User talk:Beetstra/Archive 5

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL

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

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

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

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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

Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert

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

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

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

Archives


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


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

re: Rob Dickinson

Thanks for the note. I, of course, respectfully disagree with your dismissal of my edits.

The four interviews (from four different sources) I linked to fit within this guideline: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."

Each one of the interviews I linked to provides a wealth of personal insight and information about the subject - often in the subject's own words. This is relevant, meaningful, original content that cannot simply be appropriated for the main document. (Some topics covered the demise of his previous band, his life philosophies, how he has spent the last five years, and other similarly informative topics.)

In encourage you to independently review these interview links to see for yourself the quality and depth of the content.

I also updated the "categories" section, again, within entirely appropriate (read: relevant) parameters.

Thank you, Dirk, for your time and consideration.

Andwhatsnext 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Has been answered on talkpage of user --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Americium(II) oxide

Hi Dirk. Could you delete this article, since it should be Am(IV). I moved the page to Americium dioxide, which is what everyone calls it. Ta. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brichcja (talkcontribs) 23:20, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Sorry, forgot to sign it. Chris 23:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't, you need an admin for that. I guess a {{deletebecause}} will do the trick. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thought you were... Chris 23:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

PrinterSetup Page

It seems the Wikipedia article for PrinterSetup was deleted. If you feel that this is advertising that is fine. However, the page was setup with the intention of providing informative information for systems administrators rather than commercial advertising.

We will respect your wishes to not add the links to the software hosted for download on our site if you believe that such links are not appropriate. However, these links were added to the article because they were perceived to be relevant and useful for wikipedia readers. The link means that the reader will not be required to perform a search for the software.

PrinterSetup is not for sale. PrinterSetup is free. PrinterSetup is open-source (GNU GPL v2) software and is useful for systems administrators and people who are interested in automatic print queue creation software.

The article was originally written to provide information on setting up printers. With the hope that there would be feed back on the product, and alternative products along with methods for setting up printers to be added to the page by wikipedia editors. We originally developed PrinterSetup because nothing like it existed. We added the page to Wikipedia so that there would be non-biased information about the software available to the world. It would be great to have a complete list of System Administration tools on Wikipedia with notes and feed back about the benefits and disadvantages of these tools.

If you still believe that the PrinterSetup article is inappropriate please let us know. Our contact information from available from our site : http://lucidsystems.org. We would like to understand why this content is not appropriate, because if it is inappropriate we probably do not understanding the Wikipedia philosophy. Lucid would like to provide Wikipedia with useful content. Other open-source software tools are listed on wikipedia such as Inkscape Snort_(software). We are suppressed that PrinterSetup is not able to be included as well. We like Wikipedia so much we are simply attempting to bring something back to the wikipedia community.

Perhaps the idea for the page made sense but you found the content provided was not appropriate? If this is the case, would you please provide some tips on how to improve the page. Or simply make the appropriate modifications. Rather than deleting the page.

If you have changed your mind and believe that the information regarding the setup and management of printer queue is appropriate, would you please re-establish the PrinterSetup page, or provide the go-ahead for us to recreate the page.

Your consideration on this page is appreciated, by us and also many unix systems administrators.

We look forward to supporting the Wikipedia project. However, we do not understand why linking to external websites is such a problem.

Looking forward to some feedback or seeing the page reestablished.

All the best from the Lucid Team.

-- Lucid Information Systems http://lucidsystems.org—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.250.84 (talkcontribs)

Answer in next section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Storage service provider

Hello,

Regarding the wikipedia article : Storage service provider

We are not affiliated with the companies which we setup external links to on the Storage service provider wikipedia page. In fact those links were to competitors in this market. We added them to the page to make the page as unbiassed as possible. We believe that since we added the Storage service provider article to wikipedia, it grew to be a list of storage service providers with links to websites and today, it is turning into an informative page for people interested in this topic thanks to the help of people like you.

There is still content on this page, that we submitted on the original page. It is great to see that page develop. However, we are concerned that editors feel we are adding links to get page ranking in search engines. I imagine there are better ways to do this, particularly as many editors have stated that follow for spiders is disabled on wikipedia.

Please understand that we simply did our best to write a unbiased article. Perhaps if it had been on farming soya beans, we would have included links to companies like monsanto. In this case the page was written from our experience and contained a link to our site for both information references and as a provider of information storage solutions. The link is not for our benefit, but rather for Wikipedia readers who would like more information about either our services, or some of the general white papers which have general information on information storage technology.

Our intention is not advertising. It is to setup freely available information with unbiased information. We believe that this is the job of being an editor on wikipedia. We thank you for your hard work making wikipedia what it is today. However, external links to websites should not be seen as advertising if they are in an objective context.

Please let us know if it is still a problem to post links or references in articles which refer back to our site.

All the best. From the Lucid team.

-- Lucid Information Systems http://www.lucidsystems.org—Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.250.84 (talkcontribs)

I assume you are referring to the additions by Lucidsystems (talk · contribs), though I see this IP has a similar addition pattern.
First, the article printersetup was written as an advertisement, not in a neutral way. The article might be appropriate when written according to the WP:MOS, although I might still contest if it is notable enough to be mentioned in the wikipedia. Please see the WP:NOTABILITY guidelines.
Second, the majority of edits was the addition of an external link. You were, repeatedly, pointed to WP:NOT, WP:EL and WP:SPAM, I invite you to read the guidelines there. If you believe that the link is of value to the article, please discuss addition on the talkpage first.
Please understand that wikipedia is not a linkfarm, it is not the yellow pages, and it is not a vehicle for promotion of products. We are writing an encyclopedia here. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


I encourage you to look at what PrinterSetup is doing. It simply makes print queues. It is free software.

It would be great if there was a unbiassed Wikipeida page with information regarding system administration utilities.

Please understand there were never any intentions to use Wikipedia to generate interest in PrinterSetup. The external links were appropriately placed to the official site of the software tool.

We have been suppressed at how many people are using PrinterSetup. The tool was developed with a client, and was released for the benefit of the systems administration community. Again we would like to reiterate that the Wikipedia page was not setup to gain higher search engine ranking, as you have suggested.

Other than the external links (which we still believe were completely appropriate) are there any other reasons for the deletion of this page?
The only other foreseeable reasons for the page deletion is that PrinterSetup is not large notable enough, or that it was deleted because the page was started by the institute who developed the project. In either case, we have decided to never re-build this Wikipedia page. Instead we will wait for someone else to build this page.

Again thank you for your editing of Wikipedia. You are doing a great job.
All the best, from the Lucid team. Sunday, 4 March 2007

--
Lucid Information Systems
http://lucidsystems.org

hotz

Hello Dirk, I just got a message saying you deleted a link I added to the Canadian comedian Jeremy Hotz. I'm wondering if this was in error. The link I added was an interview I conducted with Hotz. I found this on the Wikipedia instruction page about what to link: "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews." Since it's an interview (and one I conducted myself), shouldn't it be put back up? Thanks, Guy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmacp (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your question. You were adding links in a mass-way, which is considered spamming. Also the links do not comply with WP:EL. If you think the links do add valuable information to the article, please request addition on the talkpage, or add contents to the article and use the interviews as a reference. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

interviews

Hi again, Dirk, I got one message from you regarding an interview I linked to the Jeremy Hotz page. Since then, I've noticed that several other interview links I've added have been removed, while others haven't. This is confusing. The reason I am adding my interviews (which can be found en masse at http://comedycouch.com/interviews.htm) is because I noticed that some of them have already been added, and not by me. I cover comedy for a living in Vancouver, Canada, and I believe these transcripted interviews are extremely valuable to any serious fan of comedy. So I was in the process of adding links to the individual pages when I noticed that they were being taken down almost as fast as I was putting them up. And many of these pages have other interviews linked. I'll put my interviews up against anybody's for shere information and entertainment value. Many of the other linked interviews are quite lightweight and superficial, yet they remain. Curious. Could you please elucidate? Thanks again, Guy MacPherson guymacpherson@yahoo.ca —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmacp (talkcontribs) 10:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

As was said in my warning to you, and in my above post, you were spamming the interviews. I also have noticed other interviews there, but that does not mean a) that others should be added, especially not en mass, and b) maybe the other links should also be removed, or converted to citations (care to join?). Wikipedia is, as I also mentioned above a linkfarm. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

129.44.190.102 link spam

You *just* beat me to reporting our anonymous link spamming friend to AIV (I had an edit conflict with you!). Good work and nice teamwork! --ElKevbo 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
Awarded for helping us find and remove link spam. ElKevbo 16:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I congratulated us too soon. He or she has registered as Ekalden and may be continuing spamming. :( --ElKevbo 16:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the Barnstar! Seeing the feed is sometimes depressing, and this just makes my day! Thanks again! And I will keep an eye on him. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Magister Musicae

Hello Dirk, I´m new at the Wikipedia community but reading the wikipedia policies I don`t understand so good why you have removed all my external links sections from the pages I created. Magister Musicae host videos with master classes from the professor and it adds information to the article; People will not only be able to read about his biography, but also to watch his teachings through the videos in the link. Moreover there is a link for see the page Magister Musicae in English. I would like to know if its possible that you put back my external links if I put the English url of Magister Musicae. Thank you for your attention. --Cada2 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Answered on user talk:Cada2. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello Dirk, I'm sorry I don't understad you so good, in orther to this problem with my links I think it was solved you tell me the way for including this and I think I'm doing well. What is the problem now, I think the link are relevant for the articles. I'm sorry so much I don't want to disturb.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cada2 (talkcontribs)

The way you are adding is spam/canvassing. Sorry. Please read the relevant policies/guidelines: WP:NOT, WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam response follow up

I received your follow up and I'm not spamming. I'm simply providing an External Link under the existing External Link header that provides more information regarding the work and background of Jimmy Palmiotti and another one for John Romita Sr. There are more than one external links for other interviews with Jimmy on other programs. Thanks for your feedback on this. HeroJoe

Answered on User talk:HeroJoe. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

last try

Hi again, Dirk, In your response to me, you wrote that you also have noticed other interviews "but that does not mean a) that others should be added, especially not en mass, and b) maybe the other links should also be removed".

Wikipedia defines spam as "posting advertisements or useless posts on a forum". It's not simply the fact of doing several entries in one sitting. Obviously you have to be wary of anything that looks like it might be spam, but when faced with evidence to the contrary, you should see your mistake. Since my interviews have no (zero) advertising, and no one gets paid for any hit, it doesn't fall under the "posting advertisements" heading.

Are they useless? That's subjective, but one thing you have yet to respond to (either to me or others on your page) is how you reconcile removing the interviews when your very own guidelines for external links says interviews should be included. I'd like to hear your answer to this. And not just the fact that Wikipedia isn't a link farm, because that's not consistent with the guidelines which says interviews are not only fine, but "should" be included.

In another message to me, you wrote that it looked like the links were promotional. How can I respond to this other than to say that wasn't the intent; I just happened to have conducted the interviews. Since I noticed three of my interviews linked by someone else, should I infer that only third parties can add external links? Guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmacp (talkcontribs) 18:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

  • Re definition. WP:SPAM says "There are four types of wikispam: advertisements masquerading as articles, wide-scale external link spamming, bandspam (tangential references instead of disambiguation which promote some entity) and "Wikipedian-on-Wikipedian" spamming or, "canvassing" (also known as "internal spamming" and "cross-posting"). ", and I define this as 'wide scale external link spamming'. I don't see where I make a mistake when an editor is only adding external links and no content.
  • Re link farm. Why yours, and not a number of other interviews. In other words, if we allow yours, we should allow many others as well. As such, we either make the choice of not being a linkfarm, and hence not including them, or we are biased towards one. The section about what should be linked comes way after the introduction of WP:EL, which describes the alternatives.
  • Re extra information. If these interviews are indeed giving extra information, then why not use them as a reference (reading WP:EL from top to bottom: "If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first. Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources. This guideline refers to external links other than citations."
Hope this clarifies further. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

most precious blood/theory of a deadman

dirk.... okay... so, i'm very new to this wikipedia thing. as a journalist, wikipedia is my first source of information when i am researching a subject/band that i am interviewing... so, as a courtesy, i was returning the favor and posting links to articles on my site so others may have the same availability to information and outside sources. i'm not doing it for promotion. (believe me, i'm already well-known as a journalist, as is my site.) i don't have a staff or assistants or interns or even children to help me with postings, so therefore, I do these things myself. In fact, I am the entire office staff of crushermagazine.com so tell me, do you not consider these links viable external information if they are interviews with and/or are relevant to the subject within the last two years? please advise. editatrix—Preceding unsigned comment added by Editatrix (talkcontribs)

Similar to the answer above this one. Please read WP:EL, consider adding content to the articles and use the interviews on the site as a reference. The way you were adding them now is spam, and you do have a conflict of interest here. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
yes, well, i see your point with the gentleman above, as he was posting only his own articles...i was posting links to articles on my site which were not only conducted by myself, but also my freelance writers. why don't i include them in the body of the articles and cite them as references? basically because i don't have the time, dirk. i run a full-time online music magazine over here where i do all the editing, photo editing, and html coding, plus i'm a single mom...just not enough hours in the day, my friend. would you suggest posting the links in the talk section of each page and making them available for others to use as reference material??? that could possibly be a solution if i one day find time for it. some of these interviews that my writers do are really quite good and very informative, as is evidenced by the fact that some have already been cited as references on some of your pages already [i.e., thornley (band)]...in any case, since my time is very limited, this will likely be a project for another day, entirely. i regret that i can't spend hours upon hours dithering here over your content and style concepts as they are interpreted by each new online editor such as yourself (not to insult you, just saying each person's perception is different) and since all here is carved in sand and not stone, i must bow out of the wikipedia community until such a day when i have the time to properly devote to it.
Editatrix 21:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
So, what you basically say, is that we should allow you to spam your links to 20 articles in 1 hour and 45 minutes (I presume the 21st link was in another session), because you don't have time to actually contribute actual content to one article...
I am not saying that the links could not be appropriate, they may be. But the way you were adding them is WP:SPAM (under the wikipedia definition). WP:EL clearly gives the alternatives that you could follow, especially since you have a conflict of interest here.
Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Stopped

I thought I was doing good. I have stopped. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikeszyszka (talkcontribs) 21:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC).

I have answered on user talk:Mikeszyszka. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

content

You say instead of posting the interview, I should consider adding the relevant information to the article and citing the interview as a reference. All well and good for those with time. I write for a living and have a family and don't have time to write and edit articles for free. As a journalist, I love seeing as many outside sources as possible when researching a subject. Links, so far as they're not spam in the conventional sense but rather worthwhile, are valuable to me and I appreciate coming on to Wikipedia and not only reading the original article, but accessing other sources. So my aim in adding links to my interviews was only as a help to others. I enjoy reading the other interviews linked on Wikipedia and thought mine might be of use, too, to someone. Guy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gmacp (talkcontribs) 00:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

So because you don't have time to add content to the wikipedia, we have to allow you to spam. I am sorry. As many outside sources as possible is not possible, per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
I do understand your point, but the thing you are now wanting is not something that has to do with me removing your external links, but something that would need a change of wikipedia policy. Until then, see these pillars, policies, and guidelines. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

titanium isoproxide

Hello, thanks for all your great work and contributions. I really enjoy your user page. I was wondering: could Titanium isopropoxide Ti{OCH(CH3)2}4 be used to add amine groups in reductive animation of methylenedioxyphenylacetone? Current routes use HgCl2 and methylamine. What do you think? Much obliged!

Microswitch 22:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the compliments. Re the reaction. I am afraid I have no clue. I guess you would have to consult some literature for that. Sorry. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Bobobo Images

Why don't you upload the images or get someone to do it. But if you don't like Bobobo, just stay away from the Bobobo articles. Kid Sonic

Thank you for your remark. I hope you have read WP:MOS and WP:EL. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, although I could technically upload the images, I do not have the proper copyright info, which is a bit of a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • From who? The site or the company? Kid Sonic
I think you could have look at the pictures on the picture-sites (imageshack, cemzoo.com, webcindario.com and the company), if they have proper copyright info, and you are allowed to use them according to that, you download the picture from the site, and use wikipedia's upload function to upload the file to wikipedia. Then you can use the picture in the pages. I really believe that would make these wikipedia pages more attractive (a picture says more than a thousand words, they say), it would explain the the pages more (you can read the wikipage while looking at the picture, so you can describe it better), and it would not violate WP:MOS and WP:EL, don't you think? Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, you could have a look at the wikipedia pages about sonic, they have pictures, if you click the picture you might see how they got hold of the pictures, and you could do the same. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop touching the Bobobo articles! This is the second time now! Unless you're a reasonable fan, stay away! Kid Sonic

Link removal Layla (and other EC songs)

Hi,

I don't get it: The link to the page with the (100% copyrighted) lyrics persists, the link to the really lame review (there are so many excellent reviews on the net) is still there, but the link to my guitar page with a lot of information and facts about the song, the album and the music behind is removed immediately. Why? It's not spam, contained a lot of the Wikipedia information even before Wikipedia was born, and was once a credited source... same with my other removed links (Beano etc.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.13.83.49 (talk) 10:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Please read WP:SPAM, you were only adding links not content (which is spamming under the wikipedia definition). If your site contains information, why not add content and use it as a reference (see also WP:RS & WP:A). If you think the other sites do not comply with WP:EL, please note that there is only so much that we can do, maybe you could consider to join us, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
By the way, you might want to have a look at WP:COI as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've signed in now. So if I add content, i.e. about the musical stucture, I can add the link to more on my site? It would be stupid to paste it all...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12barde (talkcontribs)

If you add relevant content, and you get that information from an interview, then a link to that interview (using the references as described in WP:CITE) would be OK (I assume it is a reliable source, and it is verifyable). Still, you have a conflict of interest, I would take care not to write because you want to include your links, WP:A says something about linking to your 'own' articles. Hope this helps, and ... welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've read about external links, copyrights, attribution and linking to myself, articles with URL's that are not linked (so you have to copy and paste), there's on one question left: how do I delete my Wikipedia account?

A link is the most important thing in the world wide web. If everyone links to WP and WP doesn't link back, we'll all end up here. According to "What should be linked", point 3. "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." my site seems to be OK (amount of detail) for a link, but I have to ask others to do this. The Layla article cites a lot of personal websites as source, which are "no reliable source" according to WP's own attribution rules. No one cares. The two links at the bottom? One containing copyrighted lyrics (I have removed from my site), the other a mediocre review. No one cares. But a link to the musical background of the album is removed, because I submitted it myself.

Take a look at the "Layla and Other Assorted Love Songs" article. There is even no source cited in the whole article! Two external links - a fanzine and a personal review (without any name/contact information/disclaimer), not to the artists home page according to the WP's own rules.

I understand that WP has to fight against spamming and misuse. No question. But an article about Layla in the world wide web should contain a link to a prominent site with more details about the music itself. Otherwise WP should in general disallow any external links.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12barde (talkcontribs)

Please take care not to remove content from talkpages of other people when you edit. And there is no policy or guideline against you improving the pages by adding relevant content and relevant references, addition of only external links is mentioned in the policies and guidelines. Hope this helps. You don't have to remove your account, if you don't need it anymore you can just stop using it. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:01, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

a) Sorry if I did, but I used the edit button of this topic. I don't know why the other content disappeared, it was not my intention. In my Textbox there was only the article. If there is another way of responding than using the edit button, I didn't find it. I apologize. I didn't find any other way to contact you (email, PM...).

b) As long as the points mentioned above exist, I don't add content. The rules should apply to every article. External links should be banned completely if not used for a citation source. All articles should have all sources listed. Strictly. Otherwise WP will have endless discussions like this...

c) I want my account deleted. This must be possible. How?

d) Thanks for taking the time. This is not meant personal.

No worries. As you explain you did it correct, must have been a glitch, and everything is recorded anyway, so nothing is lost.
I am not sure if an account can be deleted, the MySQL database has edits linked to that account, so you would have to ask that at the help desk
These points will keep on existing. The policies are, in my opinion quite clear, there are just not enough people to get things up to policy level.
You are welcome, and I wanted to thank you discussing this with me. Still I hope to see you around helping us making a better encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Oops, I see you use an IP-number, that is not strictly an account. That makes the account deleting different, but still, I think you should ask at the help desk, I for sure cannot help you with that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Moving Pictures Magazine

Just for the record, The external links I added to filmmakers and actors are not spam. Moving pictures Magazine is interested in disccussing the work of these artists on a purely artistic bases, these interviews were conducted completely with a non-profit agenda. I do not understand why this desition was made when so links to other interviews at other sites were already listed in the external links of these pages.

MovingPicturesMag

The link-addition is spam under the wikipedia definition, see WP:SPAM and WP:EL. Moreover, you seem to have a WP:COI. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Krypton compounds

Krypton difluoride is often cited as an example of a krypton compound, I will see if I can find the original reference (and see if I believe it!). Physchim62 (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

inorg reports a crystal structure of α-KrX2. Credible source (peer reviewed, ACS), wR2 of 5.34, seems like a proper synthesis. The question now is, the wikipedia article says highest oxidation state 4 .. this is oxidation state 2. So I guess we do have krypton compounds, but now for the highest oxidation state. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam

I notice that a goodly number of questions here are answered the same way: "So sorry, it's spam. Them's the rules." It's like the cop who doesn't understand the "spirit of the law" when handing out a ticket to someone who ran a red light at 4 in the morning with no other traffic on the streets. Technically, yes, it's illegal. But the spirit of the law is to maintain traffic flow in order to avoid accidents. Or the Nazi soldier who claims he was just following orders. The spirit of the "no spam" rule is to avoid real and pernicious spam that does nothing to add to enriching anything but the pocketbooks of the senders. To simply look at the time it takes to add links and conclude it is therefore spam is simpleminded at best. So if I were to add one link per day or per week, that would be better? Gmacp—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmacp (talkcontribs)

Why do you insist to have your link in the external link section, is it really so much more difficult to add content? External links do not enrich the encyclopedia, content does. Whether you only spam once a week, or spam 20 times in 30 minutes does of course not make a difference, the account is only used for external link spamming (and will be shown as such in the spam-feed, except if we decide to whitelist the account). And do you really believe that a police officer would say 'ah, you have a fancy car, do your 120 kilometers an hour in the city, the faster you are through it the less traffic there is in the city?' Come on. If you have problems with your link-addition being described as spam, please discuss your issues at the talkpages of WP:SPAM or WP:WPSPAM. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't insist. Now it's just a matter of the policy and enforcement that boggles my mind. Yes, it's so much more difficult to add "content". I know because from each of these interviews I write stories that run in various newspapers here. I get paid for my efforts. It takes time to read, then extract relevant passages and put into your own words. It takes little effort to add a link. You say "external links do not enrich the encyclopedia, content does". As a user of said "encyclopedia", I can tell you for a fact that external links other than mine do indeed enrich the encyclopedia. To read someone's take on what someone else says is never as useful as hearing it from the horse's mouth in context. I've been around reporting long enough to have witnessed firsthand quotes used out of context by unsxcrupulous or incompetent reporters. So I'm not insisting anything, Dirk. I just think it's a misguided policy. All the more so if all the editors aren't on the same page and it's inconsistent. I don't get your police analogy at all. Speeding through a city would be analogous to "real" spam (that everyone -- not just the editors of Wikipedia) constitutes as spam: dangerous, pernicious, unhelpful to all. My example of proceeding through a red light in the middle of the night with no traffic around is analogous to "spam" as you see it, which is benign, even helpful. Examples of my links and others in your talk session here. Maybe it's a language thing. Maybe it's different in Dutch, I don't know. Oh, and I tried to discuss my issue in the talkpages but haven't heard back. Or maybe I did it wrong. Gmacp 03:13, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some guidelines and policies which give some rules to improve the wikipedia. Although we are writing an online wikipedia, which is not the same as a paper encyclopedia, the efforts are there to actually bring this onto CD/into print (for people without internet, or with slow internet), which would render the external links useless (and propably information that could have been incorporated is missing, because it relied on external links). Hence the policies and guidelines in question here (parts of WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and in lesser extend WP:A, WP:RS), they are all pointing towards incorporating information, not to linking information. I am sorry, I am not going to discuss whether the WP:SPAM guideline is misguided here, but I am very willing to discuss that, with others involved in the writing of these policies, at the talkpage of WP:SPAM.
What I meant with my speeding analogy, it is wrong, whatever car you have. There are only very few cases where a judge would be lenient to a case of speeding in a city (or driving through a red light, a good cop would not allow that, even when streets are totally empty; in the Netherlands the traffic cameras on certain crossroads do not turn off when it is dark). Certain rules don't bend, and I think that WP:SPAM should not bend because a link is not promotional (which in a way I still would contest, you are involved in the target of the link). Many, many links are questionable under WP:EL anyway (and some pages get cleaned drastically); I have already mentioned that it states early in WP:EL that external links should be considered to be used as a reference first. In all cases, if your link is adding information, and you believe that your link should be in the external links section on a page, WP:EL does give you another alternative: discuss the linkaddition on the talkpage of the page you want the link added to, and when consensus is reached, the link can be added. That does result in the link being in the external links sections, with consensus, and it not being added in a mass way.
These discussions are all over the talkpages of the people watching the link-addition feeds or page-change feeds and bots like user:shadowbot. Is that barnstar still there?
I saw your addition to the new-users helppage. I don't know if it is the right place, it is more a place for questions like 'how do I make a table', or 'how do I insert an external link' (not, 'am I allowed'). I will not be answering there, seen I do have a conflict of interest in that discussion now (I will also not be the first to answer to queries if you decide to post on talkpages of WP:SPAM, WP:EL or the similar); I wanted others to give their view.
See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I see there are answers on the help-page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

AWB Bug: Strange conversion of newline in advanced find/replace - Fixed

Hi, Just a quick message to let you know, i've fixed the bug in SVN Rev 660. Should be in the 3.1.3.0 release due very soon =) Reedy Boy 23:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Great! Thanks! Hope this solves all my problems with converting the old file. I'll download soon! Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathie

Alarm! Moet je eens kijken op de nederlandse wiki over nl:homeopathie! Daar moet snel wat aan gebeuren; weet jij hoe je een pagina aanmerkt als "wiki-onwaardig" of iets dergelijks ? Sikkema 00:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

(Answer in English)I am not sure what you mean. If you think certain things are disputed, I guess the best thing to do is create a section in the talk where you summarise the disputed points and add a {{disputed}} tag (well, the Dutch version of that). The subject and the contents seem, at first glance, fine to me. Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The European Library

Dear Beetstra,

You removed external links I added to the pages of Rembrandt and Plato. These links refer to The European Library - gateway to European national library resources. People can use this library gateway to search for more (digital and non-digital ) information on Rembrandt and Plato. I don't want to nag and I am really sorry for asking, but why do you remove links to huge libraries? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fleurstigter (talkcontribs) 16:23, 3 March 2007 (UTC).

I have answered you in a personal email. But I will also write my points here.
  1. You were adding the links to a number of pages (and you were only adding links). That is, under the wikipedia definition, spamming (it does not matter whether or not the links are appropriate).
  2. The links are not specific to information on Rembrandt, Plato, but were to the homepage of the organisation. If we would allow that, then every library that has a book on Rembrandt or Plato could put their link in the external links section (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY - wikipedia is not a list of external links). Moreover, one could then also consider to add a link to all search engines, which can also be used to find more information on Rembrandt or Plato.
  3. The site europeanlibrary.org is only accessible with Internet Explorer (6.0+), Firefox or Mozilla/Netscape (on windows, other operating systems have even lower access). In other words, all the users that do not have availability over these browsers would not be able to read the contents (see WP:EL, links to avoid, #7). I am using Opera, and after accessing the site the only way to get back to wikipedia was by closing the window and opening a fresh one to go to wikipedia (the back-button did not work).
  4. Per WP:EL, the information can be incorporated, and it is better to use specific information as a reference (again under policy WP:NOT#REPOSITORY).
  5. Since I have seen your emailaddress and signature I have to point you to WP:COI.
Some of the pages I now encountered should be cleaned anyway, a {{dmoz}} would be good to replace a large number of links (see again WP:EL). I have stated in my edit summary on the pages the reason why I have removed the library homepage from a number of wikipedia pages. Links to specific information on the librarysite have not been deleted, though these should all get a remark that the information is not accessible for all browsers. I hope this clarifies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your reaction. I agree with you that it's very unfortunate that Safari and Opera are currently not supported as they do not support XSLT. The current choice of client side architecture, rather than server side, may make supporting these browsers unlikely at present, but ...The European Library is working on it! Thanks again - I will certainly keep your remarks in mind!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talkcontribs)

I am sure, that when the technological problems are out of the way, the material on the site will serve as very good online (and hence, accessible) reference material. May I, for a next time, ask you to sign your posts? Thank you, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dirk, What about the links that are created by OCLC/Worldcat (since today) and Project Gutenberg??? Fleurstigter 18:34, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That other people are spamming is not a reason for you to do the same, sorry. Could you give me some examples? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Expand: You have a conflict of interest. That may also be true for the other sites, but for that I need examples to see. I am sorry, you are redlisted at the moment. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at any wikipage to find a link by these huge organisations! You can't say no to one, and ok to the other! Certainly not when it concerns a cultural (public!) institution.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleurstigter (talkcontribs)

I am not saying no to your site, I am saying no to the way you (with a conflict of interest!) are adding them (spam, and I may say no to the others as well, depending on how they are added, and how they are used. Please give me the url's or the pages that the other links are added to, then we can decide on the others as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Protein images

Good job. It shows a daunting amount of work needs to be done! Thank you. TimVickers 17:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I indeed was quite shocked to see the sheer size of that category. I hope it helps. I think the categories need some adidtional inheritence of categories, they should also be subcats of the MCB-project-cats, you know anything about that? Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You Removing Sailing links from Whitsundays Pages

Sailing is THE mainstay industry in the Whitsunday Islands....yet you feel you should remove links that take people to what they want to see in the Whitsunday Islands.

It seems to me that rather than Wiki being informative and useful to people on the subject of the Whitsunday Islands the moderator for those pages is blindly denying Wiki users the very information they are interested in when looking up the subject of the Whitsunday Islands.

In addition to that I noted when first coming to Wiki numerous private tourism businesses listed, obviously as you are the moderator for this section you allowed those links to stay...yet you delete other links giving information that people can compare.

Do you think you are being fair? and more importantly by deleting the links to sailing boats you are denying information that most people are looking for.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.120.230 (talkcontribs)

Besides the question if these links are appropriate on the pages (are they symmetrical to the page, are they providing information, are they non-commercial, etc.; see WP:EL), the fact remains that you were spamming (under the wikipedia definition) these links to the pages. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. You are of course free to add relevant content to the pages. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links

Dirk, it seems you have removed some of my external links, namely for Catalina Ponor and Nutripathy. I'm afraid I can't see why these links were removed. They contribute valid information to the pages in question, and are just as legitimate as some of the other external links. For example, my addition to Nutripathy was my page on the alkaline diet, which provides detailed information on the subject; much more detailed information than is currently on the page, plus further links with more info. Why is this not a legitimate link? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.164.55.34 (talk) 09:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

The question is not only if it is a valid link (per WP:EL), you were, under the wikipedia definition, spamming links to multiple articles. Also, please read WP:NOT#REPOSITORY (and other sections in that article).
Do I read your question right, you mean that Nutripathy is a page that you maintain? If that is the case, please read WP:COI as well.
If the links are valid links, please consider using them as a reference and add content to the pages. It is difficult for us to see how the other links were added (I noticed this addition, but at an addition rate of 5.417 links per minute we can't clean all; and the other links may not have been spammed). All this is not a reason to add more, the others may have to be cleaned as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:23, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Marking

Dirk,

You have marked a page and requested edits to Wikify. I have made a number of edits and the page parallels that of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashrae in form (which is not Wikified). What are you seeing that I am missing?

dreindl—Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreindl (talkcontribs)

Ah, this took some time to see. I saw your article specific because you were adding external links in the article; I am monitoring link additions when I have time.
What I meant is that the text in Industrial Refrigeration Consortium (IRC) is plain text, not having wikilinks (the blue links in the text) to other articles within wikipedia (see the manual of style for how to make wikilinks). The other article has some more links to other wikipedia articles, but could use some more as well. 'Inline' external links should preferably be references. See the citation guideline, reliable sources, verifyability), and the external links section should be conform the external links guideline and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.
I have done some edits to the first section, where I think the links are appropriate (there may be more possible, but don't overdo it, one link per section to a certain page is enough, but do link the key-words; on IRC refrigeration has to be a link, just as the link to the university). I added a {{cn}} after the mission statement, it would be great if you could replace that with a reference to the mission-statement document on the IRC-site.
Thanks for your inquiry, and if you have further questions, please ask. Hope this helps, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:38, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Recipe links

Why not remove just the offending link(s)? It seems that great many people come to food articles from Google and other search engines, where respective WP entry is usually first or at least in top 10 - and they are usually not looking for Wikipedia article, but for recipes. It is a common practice to have few recipe links in food articles. Of course, link farming is a totally different issue and such links should always be removed - but good links to food sites (esp. ad-free sites, such as BBC Recipes) should be there, in my opinion. In case of BBC, they usually have also a very good review of the "foodstuff" in question. That said, I am not going to put the links back there - but perhaps you should consider reinstating some of the "good" links (to noncommercial sites - see [2], [3], probably few others). In my opinion they are relevant, useful and needed. DLX 08:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I suspect that this issue is actually wider then just recipe links on Tortilla. I did some searching and found Wikipedia:Recipes_proposal, but it seems they failed to reach consensus. Some kind of general policy about recipes is definitely needed - as for the WP:EL, I think recipe links are covered by #2, #3 and especially #4 in WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink seems to be dead or as good as dead.
I generally don't like the idea of linking DMOZ pages to articles - other then 1st time checking, DMOZ links are rarely verified. As fluctuating as the net is, there can be lots of spam/ad links from dead sites in DMOZ - or just plain link farming, even that page from you has a movie reviews, several links of "tortilla flour" and "Mexican cookware" providers/manufacturers/sellers.
Like I said before, perhaps it is time to establish an official Wikipedia policy about linking recipes. Something along the lines - a link section "Recipes" is both allowed and recommended, but must contain a link to WikiBooks cookbook (if there exists a relevant recipe), optional link to DMOZ and no more then five links to relevant recipes in ad-free/non-commercial sites? Some kind of template would be useful, probably.
I hope you don't mind if I post my reply only here. Some Wikipedians like to get always a reply on their talk page as well, but I like to keep conversations in one place (edit: copied to your page as well now). DLX 15:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Undoing My Link

What you think is inappropiate I find to be very appropiate. I put that link on Jessie Daniels site because I play her songs. This station is non profit in the truest sense. It sells no products. It plays artists that are on the charts and ones I personally like. Jessie Daniels isn't on the charts anymore. Everytime I play one of her songs, it is logged and she gets paid a royalty. This does more for her than any fansite. The like is non descript. It doesn't use any marketing jargon. It doesn't have explanation points. So, if you still think it's inappropiate then you need to go and take off every fansite under every artist (many of them make money by the way). Also, you might want to consider taking off that interview on her site.

I dedicate my time and money to creating a place where people can hear artists like her. Someone thought that she was worth the time and money to interview her. Others thought she was worth it to make a fansite. Many christian artists and record labels use the concept of "Street teams". I am part of that. I spread the word by bringing people to the station, play their music and promote them. Radio is a part of every musicians life. Have you looked at her website? She is selling stuff. She is pushing her alblum. I am too. So, tell me how is it inappropiate? Tell the truth, face the facts of life. Don't jump to conclusions so quickly.

  • [http://www.anoradio.org/ Alpha And Omega Radio Network to hear them]

Above is the link if this makes any sense to you. Without Radio Most artists would starve. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anoradio (talkcontribs) 00:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

In the warnings you were already asked to read WP:EL and WP:SPAM, when you test your link and yourself against these two guidelines you see that you are in violation of them. Please note that not a linkfamr.
Seen your username and what you are linking, I also have to ask you WP:COI. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Iseo widget

Hi, I'm about Iseo_widget page.

What if I'll write an article about SEO tools for getting info. Like analitical article. And won't give privelegies to any one of this products?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Art.pugachev (talkcontribs)

Hello, thank you for your message. You could indeed try and write an article about that, as long as it is in a WP:NPOV-tone, preferably backed up by third-party reliable sources. Also have a look at the notability guidelines to assert whether the material you want to add is indeed notable enough. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, just to be sure, could you have a look at WP:COI (I don't know if that applies in this case)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

recipes

The editing guidelines don't allow recipes inside of articles. It is generally accepted they are allowed in links. At least, that's how I see it. Please point to the specific guideline banning links to recipes or I'm going to revert your unhelpful edits. Nardman1 20:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. The answer is simple. wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Moreover, one of the links got spammed heavily around wikipedia, whereupon these edits got reverted and I encountered large linkfarms of recipes. WP:NOT and WP:EL clearly state, that external link sections should be kept to a minimum, and there are in this case two alternatives available, both {{dmoz}} and {{cookbook}} could replace this on many pages (which, now I think of it, actually is 'incoporating the data into wikipedia' (well, a sister-project), so now suddenly the whole of WP:EL applies, and these links should not be there at all). Moreover, having these links there does invite more links to be added (as seen yesterday with the spammer), many of the links do rely on advertising, and without the links the articles could also reach featured article status. Again, thank you and hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Please justify why mexicanfood.about.com violates the guidelines. Nardman1 21:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I should have been a bit more clear. The one link that got spammed wás mexicanfood.about.com. Upon that I encountered many linkfarms, and I have cleaned a number of them. And I think I explained why these links violate WP:EL, the recipes can be incorporated in wikibooks, and hence, they do not need to be in external links sections. Off course it becomes another issue if they were used as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)