgium so there's no reason to worry about.

I know WIkipedia is not a link library. I admit that in my initial enthousiasm and because of my ignorance towards Wikipedia, i added too much articles or articles with a negative spin.

I wrote some articles about Silvio Berlusconi, with all statements of Berlusconi himself one week before the 2008 elections. The information, that i wrote about Berlusconi is mostly only available in Italian. Just search for all the links or references to books or articles of the Italian journalist Marco Travaglio in the wikipedia section about Berlusconi. My information is more or less the same as the one of Marco Travaglio,just that I made it available in English and now with the help of some friends , I'm translating it into other European languages.

About the articles I wrote or added, I had some specific discussions on the English,German and Dutch Wikipedia side. From which I remembered that the most important critic on my articles was that they were inspired by a negative spin. That's why I reduced my articles to two very neutral articles which are just a summation of all facts and statements of Silvio Berlusconi himself. What a pity that this kind of information is only available for a limited Italian public. (article/57159079 - article/71800337)

Is it not the aim for Wikipedia to give accurate but also complete information? Silvio Berlusconi is not only an important Italian politician but very important in European politics and media. Both articles are full with links to video's,some almost never shown, articles with more information and 70% of the links are references to other Wikipedia pages(Borsellino,Dell'utri,Mangano,Forza Italia..) Is this not a sign of my respect for the Wikipedia content? The added value of my articles are the details and the chronological summation of facts which is missing in Wikipedia but which gives a clearer view of the person Silvio Berlusconi.

Best regards,

Hans (talk) 17:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)matucana


Forgot the spam report

commercial news site spammed wikiwide. This morning crosswiki on Silvio BerlusconiMoiraMoira 07:38, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Is dynamic address from Italy, tomorrow replaced all the linkspam I removed - see here MoiraMoira 08:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC) I many IP ranges (Matucana (49), (40), (21), (21), (20), (12), (11), (9), (8), (6)) and one account. This does not look good. All to the page of Silvio Berlusconi, and seen that there are many reports per language, nowhere wanted. Consider Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC) There may be useful content here as well, but as the majority of the links is 'pushed' to Silvio Berlusconi, I'd keep it here until it gets questioned .. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 08:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. Well, you sum it all up quite nicely. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and the content of the encyclopedia does not improve by simply adding external links. Wikia is a holding of other wikipedia, and as there is no editorial oversight on the majority of those, and it is a wiki, such links are often not suitable as references or external links. Your links were removed as unwanted, and you re-added them. I am sorry, I suggest that you attempt to improve the content of the articles, and maybe for the Italian wiki, consider posting on the local whitelist to see if they think the link is appropriate there. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:07, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dirk,

Thank you for the answer. I would like to discuss about the content of these articles and I have done it on the Dutch, English and German wikipedia page. Eg: on the German page they were not convinced about the neutrality of the article'Silvio Berlusconi and the 2008 election campaign'. The consequence was that I didn't post that article anymore on that site. Now instead, all articles(even new) that I post are immediately being removed which I don't find correct

Posting these articles on the Italian site has no sense. This kind of information you can find allready there. The Italian site is full with literature references that say generally the same but they are in Italian.

The kind of information that I gather is important for all European readers. Silvio Berlusconi is one of the most powerfull men of Europe. This man said a few days before the elections that the life-sentenced gangster Vittorio Mangano was a hero. This is on video. I should think that this is an important FACT, not a personal point of view and not a detail. BTW: on the wikipedia page about 'Vittorio Mangano' , this fact is mentioned but not on the Berlusconi page while it says much more about Berlusconi then about Mangano.

That's what I mean when I say that I want to contribute to offer a chronological summation of facts, all referenced, which is missing in Wikipedia. I have access to this information because I speak very good Italian.

The articles I wrote, have been sent to hundreds of Europarliament members, politicians,foreign and local press. Now I'm translating some of them in other European languages. For Wikipedia, I made some 'cleaner' versions without any personal touch. I find it important to inform other people with the knowledge I have. These are all facts and statements, not even discussable because of everything are video's or tapes. I putted a lot of energy in this so I would appreciate it, if these articles are not regarded as ordinary spam and automatically removed.

Best regards and thanks for all help,


At least —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you will have to convince the community on meta, probably with backup from local (i.e. on content wikis) people that they think that the links are appropriate. I would suggest that you contact some local wikis which feel the linking is appropriate, and let them request de-listing on meta. But we are not here to promote your personal work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Dirk,

With this I will close this discussion and follow your advice but honestly I don't think I have much time for it.

Do me a pleasure , read just ONE of my articles, the subject about which I'm writing is the independent media and how mediaconcentrations are a menace for future democracy. I admire the goal of Wikipedia and all of it's good intentioned cooperators but for how long will the 'free Wikipedia' go on to exist? Who's buying nowadays internet providers, media concerns and telecommunication companies? For how long Wikipedia will stay the first in the google searches and who will be the owner of Google between this and the next 10 years?

Best regards and success!

Hans —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist me please...

Appologies, i got a little carried away earlier when after updating a few relevent external links, added a bunch more that were less relevent elsewhere. i agree they were spam - very sorry.

I would really like to have external links to my site ( on the UK Trigpoints, Wainwrights and Munros pages these i think are relevent.

I promise i wont do it again

phil Phil Newby (talk) 12:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you say it yourself, '.. my site ..', please review our conflict of interest guideline, and I would suggest you contact the people of an appropriate Wikipedia:WikiProject, and discuss the links with them. We are not a linkfarm, not an internet directory, and I don't think your links comply with our external links guideline. Content may be more relevant, as we are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough

phil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Newby (talkcontribs) 12:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

brazilian footballers

I would like to know why all the contributions I have made to Wikipedia have been removed? They all related to members of the 1970 Brazilian football team, a subject which - I think I can modestly say - I know more about than anyone else in the English speaking world. I am the author of the best-selling book The Beautiful Team In Search of the 1970 Brazilians and have met, interviewed and written about these footballers for the past ten years. I have a website to which I linked my contributions but cannot see that this falls foul of your rules. Essentially I have more unique, copyrighted, biographical information on my site than can be fitted on to Wikipedia. By visiting my site your readers will be able to get more information as well as view videos of the players in their pomp. I was intending to build biographies of each of the members of the team on Wikipedia. None of the current ones - apart from Pele - are any good at all. (I thought I had added something new to Pele's page on the derivation of his name, but that was taken down too.) I see little point in doing so now. Thanks Garry Jenkins Garryjenkins (talk) 18:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm (also see the external links guideline and, since you were only adding links, our spam guideline). Also, as you now say, I should point you to our conflict of interest guideline, which also strongly discourages to add links to organisations or data you are affiliated with yourself. As you (modestly) say you are an expert on the subjects, I would suggest you search contact with a wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, that should guide you to an appropriate one, or have a look at banners on talkpages of pages where you are interested in, that might also guide you there), and discuss with them how you can contribute to our encyclopedia. I hope this explains, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

The Carter

Hello again, Beetstra ...

I'd like a second opinion about The Carter (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs|views) before I tag it for deletion ... I'm not up to speed on the current consensus about WP:CRYSTAL and "just announced" films.

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 02:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

"Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." -> so if the 'event' is surely going to take place, then it has its place there. There is a reference on the article, the question now is, is that a proper source (to me it looks like a blog, it also says "The BoomBox Music Blog"). I think a post at a Film WikiProject about this would be good, and a tag for better sources on the article as well. If that combination does not give an answer within a couple of days (week?), then either prod or afd it, I think. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the only "source" is a blog ... I'll keep an eye on it for a few days. — (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done ... Well, they do have an IMDb entry (The Carter at the Internet Movie Database), so I put some lipstick on it, and now I'll just MOVE ON. :-) — (talk) 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

Ik ben totaal geschokt door het verwijderen van mijn laatste bijdrage aan wikipedia. Dat ook mijn gebruikerspagina totaal gewist is slaat alle fatsoensnormen. Ik heb naast een druk leven als beeldend kunstenaar en zanger weinig tijd over. De bedoeling is mijn werk gratis te verspreiden. Ook heb ik hopelijk voldoende getracht de licentie-regels in acht te nemen. Ook heeft het me als nieuwkomer op wikipedia nogal veel moeite en tijd gekost om aan al die regels te voldoen.

Ik zit nog inwendig te trillen. 't Is net alsof iemand je kunstwerken kapotslaat. Voor mij is het eigenlijk niet net alsof...

Nogmaals, ik heb zo nauwkeurig mogelijk getracht aan alle regels te voldoen.

Zou graag mijn gebruikerspagina terugkrijgen.

Rob ten Berge--Rob ten Berge (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll answer in English. I am sorry, you are violating quite a number of policies and guidelines here (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:Userpage to name a few). I'd suggest you read the policies and guidelines that are linked in the welcome template at the top of your talkpage, and then discuss with established editors here before recreating any material. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your work. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
A bit strange to communicate with a Dutchman in English Face-smile.svg

I've understood that a userpage is not the same as a talkpage or a homepage. I've also understood, that it's perhaps better to upload GFDL-licensed pictures on WikimediaCommons before placing them elsewhere on Wikipedia. However I am an artist is your more "neutral" or scientific viewpoint for me also comprehensible. It's NOT for the sake of promoting my work that I pay contributions to wikipedia. Therefore I've got my homepage that I almost don't dare to name here. I am still shocked because you erased my userpage as well. I can't believe that you investiged my contributions longer than a minute. I should be pleased if you want to replace the contents of my userpage and as well the picture I made about Vitruvian Man (2). It's my own logo. I can understand that you don't want a link to my homepage next to the logo.(image). Perhaps you change your mind. First have a look to my former contributions which are accepted by other moderators. Best regards Rob ten Berge--Rob ten Berge (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Investiged = investigated. --Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you remove some external links in the Vitruvian Man article which were accepted for over a year?

How should you react if someone erased your userpage.

Golden Rule = Don't do to others....etc.

This * was accepted for over a year. You erased it.

  • [[http://]]

--Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

If no-one noticed it before, then that is quite clear. Other links have been erased a couple of times, and you added them over and over. The same goes for the pictures you uploaded, which have also been erased a couple of times. Yes, I saw what you did, and what you link to. You do have a conflict of interest, and you are only linking to you own work and images, which do not improve the encyclopedia. You are not providing content, you only add links and images, can you explain me why your image tells more about the Vitruvian Man then any of the other images on the page, or tells things about the Vitruvian Man that other images do not tell about it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

--Rob ten Berge (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Assume good faith. Best regards. For reconsiderating my contribution you could perhaps search for my work elsewhere on internet. I think you're clever enough to find it. In Dutch: "Eerst de plaatjes, dan de praatjes". In English: "First the pictures, than the text". By the way; Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man" and my versions of it are far from being my only field of interest. There's a difference between opinionated and obstinate. And still I hope on help from other users instead of being erased before contact. Or even without contact. "With a little help of my friends". Rob--Rob ten Berge (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking around on the links you are adding, and my question stays the same, what content can you add about Vitruvian Man, what more knowledge can you give? And my mentioning of Vetruvian Man was not excluding that you could add things to other pages. But the information that you have added until now is certainly not suitable for an encyclopedia. We convey knowledge, not links, images or original research. You are still free to contribute content to whichever subject you feel appropriate, but I was asking you not to continue in adding your external links or your images in this way. Please read the documents linked in the welcome message on what we are trying to achieve here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Your remark about Vetruvian Man could possibly have to do with Vitruvian Man. :-)

I placed my external links on the place where they belonged. I still don't understand why you deleted eg the link about "mirror writing" which was accepted long before you deleted it. Yes, I saw what you did. You deleted all my contributions you could find. And how can I react via a talk-page or user-page since you deleted it?

It's problaby an idea to make a |||simple start-schedule ||| for new wikipedians. That would withold less people to contribute to wikipedia. Or even to stop because their contributions were deleted too often without discussion. I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can find me in the sandbox. --Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


I hope to get my user-page back. Means the possibility to start it again (without explaining external links). It's understood that I've to read a lot more guidelines. But a basic place to start is welcome. Thanx --Rob ten Berge (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chemical data revisited

I decided to try and generate the tables myself; the result is at User:Itub/Chembox property count. It doesn't take that long because you can download 50 articles at a time using the API, aand you can selectively download section=0 - which almost always is the one with the infobox - to save bandwidth. So in fact it takes less than an hour doing one operation every 30 seconds! One good use of these tables is that it allows us to spot chemboxes using the wrong parameters. --Itub (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this looks good. Nice work, and this should give us a starting point for further work. Thanks! One question: could you also make a list of tables where you only count the parameters in the main part of the box (so not in the 'modules'). Some fields moved in a rewrite of the chembox over 1 year ago. E.g. I think that the molecular formula was in the main part of the box, and that moved to the properties ones. Are there still boxes around where they are 'misplaced'? IMHO, only the images and IUPACNAME and othernames should be in the main. Let me check:
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{IUPACName|}}}|IUPACName }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{IUPACName|}}}|{{{IUPACName}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{SystematicName|}}}|SystematicName }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{SystematicName|}}}|{{{SystematicName}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{OtherNames|}}}|OtherNames }}      |par_value={{#if:{{{OtherNames|}}}|{{{OtherNames}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Abbreviations|}}}|Abbreviations }}|par_value={{#if:{{{Abbreviations|}}}|{{{Abbreviations}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Formula|}}}|Formula }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{Formula|}}}|{{{Formula}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{MolarMass|}}}|MolarMass }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{MolarMass|}}}|{{{MolarMass}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{CASNo|}}}|CASNo }}                |par_value={{#if:{{{CASNo|}}}|{{{CASNo}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Density|}}}|Density }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{Density|}}}|{{{Density}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Solubility|}}}|Solubility }}      |par_value={{#if:{{{Solubility|}}}|{{{Solubility}}} }}|par_var_label={{#if:{{{Solvent|}}}|{{{Solvent}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{MeltingPt|}}}|MeltingPt }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{MeltingPt|}}}|{{{MeltingPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{BoilingPt|}}}|BoilingPt }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{BoilingPt|}}}|{{{BoilingPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{LogP|}}}|LogP }}                 |par_value={{#if:{{{LogP|}}}|{{{LogP}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{VaporPressure|}}}|VaporPressure }}|par_value={{#if:{{{VaporPressure|}}}|{{{VaporPressure}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{HenryConstant|}}}|HenryConstant }}|par_value={{#if:{{{HenryConstant|}}}|{{{HenryConstant}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant|}}}|AtmosphericOHRateConstant }}|par_value={{#if:{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant|}}}|{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{pKa|}}}|pKa }}                    |par_value={{#if:{{{pKa|}}}|{{{pKa}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{pKb|}}}|pKb }}                    |par_value={{#if:{{{pKb|}}}|{{{pKb}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{IsoelectricPt|}}}|IsoelectricPt }}|par_value={{#if:{{{IsoelectricPt|}}}|{{{IsoelectricPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{DeltaHf|}}}|DeltaHf }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{DeltaHf|}}}|{{{DeltaHf}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{DeltaHc|}}}|DeltaHc }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{DeltaHc|}}}|{{{DeltaHc}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{EINECS|}}}|EINECS }}              |par_value={{#if:{{{EINECS|}}}|{{{EINECS}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{EINECSCASNO|}}}|EINECSCASNO }}    |par_value={{#if:{{{EINECSCASNO|}}}|{{{EINECSCASNO}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{PubChem|}}}|PubChem }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{PubChem|}}}|{{{PubChem}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{SMILES|}}}|SMILES }}              |par_value={{#if:{{{SMILES|}}}|{{{SMILES}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{InChI|}}}|InChI }}                |par_value={{#if:{{{InChI|}}}|{{{InChI}}} }} }}

These are the parameters that the main part of the box can handle (excluding the image part), most of them are now in the subboxes, but they are still handled here for old reasons. The transfer run that chem_awb did may have moved them to the right position (it was capable of doing that), but I don't know how complete it was for those. From this list, I think only the first 4 would have a place in the main part of the box (though they might also be in the identifiers subbox), the others should not be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Done (available at the same page). For the last table, I excluded IUPACName, OtherNames, Name, Abbreviations, Reference, and anything starting with "image" (the test for "image" was case-insensitive). --Itub (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Eww. Quite a list, that should be cleaned at some point. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man


Gaarne zou ik mijn door U "talk-page" weer in 't blauw zien opdoemen. Zonder basis-communicatie dreig ik hier in een vicieuze cirkel te geraken.

Persoonlijk voel ik me van hier het kastje naar de muur gestuurd, terwijl ik hoop dat het duidelijk moge zijn, dat aan mijn positieve intenties niet getwijfeld mag worden.

't Lijkt me verstandig eerst hier een antwoord af te wachten vooraleerst weer een "talk-page" in te richten.

Vriendelijke groeten Rob ten BergeRob ten Berge (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You can create a new one, but preferably not with anything that may even seem self-promotional; Some guidelines are here on Wikipedia:User page, specifically Wikipedia:User page#What may I have on my user page? and Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The content of my userpage, where I tried to prepare my contributions specialized on "Vitruvian man" got lost. Should be pleased to get them back. Several moderators have links to their own homepage. So why may I not have at least one explaining link? The following link is an example of a schedule I made in ca1984, and should not be considered as spam http:// It's mostly own work. And this time I want to finish it. Perhaps you can give me the proper licence? There are a lot of sites and forums with less complicated rules. I hope to see for the future a very simple starters schedule where starters can fill a form in less than 5 minutes.

For more info you can find me by eg Google.

Thanks Rob ten BergeRob ten Berge (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Humanoid Robots

Hi, I am sending you a Webpage about Humanoid Robots, it is a Resume with a lot of new technologies. If you like new ideas to improve your research or produtcs... you also can find there the list of the most famous robots with videos on Youtube.


Luis Beck —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisBeck007 (talkcontribs) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure though why I get this, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


Hello again, Beetstra ... I'd like a 2nd opinion on this article:

The PROD-2 was contested ... do you think it's worth the hassle of an AfD?

Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done … article has been rescued by Some Other Editors. :-) — (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar of Humour3.png The Barnstar of Good Humor
For being nice at AFD. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs more niceness! SunDragon34 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!  :-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi Dirk, Long time since we have been in contact. I am currently away from home and am not able to recall my log in to wikipedia so I will let you know I am the owner of MaritimeQuest (Michael Pocock).

The reason I am contacting you is because I have noticed that someone is using images from my site in Wiki commons and he claims he has permission to do so. I say he has not contacted me in any way to ask permission to post the photos and he has used several photos sent to me by contributors which should not be used without their permission.

His name is Jaypeepacres, and again I say he has not got my permission to use these images, and he is in no way affiliated with me or my site. I do not want to be accused of some spamming incident as I was last time. As I am sure you have noticed there have been no further postings by myself to wikipedia.

If you should like to contact me my email is <email removed>

Please sort this guy out. Regards, Michael Pocock —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

If this is the case, I guess you should contact OTRS or something like that, I guess this should be handled by them. See Wikipedia:OTRS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you should email them, the email is info-en at wikipedia dot org, preferably with a list of images which are used without permission (they can do everything from there). Even if you think that you would be willing to give permission, it is better that they first get deleted, and that you then re-upload them giving the permission yourself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Aspartame controversy

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated Aspartame controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspartame controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

AIS link

Hey there,

I appreciate your trying to help keep the links at AIS clean. This has been an ongoing discussion and there was a concensus already reached; although I haven't been active in it for a few months. I'm going to restore the links and would suggestion your contributions to the talk page for figuring out which links need to be trimmed. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the remark, but discussion? I did have a quick look on the talkpage, but it is not obvious where is the discussion, and most of the links do not satisfy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:EL .. I would suggest to kill the list, move it to the talkpage, and there prune (not leaving them in the main article). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Importance templates

Hi Dirk, when you're back, I'd like to discuss with you the use of importance templates on chemicals articles, e.g., Tellurium dichloride. Personally, think the current result is too blatant, and I'd like to improve the situation. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC).

Hoi Wim, yes, the result is quite blatant, and in a way it worries me that these articles are so 'nietszeggend' (saying nothing) for such a long time. 'Tellurium dichloride is a chemical compound', there must be something to say about those guys. Is it a common starting material for Tellurium chemistry (either the organometallic compounds, or for the materials things? IMHO, however small the use, that little 'extra' would be enough to remove that template. For now, the template just says what it should say 'this article does not say why it is important'. Any idea on how to quickly get at least a little statement in each of them? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Third party comment: I think in some cases there may really be nothing interesting to say, like I posted here. Some of these "problem articles" were the result of an overenthusiastic drive to have articles on compounds of every element, and as a result a few articles on non-notable compounds were created. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
In that case .. we may consider that deletion is an option .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Fourth party comment: Yes, I think we should delete a few as needed. We could take a look at the bottom end of the SelectionBot selection for deletion ideas (YAs is there, and see this!). However, I completely agree with Itub - I used to joke about some of the articles I started like gold(III) chloride, and yet many such articles now get a good amount of traffic, or at least a non-trivial amount (examples AuCl3, GdCl3). I suspect that if the tellurium dibromide article were to be B-Class or even Start (with a few refs), we would see a rise in traffic above this, so expanding content & quality probably helps over the longer term. That means - yes, we should definitely try to expand these articles beyond the MP/BP information. So overall let's continue to defend our content from those who just don't understand the subject, while being vigilant in deleting compounds that really are non-notable. And for the ones we keep we need to expand them, but for that there is really no substitute for pulling books of the shelf and consulting Chem Abs. Which is, of course, why I've only worked on about three such stubs in the last year...... Walkerma (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
If all there is to tell is a bp and a mp, then indeed we should consider them as simply not notable enough. But as soon as there is at least something to tell that should be done. Gold trichloride and gadolinium trichloride are already a bit more used than tellurium dichloride (apparently) is. As soon as there is use, articles link to them as well (and they link back). And for the specific tag, as I said, I am quite easy satisfied, as long as there is even the smallest use for them, that tag can go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
  • My point actually was on the blatantness of the templates, not on whether it was properly applied. Sometimes I use wikipedia just for the information, as I would use a paper encyclopedia. If I then have at last found a shred of information, as those 56 people did when searching for YAs last month (nice graphs, Martin: you always have those nice tools!), then I, as the simple end-user, am overawed with all those non-article tags stating there is something wrong with the article. Now, if these tags would go on the talkpage? Or be a humble categorization or so? Fortunately, there are not many people who actually use them (I didn't post on this page by co-incidence). Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC).

True, but there is IMHO actually something wrong with those articles. I could write a bot that generates for all chemicals out of a list the same article by finding a chemical database (a catalogue, or something similar; that would even give me CAS, mp, bp, and some other data already; and the only 'content' would be "Compound is a Chemical compound."), that does not mean that these articles should be there ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Why then not use the Wikipedia:Deletion process? IF there is something in an article (even 'YAs is a chemical compound'), THEN I'd like to have the article as end-user readable without obscuring templates. I was (am) about to discuss this at the talk page of the templates, but thought I'd ask you, as an active editor actually using them. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC).
Well, all those tags are used in mainspace, {{coi}}, {{Notability}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{deadend}}, {{notability}}, {{wikify}}, {{uncategorised}}, &c., &c. Putting such tags on talkpages does not give people the inclination to actually do improve the articles so that the tags can be removed. These articles were tagged in this way as I do expect that there is more to tell, and (all) these tags are supposed to hint visitors to actually solve the problem. But seen the fact that indeed they have not been improved for a long, long time, I am tempted to put them through a deletion (though using a deletion process to push people to find something to tell about these articles ..).. Wikipedia is not a repository of chemical compounds .. we do have notability guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I see your point, and understand notability requirements. I just don't flaunt them in mainspace. If a hit a page that needs more content, I better add to it than tag it. Thanks for your explanation. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2008 (UTC).
Yes, but the articles were tagged originally with by non-chemists. I just did a retagging. I did not know anything more about the compounds, and this way of tagging might have given people a chance to do something about it. I hate to toss 'm up for deletion if they may be notable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech RC IRC

Hi! Your bot on Czech recent changes's IRC invite this and after few seconds he has left and after few seconds he invite ..... . It is crazy :D (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Err, which, there are two of my bots in that channel (COIBot, IntLinkWatcher2)? I guess you mean COIBot, as I did manage to stabilise the LinkWatchers not too long ago. I may be able to do the same with COIBot (but it may prove more difficult, as they do different things). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I have now been there for about 30 minutes, and both seem stable. Maybe you were referring to a situation earlier, where I restarted the linkwatcher a couple of times. If you have further questions, you can find me generally during UK daytime in freenode's #wikimedia-alerts (where these bots also are), or in other 'spam' related channels on freenode. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)


I recently expanded Usta Mohammad. Looking for info on size/population, I found what seemed like good data on, and put it in with a reference to the source. Checking "what links here", I saw Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ Should I remove the reference to this source? It was not clear to me from the write-up. Please answer on my talk, when you have time. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'll answer on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response. I dropped the ref anyway. Maybe someone will find a more authoritative source Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
That is often the case with blogspot .. they seem sometimes OK references, but in most cases they should be replaced by better ones anyway. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC) not a bad website, Is a good web of Park Güell. I can understand to don’t put this web in all the wikis that I’ve put. I don’t think that are not useful, but I can understand that if it’s not the language, ok. But in the English Wikipedia, and in the Spanish wiki, they are useful. So I if you put the link (or don’t block me to do) in this two Wikipedia’s, I, as Malet user, won’t make spam again. If you to know if you can trust me, see my user page in Catalan wiki (user malet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelona 2008 (talkcontribs) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I already answered on meta, please read my answer there. You might want to contact Mike.Lifeguard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi Dirk, check your inbox—you've got mail :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll check! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a spammer!

the link I suggested to has been refused...I do not understand. Could you help me, please? I'm am at the same time the author of the videos and the text contained in the blog and the blog's author. I created it to share documentation about the work done in the psy hospital of Leros and transform it in a human service.. help! maurizio costantino <email removed --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If you were reverted by XLinkBot, the bot not only reverts spam, but also other link-additions which do not (or may not) comply with policies and guidelines. Please review our conflict of interest guideline; if you think you comply with this and other policies and guidelines, you can add the links, otherwise discuss them on talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Fluorcarbon royal mess

We have a young turk (user:Shootbamboo) who knows little chemistry but is a rapid-fire editor, loads articles with zillions of references to minutia, and is confrontational and uncooperative. I've never seen anything like it. And he/she has more time than any of the rest of us. Shootbamboo understands that tying content to references makes that content virtually unremovable (a flawed aspect in WE's etiquette) and he/she essentially ignores very experienced editors, but with all the usual thank you's. Fluorocarbon has been highjacked irreversibly (will soon become IUPAC-guided, ideally), and now a new assault on a neutral perspective on new articles containing C-F bonds is being developed. No administrative-level editor in the chem space is on this. Walkerma has commented usefully if meekly, Fvasconcellos is not there, Edgar82 has commented but stays away, Cacycle has said little, TimVickers is not there, Rifleman is also silent, even Ben is missing in action so far. It's only me and Itub. I am swamped in my real world although I chose to do battle much of yesterday on this issue, but I cannot keep it up and the forces of persistence are prevailing over good sense. So I am pleading for a note from you on Talk:Fluorocarbon. For all I know, Itub and I are at fault, but the project would like to hear from you.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look. I see he is very active etc. It would indeed be good if the consensus is first developing on the talkpage, but it looks to me that he is quite active on talkpages as well (which is good). I'll keep an eye and hop in when necessery. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


Good day Beestra! I'm here to add an article I've been working on about a radio station. Could you help me on it once I've uploaded it? I've tried real hard but there might be a few mistakes. With your experience, I think I moght be able to get a real good article going. Thanks! In Citer (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure why you contacted me, but I replied on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging of organofluorine articles

Dirk, I see the wisdom in merging. In the spirit of merging, I favor the general term organofluorine instead of the specific organofluorine chemistry. I am going to apply those merge proposals. Would you support me in this? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do, also organophosphorus chemistry, organosilicon chemistry redirect to organophosphorus and organosilicon respectively, so that would be in line with that. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
There is no consistent line if you look at a broader set of articles. Whatever is decided, we should probably reconsider the titles of all these articles:
I don't think organofluorine (or any of the other adjectival titles) is the best name for the reasons I gave at Talk:Organofluorine chemistry#Merge_tag_.28Organofluorine.29. --Itub (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a nice list for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Not sure which is 'the best'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Naming_consistency_for_organo__________chemistry.2Fcompounds. --Itub (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Attempted translation of Dutch article (IR of HCl)

Heya Dirk

With google translate, I attempted to translate nl:Infraroodspectrum van waterstofchloride into English and put it into hydrogen chloride. If you have the time, could you take a look and see if I made any mistakes? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Rifleman 82. It looks good, I think. Both the Dutch article as well as the translation have IMHO some problems, I guess it could link back to the article on Infrared spectroscopy more, and it lacks to my feeling some explanation (why do we see the P and R, and not the Q?). But hey, this is Wikipedia, expansion and improvement is a naturally occurring phenomenon! Good work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
One day, I'll dig up my old textbooks and write it out nicely. I did the experiment before, and I used to understand it, but nowadays I treat instruments as a black box where you put a sample in and out comes the spectrum! Of course, if someone beats me to it! Thanks for your thoughts! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure

Might be worth keeping an eye on? I'm never really sure about things like the sub pages. Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is actually a good way to start, I left a message on his talkpage with some recommendations. A conflict of interest does not have to be a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

You are a life saver!

Thank you for your help on my user page, you're a real life saver. I would give you a star, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks for your help so far. I'm going to see if my Obadiah School page can get a review later, and working on the WMLK article. Again thankyou! In Citer (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! I had a quick look, one thing, try to get rid of the external links in the main text, either make them links to wikipedia pages, or remove the link at all. Having those external links in the text is something that is frowned upon. Some may be good as references (see the citation guideline and the footnotes guideline). Also have a look through 'what wikipedia is not', you link somewhere to a schedule, that is also something that should not be done, that is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Watchmen Links

Dirk -

Sorry, didn't see your message before I undid your edit. I did read the external link guidelines, and I still do not understand how a link to my thesis degrades the article or violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm not selling anything on the external site, there are no copyright violations, my thesis was published by a third-party and recognized for its academic vigor. The information therein is helpful to people interested in understanding Watchmen more deeply and the granularity of detail may not be appropriate for the article. I'm not really getting why you and some others feel it is inappropriate. Please let me know, and if you could do so without linking to Wikipedia policy pages (the interpretation of which we clearly have a genuine and good-faith disagreement). Thanks, Seffron (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron

Well, if you think the link is of interest, then you can convince other people on the talkpage. You were reverted a couple of times by different editors, apparently they do not agree. We are writing an encyclopedia here (based on content), not a repository of links to interesting sites, you may be interested in an Open Directory Project. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm new to adding content here, I don't want to step on toes. Wikipedia is not the most intuitive for new users. In your comment on my talkpage, you called the link "spam", which I think is a bit excessive. Also, there are currently 3 links (not including mine) - hardly a "linkfarm". In addition, the link to my piece had been on the Watchmen article for as long as I can remember (years?)- why all of a sudden is it not appropriate? In any case, I will take your suggestion to heart and begin a discussion about it on the Watchmen talk page. Seffron (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron
Ah. You say "my piece". In that case I should also point you to our conflict of interest guideline. That it was there for years is not a reason to keep it, if it is deemed inappropriate or unsuitable, then anyone can delete it.
For as far as I can see, the link has only been added by an IP and you in the last weeks. If I look before that, the link was not there (e.g. somewhere in the beginning of November (revid). And it has been reverted over and over again. I don't know if it has been there for a long time (for that I should look better), but I doubt it (last year there was a linkfarm there..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hapticity

I have no problem making any images needed, I have ChemDraw so that would be easy, if you have any compounds from the text as it is right now, you want images of just ask.

One example would be in reactions, where the addition of a ligand, changes the hapticity of Cp. The one from my notes is not the greatest as it is a transition state, but I'll see if I can find others where there is a permanent change:

CpRh(CO)2 + L -----> {η3-CpRh(CO)2L}----->CpRhL(CO) + CO

Ok found one, not the prettiest but it'll do:

CpReMe(NO)(CO) +2PMe3 -----> η1-CpReMe(NO)(CO)(PMe3)2

Also, I did some work on the Bridging Ligands page as Hapticity, Denticity and Bridging ligands to me are all related areas that students often get confused on. Especaially since they all use the greek letter superscript number format and all deal with ligands. PedroDaGr8 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edited to remove a bad example. Upon rereading the notes with a better understanding than I had when I took the class, my prof's example was incorrect.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll try and get to this next week. Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok I made some examples of the upper reaction. Tell me what you think. I am worried this may be TOO busy and distracting, even if it does show a change in η. If you agree I can make some single examples of different η values. Including one for the fluxional section showing the difference between an &eta3 ligand and a κ3 ligand.
Colored Version Black and White Version
Eta5-eta3-eta5 Reaction(Colors).png
Eta5-eta3-eta5 Reaction(BnW).png

PedroDaGr8 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, how do you go about having an article rerated? The bridging ligand article is rated as a stub and low-importance, but I feel it deserves to be higher than low importance as it deals with one of the ways that ligands interact with metal centers. You have normal binding (Cl- single bond), hapticity, denticity/chelating and bridging. Just my humble opinion. I would like this article rerated, as I am trying to get it up to par (I feel it is no longer a stub too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow, those images look nice, I think I would prefer to use colour here.
Rerating is no big deal. If you are unsure discuss on the talkpage, or with a wikiproject, otherwise just re-rate it. There are a lot of articles in the {{chemistry}} and {{chemicals}} which might need a re-rate, and we might disagree on some of them in the end. I think I agree with you here that 'low' is not correct, bridging ligands are quite important, I would have gone for 'mid' as well. For stub/start/A/B/GA/FA etc, follow the link, and see what we have set as boundaries for those (the boundaries are not too strict anyway). If the stub-tag can go from the page itself, then you can also change the tag on the talkpage to 'start'. For A and B some independent eyes would be good, and for GA/FA more is needed. I hope this explains, will have a look at the article myself today or tomorrow. Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I re-ordered the page a bit, and included your image, together with some explanation. What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, sorry for the time it took me to reply back. I like it, it looks much better. I think the fact that there are some image examples helps quite a bit for comprehension. As people who are unsure can now have a graphical view of what is being discussed, to go with the written examples. I am wondering if you think maybe a graphical example would be good for the denticity v. hapticity section. I have included a demo example. It could be used as is, or I could make two seperate images and use a side by side table like above to compare them. I have labeled the contiguous atoms that are not involve in bonding in red for the deticity example. Let me know what you think...PedroDaGr8 (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Demo Hapticity v. Denticity Example
This looks quite good. I was myself thinking of an example which shows both in one molecule. There are some complexes e.g. with a cyclopentadiene, a DPPE and one or more monodentate ligands. That would show it all in one. Make the Cp-C carbons one colour, the Ps of the DPPE another and then the text can be linked to that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Molecular Design software changes

Hi Beetstra. Why you rewrote from the links to the not existing wiki pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talkcontribs) 14:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It was noted in my edit-summary, we are not an internet directory, see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Subjects in this encyclopedia are there because of their notability, if they are not notable enough for an own article, then they are probably not too notable for an external link either. If people want to find the software, a Open Directory Project may be more appropriate. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Dear Beetstra. You have changed the working links to broken links. How it improve notability? Moreover you have changed only external links and left unchanged the internal. Therefore, I assume that it is not a notability problem. In accordance with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY 1. ".. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic ..." What occurs in this article. External and internal links are equally famous and equally important for this article. If you read section WP:NOT#DIRECTORY you will see that this links satisfied all of its topics. While broken links significantly reduces the value of the article. P99am (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Nah, nope. Redlinks invite people to add or write the articles. And if they are not notable enough for articles, they probably should just go. Another option could be, to add another column to the end of the table, with a 'homepage' link (or something similar). As it was these lists are just spam-magnets. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
OK, I will do so. You are right about the spam-magnets. I see that spam already begun. But over the Redlinks I still have doubts. According to my observations Redlinks typically occur after the removal of articles. For me, it a sign of that reference is not notable rather than an invitation to their writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talkcontribs) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
That generally also makes it not notable enough to be listed in such lists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
So, I don't see a good decision. I even can not do red references to MOE and to NAB so that these abbreviations have different meaning in Wiki.P99am (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Then consider unlinking those? Or find the proper pages where they should link. The way the list was, is not proper, per 'wikipedia is not a mirror or repository'. What do the redlinked software programs add to the article except for 'they also exist' (the answer to these questions may make them notable..)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Programs listed in the table does not come from Wikipedia. These programs
1. well known
2. qualitative
3. this is the best programs, which cover the needs of Molecular Design in many aspects. Please note that no one program possess all the properties.
I well understand the problems that you mentioned and agree with that.
1. Links are the attractor for spam. Indeed already were added two references, one of which I have to remove.
2. Links should not be a catalog. Of course, but cited references are not exhaustive list, and not by accident. They are the best, in my view, meet on the subject of the article. Perhaps this topic was not sufficiently clear shown, so there is a suspicion that it is just random links from the network.
The idea of articles is to compare the best programs of molecular modeling in terms of their support for the molecular design. This is a nontrivial issue. Not all the molecular modeling systems are suitable for molecular design and none of them cover all aspects. I will be thinking how clearly reflect this.
As a temporary solution, I made a column Homepage, as you said. Perhaps the best solution is to write the missing articles. But this is no easy task.
Thank you for your help and sorry for spend your time. P99am (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Banned spammer re-spamming

Hi Dirk,

Do you remember previously banning the user "Motjaba Cazi" for constantly spamming the "iPhone OS version history" article?

Well, he was later unbanned on the grounds that he wouldn't post the link again. However, on the 12th of November 2008, he added it back in again (iphone.cazisoft link).

Want to take a look? Thanks. (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

20 records; Editors who have added Codegear (5), Hervegirod (4), KelleyCook (4), II MusLiM HyBRiD II (3), Mojtaba Cazi (2), (1), (1)
20 records; Links added between 2008-09-25 21:15:30 and 2008-11-15 16:13:51; Days when was added: 2008-11-12 (5), 2008-11-15 (4), 2008-11-04 (3), 2008-10-04 (2), 2008-09-26 (2), 2008-09-25 (2), 2008-10-02 (1), 2008-10-01 (1)
This may call for blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He did not actively add a link, he adapted a reference in the article. Still questionable but I'll leave it for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


i wanted to apologize to you because i did not assume good faith with your statement "(which is good)" when you commented on how i contributed to talk pages. i was paranoid and i thought you might have been conspiring to get me kicked off of wikipedia at the time. sorry. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I do recall making that statement, but not where. Don't worry, we are not here to get people kicked off wikipedia, and I do see that you are contributing a lot and very good. Apologies accepted! Happy editing, and hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
thank you for accepting my apology. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aho link undo

Please, let me add my link to Aho page. What we both are trying to do, is to provide free and rich content to the user. There are many sites, which contain ads, but not all of them contain content :-) Tell me, if you think TOC and review doesn't make a link valuable enough and I will remove it by myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talkcontribs)

I have left you another warning and a list of policies and guidelines to read. Please discuss on talkpages before proceeding. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment this points in the rules:

  1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
can not be integrated, it is a book! Perfect reference I would say. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing, man?

Delete this link: from bubble sort, too, please.

Just tell me, what is you point. The link, I have mentioned contains very small piece of content, but at the same time contains Google Ad. Remove it too, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talkcontribs) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes but that is not a reason for inclusion. And I don't see that link being added by single purpose accounts (I see more than 10 editors, and in the top-10 of people who have used the linked I see at least 3 very established editors). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

bear lake (utah/idaho) page external link

I believe the link provides value to those wanting to know more about and potentially visit Bear Lake. I can't place the google map on wikipedia, hence the link. Please consider reinstating the link to

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish edit (talkcontribs) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Nah, nope. As I see it now you are pushing that link (other editors also reverted additions of you), and since we are writing an encyclopedia here (and not a linkfarm), I don't think links help. But if you can convince other editors on e.g. the talkpage, then be my guest. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

coitoolbot's sql

I think I fixed it.. at least it isn't eating the lists of additions on the reports anymore. I removed the 'DESC GROUP BY revid' portion from a hand full of lines.. The web seems to suggest that it's failure to work is an old MySQL bug.. I saved your copy as coitoolbot.20081124. --Versageek 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the syntax of the SQL. I hope it works now. I wanted the sql to select single 'edits' in stead of every link addition (the latter would result in 60 lines if in one edit 60 times the same link was inserted). I'll keep an eye to see if it is resolved now. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Reasonless reversion

I undid your reversion at Dynamic array, because you did not give a reason. The link also looks helpful to me. I guessed maybe you removed the link because it had advertisements? The ads for that page don't make it spam. Also, please try to leave an edit summary for reversions. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I undid again, I used rollback on a (coi-)spammer, and this is the general edit summary they give. I reverted User:SPTWriter as his 'contributions' contain almost completely of adding '' (to top of list). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

kerrang interview whitelisting request

hey dirk, not sure if you saw my reply on the whitelisting. there's no copy of the interview on the kerrang site, but both and the kerrang dj have now replied to me confirming that the site has permission to use that recording. as this addresses the last remaining concern (copyvio), do you think you can approve the whitelisting now? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Confirmation via an WP:OTRS ticket has not been received yet. An email that only you have seen is not sufficient proof. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
so are you basically saying you think i made those emails up? wp:copyrights says we don't need the publisher's permission to link to a copyrighted work, we only need to avoid linking to known copyvios. i would understand your concern if i was trying to upload a copyrighted work like an image etc, but if you are trying to oppose a valid link because you have reason to believe that what it links to is a copyvio, i think the burden of proof that it is a copyvio is yours. nevertheless, as a responsible wikipedia editor i have taken reasonable steps to make sure it isn't a copyvio. since you insist, i'll go try to figure out what this otrs thing is, but i do kind of wonder whether you would be insisting upon all this if you didn't have the personal involvement in this area that you were warned about before. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Simply, the work on the Kerrang website is probably copyrighted. So linking to that work when hosted on another site may be in violation of copyright (and as such a risk). I am going here with the remark that it is then better to have (proper) proof that the copyright has either been transferred, or get official confirmation. That is not saying that you are a liar, but with the possible problems with allowing linking to the site anyway (whitelisting a link on the site could result in usage of that link throughout wikipedia, not only for the one page it was allowed on .. ), I hope that you understand that we are a bit overly carefull here.
OTRS is a system behind wikipedia, where the foundation is (amongst others) notified of official transferral of rights, which is needed for certain information to be used on wikipedia. You'll read more on Wikipedia:OTRS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thanks for the info... just checking out wp:otrs but i can't see where i go to open a ticket. could you point me in the right direction please? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
Ah, difficult to find I see, you need to follow the link to m:OTRS. I think you have to send a mail, but also there it is not completely clear to me. There is a list of volunteers, maybe you can ask one of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
hey, i'm still a little confused by this otrs thing and re-reading what you said above makes me think you might have misunderstood something. you refer to "the work on the Kerrang website", but there isn't any work on/from the Kerrang website. what has happened here is that jonty haywood was interviewed on kerrang radio about himself, this site, the game, and another site he's famous for in the uk. as i said in the first place, it seems silly to suggest that a radio show wouldn't give someone permission to host a recording of their own interview. and as kerrang don't put up recordings on their own site, i need to link to one on if i were to download that and put it somewhere else to link to, that would be a copyvio as i don't have permission to do so (actually if you read the DJ's email maybe i do now), but since haywood got given the interview recording, it's apparent he does have permission. so i don't think it violates any copyright laws or wiki policies to link to this recording. if you were already aware of this and still think i need to use otrs then i'll give it a go, but i'm not really sure what the otrs will tell us that we don't already know. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, my mistake, I should say 'the work is probably copyrighted by Kerrang'. And I don't think it is too silly that 'news items' are copyrighted by the organisation that created them, it is what they sell, if people could copy and publish that for free then they would loose their money. Maybe Kerrang is different in this, but that I don't know for sure. Hence, probably better to get the data official (but I am not a specialist here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
sorry, just read what i said and it didn't come across how i meant it. i understand that news items are copyrighted, of course. what i meant was maybe you thought that the interview was up on the kerrang site for a time and that haywood may have stolen it from the site without permission. however, since kerrang don't post their interview recordings online, haywood can't have stolen it from their site and so must have been given it instead. what i mean as being silly would be kerrang giving him this recording if they didn't intend him to do anything with it. also, i have these emails from both parties telling me that this is correct. i realise that until i figure out this otrs thing i will be the only person to have seen these emails other than their senders but what i am saying is that even without these, the chance that this is a copyvio seems pretty unlikely given the above. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
hi, i'm guessing you've stopped monitoring this white-listing request as i've been busy looking into OTRS for quite some time. i got in touch with the OTRS copyright permissions guy (Bastique) asking how to do this and he basically told me that copyvios by other sites are not of concern to either OTRS or black/whitelisting. as this site has no history of copyvios, and the site owner is the guy being interviewed, surely it's reasonable to say that this is not a "known" copyvio, which is what wp:copyrights says not to link to. so do you think you could approve the whitelisting now? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
I have added it to the whitelist under the condition that it is only used as a reference on Jonty Haywood. Please note that any other use may result in de-whitelisting and subsequently probably removal of the statements on Jonty Haywood as unreferenced (if no-one can come up with another reference for it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


I notify you, that I posted an inqury to arbitration about you actions against website: Wikipedia:Administrators —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talkcontribs) 21:26, November 25, 2008

It's actually on AN. Seems like straight forward spamming to me. --GraemeL (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification, I am on my way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

But of course...

Spamstar1.jpg The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Beetstra for diligence and never-ending hard work in fighting spam on Wikipedia

—Preceding unsigned comment added by User:JzG (talkcontribs)

this one is for you too :) --Versageek 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to both! Much appreciated! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Categories and COI report

I noticed that in a category I was looking at, Category:Transgender and transsexual writers a page from a COI report was included: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Jul 24. I edited the report to add a colon before the word Category so that the log would not be included in the category. I just wanted to check with you to see if this bug still exists with the bot or if it now inserts a colon if someone spams a Category page.--Larrybob (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved that (if I am correct I add a colon before everything now). But I'll check it. Thanks for reporting this to me! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Kensington Market map

Hi, I am just curious if you had any special reason for taking out the link to the cute little "Google" map of the Kensington Market area? I kind of liked it... --Zlerman (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The users of that link are mainly IPs (in a not too large range) spamming that link. I don't know if that link is suitable per the external links guideline (some are pretty advertising), I think it would be better to upload such images if they do add to the pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
What of course does not mean that there can be cases of proper and appropriate use, feel free to revert this one if you believe it properly adds to the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
From my personal knowledge of the area, the map is just perfect. I will revert and watch for flack. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
I did add the domain to XLinkBot to desuade the IPs to add it in an inappropriate manner (but that should not affect you). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I don't understand the format, but I am basically adding a neighborhood map that lets developers download all data points for a neighborhood. For web development in the local space, it greatly accelerates and simplifies the process (I know as I have developed in the local space for 4 years). There is no advertising on the site - what is so wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Please have a look at the spam guideline and the external links guideline. Not sure if this is appropriate, but I guess it is best to discuss this with an appropriate wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I did. As a developer, neighborhood boundary maps are often times commercial, and a free solution which lets me download the entire data source is very useful. If you look at my history, none of the links I have added are commercial - in fact, I have gone and removed commercial links. This is a useful resource for developers wishing to take the concept of a neighborhood and implement (and thus not about funneling traffic offsite, etc). Even Zlerman found it useful.
Yet, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
You have lost me. Is defining a neighborhood's boundary not useful? Or (not being facetious) - would it be better to list the coordinates on the wiki page and then use the places. link as a referral? Would that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is useful, but may not be within the scope of wikipedia. Therefore it may be better to discuss.
(ec)Take this edit. I don't think that that number of links is 'a few' (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL). And I would argue, what does this add to the page? Stops can also be mentioned in the text, and I don't think that is within the scope (this would be similar to naming all crossings in Route 66 .. by far outside of the scope of wikipedia). I would really like you to discuss the links before adding them. Just as a side note, you say you are a developer, are you a developer for, if so, then I should also point you to the conflict of interest guideline (in the other case you can ignore this last remark). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Mentioning the coordinates in wikipedia is also not suitable info I would say. A description of the boundaries may, or an uploaded image (which I think is really the best solution). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
No I do not develop for them, I heard about them at an NYC Tech meetup. At the same time - I still believe that the coordinate information is very useful - as a quick example, if you were to define the boundary definitions, you could analyze all the geotagged entries in Wikipedia and calculate which entries appear inside each neighborhood - useful information! An uploaded image is far less useful than the actual neighborhood - beyond the copyright issues of it being based on the Google Maps API, the information is far less useful (a simple image vs coordinate info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
That still does not mean that we need the link on every page, and that we should create linkfarms. Still my suggestion stands, please discuss this with a knowledgeable wikiproject. Thanks. ----Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Now I think of it, having the actual coordinates on wikipedia of the points would be more useful, that would make searching in wikipedia possible. ----Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Glad we agree on that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Me too. Is there a wikiproject concerned with the coordinates I see on pages (those that link to a 'linkfarm' on the toolserver via a link in the top right of a wikipage?). I guess this is worth a discussion with them, see if you/they can come up with a trick to include them on pages (I never thought about it, but areas need a different approach then 'single points' on a map. But I don't think these links are an appropriate way forward (how does enable wikipedia to see e.g. if a certain notable building is in this area?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)


I learned today that Mbeychok quit wikipedia because of me (he's back now). Since you said goodbye to him, you probably read his version of things, but didn't have mine. I don't really care for comments on the whole situation as it's water under the bridge to me, but I would at least like to have the chance to clear my name. You don't have to agree with me or even reply, but I wrote on a rant on my user page, and I would appreciate if you took a minute to read it. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβςWP Physics} 10:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

I had a quick read. All I will say is, that we are all voluntary editors here, with our own ethics and our own limits. Sometimes one steps over a limit with someone (and with some that happens quicker than with others), and when that involves two long standing editors, then it is better to keep calm and talk it out together. Did I say before, that there is nothing wrong with being bold, but when editors object with reason (even if it is only one), then it is better to discuss first before re-applying the edit, maybe it is worth discussing? Really, Milton is a good editor, and he knows what he is talking about. I think that the issue got resolved properly, and I think the two of you should have a nice cup of tea together. Enjoy! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mark Evanier


I have been reading the blog entitled "Is Mark Evanier Mentally Ill" all year and think that it's inclusion in Mr. Evanier's Wikipedia page would be appropriate. The blog publishes most every day and is a serious examination of how one comic book writer's obsession with defaming a noted artist resulted in a phenomenon of hatred toward the artist.

I realize that most blog content is considered inappropriate but much blog content is, in fact, used in Wikipedia.

I submit that this blog's content is relevant to the subject and provides a balanced view.

Bonehead Bob (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Bonehead BobBonehead Bob (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, blogs are generally not good external links (and they are quite strictly named in the external links guideline. Above that, we are not writing an internet directory of a linkfarm here, we are writing an encyclopedia based on content. Blogs may sometimes make a proper reference, but in practically all cases need also reliable sources to back them up. Note that I only left a message, I did not leave an official warning. But your pushing of that reference without discussion is not the way forward.
That much blog content is used in wikipedia is not a reason to use it here, it may even be a reason to have a look at all those cases, and I am afraid that much will have to go. I suggest you start a discussion on the talkpage, or with an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, a short way to an appropriate one can be via banners on talkpages or via regulars in the edit history of the page). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Allrightee, then! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonehead Bob (talkcontribs) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest rebuttal

My edit to Nelson Muntz was listed as a conflict of interest. Can you prevent that from happening again? --Jnelson09 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Strictly, I would say it is listed as a possible conflict of interest (bots are stupid .. they don't make a decission, humans should analyse the results with reason). But you've been added to the whitelist, thanks for pointing me to this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

May I draw your attention to...

Verbal seemed to find this interesting, may I suggest it as well? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

... I had been thinking along similar lines ... Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

SHADO CONTROL is not a spam link. Remove your undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talkcontribs) 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I answered on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

SHADO CONTROL at is not a SPAM link. It provides the official review for GAMERA: THE BRAVE with pictures provide by Kidokawa Picture, including the original PRESS PACK. Now, I don't know what discussion you are having with competitive reviewers that use some sort of cyber-bullying moral judgement, but all of SHADO CONTROL's reviews are official. They were at the press briefings in Japan. They are official. Read the reviews based on those links and you will see they are official.

I will state however, that there exist many reviews and references from an on-line apparatus known as TOHO KINGDOM. That is *NOT* an official TOHO site, they are not authorized to use one (1) picture from Toho, they place Toho's (R) trademark in their domain and violate Toho's Trademarks. Those are what require to be removed from wiki-pedia for actual facts. When Wiki-Pedia wants to allow trademark violators, such as Toho Kingdom to parade around as if they are an official Toho site, when they aren't even close, then you have to consider reality.

SHADO CONTROL has the official sources. For any additional requests from SHADO CONTROL please forward them to the President of Toho Pictures. Here is the address and phone number. Have a nice day.

<personal data removed>

SPOCK SEAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talkcontribs) 14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It may not be a spam link, but the way you are editing is disruptive, and your actions are here defined as 'spamming' (or link-pushing if the other term offends you). I stand by my suggestions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Your suggestions are incorrect. Then remove all of TOHO KINGDOM's links. They violate TOHO's Trademarks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talkcontribs)

OTRS is that way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That personal information is my information. It's public information. That IP encompassed numerous IPs from the same location, we did a check. In fact the numerous users were in fact one to three users. Additional comments came from the same user. In fact that same user wrote comments that all parties were contacted, which was NOT true, because I am the party and in contact with all the parties. An additional post from the same user stated "no (financial) consideration", which he knows nothing about. So, because the user used multiple IP addresses to remove information, I stated to "lay off". Sorry, but that was said due to multiple IP addresses from the same user made to look like numerous users.

Return the movie review links as they are all official. I see you have no plans to write or call the name and numbers provided. I don't know how official you want it. Thank you for your correspondence. Return the GAMERA: THE BRAVE link, because you will not find any more accurate information anywhere. Any information yo0u receive about Gamera: The Brave will be less than what is provided from SHADO CONTROL, the official information, using the official sources.

SPOCK SEAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talkcontribs) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Try discussing with them, I am sure they will be willing to do that. I will not return the information, I ask you to discuss and then let others include the information if they think it is appropriate. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

(three discussions threaded together Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC))

Factoring (Finance)

Regarding Factoring Finance.

You recently removed links and information regarding the World Factoring Yearbook and

You claimed these were inappropriate, yet they are used by the majority of factoring companies.

Wikipedia is designed as a source of information, where Wikipedia can only provide a certain level of information, to link to a dedicated information site can provide a full, more detailed explanation.

Those who link to the web page will find all the information they need about the industry, furthermore people may also find the World Factoring Yearbook essential as it is the only annual publication on the factoring industry.

Perhaps as someone outside the industry it is hard to perceive the value of information on such a niche industry. There is no advertising here. There is nothing to be advertised. Only factual publications etc.

Can you please confirm your reason for removing these items and the reason for threats being made regarding the placement of links and information. Surely informing people is the very reason for Wikipedia and it is of paramount importance to keep it as factually relevant and up-to-date as possible?

Many thanks for your time.

FCI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyrolt (talkcontribs) 13:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm and not an internet directory. You have been adding that link over and over again to that page, and it has now been removed quite some times. Your actions on that page are here described as spamming. We are not a site to promote that site! Please discuss further additions of that link on the talkpage, or with an appropriate wikiproject (you may be able to find a wikiproject also via a banner on the talkpage). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Soap Bubble Page

Dear Beestra,

I recently edited the soap bubble page of wikipedia with a short paragraph on my invention the Bubble Thing. The facts it contains are true and the link is no more commercial than many others by other bubble artists who appear on the same page. I don't know what your interest is in erasing what I wrote or whether it was even intentional but I would appreciate your allowing me to state the simple facts about my work. If you have some quarrel with me (of which I'm unaware) you are welcome to email me at <email removed> or call and I'll try to sort it out with you. Thank you and best regards,

David Stein, inventor of the Bubble Thing —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, you're stating it appropriate, 'my invention the Bubble Thing'; 'my work', 'inventor of the Bubble Thing' (see the conflict of interest guideline, 'no more commercial than many others' (see the spam guideline and arguments to avoid). See also the messages I left on your talkpage. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Native American Languages

Hello, This is my first foray into adding links. We believe that we have a unique collection of Catholic documents which were developed for the purpose of converting the Native Americans to Catholocism. They are in the native language and provide insight into the conversion and to the language. I understand being removed from the Native American Languages document because it is a project in and of itself. However, we believe we are offering new information under the languages themselves. Please, let me know how this is not a useful academic offering. Thanks Wiskid1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiskid1 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I already said that you probably have a good site, however, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm, nor an internet directory. That's why I suggested to add content, that really expands wikipedia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Paul Andrews

Why, exactly, does the post consistently get reverted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AScouserinNewYork (talkcontribs) 11:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If the person is notable, it needs a page in wikipedia, and that should be linked to. Not to an external link (we are not a linkfarm or internet directory and such, see 'what wikipedia is not'). See also the post on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Western Wyoming Community College

You keep undoing my changes!! I am the webmaster for WWCC and I am trying to improve our page on Wikipedia since it was pointed out to me it had pretty much no information. I am putting in references to our page (not sure where else you expect me to get them) since we are pretty much the experts on ourselves. So please let me know what it is you think I need to do in order to make you stop changing my changes since I am hand coding this, you are wasting my time. I consider this a public service and it is becoming frustrating. If you want Wikipeida to have current up to date information I am willing to provide that about our school if you'll let me.

[1] WWCC Webmaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWCCWebmaster (talkcontribs) 16:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know. You have a conflict of interest which strongly suggests you to discuss more. I am trying to tell you that the edit in the way you are performing it is not appropriate, and am trying to change things so that they are according to our manual of style. Secondly, most references are directly to the site, there must be things mentioned on government pages, newspapers etc. about the school. These 'self published' sources are not the best sources (but indeed maybe the only sources) available. Please discuss more. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I received an email from a former student asking me for pictures so he could update the page, I thought, well why have him do it, I could do it myself and add a ton of helpful information. I am not sure what you mean by conflict of interest, I am just giving information out about our school which is a public community college. All of the information is factual and I am providing references to my website as proof. I am not sure if you are familiar with Wyoming, namely, Rock Springs which has a population of about 30,000 people. Our newspaper does not have a website, so I cannot get links there. The only place to get information about our school is from our site.

Sorry to hear you consider our site spam. I was simply trying to do a serve to Wikipedia and give up to date helpful information about a College in Wyoming. Nothing more, and I do not see how Wikipedia can consider a College's website to be spam or somehow not reliable.

Western Wyoming Community College Webmaster 17:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)WWCC Webmaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWCCWebmaster (talkcontribs)

No, it is not that the site is not reliable. It probably is. Still it is self-published information. It would be better to get the information sources by an independent party (or from both).
With 'spamming' I mean adding excessive external links to the body of the text, which tunnel people away from wikipedia. Wikipedia is not an internet directory for possible choices for future students (and in that way such linking can be defined as promotional/spam). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I have not said nor considered that your site is spam. I only considered the way the site got link can be defined as promotional, and it is better to avoid that. Information is represented here, not necesserily linked to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess I see your point, however, I am not sure how you give information out about a college and not have it considered promoting? I mean if I went to the page on Wikipedia about Mt. Rushmore, is it not full of pictures and information about that location? Could that not be considered promotion as well? I just thought providing accurate & current information about our school straight from us (the source) that people could have a clear idea of what we are, where we are located and things we offer. Guess I will leave it up to the former student and hopefully he will be able to meet Wikipedia's standards. Thanks for explaining.

Western Wyoming Community College Webmaster 17:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)WWCC Webmaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWCCWebmaster (talkcontribs)

Information can be presented neutrally, as I did in the list now: name the different possibilities. They don't need to be linked to the site. I am sure you can help in that, as the article certainly needs more. Information about history, location, notable people who attended the college in the past, etc., and some images would be welcome, also from you.
About Mt. Rushmore, I am sorry, that is not a real argument. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I added some basic information, I hope this will suffice. I apparently cannot upload images until after 4 days, I will add some then. Thanks for the education about Wikipedia and it's guidelines.

Western Wyoming Community College Webmaster 17:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)WWCC Webmaster —Preceding unsigned comment added by WWCCWebmaster (talkcontribs)

Note to self

User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#regexp_speed-up --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 12:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

i need your help

good evening my man!

i have to consult to you about an interview for my blog that i did with sam wu, one of the winners for the amazing race asia 3. i wanna post the link in the amazing race asia 3 page.

i just wanna get your opinion first before anybody would send me a message telling me that i, or the blog where the link would be coming from, was not a reliable source.

thanks for enlightening me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autobahnned (talkcontribs) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. You say that it is your interview with Sam Wu, in that case I also have to point you to our conflict of interest guideline. I would suggest strongly that you discuss the links with a suitable wikiproject (you can find them via here, or via banners on the talkpage of pages where you are interested in), or on talkpages of pages you are interested in, or with other editors with similar interests (see the history of pages where you think your information might be of interest, find regular editors). Blogspots are generally not suitable as external links (see the external links guideline) or as sources (see the reliable sources guideline), but there are numerous exceptions where they are of interest. The best way to find out is by discussing it with regulars, e.g. via abovementioned methods. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whitelist Request

Greetings! I would like to request that I be added to the Whitelist for COIBot. I do a lot of Vandal Patrolling, and my reverts to page blanking or other content-deletion vandalism has the Bot flagging me as adding links. I guess I am technically RE-adding them, but never the original adds. Refs: [1],[2],[3],[4], among others found on my "What Links Here" page. I'm also the SUL user of this name, so the other wikis are safe. :) Thanks! ArakunemTalk 21:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for alerting me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Sadie Coles HQ

There was no evidence of this user being a sockmaster. I indef blocked it only as an inappropriate user name, i.e. that of a commercial organisation. The user was advised to choose another name. Ty 02:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, and choose another similarly inappropriate username, and continued with exactly the same type of edits, spamming/promoting his site. Thanks anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Though, true, it is not strict sockpuppetting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Can you explain this change

I Noticed that you removed a reference to Liquid XML Data Binder from the XML Data Binder page, can you explain why you singled this link out? Liquid XML Data Binder was released over 7 years, before the term XML Data Binding was coined, and was the only tool around apart from castor until fairly recently.

ie It is not a spam link

Regards Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon sprott (talkcontribs) 09:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Simon, thanks for the question, and yes, I can explain. Simple, the pages Liquid XML nor Liquid XML 2008 exist, and we don't have to link to external sites there (see the external links guideline). If you look at it, I removed the external linking from all items, and reverted the addition of Liquid XML. The link to was added excessively by quite a number of IPs here on en.wikipedia (and only you as an account). The data linked to may not be spam, but that action of adding excessive links is defined here as spamming. If you see e.g. this edit ("Probably useful to have the leading commercial product in here!"), look like me as advertising the product, and I don't see any discussion, only people pushing the links.

The thing is, the internal pages, Liquid XML nor Liquid XML 2008, could be linked, but they don't exist. This questions if they are notable enough for a wiki-article .. they may (I don't know, ask a wikiproject), but that was not what was linked here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see that Liquid XML Studio was deleted as blatant advertising. That should have been the target. If that article can be rewritten in a neutral, non advertising, encyclopaedic way, maybe that would be good. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination, so basically the links should have been internal wiki pages. At the point were the entries were added (a year ago or more I think) all entries were linking to external pages, so we followed suit. Anyhow I have re-added the the entries refereing to Xml Studio. I hope this is OK

Regards Simon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon sprott (talkcontribs) 13:44, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide some references for the article (preferably written by an external source, i.e. not one that is related or hosted by Liquid XML). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Done - I added the standard Microsoft .net tool and a python on I've heard good things about.

Cheers Simon sprott (talk) 15:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes in Sequence assembly

Hello there. I was just in the middle of writing a Editor assistance/Request when I saw your changes to sequence assembly. I'll put that on the back burner for the moment.

I'd have a few comments / questions to your edits. Comments:

  • the new 7 column format is ok I think, albeit it takes more space. However, I doubt that the internal linking of the assembler names in the first column is really useful. E.g. whem clicking on AMOS, users get redirected to an article on the "Advanced MOrtar System" weapon system. Now, DNA sequencing and sequence assembly nowadays is done with an appraoch that is called "shotgun sequencing", but this may somewhat be ... erm ... confusing.
  • the same as above applies to internal links to Euler, MIRA, Mosaik and Velvet which point to things which have nothing to do with sequence assembly.

Question 1:

  • would you agree on de-linking the internal links except those pointing to institutes / companies in the field?

Question 2:

  • are you aware that the current flare of edit warring is caused by a spammer who used the salami slicing approach in 2007 / 2008 on several pages to promote his products (DNA Baser, RNA baser etc.)? He got an AfD for the WP article on "DNA Baser" (see [5]) and his main URLs have been blacklisted by WP admins (see MediaWiki and His current link is just a redirect via a Romanian site to one of the blacklisted URLs. Could you please shortly comment on that?

Question 3:

  • Beginning of December the domains used by the spammer were blacklisted and WP admins removed links to that site (e.g. [6]). The spammer put them back and after I removed them, he got personal and edited away text regarding my contributions to the sequence assembly community (which was held in the same neutral tone as pointers to other works in the field (e.g. [7]). I concede that I forgot to put references to all these pointers (including mine). Could you agree on me adding that text back while providing references to all the contributions?

Regards, BaChev (talk) 23:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments. I'll answer:

Question 1:

  • Yes, de-link for those for which no suitable wikipage can be found. For these lists it is still my opinion that if there is no wiki-article, most will not be notable, and hence it could be argued if they need to be in the list anyway. De-linking for now should be fine.

Question 2:

  • I am aware of the situation, and have been looking into it. I feel very much like immediate blacklisting of the redirect link. That is not the way (I may do that in a minute, let me think about it for a sec).

Question 3:

  • I would say, go ahead. Don't be put off by his/her edits there, if you re-add it with references, and they removes it again, it can be seen as vandalism from their side. Seen the history I would suggest a {{uw-vandalism4im}}, if not an immediate block.

Regards, happy de-linking ;-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:50, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

COIBot flag due to reverting vandalism

A small thing, but I just noticed two old links to my user page User:Proofreader77 by COIBot:

NOTE: I was patrolling recent changes and I undid an unexplained erasure of ALL external links dif which apparently included a watchlisted site ( The COIBot, of course, interpreted my "undoing" as an "insertion."

QUESTION: While it's possible to follow the links and figure out what happened, is there a legitimate way to have these false positives cleared from the record? (I assume editing out the links myself is not acceptable procedure.)

Excuse so many words over a small matter, but I care enough about this to ask. Proofreader77 (talk) 23:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I have whitelisted you (the bots should now 'ignore' you) and regenerated the linkreport. You can remove yourself from the old coireport if you like (the actual record is gone anyway) though probably no-one cares about that old report anymore. The link-addition is still recorded, as that is just another representation of the edit you performed, and those records help us in assessing what to do with 'bad' links (if they are not used legitimately it can be blacklisted, otherwise we have to choose other methods. Therefore deleting legitimate link-additions could result in misinterpretation). I hope this helps and explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Xlink bot revert of Keyshia Cole reference

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Keyshia Cole has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\?referrer' (link(s): .

If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Hi, I don't know if you are coming back to the same IP. I am referring to the question this IP posted on User talk:XLinkBot regarding the above warning. The problem was not the link, the problem was that the link included the text 'referrer=' .. that tag is often a problem, as that often is used to give people revenues for including links in other sites. The reference works perfectly without the 'referrer=' tag, so I have undone the bot's edit, but without the referrer= tag. Thanks for your contributions, I hope you are willing to stay! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Beetstra, o ok. Thanks. (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar.png The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
I said to you some time ago I would find out how to award you for your help on wikipedia. Here you are, a Kindness Barnstar! Thanks to you, I am really getting the hang of wiki. So thank you a lot and keep up the good work! Working together In Citer (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome, and thanks for the barnstar, I will put it on my userpage! Happy new year! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Adventsljusstake med tre brinnande ljus.JPG Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Thanks, and a happy new year to you too! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

About a year ago we had a discussion about deeplinking the website pages. You deleted all my links, based om the follwoing rationale:

No static IP, so no deeplinking possible, and it would be better to add the pages to the reference section.

I now have link-directly pages of all species in my databases and I like you to check and comment if I add my pages to the specific species pages in wiki. I used wiki extensively as a reference so i will only add those pages contributing to the content.

resuming; could you check the pages on and tell me if they are now suitable. I like to stress the significanxe of some of the specie pages as they contain information from several hard-to-come-by sources, especially on the surinam species, which is currently only available in my database.

En een goed nieuwjaar :-)

Jan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolhijn (talkcontribs) 20:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I would to suggest you to consider to contact an appropriate wikiproject (you can find them here: Wikipedia:WikiProject, via banners of talkpages on pages you are interested in, e.g. Talk:Bird, or by finding regulars on some pages you are interested in, they may be able to lead you there). I would refrain to add the links yourself (mainly per our conflict of interest guideline), at least before guidance from such a project. I hope this helps, gelukkig nieuw jaar! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


I'm not a spammer!!! [8] -- G. Calabria (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2009 (UTC) :And 'we' are not a linkfarm. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Had a second look, deleted the reports here, and whitelisted you. Sorry, unfortunately these things happen, I was hoping that the template at the top of the report would explain sufficiently that the reports don't suggest that involved editors are spamming. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, no problem. Thanks. :) -- G. Calabria (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to Science Debate Forum


I am electricRush and I would like to invite you to join the Science Debate Forum. It is open to anyone who has an interest in science, and is completely free. We have a welcoming community and discussion forums in all subjects ranging from cosmology to physics to politics. In general it is a great discussion board that fits all scientific interests.

Thanks, -electricRush (T C) Sign! 05:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

removal of You Tube as spam?

Dirk, Don't understand with the removal of the external link to You Tube video. No restrictions and I'm not a spammer. What gives? Can you revert the deletion please? Many thanks in advance Nxguggenheim (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube external links are strongly discouraged per our external links guideline (as there are often problems with them, and they are not really suitable for people with a slow internet connection etc.). Moreover, we are writing an encyclopedia, based on content, not an internet directory. They should really add something to the page otherwise they are simply not necessery. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Moiramoira's intimidation, censorship , and the abuse your name

Dear Dirk, Recently Moiramoira started a campaign to delete the pages of this female artist [9] [10], [11], [12] and many more from various wikis. As you may want to check he was unsuccessful in German, Latin, Swedish, English and few more but has succeeded in his attempts in the Netherlands, Italian, and Spanish wikis. The artist, of course, has studied in Netherlands, and since she is painting nude women with horses or flying over a city had provoked the wrath of some fanatics. Moiramoira has written about you banning him here [13], which I quote:"in the past doing another cross wiki vandalism case also on wiki-en and got an official "warning" here <sigh> from a guy called Dirk Beetstra (ano was blocked indef in the end by another admin on wiki-en happily)". I am writing yo see if you can stop this man and his friends from their innuendos, intimidation, and censorship. Please note that if you go to the discussion pages of the above artist in Latin, English and other languages you will see how persistent his attacks are. Sincerely yours --Artaxerex (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to promote artists etc. Notability is not something that you just gain because you paint or whatever. MoiraMoira is an admin on nl, so she (IIRC) should know the rules there, and if the article does not follow those local rules... Here other admins have reviewed the discussion about the deletion apparently, and the article was not deleted. I presume (knowing Moiramoira's great cross-wiki work!) that the artist has written the article herself on many wikis (or was at least significantly involved in that), which would be strongly discouraged everywhere, and if the article is promotional in nature, it is better to delete it cross-wiki and let it be rewritten in a neutral way (I often delete self-promotion articles without question, even if the person/company/organisation behind it is notable enough for an article). Self promotion should be stopped, that has nothing to do with intimidation, censorship. Otherwise the article can be salvaged by a thorough rewrite. If I see the intro of the English article it still feels a bit promotional, though.
Thank you very much for your reply. I totally agree with you. I am not arguing about the notability of the artist. Even if we abstract from the fact that the artist's work has been published in a number of books in North America, I hope you agree with the admin from Cymerag wiki that "there are not very many muslim women artist from Iran". But, this is not my main problem. If you follow other controversies that caused my bamishment, you will find out that I have been trying to fight the extremist from both religious fanatics, and the raceist monarchists. Unfortunately, I have not a lot of allies. I have given up to introduce an NPOV tone to Reza shah, and Mohammad Reza Shah articles. I provided many referenced books from Western sources to no availe. The structure of power here is that references do not matter. You have to have agood connection with other admins. But I do not want to rant. If wiki wants to be a promotional material for a collpsed and corrupt regime that caused the establishment of the new regime and the regression of the country to the middle ages, who am I to fight? My meat puppets, are just that, but people who fought and banished us are indepenant thinkers!. If we have tried to advocate a womman artist who for fourty years have courageously fought with her paintings, we are trying to promote her for commercial reasons!
I see that Moiramoira still feels bitten about the warning, but I stand with my decision there (and the nature of the thread I started about that warning on our administrators noticeboard showed that that was not the way forward). The two edits that she got the warning for were not what she said she did, and in my opinion the edits did not help to solve the situation (and the editor was repeatedly blocked, several times by me, all the time for the same reason; also note that Fram unblocked the user like me, and reblocked). That does still not mean that I don't think positive of her cross-wiki contributions, and her fight in reverting and removing cross-wiki spam/self-promotion and other vandalism. I am sorry she feels this way, that she felt the need to bring that discussion back and that she still feels shy here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately Moiramoira and many other admins like her do not understand what does it mean to struggle against undemocratic regimes, whose agents are very active in this forum as well (just read the discussion pages of those controversial articles
Hmm, I see you have a dislike of Moiramoira, though the article on the Dutch wikipedia was not nominated by Moiramoira, and other users from other wikis have been cleaning up behind you as well, and was deleted after discussion, and that you are using sockpuppets. If I look into the records, I am afraid there are even more accounts which feel like having the same activity. I suggest strongly that you stick to one account, otherwise a re-ban might happen quite quick. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 ! Anyhow thank you very much again for your reply, and I hope you ponder couple of minutes, and do realize that intimidation and other concerns for many of us is very real! . --Artaxerex (talk) 23:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if you would not have gone into using several accounts, but would have discussed first (as is at least on en.wikipedia widely suggested in most policies and guidelines), then this might not have escalated this way. As I said, sometimes a document is started in a way which is too promotional in tone, and it would need a huge rewrite before it became reasonably neutral and encyclopedic (and that process takes time and people who actually do it), that deletion is often a better option (starting from scratch when suitable editors have time). I suggest you start on your computer with a beginning, and when you have a neutral and proper version, that you e.g. email it to a wikiproject, or even to Moiramoira and try to discuss with her. I am sure she will be willing. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Thank you very much Dirk. Unfortunately, there are not very many people like you in the world. And this is perhaps why we are seeing such a mess. I went through that controversy and I realized that perhaps Moiramoira, as you suggest, had some points in trying to stop that editor, but I am not sure of the appropriateness of her style. It appeal to me that perhaps you also did not approve of that editor's contribution, but you disliked more the 4-5 editors who were chasing that poor soul everywhere and deleting his contributions. This is really the crux of the issue, and as you put it, it was not solving the problem, "it was like purring oil on the fire". Any how with your calm and measured response you helped me to overcome my anger. I would say farewell to you with joyful heart, and wish you the best. --Artaxerex (talk) 08:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


Please stop deleting my links to YouTube. I own the copyrights on these videos, and they are relevant and pertain to the content. They do not violate wiki guidelines. Tomklem (talk) 06:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links are strongly discouraged, as people with slow bandwidths can't see them. And we are NOT a linkfarm, but an encyclopedia. Please stop and discuss. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:42, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I had a second look. You are showing a video of a Christmas. Although the video shows the subject, it does not tell more about the subject, it does not expand the knowledge conveyed in the article, and as such, it is not suitable as an external link as well. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

It shows moving pictures of everyone on the wikipage. Don't you think people would want to see what these people looked like, and acted like? I read the rules. Put it back.Tomklem (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Will you stop calling my constructive edits to improve display and readability of the chembox entry on all browsers a vandalism? Please take a look at the responses of user FVasconcellos, Edgar181, Carl on the chem talk page before calling me a vandal. My constructive edits have been reverted, but they just reflect the practice which has been applied all the time, because otherwise the box displays as crap on e.g. Firefox 2.x and Unix browsers. But we have to produce portable text with the least common denominator of clients (also non-PC) in mind. The word vandal is a little too quick over your fingers, convince yourself of the facts. Don't allow yourself to block me. (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, how many editors have been reverting you. This is not the way forward. Stop, discuss, and get to a solution. Don't push your solution. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and for your information, I have been looking around a bit through your talkpage contributions .. please remain civil or also there you would be only one remark short of a block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact two editors have been reverting me, and now you. look all over the place, the editing style with blanks, breaks, zero width blanks etc. is common and traditional. It is now just a new idea that for searchability no blanks etc may be inserted. A new fad. See the comments on the chem discussion page. And I got reverted w.o. discussion. I find this vandal yelling also not overly civil. It are good faith best efforts, and I just followed common practice. Sounds like excited discussions in the public service domain, maybe postal. (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see, vult de doeskoepe meck nit en vandaal heissen, suns krecht se glijks eren kop anners ruemdreit. Greetings. (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

You have indeed been reverted by 2 editors (now 3, I reverted all the line wrap things), as the style changes you imply were also without discussion (you started with those edits on the 21st of Jan, and carried on after being reverted or after editors contacted you .. without consensus). As I said, we are on a drive to get the names correct, and if then editor a adds spaces in place a, and editor b in place b, we do get into trouble in the end ("a bc" != "ab c"). This problem has to be solved in a different way, and methods for solving this are FAR from exhausted.
I am sorry that you are offended by the term vandal, but continuing your edits while you have been reverted, and there is ongoing discussion if your edits are appropriate does get close to vandalism. Stop and let the discussion get to a conclusion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Here seems to be the right place to apply my full repertory of low-german and saxonian comments I have all learned under strange circumstances and in strange places. The solution to such text matching problems is to transform the search term to a canonical form by parsing before searching. iupac is not without ambiguities, and you will see that the "iupac" in the boxes is mostly pidgin-iupac or pharmacists-iupac. A transform on the level of separators, i.e. on a pure lexical level, is easy to revert while transforming to a canonical form. The problems are somewhere else, as summarized above, namely lack of unique representation on a semantic level, in particular counting the pharmacist and pidgin names and resulting hybridizations. (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is a solution, but that is not supported by wikipedia etc. We run into several problems with that if this is not first properly discussed before it is implemented. One thing is that it looks ugly when the spaces are not in the right place, secondly, it breaks the current search facilities. I am currently looking for documentation about 'strange browsers' and how we are supposed to work with that (but we can't supply solutions which break things for the majority, but solve it for 'a handful' of individuals). The best solution is, make the software render the page correctly (which may be possible using wikipedia features!).
We are working together with several official, commercial and non-commercial, organisations to get our data 'official' and conform guidelines and to 'protect' that data. Whatever on-wiki solution is implemented, we should put these into one line before implementing that. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Pooh, you should be working for Gloeifips-Research. They also search for a decade for the grand unified field theory of e.g. the hair dryer or gloeibirne, together with commitees , commercial and non-commercial organizations and standardization bodies, and meanwhile the competition has sold them out of their contracts at the customer with a perfect but non-standardized solution, and then they come out of their consensus finding phase half finished, agreed except by the sectarians and the puritan renewers (thats you in this case, with the new rule that it has been standardized w.o. spaces). And then the whole witch-sabbath starts anew, and meanwhile the milk went sour and the cow miscarried and my mother-in-law cashed in some money from the farmer for not bewitching the cattle any more. This is the dutch way since 100s of years. Trust me. (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, but a) I don't think I am alone in this (in fact, two other editors were reverting your edits), and b) things are accomplished here by consensus. You might indeed almost think Wikipedia is Dutch.
Some points:
  • You seem to be in quite a unique position, but I still believe that you can read the information
  • The multiple line problem in the boxes is a bigger problem for people who use a screen-reader (blind people, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Usability/Infobox_accessibility).
  • Good thing is, most of the editors here don't make money from editing wikipedia.
If you create an account you/we might be able to tweak specific settings. You can also try to change the skin on wikipedia and see if that helps solve the problem (e.g. the Simple skin might be better than the Monobook skin). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Until of course Kuypers comes in and takes with him a few trusted types and starts a counter movement with an own university, but unfortunately, as soon as this spawned off institution has reached sufficient size, the bickering goes on in the subset etc. and everything repeats itself in a self-congruent manner over and over, as if constructing fractals. The browser I use is firefox 2.x, all firefox 2.x have that. Also browsers on unix-machines. see discussion above,on the chem page, I think you missed it. (Fvasconcellos, Edgar181, Carl) they know that for a long time. It is not exotic at all. (talk) 17:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

And I wish the Dutch would find a different method, which makes money, as I am holding Gloeifips stock and lost 50% of my savings on them. Or I propose to buy me out and merge Gloeifips with Wiki as a non-profit, tax exempt and state subsidized. Cheers. (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for your recent reversion of the linkspam on nursing articles. Caught it way quicker than I did! Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:50, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I know where the cookies are (and he passed a threshold on one of the statistics ...). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Dirk, do you really think this was necessary? You know as well as I do that vandalism has a very specific meaning here, and stubbornness doesn't count. I agree that 70. should have stopped the first time and waited for an actual outcome to the discussion, but a) he's a regular user (and a productive one too, as strange as some of his Talk page behavior may seem) and b) this is a real problem. I myself used to break IUPAC names with <br> tags—in fact, many minor edits of mine were done solely for that purpose—and I never received a single complaint. Can we implement something directly in the template codes that would bypass this problem? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Dirk here. It's not as though he weren't asked, on numerous occasions, nicely!, to slow down, and discuss. If it were a bot going around doing such edits, it'd have been blocked in a heartbeat. The fact is that his comments on various talkpages are rants, not discussion. I'll need to dig for diffs, but I recall editors who simply ignored all such appeals to slow down; they were eventually blocked. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm .. he does break things, and does continue (though while 'discussing'). And I have not seen many productive edits. Moreover, he repeats in undo-ing edits of regulars (today he again reverted an edit from Wim). I am sorry, this had to stop (and he was asked a couple of times to stop), and then we have to find a proper solution. Also, some of the talkpage message border on incivility ..
There is something implemented in the chembox, and I have also given him other options. We unfortunately can't solve all problems on all browsers. And by implementing one solution (this one), another one may develop (screen readers sometimes get into trouble if you break things the wrong way). And as I explained to him above "ab c" is not the same as "a bc" and as such gives problems. I am very willing to try and implement other solutions, this was not one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:44, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
He's been editing for a long, long time now, on several IPs, and has indeed made many productive edits in the past; he helped uncover some very complex misrepresentation of sources in several benzodiazepine articles and has recently been helping resolve a dispute on Paroxetine. I agree it had to stop; you'll have to excuse me for insisting, but I still think the warning was excessive.
I know adding spaces solves one problem and creates another (potentially worse); what about using break tags as I used to, then? I realize this only affects a minority of users, but it is still a significant problem. Imagine if a Featured article displayed like one of the screenshots posted by Carl over at WT:CHEM; to me, at least, leaving that alone would be unthinkable. One of my "pet" articles, Clindamycin, has a long IUPAC name in the Drugbox, and I've only just realized that readers using a legacy browser may see the Drugbox completely obscuring the article lead! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:07, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem in insisting, but I was afraid that a softer warning would not help (he was asked a couple of times), and it had to stop.
The problem is there in any form, those names are long, and however we break it, we break it (sorry for the pun). But if we add tags, it can't be found using a search engine (and I find that a big problem; and that may also happen with spaces already), and however it is pushed into more lines, a screen-reader will have problems with it.
IMHO, we should consider to treat the problem as we have done with the InChI's and the SMILES (in the {tl|chembox}}): we could hide it behind a 'show' button (I wonder if it we can code it as 'if length IUPACNAME > 25 then use show button'. After all, the IUPAC name does not add much to the content (it is often an unreadable name, especially for non-chemists), but we can't omit it, and it is just functional to have it unbroken in both the source of the page, and in the generated html (which gets indexed by google). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:18, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
About the warning—again, I agree it had to stop; I'd just hate to see a good contributor gone because of such a WP:LAME point of contention.
I guess hiding IUPAC names if they exceed a certain number of characters would be acceptable. Carl suggested using "overflow: auto" in the templates, but I think that would generate a scrollbar? If so, it wouldn't be a good idea at all. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I will have a look at implementing a show button for it in the chemboxes one of these days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

A few remarks and thoughts:

1. Spaces adjacent to separators don't harm search/indexing and don't change semantics and can be removed on a lexical level. Can you confirm that?

2. Spaces separating identifiers are essential, like in xxxacid ethyl ester.

3. Will think of a simple parser for chemical names that solves the problem.

4. Special break constructs or html meta language is any way filtered out during indexing of html. I think they treat such chars as ignore.

5. Ordinary search engines by no means use a 150 character search string for indexing but break it down into component identifiers and try them in combination, the result has every amount of false drops.

6. Chemical search engines I guess will preprocess the query into some canonical form anyway, or if not possible to find a canonical form then at least into some purified form, where print layout doesn't play a role.

7. I will think of a short algorithm that squeezes print layout out.

8. Anybody there who has a bnf desription covering iupac and all kind of pidgin iupac and pharmacist iupac?

9. Make sure with some chem search engine people that this is not a wild goose chase. With the chemical names I have seen I am rather sure it is.

10. We could use a purified duplicate of the name for search purposes, and one for display purposes. The problem of breaks is inevitable, as some iupac names exceed screen width in any case.

11. Even if ab c != a bc: a-b-c is a- b-c is a-b- c is a- b- c right? Counterexample? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Personal remark for beetstra: Your resume: wow! But I got my Ing years before you were born, which gives me a huge senility factor. Cheers. (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

1. Yes, but are they?

2. Oh yes, but then, which spaces to remove and which to keep.

3. ?

4. That problem, yes.

5. Again, it solves that problem in a way .. and it would only go for the spaces.

6. 'I guess' ..

7. ?

8. Err .. IUPAC itself ?? As I said, we are working together with large organisations like the CAS, ChemSpider, etc. on this subject.

9. Will do. Until then, don't change them please, just leave them as is until we have discussed, and come to a consensus. As I have suggested earlier, that may still be in your favour.

10. Duplication is a solution that we discussed for InChI and SMILES. As for those, we will run into problems with that, and again, searching this string is NOT the only problem.

11. Right, but we are not talking mathematics here, we are talking string comparison.

I know you were making these edits in good faith, and it is not like you were not discussing with others while doing them. But when you were asked to slow down, and when you were asked to stop, you ignored those questions with an air of 'My solution is THE solution, stop complaining and reverting me' (and you kept on reverting others peoples reverts). Per WP:VANDALISM: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." ..

I am not disputing your knowledge, seniority, etc. And the critisism that you have displayed was and is certainly welcomed. This needs to be solved. But as I also said earlier, methods of solving this have not been exhausted yet, and the different solutions must be analysed. The current solution breaks (quite some) pages, your solution solves that problem, but likely/surely results in other problems. My suggestion is, hide the name behind a 'show' button, in that way it does not widen the template to unreadability (like was done with InChI and SMILES in the {{chembox}}), but can still be seen in an un-broken (but ugly displaying way) when needed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

re 11. We are talking string search, not mathematics. Yess! I am not talking about algebraic subtraction, but about the grammar of Iupac/pidgin/pharmacists iupac and the associated semantics. So I meant, for the semantics 3,7-dihydro-5,8-dimethyl-blah-blah is the same as 3,7- dihydro- 5,8-dimethyl-blah- blah, and so forth. String comparison and string transform is also mathematics. The striking point is that you can safely insert a blank after the dash and the semantic stays the same. You can also safely remove a blank after the dash, without changing semantics. Thats what I mean with AB C != A BC, but A-B- C == A- B-C == A- B- C. Where A, B, C are your choice of digitlist, methyl, hydroxy, deca, blah and blah. And where == indicates equivalence in the sense of equal semantics. A very simple lexical analyzer will be able to remove blanks from such points safely and know where to do that. So we may make up rules for safe insertion points of blanks, which don't change semantics and can be automatically removed. Your opinion? (I guess you got me wrong , I am not talking algebra and minus signs here, but know quite a bit about the mathematical attack of string comparison and string semantics from compiler construction) (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The fun is:

is not the same as

In other words, in wikipedia, adding spaces may solve one problem (how it is displayed), it breaks immediately another thing (searchability). That maybe should not happen .. but it does. Until such time, adding spaces manually should not be done, as:

  • It breaks searchability (so it solves the problem for people with old computers and other browsers, but you can't find it anymore)
  • It probably breaks screen readers (so it solves the problem for people with old computers or other browsers, but now blind people will have problems 'reading' the page)

and there may be more. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I did solve it now in the {{chembox}} (waiting for the database to replicate, may take some time, until then it is not visible). I'll see how this goes, and if it does not break things, after that I probably will implement it in the drugboxes as well. I now should not break the normal visibility of a page, except when you click the show button to see the IUPAC name (but then you want to see the IUPAC name, and should care less about the rest of the display at that moment. If you click 'hide' it will revert to a properly displayed name. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes that aceticacid was clear to me but what if the search string contains embedded dashes, like in my example? Search for 3,5-dimethyl-blah with blanks inserted after the dash and without. Thats what I meant by safe insertion points after separator characters. The acetic acid misses the point because there the blank is a separator, but before and after other separators it is ignore. Otherwise you have a problem with your search engine. (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

And I was not talking about seniority here, thats your invention. I was talking "senility factor". Cheers. Will now have a Gin on you and soon go to bed. It is 1 am here. (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Searching for 'acetic-acid' or 'acetic acid' does in both cases give as a first result Acetic acid, but second and following results are different. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the question. The question is if acetic-(blank)acid gives the same result as acetic-acid. (because the dash is already a separator) Please re-read what I wrote SLOWLY, and think about it I will tomorrow, my time, give you a short introduction of lexical analysis and parsing in this matter. The point is also that you may have a search preprocessing yourself in wiki, which knows where to remove blanks (namely if they are ignore), and where not (namely when they are the separator character themselves) (talk) 11:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I thought of that while I was demonstrating. No need to lecture about parsing text, Regular expressions are far from strange for me. See User:XLinkBot, User:COIBot and [User:CheMoBot]], the first using regex, the second performing a lexical analysis/parsing text in order to compare usernames with 'what they edit', the third slowly developing into a bot designed to actually see if the data one puts in a {{chembox}} or {{drugbox}} is the same as the value, verified by members of the Chemicals and/or Pharmacology WikiProjects (and possibly later other infoboxes as well). I do now see that for the latter bot I might have to be more careful with a 'verified IUPACName' .. also that should be part of a discussion before we proceed changing them in the boxes.
Again, I put it through the test, 'acetic- acid' vs. 'acetic-acid'. Those results are almost the same, the differences start further down the list (around number 13). But we are focussing on searching (as that was the first problem I anticipated, and what does show to be a problem in the built-in wiki search engine, and it may also give strange results in User:CheMoBot), we also have to consider other problems which may occur (one of them named above). As many people have now said, adding those spaces is not the way forward, even if searching indeed is not going to be a problem. A third 'problem' that I anticipate is that having those spaces there, may induce new/unexperienced editors coming in (using Windows XP and Firefox), seeing the spaces (which, if I may, sometimes look ugly in the boxes), trying to edit out all those spaces, and seeing that their browser does not have a problem with it, pressing save, and, thinking that they do us a favour in removing them all (like you were adding them to quite some pages).
All in all, we have to agree on a solution to solve the problem for everybody, not be pushing a solution for one (group of) editor(s), and inducing problems for others, or inducing problems further down the line. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. The wiki search engine is anyway close to unusable, and needs work. I propose a chem search button, with parsing into some lexically purified form. It will not solve the problems with pidgin/pharmacist iupac, e.g. dihydro- N- phenethyl- normorphine or 3,4-methylenedioxy-aniline "or any variants or hybridizations thereof with true IUPAC notation", if you see what I mean. Ok. if you are so familiar with lexical analysis and parsing, then you were playing dumb, asking how we would find out which blanks to delete and which not. (besides I wrote the parser and code generator for the Philips synchronous simulator, translating a mixture of synchronous gate level descriptions and RTL expressions into pseudocode, also the compiler writing language and stub used in the local developments for HLL compilers, and many more. This were not mere lexers, but full compilers for high level languages, able to translate e.g. digital filters into machine code, real register transfer languages) So you need no further explanations? Thank you for the conversation, and move it ahead, the current situation even if not completely cleanly, would have been remedied by my edits, and looks totally like shite. But we are at least on the same page now. Had a monster elephant size Gin on you. More tomorrow. Then lets discuss what to do to your shit search engine and its preprocessing, and what you think about a chem search preprocessor/button. Finally I have to report that the there present dutchmen in charge during my professional life were always holding up the whole business with their consensus politics, their standardization frenzy and their regulation mania as well as their sectarianism in technical matters. Meanwhile the competition was running circles around us, and we got virtually no applause except from academia and public service and state subsidized agencies, who were used to that work style and found it normal (eg. PTT, railroad etc. Same in the foreign subsidiaries). But I tell you they were all bad cases of anal retentive bean counters. And the flowering landscapes were always just behind the next corner, as promised, namely for 30+ years. Think of it. And reconsider if we want functionality now, or the pure teachings of the std committee, with exceedingly well thought out world class functionality projected for the year 2050. Cheerio. The lexers may klei me aan moors for tonight. Committee: animal with 30 pairs of legs and no brain. (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Still, the wiki engine is the one we have here. We could try the same analysis using the google engine (which is probably better developed). And still, we are only discussing the problems with the search engine. There are other problems to come over, and there may also be other solutions with the same effect ..
Building specific chemistry search buttons is a difficult one, that would require them to implement that type of things in the sourcecode of the wiki, and they are reluctant to these things. I think it is more productive to come to other solutions. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:46, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

How do you like my exposure to fine north german dialects? Is that intelligible? You speak frisian and groonigsch? Thats a bit apart from low german for the most of the dialects, except as spoken in the Sylt/Husum/Buesum area maybe for the frisian and the northwest corner for the grooningsch. But not as far apart as the high languages, because its older and has not diverged so much with the latin influence. Source code: Yes, that needs work, and it is not much, namely preprocessor plug ins, which can be developed for the topic at hand, essentially as problem oriented language parsers and the like. Want to discuss that with me tomorrow? (talk) 14:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


Thanks for this!

What a muppet.

Ben (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Scrollbar IUPAC

search Hyodeoxycholic acid, click IUPAC "show" and you have a horizontal scrollbar. Firefox 2.x (talk) 14:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I already uttered a 'bad word' about that .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

chem search

I believe you missed something in your search results for indole-3-acetic acid. Namely: the first 6 hits, regardless of replacement or not of dash with dash space, all lead to hits which contain indole-3-acetic acid. See highlighted result of your search. It found those in the body of the article. So it delivered these sometimes in different ranking order. But they are the same results! So I think you missed something. The wp search is pretty stable against these blanks, EXCEPT of course, if removing the blank removed a separator (like indole-3-aceticacid) Look a second time yourself. (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC) (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense, did not think about that. But now we should try it on a search where the IUPACName is very dissimilar from the common name, and where the only mention of the IUPACName is in the drugbox/chembox (and for best results, we should use the same search term, but change the IUPACName in the box; taking care of the replication lag that templates have). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Result search experiments



which is Ro15-4513.

This gives exactly one hit with the original iupac name and exactly the same result if you insert a space after every n,n-blah- or n-blah or blah- . (talk) 11:25, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Besides, Violaxanthin does not find the iupac (which contains an erroneous ampersant and likely has been recently changed) regardless of spaces, probably due to recent change. (talk) 11:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Could also be that the search engine does not find hidden items. The Ro15-4513 example uses drugbox and does not hide the iupac name. Ask the wiki programmers, if thats a plausible explanation. Or it could be a coherency problem with the caching or the like, due to recent change. (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that should not be. The search engine either searches the source, which clearly contains it, or the generated html, which also contains it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed spurious ampersant from Violaxanthin. After the edit the previous horizontal scrollbar disappeared, but the iupac name is now so long, that it does not fit on the screen, when I click show. So I copied the iuapac from the source into the search, and the search engine could not find it. Strange. Take a look at Violaxanthin, its too big for the screen even with sidebars switched off. Bummer. (talk) 15:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the problem with the IUPACName, as it gets properly hyphenated, but I see the effect (to a small extend) with the SMILES on that page; I suspect that even new browsers will show the problem with certain SMILES (where there are no proper breakpoints). Bummer, indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Experiment Scopolamine: Does not find the iupac name. Regardless of blanks or not. Suspect: The name contains meta-characters for print control, like "small", "nowiki" etc. The name has layout with numbers in an exponent position, but copies to something else. Search engine even unable to find scopolamine from a partial string of the iupac name. Probably searchability means that we have at least to have all flat without small, exponents etc etc. just plain ascii string. If it really searches in the wiki source, then we have to be careful that it doesn't take brackets, squarebrackets etc as meta text and skips it in search or doesn't index it or the like. So the searchability has problems. Probably, if possible at all, needs a special format for the search string and for the iupac name itself, which doesn't interfere with meta text etc. In this light neither searching the wiki text, nor searching the generated html makes overly much sense. It is just not for that, it is for text, I guess. Take a look at it. Horror: Look at Clarithromycin. The drugbox is larger than the whole display box! If not larger than the display box packed into a transport cardboard box! (talk) 16:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


<td bgcolor="#EEEEEE" style="text-align: center; vertical-align: top;" colspan="2"><span style="font-size:11px">(-)-(<i>S</i>)-3-hydroxy-2-phenyl-propionic acid (1<i>R</i>,2<i>R</i>,4<i>S</i>,7<i>S</i>,9<i>S</i>)-9-methyl-3-oxa-9-aza-tricyclo[<sup>2,4</sup>]non-7-yl ester</span></td>

In Source:

(-)-(''S'')-3-hydroxy-2-phenyl-propionic acid (1''R'',2''R'',4''S'',7''S'',9''S'')-9-methyl-3-oxa-9-aza-tricyclo[<sup>2,4</sup>]non-7-yl ester

  • this does not find anything
  • this does not find anything
  • this finds it as result 3.

This is annoying. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the conjecture of meta character/meta text is correct, if you look at it. That means we have to escape to nowiki outside the iupac name and stick to plain "ascii text" for the name and escape back to wiki after that. Which gives kind of awkward iupac, which is not very well readable. So to say a machine readable and searchable version. (assuming the search engine searches the wiki text. I would guess the indexing algorithm parses the text down to identifiers and number strings. The same for the search string. I would also guess that the search engine is not overly well suited for that. Maybe we can as an experiment convert one drug box to plain ascii string. The previous examples where it worked hat no bells and whistles like that, right? Maybe it does a conversion on the rendered text as diplayed, to text format before searching, and does something unexpected? The whole search seems to be immature. Lets try the nowiki idea, and then without bells and whistles. (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC) (talk) 16:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I guess it works in the simple cases, where the rendered text, converted to text string, is identical with the text string he is using for indexing. If so, worth an experiment with nowiki. (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

why did you remove my links to shootingincornwall??

It deserves to be there as much as the next! Waynemoussalli (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

why?. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for all the information and i apreciate your comments but, it is a place to clay pigeon shoot. Please tell me why

Running Hill Clay Pigeon Club Manchester Clay Pigeon Shooting Club

have any more reason to be there then shootingincornwall?? Waynemoussalli (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, well, that is why I linked here. I had a look, and removed 2 other ones. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply Dirk, i hope you can understand that having seen the other external links i assumed this was allowed. Thank you for your time messageing to explain.Waynemoussalli (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. While you are here, the article has a tag saying that it has a UK-view, not a worldwide view. Would you be able to help 'solve' that problem? Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Any consequences for iupac writing style guidelines

Given the apparent problems with iupac searches, what is the way to proceed, such that the "huge chembox" problem is solved (which occurs not as rarely as we would hope) and the hope for a working solution for iupac search materializes? Do you find my conjectures about meta-crap confirmed? How to proceed? (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

We have to get to a permanent solution, with using the IUPAC names as 'correct as possible'. We might need some ideas on how to proceed. IUPACNames are not the biggest problem, if they have to break, OK, but preferably not. SMILES and InChI, which suffer from the exact same problem, should for sure not be broken. I don't think it is a good plan to start breaking IUPACNames while we have the same problem with InChI and SMILES. I'll discuss it in the channel with some people. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Smiles and InChI, yes they have the same, but last time I looked they were displayed with a horizontal scroll bar in FF2.x. There is no hope with them I guess except using the scrollbar. Pooh, this is a long and difficult discussion about a browser incompatibily, but at least you have seen the problems now in some depth, due to experiments and discussion. (talk) 10:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

No, the problem is worse. If the SMILES or the InChI (chances on the latter are smaller) do not contain characters which are recognised as a 'separator' (which includes a dash, and some combinations of brackets), then on the new version of Opera (and prob also on Firefox), the display of the SMILES results in widening of the box. I have not found an occasion where it leads to a screen wide box, but I saw a widening to 1/3 of the screen (as opposed to normally about 10-15% of the screen on my widescreen laptop). Let me have a look around in the boxes, I'll come back to this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
PETN is one. The SMILES widens the box, does not get hyphenated, even while there are dashes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed in FF2.x (talk) 11:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Strangely, HMX gives me a horizontal scroll bar on the SMILES. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed on FF2.x. And gives a horizontal scrollbar on Iupac. Probably changes, if you edit it (just touching it). Probably cache coherency with the old version of the chem box, where some cell parameter was "auto" (talk) 11:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I indeed thought I deleted that part of the code .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But that has not yet trickled down through all levels of storage and caching. (talk) 11:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I will ignore the scroll-bar problem. We need a way to FORCE breaking the string, just like notepad (on Windows) does when you write a string of hundreds of the same character .. just wrap somewhere, even if it is in a stupid way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

There is a character "zero width space" = 200, which doesn't display, but allows to wrap like a space. I think it doesn't get copied if you do a "copy" of the string, as it is non-displaying in the rendered text. But it has the problem that it becomes displaying as a grey block, if the browser is not handling/is not set to "unicode" (talk) 11:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that is display. InChI and SMILES are codes, breaking them somewhere is like breaking the molecule .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I want to force the width to be maximal so many characters, and that the text wraps (not even hyphenates!). Should be possible to force that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes the 200-character does that and is invisible. But only if browser set to unicode. (talk) 12:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

But maybe the indexing algorithm gets disrupted by "strange" characters. Agree. (talk) 12:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Glyceric acid

Hi Dirk. Would you mind taking a look at glyceric acid? I just created this article and noticed that the chembox reference isn't working properly. In the references section, it shows "IUPAC name" rather than "Merck Index". -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no clue, when I load the page I indeed see a link "IUPAC Name", but in edit mode, or after a purge, the title is correct. And that after that much time. Curious, but I guess it has to do with some kind of server lag. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I tried refreshing and purging, but it didn't do anything when I tried. Seems to be working fine now for me, though, too. Thanks for taking a look. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Itex

Ambox warning pn.svg

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


Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

No clue why I get this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:33, 3 February 2009 (UTC)