User talk:Beetstra/Archive 7

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

Wikipedia ads file info – show another – #160

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).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof. Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot. 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 - 17 - 18 - 19 - 20 - 21 - current 22 - 23 - 24 - 25 -

Blacklist

Please blacklist ebanusa\.org and ebinfoworld\.com per [2]. Thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

COIBot

Why is your report keep adding my name to those spam reports daily? and I haven't even added any external links to articles never mind spam them. Why does it do this? and what is the bots primary aim? Could I be whitelisted? The sunder king 10:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

One of COIBots tasks is to calculate overlap between username and pagename edited, or between username and links added. I fully understand that that does give some false positives (e.g. between your name and the pages Sunderland, which you have been editing lately). COIBot gives a ratio to that overlap (in this case it is 34.45%, which is not really high, but it reports everything above 25%), after which human editors can check these overlaps. I can assure you that such false overlaps will be ignored, and indeed such users should be whitelisted, and that is what I have done with your account (total whitelisting, COIBot will totally ignore all your edits now). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of links to www.newmedia.ufm.edu

Hello,

Last month, external links I and a colleague uploaded to some biographies like Milton Friedman's were remeoved because they were considered spam. I think this information should be added to the biography because it contains important lectures given by intelectuals in video and is accesible for everyone.

I reviewed the Spam policies and I think I understand there may be a conflict of interest, by I think we are in no way trying to spam, since this video service is offered by a University with the sole intention of expending knowledge and information, and not to publicize a website.

My question is if there is a way of linking some of these videos (the most relevant ones), to wikipedia, not as external links, but maybe as references or complementary information?

Thank you for your help,

Ivanmorales—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ivanmorales (talk • contribs).

I would suggest you start a discussion on the talkpages where the links may be of interest. Or otherwise, add content to the articles, where you use information in the videos as a reference. Still, be carefull to obey our conflict of interest guideline and our neutral point of view policy. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The Panda Band

As a contibutor to the above article would appreciate your feedback as to whether the articles on The Panda Band's album This Vital Chapter should be deleted - your feedback is important as to whether the item is retained or deleted. Dan arndt 09:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I only deleted a link added by someone who was spamming that link. I had a look, but since I don't know anything about the band, I think it is not my place to vote. Thanks for the remark, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of link on Strawbale construction

Hi,

Thanks for the message. The link I placed in the article, I think, is valid. http://naturalhomes.org/learning-straw.htm has I believe the most extensive list of strawbale courses on the net. I've read the guideline and I can't see anything that precludes the link to naturalhomes.org. Maybe you can help me understand?

Regards, Oliver—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naturalhomes (talk • contribs).

You seem to have a conflict of interest on the link (see Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest, and you are mainly adding external links (no content), see Wikipedia:Spam. I would suggest you discuss your edits and linkadditions on talkpages first. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, The reason I posted the link is because such information is VERY difficult to find. In the short term maybe I can take a different approach. This page, on the same site, http://naturalhomes.org/house-straw.htm is a collection of unique articles about strawbale buildings around the world. Will you take a look and tell me if this is OK? Regards, Oliver—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naturalhomes (talk • contribs).

As I said, I suggst you discuss the linkadditions on the talkpages i.s.o. adding the links yourself. Established, uninvolved editors can then add the link for you, if consensus is reached. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Had I made this addition in the first place would you have removed the link? http://naturalhomes.org/house-straw.htm seems a perfectly valid addition to the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by naturalhomes (talk • contribs).

Yes, as I have done with all the other external links you added. Please read the guidelines and policies (especially the two I have linked above). Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia here! Therefore, per all of the policies and guidelines, please discuss on the appropriate talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, can you explain where I dicsuss this and who I will be discussing it with and once discussed (and approved) how will you know the link is valid and makes a valued contributes to the article? And... this link in the article Cob (material) http://www.howtobuildwithcob.co.uk/ isn't this even more of an infrindgemtnt of the rules? I'm just trying to understand your application of the rule.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by naturalhomes (talk • contribs).

I am at a complete loss as to why you have removed naturalhomes.org from all articles and added naturalhomes to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fspam.naturalhomes.org which utterly confuses me. I have worked in the area of low-impact homes as a charitable organisation now for 5 years and I believe the content on naturalhomes.org makes a valuable contribution along with other organisations like http://GreenHomeBuilding.com and http://www.greenershelter.org/ or will they be removed too? Regarding Strawbale construction... naturalhomes.org has the most extensive list of courses on the net to help people beging to learn how to construct with strawbale. Your removal of the link make no sense to me. Please explain. I firmly believe my contributions are valid.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by naturalhomes (talk • contribs).

I have asked you to read the policies and guidelines, you were spamming your link, wikipedia is not a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia here. You have a conflict of interest, and yes other crap exists, what part do you not understand, linkadditions are not improving the wikipedia, and we are not an advertisement service, and that is why I added your linkadditions to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam. Hope this explains. (P.S., could you please sign you posts). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Just adding to this, maybe when you contribute content you can use your information as a reference (and with content I do not mean 'A good place to find more information is here<ref>www.naturalhomes.com</ref>.'). More information can be found here and here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:49, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added a comment and removed the link again on Talk:Straw-bale_construction#External_link_proposal. In short I agree dirk, The link s not appropriate as it promotes Building Courses and Workshops and is not a resource about the subject. We are not an advertisement service.--Hu12 03:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seems there is now a poll re this link. Talk:Straw-bale_construction#Inclusion_of_naturalhomes_site_as_a_link--Hu12 11:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

bossanovamusic.net/en/5-bossa/en-bossa.html

Can you please tell me where is the spamming in this link?: bossanovamusic.net/en/5-bossa/en-bossa.html It's the History of the Bossa Nova, with photos of Jobim and others. I'm a brazilian musician and this slideshow is very informative about Jobim & Co. So why are you deleting this all the time???—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.17.64.245 (talk • contribs).

I have explained the rationale on your talkpage, please read the policies and guidelines linked there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I doubt you visited that page, otherwise you wouldn't mark it as spam. I'm a brazilian musician. I'm not getting the point. Ok, I think it's useless to explain it since you are not musician, not brazilian and know absolutely nothing about Tom Jobim, someone I knew PERSONALY since I'm a friend of his family in Rio de Janeiro! Enjoy your deletings!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.17.64.245 (talk • contribs).

I did, a) it contains a flash animation I can't bypass (see WP:EL, which I doubt you read), and b) I can't use my back button to go back to wikipedia, the page gets stuck. And indeed, who is Tom Jobim? But maybe you can contact Paolo Bitencourt for me to correct the problems so that I indeed can assess the page on its value. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, how is Vienna, nice weather there?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Much appreciated, James Luftan ^contribs 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Margareta Seuerling

Hi! I saw you left a message regarding a link i left that was not English in language; i think you meen the link i left at the article of Margareta Seuerling? I left it there merely as a source-reference, and perhaps i should have left it under "sources" rather than under "External links" - if this is wikipedias policy, i have no problems with it, nor do i have problems with the fact that you deleted it. If you left the message because you wanted citations of a English source, i'm afraid they were no information of the subject of the article before the author of the article created it. --85.226.235.213 17:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to answer, sorry. That was indeed the link, I think it would be best if it was really used as a source, adding it to either the external links or to the references section without using it does not really make sense, it was not used as a reference, it just is a 'further reading' (but only for the people who can read that language) in this case. Maybe add an item to the talkpage, maybe someone else can use it. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Canvas Guru weblink

Hi. I notice that you approved my request to have canvas guru blacklisted. Thanks for that. I'm Just curious, will this ban keep out the home page address and all the other adjoining pages for the same website which might have a slightly different address. Thanks. --Ad@m.J.W.C. 02:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, the rule I added was "\bcanvasguru\.com", which means that it will revert all of canvasguru.com. I saw that the spammers did not only add the one you requested, but also other subpages. Page contains quite some advertising, I am not sure if it would pass WP:EL, WP:RS.

AntiSpamBot only removes the link when it gets added by an IP or by a new account. Accounts older than a couple of weeks do not get reverted (except when we activate the override on a link). Whitelisted accounts never get reverted.

I saw you tried to test the bot, which got noticed by User:COIBot. I'll whitelist you. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, this helps, thanks again.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 07:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Also you might need to activate the overide for the acount name User:Canvasguru as this has been there for a while. Thats if you haven't done this already, thanks.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 07:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We can't put override on single accounts, but the edits will get noticed by the bots (if you watchlist this page you will see it within minutes after each link-addition). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Excellent.--Ad@m.J.W.C. 07:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal to Gay Pride page

Thank you for your vigilant work in keeping out the vandal from last evening. I had not even noticed that anything had happened as it was taken care of so quickly. The spam bot is also a wonder! Thanks again!--Amadscientist 09:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I am watching the IRC feeds where User:COIBot and User:AntiSpamBot are reporting to, and when these bots start complaining, it may be time to have a look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Link removal of Virtual Uffizi

Yes, I have received prior notice, but it struck me as just a warning for when an excessive link appears. The website, Virtual Uffizi, is a valid resource of information for many painters and artists, as it is the Uffizi Gallery in Florence, which houses much of the works being discussed in the pages I am editing here on wikipedia. Also the pages are under Creative Commons license, and some of the text I am using to edit pages here, use that text, so I am citing it. It is not designed to draw traffic away from wikipedia, which seems to be the concern.

How do I stop these negligent warnings, as I am validly trying to enhance the wikipedia sections on artists, many of which were stubs or did not exist before I started on them.

Thanks,—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sophruhig Vita@comcast.net (talk • contribs).

It appears you are involved in the site, and therefore I ask you to read our conflict of interest guideline. We do not issue these warnings just for the sake of it, we do have concerns about your edits. Also, the links as you have provided them should not be in the documents, I guess I will have to ask you to read our copyright policy, I think there are guidelines there.

But please stop just adding the links, your edits are welcome, and you can use the website as a reference (still obeying our conflict of interest guideline and our neutral point of view policy). Hope this explains, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Eurotech Group's article

Hallo Beetstra, my name is Alessia Di Floriano and I work in Eurotech Spa in its headquarter of Amaro (Udine), Italy. Eurotech's key people have decided to add on Wikipedia an article about Eurotech Group. This morning I have made an article that you consider advertising and that you delate. I was in good-faith and a few minutes ago I have changed the text to adjust it to Wikipedia's criteria. Could you please indicate me what I have to do to have a company profile like other companies that put their profile on Wikipedia (like Nokia, Acer, HP...). You could contact me at: (personal information deleted 15:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC))— Marketing Eurotech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 14:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC).

this account has been blocked per Inappropriate usernames--Hu12 14:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The first time the page was tagged by another editor and I deleted since I concurred with that so I deleted the page. The page was recreated, and I now decided to tag myself, and give you an appropriate notice. That notice tells you that the page does not assert its notability, and was advertisement for your company. If the page should exist on Wikipedia, it should obey the criteria noted in the notability guideline (independent references). You added a {{hangon}}, but did not explain on the talkpage why the article is notable, nor were such independent references added. For now I would suggest that you add the page to the requested article list. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP

80.80.176.108 - I am building microdermabrasioninfo4u and it keeps being removed as spam but I am new to wiki & do not understand why it is spam? I have set about correcting the errors highlighted. I have also doanated any income from ads to wiki (after my hosting costs). Please point me in the right direction as this is confusing—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.80.176.108 (talk • contribs).

You are performing linkadditions only, please understand that wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Also read our external links guideline and our spam guideline. Hope that explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks I will read but I had the photo's done as none on wiki! I also cover areas not in wiki and I also add & correct text on this page - most recently it has been adding back in the link though :-( The site covers areas not in wiki so I will have to read more before I see about it being placed back in - most photo's on other sites are fakes!!!!!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.80.176.108 (talk • contribs).

An encyclopedia contains content, not links only. Maybe you can upgrade the page with some pictures and content? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Just scanning the links you mention and I can see my IP is only linked to 3 additions of the link in question here. I have also added content from another IP prior to ISP change to static IP. This does make it look as though I spam :-( The site was purpose built to cover areas that may be too contentious for Wiki but people need to know the dangers and the cons involved in this treatment! I can reduce the advertising but I need to cover the costs of hosting as I am not rich but housebound so I do this as a hobby. Spotted Wiki and started to add ;-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.176.108 (talk • contribs)

In this case, I have to ask you to read our conflict of interest guideline as well. Wikipedia is not an advertisement service, it is an encyclopedia. That means that wikipedia is not there to promote your link. As I have recommended on the wikiproject page, future additions (which have not a proven prior concent from independent users) may result in immediate blacklisting, which means that wikipedia pages that contain that link can not be saved. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

How do I get prior consent? I would be happy to make ammends to the site and then get consent. I have kept my private opinions off Wiki and created the site to voice them. Surely I can't put on Wiki a bit about nearly all the photo's being fake or trick photography? My site is based around the photo's that I had done under strict lighting etc. I see all links are now removed but, any bets, in a few days there will be more sites up there that only have 1 page with little text and loads of adds - this is what I call spam? I hope to make the site a resource on the subject. Wiki only has one page but this subject is vast? How do I add photo's to wiki - would like to place the eyelid photo's up there as this show what people should expect from the treatment best? Wiki is so confusing for a new guy. Many thanks for your patience.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.80.176.108 (talk • contribs).

Start a thread on the talkpage of the page you want to add the link to, and ask what others think about the link, and about their opinion on the usefulness. If people think it is useful one of them can add it to the page. That process may take some time, but it is the way things work on wikipedia (see also in all the guidelines I linked). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do - I am working through all the info you have supplied - there is so much to learn! I even have to learn how to start a talk page. Many thanks for your help. I will keep watching the page for the rubbish links that get added but will follow your advice and leave mine off until I have finished cleaning up the site. Thanks again.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.80.176.108 (talk • contribs).

Well, one of the things to learn is to sign your contributions on talkpages. Please type 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end of your contribution on these pages to automagically generate your signature. For all the rest, you are welcome! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Trestles

I am not sure that you know much about Trestles or have ever been there. I have provided a link that helps bring awareness to a topic that has very little information. Please use tact in removing content.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by TradeFedPhil (talk • contribs).

You are adding links only, which I remove again. That is not the same as content. You, however, do have a conflict of interest. Please stop spamming the wikipedia, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

globalraptors.org

Hi -- As a part of my duties at The Peregrine Fund, an international non-profit conservation organization headquartered in Boise, Idaho, I maintain a website, the Global Raptor Information Network (www.globalraptors.org), devoted to research and conservation of diurnal birds of prey. We have spent six years developing this site, and it contains the homepages of raptor researcher parrticipants from 52 countries, receives around 600,000 hits/year (nearly all from ornithologists and university students), and contains handbook-style accounts on 330 species of hawks, eagles, and falcons. Most of the latter species accounts are purportedly the most authoritative write-ups of their kind, either in print or electronic form, according to independent reviews. I also write similar accounts for Encyclopedia Britanica, but, of course, they are far briefer and more rudimentary (e.g., they lack citations) than the ones on our raptor website.

We have been trying to create External Links on Wikipedia to the above website, but when we reached some tipping point (ca. 30-40 links to particular species), we were blacklisted by Wikipedia's spyware. How do we get around this? For most of the Wikipedia species accounts on birds of prey, the only External Links (if any) are to the equivalent species accounts on the BirdLife International website. Like The Peregrine Fund, BirdLife is an NGO focused on avian conservation, and we maintain many reciprocal links with them. Before I ask them how they created Wikipedia links for so many species, I thought perhaps I could get the answer with this inquiry.

Thanks for any help or advice on this matter!

Regards,

Lloyd Kiff, Coordinator, Global Raptor Information Network—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lkiff (talk • contribs).

Dear Mr. Beetstra --

After naively posting the above appeal for help, I ran across your note and browsed your site, thereby learning the reason that the "GRIN" link was blocked. I found your responses to various other submitters of info to Wikipedia to be surprisingly crude and apparently oblivious to the relative merits of the websites that were blocked. The point of blocking out worthy links. of which our site is apparently only one, is not clear to me, but it certainly verifies the judgment of most academics about the integrity of the Wikipedia venture.

We had been posting links on Wikipedia to our raptor species accounts, because, frankly, they are much superior to the rather weak material that one typically finds on Wikipedia. We gain little from doing this (and, indeed, it costs us salary time to create the links), since we are a non-profit and we have already reached our target audience.

After discussing the matter with our staff, we have decided to abandon the effort to place links on Wikipedia, and as one of our folks remarked (after looking over your comments), it would be equivalent to casting pearls before swine, anyway. Wikipedia is evidently not a merit-based system. We cannot prevent other persons around the world from referencing our site (as several have done, and others are doing), and we only hope that it does not give us a bad name.

Sincerely, Lloyd Kiff, The Peregrine Fund, Boise, ID, USALkiff 00:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I am quite surprised by your reaction. In short, wikipedia has a number of policies and guidelines, which have been agreed upon by a large number of editors, and you (and other editors) were breaching those guidelines or policies. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here

Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. You were adding links only, which wikipedia defines as spamming. Also, you have a conflict of interest. All these guidelines and policies suggest, that it is better to discuss. As I already said (here), the site may be useful (and actually, I think it is), but you were spamming the site, without discussion (and you reluctance to discuss indeed resulted in the site being blacklisted; I have now removed it from that list, though it is still monitored). Wikipedia will have absolutely no problem if you would improve the respective pages by adding content and using your site as a reference. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dirk --

Thanks for getting back to me on the Global Raptors Information Network matter. After thinking the matter over, I think you are absolutely right -- Wikipedia is, first and foremost, intended to be an encyclopedia. Most of us who have responded vigorously to being blocked, even if temporarily, are actually in the encyclopedia business, too, so we essentially represent competition to Wikipedia, and the latter site would be sterile indeed if it was simply a compendium of links.

There seems to me to be two choices here, one for Wikipedia and one for the rest of us who are narrowly focused on particular topics, e.g., birds of prey, as in our case. For us, the choice is to add content to our site (which is still very rudimentary to my tastes in many ways), or to spend time adding infobits to the Wikipedia accounts. Our objective is to enhance bird conservation efforts on a global level, so it is certainly reasonable to argue that improving the Wikipedia accounts, many of which are in their infancy, would do the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people. On the other hand, there is no question that we are an important focal point for many professionals in our field, and if we neglect our site to build up Wikipedia with our data from our existing accounts, they will be the ones who end up with less information and fewer useful contacts.

If I was the King of Wikipedia, though, I would pull out the stops and pull in good information from any available source at this stage in the development of the project. Take what you can get. The concept is incredibly elegant, but the content has not yet caught up with the grand idea, and there are still too many rudimentary Wikipedia accounts or embarrassing ones filled with lackluster info, some from chronically disenfranchised people who (unlike some of us) have nowhere else to spend their energies. In our particular case, someone has already had the wisdom to routinely add external links to the raptor species accounts of BirdLife International, an outstanding bird conservation group based in Cambridge. Yet most of our accounts are more authoritative and complete than theirs (as they would admit), and we treat more species. As mentioned already, I naively thought that we would be doing everyone a service by adding links to our write-ups and spending our energies daily in improving them. Given the time options, this is our easiest means of getting information out to everyone, either via our own modest site or through Wikipedia.

Since reading your message, I have given the matter considerable thought, and I have decided to opt for improving our own website, rather than worming our way into Wikipedia via the Source method, however valid. This is not a rejection of your arguments or policies, which seem perfectly well reasoned to me, but rather a decision based on the likelihood that I have about one more year to work on our site before I retire and move to another country and to another career. I think that my best strategy is to do the best job that I can on our "encyclopedia" and let others inject references to it into Wikipedia. This is already occurring, and, in fact, that activity called Wikipedia to my attention to begin with.

In summary, we gain almost nothing from having additional hits or visitors on our site, as the traffic we have generated is already a distraction to me and my staff. My strength is in summarizing technical information in a form that is edible to the lay public, and I have had a long history of writing for encylopedias, including Encylopedia Britannica. I think I need to stick with what I do best (if not necessarily well!), and sourcing stuff on Wikipedia would be redundant and pretty boring at this point.

No harm, no foul, and thanks for responding to my overly long harangue!

Best regards,Lkiff 04:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. If I may suggest, there can of course be some synergy between Global Raptors Network and the Wikipedia. Maybe you could make yourself known to the the Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds (or a similar wikiproject, don't know which exist, and which is/are the most appropriate), and when people there have questions where the your network may be of help, they can contact you. And when you encounter information on a page in wikipedia which is wrong, or where you can help out improving the article (and it seems you have the references at hand), feel free to edit (still obeying Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, of course). I have seen that your site is already used as a reference on some of the articles here (see Special:Linksearch/*.globalraptors.org). If we keep up a positive atmosphere in that, both Wikipedia and your site may benefit from the knowledge both sites gain. Hope this helps, have a nice day, and happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your link removal

Dear Beetstra:

I am not Bjeldanes and no I do not work for him. He and his colleagues at UC Berkeley have published more papers in this field than any other group worldwide, and hence the references to some of his papers.

DIM is a field in which I know a lot about and all of the information in that page is correct.

Please kindly do not mire other people's hard work as I spent considerable time in building that page and making it as informative as possible. If you have come across other papers that you think merit being included in the references section, please post them.

I do not have any conflicts of interest in this topic and there is nothing in that posting that would create such a conflict. If you were to check the citations of papers in DIM research within the biomedical community, you will note that the papers that I had listed are among the most referenced in this very narrow field on this one molecule, and hence their inclusion in the references section.

Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.

I am an expert in this field (you have placed a note looking for one) as I have spent over 10 years researching this important molecule and have seen it rise from just another dietary ingredient to one that is currently in the clinic for multiple indications. This is very exciting, particularly for people who may not have access to expensive medication or healthcare around the world as it is a naturally occurring dietary molecule.

Brassica vegetables are now considered medicinal plants, and DIM is one of the principal reasons why.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adavallou (talk • contribs).

Dear Beetstra:

I just read about your background and am deeply disturbed that a post-doc at Cardiff would do such a thing. I am currently advising Professor Alison Fiander at Cardiff in her clinical trials of Diindolylmethane against the Human Papilloma Virus. She will be placing the links and references that you just removed from DIM in Wikipedia on her own lab's website dedicated to DIM research at Cardiff as a clinical investigator at your university on this subject because she too thinks highly of the work of Dr. Bjeldanes and Dr. Firestone in this field and is basing her clinical trials at Cardiff on some of their recent research on DIM at UC Berkeley.

As a member of the Harvard Alumni Association I have some very high ranking friends as senior administrators at Cardiff and if you delete my work with presumptions that are incorrect in manners that I deem to be unprofessional, I will raise this matter with senior administrators of your university as this behavior is absolutely unbecoming of a post-doc at Cardiff.

You wrote me a note "suspecting that I am Bjeldanes?" Who do you think you are to insult me and Professor Bjeldanes in this way? You followed this with a threat? Wikipedia is a public trust and I have made contributions in an area that I have expertise in. If you have an expertise in this specific field, then make your own contributions to the DIM section, in a polite and professional way.

Deletions of months of contributions, followed by threats by someone who has no knowledge in this specialized field?

If you rudely delete my contributions to a subject matter that I do have a great deal of expertise in, in the same manner that you did before, you will regret the consequences of this behavior at Cardiff.

I am deeply offended by this.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adavallou (talk • contribs).

I'm going to be meeting with President Kinnock and Vice-Chancellor Grant of Cardiff in several weeks to discuss matters related to the University and their interest to expand their partnerships and alliances with US universities.

Anymore uncalled-for or unbecoming behavior on your part and I will make sure that you become the centerpiece of that discussion.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adavallou (talk • contribs).

OK, I am sorry to mistake you, I have seen you have put considerable work in that page, but (and I am again sorry) this series of 8 (!) edits do seem a bit promotional for Dr. Bjeldanes. I mean, you are adding 17 references (while there is no data added in these edits, of which 16 have the name of Dr. Bjeldanes on it. And you add a sentence and an external link, which link to Dr. Bjeldanes work. I hope you can understand that that smells strongly of a conflict of interest, or of another form of promotional linking. I can also not believe that you were able to summarise Dr. Bjeldanes work, as linked in now 19 references, in one paragraph of work. As you have correctly seen, I am a researcher on the University of Cardiff, and I am indeed used to reference work from others properly, but I don't think that these 19 references were all used, or can all be used to attribute statements in the earlier sentences.

So again, I am sorry I mistook you for being Dr. Bjeldanes, or working for him, but I hope that you can understand my concerns.

As a sidenote, my name is Beetstra, not Beestra.

I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=3%2C3%27-Diindolylmethane&diff=149216048&oldid=149201906

This line seems to distend the infobox:

| InChI=1/C17H14N2/c1-3-7-16-14(5-1)12(10-18-16)9-13-11-19-17-8-4-2-6-15(13)17/h1-8,10-11,18-19H,9H2

Can you cause it to "wrap" properly?Fconaway 05:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The InChI always seems to be a bit difficult. I'll have a second look. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

InChI seems fine here, what seems to be the problem? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The line seems to be too long. It makes the infobox too wide.Fconaway 15:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Maritimequest

Please stop removing external links to Maritimequest pages. I don't care whether they are added to promote they site or not, but in virtually every case I've seen they have been very relevant to the article - indeed a virtually unique online resource. The Land 10:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

And, by the way, it is very rude to revert my edits without any discussion or indeed a meaningful edit summary. The Land 10:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about Battleship, that was a re-remove after you apparently re-added the link. For discussion about the removal, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#3rd_opinion_request, removal is agreed upon there. You may not care, but WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY are clear. The links may however be appropriate as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on - by TWO PEOPLE. Please stop and allow further discussion. The Land 11:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed on, by all people who have worked on WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed". --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I can only see two people who have agreed that all of these links are spam. In many cases, they add significantly to the article. The Land 11:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer: "ontribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm. If you have a source to contribute, first contribute some facts that you learned from that source, then cite the source. Don't simply direct readers to another site for the useful facts; add useful facts to the article, then cite the site where you found them. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto some other site, right? (If not, see #1 above.)" --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The valuable links are the ones that link to image galleries, not to text; so the 'spammer' couldn't exactly contrbute text. The Land 11:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

But then uploading images and putting them in the article would be improving the articles. Moreover, a page like RMS_Lusitania contains a linkfarm (but others indeed don't). Wikipedia is not a linkfarm (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY).

The links may be useful, but they were spammed (wikipedia definition), it is fine if you want to readd them (if you have a good rationale), but it would be the wrong way around to leave them there, and discuss individually if the links should be removed (we were talking about 300-400 links added by these accounts). All the guidelines and policies suggest to discuss before adding. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So you can trash things and leave me to fix them? That's a great attitude. The Land 11:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, the same goes for an editor who adds links without discussing (I am referring to the accounts mentioned in the discussion on WT:WPSPAM). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

By all means educate the originator of these links to add material directly to the articles and to upload images where the copyright is GPL - but in the meantime please allow the editors who know about the subject matter in the MILHIST project to make the decision about relevance or otherwise of the links. Viv Hamilton 14:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I too wondered why the link had been deleted from Empress of Ireland and considered adding it back as the link did seem to lead to an outside source of use. However, when I see hundreds of these links being added and then re-added (eg see the hundred that Special:Contributions/A._B. is adding back now - a hundred in a half hour, is that a bot?), this does appear to be intended to drive traffic to an outside site. Even though the commercial side of that site is modestly presented, it is intended as a place to sell images. Whether or not it is commercial, using wikipedia to drive traffic to an outside site is not permitted (see WP:SPAM). --KenWalker | Talk 20:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised, I have only removed the links that were added by the 4 accounts mentioned in the spam report. ALL 4 of them ONLY have added the link, no discussion whatsoever. The link may indeed be of interest, but for me, the link-ADDITIONS were not discussed before they were added, hence they should first be removed and then can be re-added after discussion. WP:SPAM is indeed clear to me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

DIRECT

Dirk, I've posted a long list of reasons to remove the "Direct" article and links in my Talk page Gaetanomarano 13:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have answered on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving on from the Maritime Quest issue

I just wanted to say that I thought your moving on comments were very much in the spirit of a collaborative wiki - just when it might have generated a lot of heat, everybody made thoughtful responses and came to a good result Viv Hamilton 15:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Though I see that the discussion is still a bit heated, I guess we should move on from here! Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:38, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Edit - Conflict of Interest

Thank you for your posting on my talk page.

I am not sure I understand the reason for your post. I assume you have posted it for my information, and I appreciate your thoughtfulness. However, I have sought to exercise caution and my best judgement in this area. I would appreciate it if you could clarify.

(Since I am new, could you post your reply on my own talk page please?)

---Mark Chirnside 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I did consider this matter carefully. I actually deleted the website reference, but as I was no longer logged in it merely recorded my ISP and a subsequent user reverted it to its original format. In regard to the issue at hand, I appreciate your advice.

What I resolved to do was merely to reference the horsepower figures, because having amended them on the Olympic page before they were removed by another user because there was no reference. Although it is accurate, and a new important historical discovery, most users will be using older books that are no longer up-to-date and the figure will therefore be unfamiliar to them. Given that someone had already added the book to the references, I felt it was OK to edit it for this one occasion. There are many aspects of the article I would challenge, but I have decided to ignore them because this is a delicate area.

I appreciate your assistance and hope that this clarifies matters for you. Best wishes, --Mark Chirnside 21:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Chembox

Dirk, recently I blogged (see chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com) about the different templates used in wikipedia for chemicals. Might you explain me which one should/must be used, which are outdated, or how the relate otherwise. I noted that many entries do not have InChI's for the molecules they describe, and would like to add missing InChIs, but not all chemical boxes support that. --EgonWillighagen 09:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. On the chemical pages we use {{chembox new}} (though most still need an upgrade to that box). Others have other boxes, like the {{drugbox}}, {{protein}}, I am not too involved in these templates. Some templates are now less wanted, though sometimes these are necessary as the fully automated templates do not have all posibilities. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I now read the thread on the blog. There are about 4500 chemicals in wikipedia, the 'drugs' user the {{drugbox}}, the others use mainly the old {{chembox}}, except for a handful that have been converted to {{chembox new}} (a good 1000). Then there are still some that do not have a chembox at all. Conversion of the chembox to chembox new is slow, as automation is difficult for these (though I have a partial script that can do that).

To move on, by all means, add the identifiers in the documents. Some of them link outside (that does not work for InChI and SMILES due to limitations in the wikipedia software) which makes the data more easy to find. The ones that link also lead to search engines that lead to publications (e.g. on pubchem), which is also useful. If you want, you can add them to whichever of the boxes, or, if you feel, upgrade to either {{chembox new}} or {{drugbox}}, depending on the chemical, and add the identifiers to them.

InChI and SMILES sometimes become very long, in these cases it is better to add them to the boxes in two ways, one for display (which can be 'broken' by adding <br />, and one between remark-brackets (<!-- and -->). The latter is then the one that can be found using e.g. google.

Hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk

Would you like user:chem-awb to run through the remaining chemboxes to convert to chembox new? If your script is awb-based, I think I can use it? --Rifleman 82 11:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I can try and upgrade the script, it was still far from perfect (though it did the trick). It is indeed AWB-based, I'll have a look at it, maybe this evening. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel like saying some very bad words (which will not be recorded in typing) .. the new AWB does not read my old settings file :-( So I have to rewrite the whole find-and-replace, I think ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the status of the substructure search request ? We started this discussion already a while ago? JKW 23:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia extension is there, but although I have tried (in the past) to get it enabled, there seems not to be too much support for it. Especially now the {{chembox new}} has been greatly improved (and the identifier fields there search for quite some information) I think that that is better (for now). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Knuckles

Yes I know Wikipedia is not an advertising service. You didn't have to tell me that for me to know that. The article I wrote was no different then the article for brass knuckles. I cited four independent sources. What's your problem? Best WishesIntolerancerecords 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent sources? No, you are referring to two domains which sell the material, and two blogs (which fail WP:RS). You are adding links to commercial sites, and therefore I warn you, that wikipedia is not an advertising site. Please stop and take some time to read the policies and guidelines (WP:5P is a good place to start). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own stalker?

There's one user whose sole purpose seems to be reverting you. I won't get involved enough to revert them, but you might want to. —dgies^t_c 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I think that guy will get prompt attention when he is submitted at WP:AIV, if he resumes after the final warning User:Dgies gave him. EdJohnston

I undid some of this vandal's reversions of your edits. Then a new guy started coming after me! See 200.45.6.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The second guy is now blocked, but I imagine he's the same actual person who stalked you the other day. With some detective work, perhaps we could figure out which spam link removal might have set this guy off. Probably it's a link you removed recently. EdJohnston 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a stalker, indeed. See history of e.g. Huemul Project and Ronald Richter .. I protected the pages he edited. There seems to be no way of stopping him, except if you block a large part of Argentina .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Your own stalker?

There's one user whose sole purpose seems to be reverting you. I won't get involved enough to revert them, but you might want to. —dgies^t_c 19:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I think that guy will get prompt attention when he is submitted at WP:AIV, if he resumes after the final warning User:Dgies gave him. EdJohnston

I undid some of this vandal's reversions of your edits. Then a new guy started coming after me! See 200.45.6.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The second guy is now blocked, but I imagine he's the same actual person who stalked you the other day. With some detective work, perhaps we could figure out which spam link removal might have set this guy off. Probably it's a link you removed recently. EdJohnston 03:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a stalker, indeed. See history of e.g. Huemul Project and Ronald Richter .. I protected the pages he edited. There seems to be no way of stopping him, except if you block a large part of Argentina .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

SouthCoast (Massachusetts) page

Good Afternoon Beetstra,

I am working with SouthCoastToday.com (the website for The Standard Times) and I am interested in putting some external links on the South Coast (Massachusetts) page. SouthCoastToday.com is the local website/news site for the South Coast. I thought that we would be a great link for this Wikipedia page since all of the content is relevant to the SouthCoast. I have quite a few links that are broad enough for this page that I feel would be great for the public. Some of these subjects are: 1) MBTA to expand into the South Coast 2) Global Warming and how it is going to affect the South Coast 3) Gambling and Casino's in the South Coast

Please let me know if this is something that I will be able to post to this page. We are just trying to provide more information to the public about information in the SouthCoast region.

Thank You, Tracy Sirois—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracys49 (talk • contribs)

Well, first of all, you have a conflict of interest here, and further, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm (see also our spam guideline and our external link guideline). I am sorry, but external links are generally not necessary, it is better to give contents (with references). Since you are working for a newspaper, it is then better to provide relevant content, and then add references to articles where it is interesting. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Dick, I apologize...I am fairly new to using Wikipedia. I will review all of the guidelines before I post again. However, we do have am very relevat articles and information that we can post the writing content. Is there a person that I would pass this through to authorize before posting? Also, is there an administrator for every page or is there just one person that I can speak to about getting some of our local information posted on some pages? Our purpose on posting is to just provide more information to the public. Thank You, Tracy—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tracys49 (talk • contribs)

Eh, my name is Dirk. The main problems with the link, is that it is not symmetrical. It does not directly lead to more information pertaining the subject. It only indirectly leads to more information, but also to a lot of other information. A bit like that a link to the Audi homepage on the page Audi is allowed, but it is too wide for a page on one specific type of Audi, there a deeplink to the page about that type on the Audi site is more appropriate. Your link would be just a bit more appropriate as all other newspapers that cover the area (and that includes e.g. CNN .. ). The link would be appropriate only on the wikipedia page about the newspaper (if it passes our notability guidelines).

There are no specific administrators or specific pages. Everyone can edit, and everyone can add, everyone can revert. Administrators have some extra capabilities, and some administrators take care of page deletions, others are active in vandalism or removing spam. I keep an eye on output from some automated accounts (and control some of them) which look at link-additions and page edits, which alert us of certain overlaps or patterns, and we react on that. That leads me to all corners of this wikipedia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk (sorry about the mispelling before), I understand the need for more specific information for the linked pages. Just to clarify...on the New Bedford, MA page, there is a part in the Crime section about the shooting at Foxy Lady. We have a whole page set up on our website that has the articles and also updates about this piece. Can we put this as a reference? Here is the link so you can view... http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=SPECIAL03 Please let me know if this is something that I can include?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tracys49 (talk • contribs).

That would be more appropriate. Even better would be that you also add some information that you can read from your page. For more information about citations, see e.g. WP:CITE and WP:FOOT. Hope this helps.

By the way, could you sign your posts on talkpages, just type four tildes at the end of your remark (~~~~, the wikimedia software will automagically convert that to your signature. See WP:SIG for more information about that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Graham Technology

Hi Dirk,

Just to seek your advice on the Graham Technology page. I have offered to write a replacement article, it seems to be OK with the GT guys. Although I haven't written a full article on Wiki before I ahve done some editing. I did put my feet in it with one edit, was properly reprimanded and am much wiser now. I do know this company, but I'm not associated with it, nor am I an employee, so feel I can write an unbiased yet positive article on their behalf. Although I live in Scotland my location is in the Hebridean Islands, a long way from Glasgow! I would like to become more involved with Wiki and this seems a good opportunity to help out and make a contribution.

If this is suitable, do I just delete what's there and put in my article for assessment, how does this work? --Judemacdonald 21:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you can just remove the text that is there, and replace it with your version. I guess that is OK. The old version will still be there in the history of the page, so it should not be a problem. I'll drop you a {{welcomeg}} in a bit for more information (it does contain a link to some pages about writing articles). Hope this helps, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Have uploaded the new article, left message for Iain on the discussion page (forgot to fill in Edit Summary - Slap) please take a look. If it is acceptable what happens about the tags, can you remove them or does another party come in and check? I looked up the help on this, but it was a bit foggy.--Judemacdonald 16:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the tags that were there, thanks for the work!. I have now added a {{unreferenced}}, but that could be solved quickly when the prices the company has recieved can be found on independent websites (that is, on websites not linked to Graham Technology). For information on how to best add the references, see the citation guideline and footnotes style guideline (and reliable sources). Also, there are now 8 links, I am not sure how they link to the subject of the article, it seems a bit much (see our 'what wikipedia is not policy' and the external links guideline). Hope this helps, thanks again, and happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Montessori, external links, etc

Ah, just finished reading your notes, links on guidelines, and so forth. Got it. Thanks tons.

You do know that the Montessori school and accreditation programs are rather warring with the homeschool contingent. Since I am one of the few teachers at our place online, I put up our site as we address homeschoolers as well as institutions that need curriculum for free. Does this mean we have to get cracking on our non-profit's web presence? Alas...MontessoriHouse 10:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about writing an encyclopedia. It does not have to link to a website because it exists, it should be relevant and provide on topic information (see our external links guideline). When a site contains information that can be incorporated, then that is the first choice (use it as a reference), otherwise one could choose to add it as an external link, but only when it complies with the abovementioned external links guideline. When you do have a conflict of interest it is better to discuss (though such people are very welcome, they generally do know more about the subject than anybody else!), it is just that it is best to avoid any misunderstandings there. Hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Spam talk page archive

I just tried to move a discussion from the archive to the main talk page, but I couldn't save the archive page because there's a blacklisted link on there (something about wackypacks or something). Also found the contribs of this user, another historic archives SPA linker, if you want to add to the list. Thanks! Katr67 00:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally just copy the discussion, leaving it in the archive as well. For blacklisted links, you have to disable the link to be able to save the page (i.e. remove most of the link, esp. the http://www part). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad

Whoops, thanks for catching this. Peace, delldot talk 02:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

wrong removal of external link

Dear Beetstra, thank you very much for watching the actions going on Wikipedia following your note on my "my talk" about the article khanqah, i would like to mention that i don't think the link i had provided was a non-related link, due to the fact that the link directs to a gallery which shows Haruniyeh an example of Khanqah's in Iran

and another issue i would like to discuss is if it is wrong to add the photo gallery links in to articles which are related to each other? if it is wrong, can i instead upload some of my related photos with my own watermark, due to the fact that i don't want to lose my photos copyrights? thanks Aryobarzan 16:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think my linkremovals were wrong. You were adding links only to a site you are affiliated with. As we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, these links seemed not necessary, especially with your COI. I would suggest you discuss the matter on the talkpages, and, when consensus is reached, an independent editor can add the links for you.

I don't know if you can upload pictures and keep the copyright, I think you will have to see what is asked behind wikipedias upload facility, and use the correct notifiers. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if i made any trouble for you, though i would like to mention that it was all unintentionally, another question which remains about adding the photos, is, if it is ok to add the photos with a watermark(which contains my name or website) on it? i am asking this question because i couldn't find any related rule on this matter. :) Aryobarzan 18:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know. I would expect some people would have a problem with that, as it is a form of promotional linking. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Referring to COIBot...

My name was on the "Myspace profile spam" thingy. Any idea why? I'll leave the same message on COIbot's talk page. jj137^Talk 23:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, nevermind, I know why now. When I reverted an edit, I didn't pay close attention and it went back to a Myspace page. jj137 23:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jj137 (talk • contribs).

Things on COIBots' monitor list are links that we monitor for adding, but which are not 'bad' enough for automatic reversal (user:AntiSpamBot) or blacklisting. I have removed myspace again, the additions are mainly good additions, it may get on the list again when it gets actively spammed. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

User:VAwebteam/COIN archive

Hello, Beetstra ... just wondering if you've check on VAwebteam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) lately ... I think that they have become a Responsible Contributor. :-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.96.83 (talk · contribs) 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi 72.75.96.83, indeed. S/He is doing remarkable work now. I guess a good example for other librarians/archive-owners! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. An article you recently created, Sujan Singh Meena, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new articles, so it will shortly be removed (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do and please read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Mendors 10:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I salted that page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just worked out what happened. I'm using TW and I'd used it to add a CSD tat to the Sujan Singh Meena. It then opened this page for the warning, possibly as it had been updated / first created (via the salting) by yourself. I apologise for the confusion / warning on the wrong page.--Mendors 10:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was indeed in the process of deleting it (for the second time ..) .. No worries, all is OK now, I was just on my way to check upon the user. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Disulfiram

Hi Dirk

Thanks for the feedback. I have read the COI page and I agree that offering a link to Zenics Medical could represent a COI. The research has been published in the journal Addiction in December 2006 - what is your advice? The reason for removing the link to the manufacturers website is that it's a bad link. I tried to find an update but they don't seem to have one.

--Rmf150 13:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Hmm .. I will comment out the original link (did not check whether it was working). Since you do seem knowledgeable about the subject, may I ask you tohelp us improve the content of the article? Cheers. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding ImgSTAR

Regarding ImgSTAR. There were many spelling and description errors. Now everything is corrected. I did not intend to span. Thank You for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ImgSTAR (talk • contribs) 18:08, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Still, your page is blatantly advertising, and you have a COI. The page is now salted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

MSG

Why did you remove my info about commercial dry cleaning in 'Commercialization' section of MSG? It was used for dry cleaning long before anyone thought of using it as a food enhancer/preservative.

(email address archived to page history to prevent indexing --Versageek 20:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krzxbleach (talk • contribs) 20:15, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I did not, it was Rifleman 82. But I think what he did was correct, as, as you also stated yourself, the statement was far from complete, and did not contain any references or similar information. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the message, I was unaware I was unable to post them links on the Nick's reference page. I have suggested them in the talk page.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by PWMAndy (talk • contribs) 16:05, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandals

Hi; ref your block of user:69.150.84.197, check out only edit of user:71.157.162.206. Cheers. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Greek Companies List

Dirk Beetstra, thanks for your constructive criticisms about my wiki editing. Cheers, FC Freecyprus 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you have engaged again in not discussing but just reverting the edits to a version you created, and have now again been blocked. Please, next time your edits get reverted by an established editor, realise that there may be that one of our policies or guidelines say something about it, and that there is then always a talkpage to discuss your edits first (or the talkpage of the reverting editor). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Spam-blacklist

Thanks for catching and fixing my mistake! --Ed (Edgar181) 23:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

From me as well. I was still trying to find the list. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If I heard correctly, someone went 'ballistic' on one of the IRC channels. If you are not sure, just post on the talkpage, it will be handled then (by the way, it is best to post there anyway, so that other admins know why it was on the blacklist. Also posting on WT:WPSPAM is a good plan, we, and the bots, monitor that closely). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that next time. --Ed (Edgar181) 00:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Technology Ribbon

COI bot wanted you to have this. ;)--Hu12 23:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

On behalf of COIBot, thanks. I just finished some work on the linkwatchers, we are now watching 722 wikis. It is time Shadow1 takes over the linkwatchers again and puts them on the database. COIBot is parsing these reports and is also doing his regular job on the 10 biggest wikipedia's .. I hope you have phun looking at all the reports COIBot is now generating. Cheers again, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

External link on Kidney

Hello, I am not necessarily disagreeing with your removal of my link on the "Kidney" page. I guess I really didn't understand that a resource for kidney patients - a forum - would not be okay. With 300,000 people on dialysis in the US alone, we are constantly asked for help reaching people who have nowhere to go for answers and support. I am a moderator of a dialysis forum and administrator for a living donor forum, but I am still learning. (I am also a mother of a 21 year old daughter who got a kidney transplant from an altruistic donor 7 months ago.) Is there no context where wikipedia would be better with these links? Finding others who had similar experiences saved us! Thanks for listening. Regards, Karol Franks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Okarol (talk • contribs) 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that the link is discouraged by quite a number of policies. E.g. our policy on what wikipedia is not states (in the 'Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files') 'mere collection of external links'; our external links guideline discourages forums (in Links normally to be avoided). For sites where you are involved in, also our conflict of interest guideline is of relevance, and for this site (http://www.ihatedialysis.com) I would also guess that this section of our policy on what wikipedia is not is of interest. I do understand that many of these links can be of service to readers, but that is more the function of a search engine, wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

bestmootcourtprograms.com

thank you for your help in the other forum!Jimdugan 15:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

do you think I have a better shot of getting an article titled "Best Moot Court Programs (United States)"? I had drafted one previously. do you know how I start/find the discussion on how to reinstate a previously deleted article? if I draft a new one with wikipedia guidelines in mind, will it be deleted automatically if Jimdugan is considered a "spammer" Jimdugan 15:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Err, you might want to have a look at Wikipedia:Deletion review, though recreation is also possible. What you can do, is first make the article outside of article space (e.g. User:Jimdugan/Best Moot Court Programs (United States). You can then ask someone who is knowledgeable in the subject (find a regular editor in the same field) to review it. Be sure to have good third-party references in the article (to external sites, reliable sources, not published by the subject of the article itself). In that case you stand a reasonable chance. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and when other editors think it is a good article, you can use the move tab to move it to the right position. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your consideration in taking the time to offer me this advice. i will give it a try (and probably pester you with questions). i'll be in touch! Jimdugan 16:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Gemzies

Hello Beetstra,

I have posted an link to the Quentin Tarantino Gemzies on The Quentin Tarantino Wiki. In my opinion is this a great addition to this Wiki, because it provides a great archive of video's, books, pictures, blogs and websites.

Could you please reconsider your removal on the The Quentin Tarantino Wiki.

Thanks!

Kind Regards,

MarcelB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.215.136 (talk) 10:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, firstly, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm (see also our our external links guideline), and secondly, you were performing link additions only, which is considered spamming on wikipedia. Please consider adding content, and when your site provides the information, you can use the site as a reference (if it complies with our reliable sources content guideline. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, could you (also) respond to the report on the wikipedia project on spam, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

— Dear Dirk,

Thank you for you reaction and your explanation. It's all clear now! Please accept my appologies for breaking you Guidelines!

Kind regards MarcelB—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.215.136 (talk • contribs)

OK, hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

RA DJ

I completely respect and appreciate the standards that need to be maintain. I just think you administration should be looking at the information from an informational point of view. The content is undeniably far more important and useful to anyone on the said subject.

I am personally very disappointed the 'RA DJ' template was removed without question. Especially since the artists in question are managing and updating the content on their RA DJ Pages.

It's a shame.

Does it help that RA's DJ Pages are top ranking in google for the search results due to the unique informational value?

Paulclement 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have done some research, and you really seem to have a conflict of interest here (alexa says you are the site owner). I am sure your site may be of good value to wikipedia, but as it stands now you are breaking quite a number of policies and guidelines. I really suggest you take this up with an appropriate wikiproject, discuss with them, and when they endorse your site, and/or a template that can be used. Just as a remark, as we are writing an encyclopedia here, and repository, I would suggest you provide contents with references to the pages on wikipedia, not external links only. External links hardly improve the wikipedia, but merely tunnel people away from this encyclopedia (and that suggestion gets bigger since you appear to have a conflict of interest).

I am afraid that the Wikipedia:Google test does not prove a lot. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:59, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clinical response. I unfortunately don't have time to dig around the wikiproject to try to find how to discuss something with someone about something that is so simple. I'll leave it. - Paulclement 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry that I sound clinical. I do not have time to dig around and merit the actual site. I do see that you were performing a handful of link additions, and were trying to get your site on several pages. I am sorry, but the guidelines and policies are just against building linkfarms, however appropriate the links are. They all suggest to discuss it first. Hope you find your way around anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

MidwayUSA

Hey, thanks for catching that. - CobaltBlueTony 14:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. An editor with an apparent conflict of interest put the link on the monitorlist of COIBot, resulting in your edit being reported. So I checked. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Ciffob - COI?

Hi Dirk

Could you take a look at the contributions by Ciffob (talk · contribs)? This seems a bit more complicated than what I usually deal with. I've reverted the spam addition to Packaging and labelling [3], but I am not very sure how to deal with the captions on Silica gel and Desiccant. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 04:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted, and reported it here. Blatant company spam, especially since there is already a similar, non-advertising, image in place. I am still surprised sometimes that people, maybe while they are thinking that they are improving the wikipedia, add typical commercial links to a neutral, informative page. Don't they realise that that edit they perform may be a bit suspicious, as there are no commercials there, and that there may be a reason for that? Ah well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah right. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 08:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Why you send me a Warning... Legit link that isn't posted.

I posted a link for the MSDS information on Silica Gel, follow the link and you will see it's legit. So why you send me a black list warning and warn me?

Isn't the MSDS good information to this subject?

Arcarocket—Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs)

Your account is doing link-additions only, and since wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, I gave you first a welcomeg and a good faith warning. Still, after that warning you insist in a) adding only the link, and b) also removing another one, both without discussion, and the link you add is to the top of the list. For me that looks like blatant pushing of one link. Are you by any chance involved in the site you are linking to?

And yes, an MSDS might be a good link, but there is already an MSDS there, and we don't need to link to all possible MSDSs that are available. Please review the necessary policies and guidelines that we work under, here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not, the reason I posted (never done so ever before, so I do appologize if I was doing something wrong) but do you know how hard it is to find the MSDS for this product in US. It's about impossible. The only other MSDS attached to this conversation is a UK version, not a US version. If you look at both MSDS you will notice they are completely different. I searched a long time and could not come up with this information. That is why I believe this information is worthy of being on this site, because it's not available anywhere else that I could find. It would have made it a lot easier for people like me in trying to find this information. I will try and repost the link at the bottom and rename it US Material Safety Data Sheet, would that work? It would make it unique and provide the necessary information regarding these chemicals for US shipping rules/needs.

Also I would like to post some information about "recharging" Silica Gel Packets as this is another topic that is hard to find any information about. I will post later today, but just wanted to warn you and explain why I think it would be a good addition. Again Silica Gel Packets information is very hard to find and the Silica Gel is rechargeable. Again this information is very hard to find and from my experience the manufacture is reluctant to give up the information because they just want you to purchase more. If you disagree with any of my postings I understand, but wanted to try and be upfront and communicate why I thought these would be good postings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs) 18:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the number of links there, it is becoming a linkfarm. But I will have a look. As MSDS's can not be included in the text, we will have to come up with another solution (maybe it is worth starting a discussion on the talkpage). I assume you are going to add more information later on? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok I provided the last piece of information that I thought was useful to myself and this subject and was information that is very hard to come by. You can't simply google Silica Gel Reactivation or Silica Gel MSDS information and come up with it. These are hard to find documents that I was able to come across.

If you don't think the material is suitable I understand. I would like to get more information and will look into what the Talkpage is (have no clue) or maybe it would be more feasible doing a blog type site that I can link to Wikipedia that has all these links to some of these articles and can add as people ask questions or need more info, if I can find the answer/documents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcarocket (talk • contribs) 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Links

There really should be a warning somewhere, telling people not to post inappropriate links on articles. I did it myself at first, not knowing better at the time. People like Beetstra spend half their time explaining to people why they've deleted their links. Wiki should provide a warning somewhere, like on edit pages, perhaps, so people don't waste their time posting these inappropriate links.

Sardaka 10:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

True, the only warning that is there at the moment is when you create a new page. Somehow I would say .. it is logic that one should not advertise ones own work, but well, people try. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Need help in creating a post...

Hello Dirk, I've been trying to add the value "nisped" to wikipedia for a couple of weeks now, and again repeatedly it is deleted. This is my first attempt at adding information to the wikipedia and so I'm learning as I go along. however I'm starting to believe that I may need your help. It seems that my attempts to describe this non-profit organization in a non-marketing way don't work. I don't wish to publicize this Israeli organization - but to inform the world of its important doings. I'm trying to do this in an objective way but so far I've failed. I really hope you can assist me in doing so. Again- I'm not interested in publicizing NISPED - just informing the world that it exists.

Thanks in advance, Pat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecos (talk • contribs) 12:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, you also appear to be editing under User:Incep-sme, which created INCEP-SME and Nisped, and hence you appear to be involved in the pages, and performed a number of recreations after it was deleted. Since you were not discussing, and are apparently using sockpuppets to get the pages into existence, they have now been salted. The pages were deleted, as the warnings on your talkpages state, because they were too advertising, not written in a neutral way (which is difficult as I do expect you have a conflict of interest. If you think the pages should exist, you can file a request at the requested articles list, and when someone independent is willing to write the articles, that person can request a deletion review (see also the {{deletedpage}}-template, which is on the pages now. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry to bother you again. As I said before - I'm trying to add the value NISPED. Because this is my first time attempting to do so I tried once to write information on the organuzation (I did copy-Paste from Nisped's Site to paragraphs that I thought were objective) and when the page was deleted and my username was blocked I tried again with a new username. I swear my intentions were not to decieve but to try to figure a different way to add this value to wikipedia. Because NISPED is a small Israeli non-profit organization if I'll do what you offered and just request that someone will write about this Value it make take a while.. maybe forever. That's why I wanted to ask if it is possible for me to start a new NISPED value in which I'll only write things that were published about us in other sites and articles. For example- on the Israid web page there is a description of Nisped because they work in cooperation with it. Is it ok to publish that as a NISPED value? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icecos (talk • contribs) 13:30, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, things progress here by discussing on talkpages (like we are doing now), which you did neglect earlier when being warned about the pages/images you have created earlier. And the information here must be written from scratch, not copied from websites, and comply with our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. When your first account got blocked, that was for a reason: apparently the way you wrote the articles was not appropriate. I am sorry, but I would suggest that you try and rewrite the articles in a neutral way, outside of the main article space (e.g. here: User:Icecos/Nisped and User:Icecos/Incep-sme), and when you have decent versions ask for a [[WP:DRV|deletion review, showing the articles to independent editors. I still would like you to read our conflict of interest guideline, as I do suspect you have a conflict of interest, so it is better to comply with that guideline. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Old SALT vs New SALT

This is mostly an FYI to you as an admin who still uses the old, templated method for salting pages. That method of salting pages is depricated, and the template is now up for deletion. While things can still change, the current discussion definitely looks headed towards deletion. Assuming that this happens, you will no longer be able to salt pages with the old method, and will need to begin using the newer salting method that involves cascading protection on the title, and allows recreation to be blocked while still having no article at the name, leaving it as a red link. This new method of salting is centered at WP:PT, and the instructions for how to make it work are there as well. - TexasAndroid 13:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, cheers. I'll have a look at that, and will give it at try for the next time. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Dirk Beetstra and his powerful COIbot for their work in battling spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Not wanting to get pugilistic...

My name is Brian Rutherford, and I am editor with MusicEmissions.com for the last four years. I've enjoyed Wikipedia.org to the point where I've not only learned alot about the world, html and other coding but also helped people become informed about reviews, and features on our website. While I realize you have a job to do -and trust me, all wiki readers appreciate it- I'm not sure I understand why SOME of our links are deleted? We're not promoting on Wiki to sell or promote conceptual thoughts.

Like the subject of the headline states, I don't want to get pugilistic, perhaps I just need to be advised what I am doing wrong when posting a link on certain artist pages. It seems the larger bands are the one's the editors delete.

In closing, we respect what wikipedia stands for. No we're not yet at the popularity levels of say Spin, or Rolling Stone, so we harshly understood when the article for MusicEmissions.com was abruptly removed from wiki last year. However, our website has also been a trusted source, for over eight years. Helping music listeners find independent music on the web is our bottom line. Please help us understand how to navigate and edit properly, and we will stay inside wiki's boundaries from here on out.

Thanks for listening, Brian Rutherford Editor In Chief-V/P —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 23:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and explanation. Let me try to explain: In posting external links only, you are in (possible) violation of quite a number of policies and guidelines (most directly: neutral point of view, 'not a linkfarm', external links guideline, spam guideline (clarification, spam is about the way of adding, not about the content of the site), conflict of interest guideline). Not all of these may be fully applicable, but the problem that such edits can be questioned against all these policies and guidelines does result in that it is better that these link additions are not performed as you, and some other accounts, have been doing (especially since for some accounts there was an apparent conflict of interest). The item has been brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, and I believe also to one of the music-related wikiprojects.

As to which edits have been reverted, I believe at this moment all top edits have been reverted, all other edits are still under investigation (and I am either waiting for the wikiproject, though the risk exists that if mass-additions persist, that all pages edited by the involved accounts will be cleaned.

I hope that you will join us in discussing, and maybe we can come up with a better solution (a music related wikiproject may be of help there). Hope this explains, but if you have further questions, please do not hesitate to ask me. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I will speak with our other writers asap and have them cease all additions until a workable agreement can be made. Furthermore, can you please explain further the exact guidelines that MusicEmissions does not meet for having an article? Thank you again for being so patient and understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you should have a look at our notability guidelines first (which it may very well meet), and probably put up a link at requested articles. I guess the article will then be created (preferably by uninvolved editors) when someone finds it interesting enough to create it. Another way of speeding up the process is to write the article somewhere else (e.g. in your userspace: User:Hstisgod/MusicEmissions), and when you believe you have a nice and neutral article, ask a wikiproject if someone there can review it, and then move it to mainspace when they think it is appropriate.

By the way, you and your editors are of course free to add information (content) to the wikipedia, and when such information can be referenced on your site, that may very well be OK (see the reliable sources guideline, cite guideline and how to create citations guideline). Of course care should be taken that the edits do then not turn in to 'reference spamming' (adding information for the sake of being able to add a reference to your site). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, you are completely understood. What I am firmly understanding about our external link postings is that the articles are in fact relatable, but we're breaking guidelines by posting so many of them? I suppose I can see that being an issue, but it's more geared towards getting our eight years worth of back-logued reviews and features synchronized with the many branches and artists of wiki. I'll certainly speak with the president of the site about your suggestions for getting MusicEmissions possibly articled from an outside source. Again, thank you for your time. 03:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstisgod (talk • contribs) 00:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Err .. yes, but also, as wikipedia is not a linkfarm, there is no need to add your link to all articles. We don't link because someone has the information available, we link because the information provided by the external link improves the article, the knowledge about the subject. Mostly external links don't add something unique, but when they do, they are often better as a reference. But I think it is best for you to make contact with one (or more) of the wikiprojects (a list can be found here), and discuss with them. I am hardly a specialist on music reviews. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Very good...Thanks again Dirk...Hstisgod 13:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Alcohol

The Alcohol article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 06:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I would not call that heavy editing, just the normal vandalism as usual. It is a popular article. But I will have a read through it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

greentealovers.com

Dank u wel! I did not realize that such a thing as the Anti-Spam Bot existed! I really appreciate your help. Alexwoods 20:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Graag gedaan. And if things get really annoying .. Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, but that depends a bit on how much work user:AntiSpamBot will have (put Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/greentealovers.com on your watchlist for up-to-date news). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Complaint

I can see from your User page you are one of those who likes to draw attention to themselves. And, from your edit and comment about Image:DancingBraveVHS.jpg one who does it without thinking and without knowing what they are talking about. Please don't waste my time with your ego games and in future, examine things closely before you edit something and spout off. Thanx. Handicapper 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Unfortunately, I do read the text of the tags, and I don't like to be insulted. As a matter of fact, you are wasting your time reverting and complaining, I would suggest you just provide the requested fair-use rationale, before even more of your precious time is wasted by uploading the image again .. Again, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Our website is not COI

I represent Mythimedia (http://www.mythimedia.org), an official project of the University of Bologna, Italy. The project has only educational purposes and involves only a few professors and researchers of the Bologna University. Someone (maybe a student?) inserted some links in Wikipedia and the website has been included in the COIbot page, and I see it is still there, although I asked to cancel every link to our website from Wikipedia. As far as I know, there are no links left. So, please, remove our website from the COIbot page. Thank you.[User:Mythimedia|Mythimedia] 17:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure why you have removed all occurances of the link. That is/was not necessery. Our conflict of interest guideline states that such links should be added with great care, or discussed on the talkpage, and therefore we are monitoring such additions. As mythimedia is a project of the University of Bologna, I am sure it is a reliable source for some information, and I am sure users are using it as a source. For people from the University of Bologna, please discuss on talkpages, or contact an appropriate wikiproject for support, I am sure you will be welcomed there. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but, as far as I know, COIbot is blacklist. We would like to be whitelisted again. Otherwise, it is better not to be cited at all:-( Mythimedia 21:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I have been looking into this now. The situation arose on the 7th of July, where an account was mass-adding the links to this site. That type of addition of external links is not permitted per quite a number of our policies and guidelines. It has therefore been monitored. The link is not blacklisted, blacklisting would mean that it would be autoreverted by a bot, or even, you would not be able to add the link at all. I guess it was in the original thread already mentioned that the data provided by the link could be OK (I have not reviewed that, I am probably not a specialist in the information the site offers). I have now removed the link from the monitorlist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I have left FallingDrapery on the blacklist for this link, I am reviewing the individual edits performed by other accounts, and will regenerate a report when necessary. By the way, the COI here reflect more that someone did apparently have an interest in adding the link 'en masse' to a number of pages. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, I would like you not to remove references which are added with information. That would degrade the information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you Dirk Mythimedia 21:08, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new

Hi Dirk

I've seen you've beeen cleaning up some of the chembox --> chembox new by AWB. Care to share your code/teach me how to do it? I'm sure you need a hand to clear the thousands of articles? --Rifleman 82 03:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rifleman 82, sure. I do need some help. The trouble is, the script that I am writing at the moment is pretty difficult, still has too many errors, and well, every page has his own problems, as people have been making quite strange chemboxes in time. I plan to save a copy soon in User:Beetstra/Chemicals (I just updated the 'what is programmed'), just keep an eye on the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk. I'll do just that. --Rifleman 82 10:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I put a the script there (but am already tweaking it again). Please check every single edit very carefully, especially in the real upgrade from {{chembox}} to {{chembox new}} it still loses fields which it should parse, simply because I have not added them yet. I'll upgrade the script regularly (when a couple of new things have been added). Feel free to give it a try! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:33, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 12:13, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Just updated, the old version contained some errors (and new functionality has been added again). By the way, it might be good to point to User:Beetstra/Chemicals in the edit summary. If things are wrong, just ignore, chances are that I will get there later. Thanks for helping me out! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Been doing quite a bit of hand correcting but Edgar caught a few of my early problem-edits. Thanks. Mostly working on Chembox --> Chembox new--Rifleman 82 12:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It generally goes quite OK, the problem is that fields that it does not recognise sometimes go into oblivion. Other small things can be done quite quickly by hand. Please give me a list of the failing ones, I can then use these to upgrade the script (as some things are bound to come up quite often). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. I've dropped a few comments at [4]. I think the script is working wonderfully now, and almost no user-intervention is required now. I'm wondering if I should run it in bot mode, and then review the changes and preview at [5]. Right now, I review every single change already anyway. Any comments about the wisdom of this? --Rifleman 82 15:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, Rifleman, I just wanted to let you two know that I've come across a couple of times where the chembox update didn't work quite right. One image in DDT got lost, and somehow other tables in tartaric acid got messed up. Thank you to both of you for doing all this work - I think converting to {{chembox new}} is a good idea. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate your comments, Ed. After a bit of experience with the thing, I've learned more of how it works and the common problems, some of which I have highlighted above.

Anyway, while the bot is officially doing the work, I'm actually reviewing every single edit before (via show changes) and after it has saved (via viewing the article itself through Special:contribs). I might self-revert bad changes in a few moments, or I might spend a while troubleshooting and fixing by hand. That may explain why bad edits may linger for a while. Thanks again for reverting for me all the same. --Rifleman 82 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I still see things going missing indeed, which should be fixed before we even consider going to auto-mode. I will have a look at some of the trouble-kids this evening. One of the main problems seems to be that it also attacks tables outside of the chemboxes, and some problems with some of the fields which are different in almost every single case. And sometimes I fix a problem one way, and it returns the other way. I guess I will be tweaking some in the coming evenings, and then we will see if it is possible to go to auto mode. I actually should try and see if I can catch unparsed text into a remark behind the table. That would make it easier to troubleshoot. Keep me posted for the bigger problems! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ammonium perchlorate

You bot removed a lot of information from Ammonium perchlorate. Was this the intention? --Statsone 17:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for seeing that, there was something wrong there. The bot (the bot is not mine, by the way, but User:Rifleman 82's) is performing a replacement of an old box for a new box, which does result in the pages becoming much smaller. The Autowikibot script that the bot uses is mine. Hope this explains, and again, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:28, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for reverting my userpage. It never ceases to amaze me what extreme reactions the image policy can elicit. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tend to keep fellow spam fighters and other policy protectors on the watchlist as these pages tend to be susceptible to vandalism. By the way, it is good to have you around, you seem quite active on a lot of fronts! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Response to proposed transfer to wiktionary

Please refer back to my talk page, as i would like to continue this discussion... WebCeleb (Talk) 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Potential COI:Bart Kosko

Hi Dirk

I know you're busy with the AWB, but if you have the time, do take a look at CBRichter (talk · contribs). I have already posted a welcome, and a note about COI, but once again you probably have more experience in this than I do. --Rifleman 82 08:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like genuine edits, but indeed, CBRichter only edits this article. It looks quite neutral, though. I watchlisted the page, see what happens. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Unblock Request for Profes001

Hi Dirk, before you unblock user Profes001, please have a look at the entire spamming history of this user... - DVdm 11:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(readded) I indeed know the history, and I have looked at all contributions (from the COIBot report there even seems to be another sock ..). That is the reason why I asked the editor to on-wiki acknowledge that he read the policies and guidelines, and COIBot will monitor the additions of links anyway (I will notify the user). Thanks for the remark, though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:31, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

In response to...

This is the same message posted on ST42's talkpage.
In response to your message on my talkpage, fair point, however, I only reverted his page twice, what he is doing, is deleting my comments, and when I make a reply, calling them reverts, and threatening me with a block, what is your opinion on this? Meateater 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

You were issuing a warning in response to a message which was a response to an inappropriate revert of the blanking. You actions are disruptive, and I fully agree with both Jeffrey and ST47. Please stop, walk away from this issue. Users are allowed to blank their own pages, and do not have to archive (wikipedia has a pretty good archive in its page history). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

So this is what happens when you stand up to admin wrongdoing? I am neither intimmidated or scared by a block, which I will contest either way. Meateater 10:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Someone was blanking his talkpage, thát is not an offence, though a guideline says that it is better to archive. He does not have to, it is a guideline, not a policy. I don't know what you are trying to point out, but you are now officially disruptive. Walk away from this issue, I gave you a final warning, any further posts on this issue will result in a block. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

tone of page for Beacon Press

I don't understand what is wrong with the tone for the Beacon Press page. Thanks for your help .

BeaconP 15:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)Beacon P I did not add the tone tag, but I do agree with it. The article just seems to be a bit too advertising, it is not neutral (as you have an apparent conflict of interest, which may be part of the explanation). The only thing the intro now contains is what the company does, its mission. I miss e.g. information about history, founding date .. etc. etc. Hope this helps a bit. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Question

A question for you at User talk:AntiSpamBot/Sep2007, re a discussion at Talk:Józef Piłsudski, where an editor disagrees with your characterization of republika.pl as an unreliable source. Sincerely, Novickas 15:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed link to online vote

Hi Beetstra. Thanks for the note and rest assured I have no intention of making wikipedia a linkfarm, but I'm confused by the removal of one of my links. I found an online poll of England's most beautiful medieval cathedrals. A poll that links every cathedral back to the wikipedia entry for more detail (which is good for wikipedia isn't it (?) if they are linking to the encyclopedia). This seem to fit all the guidelines I could find on wikipedia help. Can you advise as I'm a newbie to the wikicommunity and just thought that this is the sort of thing that would be interesting to other users, especially when the results come in. --Lionbear 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but no. There are links there, and the number of links should be kept to 'a few' (policy, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). OK, for good links then they could be added, but then we look at what we link at, you are linking to a poll, which does not provide direct information about the subject (guideline WP:EL, links normally to be avoided), and it is a poll, and wikipedia is not a soapbox (policy, WP:SOAPBOX), we are writing an encyclopedia here. When the poll is over, the link may be a good reference for the top three (the first, the second and third best cathedrals, as voted by .. etc. etc.) but it is inappropriate for the external links sections. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool, appreciate the help and advice. This newbie's stepping back from editing until I've explored things through the talk pages. I'm still voting though --Lionbear 11:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Case Review Request

Hi Dirk,

When you have time could you please review the spam listing for <deleted>. Though we are a volunteer based, not for profit, educational resource site we understand and accept links back to peer reviewed supporting technical documentation stored at <deleted> does not meet Wiki guidelines. Our text, image and comment contributions with suggestions for change are hopefully indicative of our efforts to improve the accuracy of the underfloor heating article. We’re still trying to understand how we can make available multipage resource documents available for Wiki visitors – still reading the guidelines… (example: <deleted>/History_of_Pex.htm). In any event, there is gross misinformation in the existing article as noted in our comments which we have backed up with peer reviewed and documented references. We have on our project list to rewrite the article for Wiki according to procedures. If there is anything else we can do to facilitate this review and change please advise. RBean 06:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi RBean. Thanks for the question. If you can improve the article, that is of course fine. As you have set up your own site, you should be able to access also the sources that you have used for your site (if your site only contains original research, then it is going to be difficult to use that on wikipedia). I think you should go ahead and start editing (for more controversial edits, either use the talkpage, or contact an appropriate wikiproject first; the latter is a good idea anyway). Hope this helps, regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad Stine revert

From what I can tell, that radio interview link meets WP:EL (point 4 under section 3.1: "What should be linked"). I just wanted to check with your first before putting it back in the article in case I missed something. Jinxmchue 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the question. Maybe, but the user User:71.188.26.110 spammed the site to quite a number of pages (I just reverted the rest of it). And on Brad Stine there are already quite a number of links, so it might also have been deleted per 'what wikipedia is not' (not a linkfarm). It was earlier used by user:Joecookprogram in The Joe Cook Program, so our conflict of interest guide may also be of interest here. But if you think it adds to the page, feel free to reinstert it. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I don't think there are an overabundance of external links there and there aren't any that are interviews, so I think this would be an acceptable addition. It's not a major interview, but an interview nonetheless. I do see that the person who added it has added a lot from that website. If a better interview is found, perhaps that link could be replaced. Again, thanks. Jinxmchue 15:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thats fine (I saw that you added the link again). Please feel free to also analyse my other reverts on this IP (15 or so). They might make nice references in the end. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagreement over Pourbaix diagrams in element articles

Greetings. Need to get another opinion on this. User:Cadmium is in the process of adding large graphics of Pourbaix diagrams to element pages -- please see what he as added to lead. Also please see my comments on it on talk:lead. He claims (on my talk page) that these diagrams are standard fare, although I have looked in two standard Pchem texts and an advanced inorganic chem text, and I can find no reference to them. To me, the diagrams are esoteric and that most readers will not understand them, and that they certainly don't belong as full size inline insertions. I am not going to revert these mods to lead a second time. Please let me know what you think should be done about this. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Oi. That is something that also I do not know. I don't think these belong in an article like lead (which would be an entry point for many people). KISS should be applied here, I would suggest to fork these sections into their own articles. But I guess you need to ask a physical chemist about this. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Not intimidated

I don't care if you block me! Really, I don't, I can easily start up another account, and you won't even be able to stop me, so please stop making threats unless you can carry them out. Meateater 11:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You havent blocked me yet, so I will assume you won't, now I am going to leave this issue alone, and I hope to god I never encounter you on wikipedia again. Meateater 15:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meateater (talk • contribs)

I hope the same. Happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

mecklenberg links

I'm sorry. I will not do that again, someone told me they removed them maliciously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.192.133 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Maybe you can use them as a reference? Thanks, and happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Children of the Code

Hello Dirk,

I noticed that you have flagged Children of the Code as spam. In particular you removed our link on the page of Dr. Michael Merzenich. We are not spam. We don't have anything on our site for sale. We only advocate learning. The link we added to Dr. Merzenich is to an interview with him that we conducted. Here is what Dr. Merzenich says about us on his own "On the Brain" blog:

http://merzenich.positscience.com/2007/06/01/a-great-resource-for-a-general-understanding-of-dyslexia-and-its-human-and-societal-impacts/

We are a social education project doing very important work in fields related to the 'learning health' of children. We've interviewed over 120 world leaders in neuroscience psychology, linguistics, orthography and other areas related to learning (www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/). Again, we don't advertise or sell anything. Please help us in our relationship with Wikipedia. If you really believe our link is irrelevant to Merzenich, even though I can't understand why, please don't generally black-list us. Thank you.

David Boulton www.childrenofthecode.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.130.183 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines spam as the addition of external links only, and seen this text, you also seem to have a conflict of interest. As we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, I suggest that you either try to contact an appropriate wikiproject, or try to edit according to our policies and guidelines (especially our neutral point of view and what wikipedia is not policies are of interest here). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Denatured alcohol

Hi Dirk

Wondering if you could help me here.

As per Talk:Methylated spirit#Move, I have suggested moving methylated spirits to denatured alcohol, because methylated spirits are merely one type of denatured alcohols. I have not had any response for two weeks, so I believe there is no opposition to such a move.

I have cleaned up the denatured alcohol article at my sandbox: User:Rifleman 82/Denatured alcohol. Could you delete denatured alcohol, and move methylated spirits there? Then, I can copy and paste my version of denatured alcohol there, and avoid a copy-and-paste move. --Rifleman 82 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, seems OK. I will do that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Done, too. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 09:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Heritage Cities

Hello. I have spent a very long time creating websites for the heritage cities of England including www.chester360.co.uk www.york360.co.uk and www.bath360.co.uk

I have received local grants to create these unique guides about cities I know very well! I have placed external links for potential tourists who could benefit from our sites. Have you visited them? before you removed the link? You have removed these links and created an autobot and I feel a bit hard done to. What connection do you have with these cities? The sites are 10 times better than the other external links and I have been descriminated.

Please help! —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHarrison (talk • contribs) 13:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark. These links are already for some time on our list of 'spammed' sites (i.e., people doing link-additions only, not adding content to articles; with spamming I mean here the way of addition, not what is being linked to). A report on these links can be found in the archives of the Spam Wikiproject (see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul). Please understand that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. In this specific case, I would also like you to read the following policies and guidelines: neutral point of view policy, and conflict of interest guideline.

If you believe that the sites really add to the pages, please discuss them on either the talkpages or with an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProjects), instead of using multiple IPs and (at least) one account to push the link onto the pages. The latter may get you blocked, or your links blacklisted (in which case they can not be used at all anymore). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I see from the report that the link has been pushed onto several different wikipedia (what we call 'cross-wiki spamming'), which would mean that we would report the links to the meta-blacklist, which would result in all connected wikipedia (about 700 if I am correct) will not be able to use the link. Please make contact with an appropriate wikiproject and discuss before re-adding the link. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry, it seems that User:MER-C already requested the meta blacklisting. Another discussion can be found here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#4.CF.80.5E2_English_panorama_spam. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply, I now better understand your concerns. I could do with a little help here. As some sites ending with 360.co.uk are not owned by us and have been removed also by this bot. Do I appeal on this other disscusion link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EHarrison (talk • contribs) 14:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be good if you joined the latter discussion, indeed. From the reports I see that only three of the five mentioned links are added, it would be good if you could explain the situation, and hopefully prevent any further damage. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

monitored link

Hi Dirk

I just found out that one of my employer's sites is on the monitored link list and has been caught in some spam reports, shown here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/manta.com

We certainly don't spam wikipedia but since our site is so large, I'm wondering if we receive a disproportionate number of links from 3rd party editors which is causing us to appear on this list?

Is there something we can do to be whitelisted?

thanks

Pittbug

(email-address removed) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pittbug (talk • contribs) 19:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Pittbug, thanks for your remark. The link was reported here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul (in the archives now), and COIBot is then automatically monitoring its use. Apparently it was spammed by one of the 4 accounts there, but as I see only 6 records by 6 different people, I expect that this link is not spammed at the moment. It might be worth contacting User:Hu12, who filed the report. I will remove the site from the monitorlist, as I do when after some time I only see non-spammy additions. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I had a second look, and I have also removed accessmylibrary.com (already some time ago I see now) and goliath.ecnext.com. The sites are still blacklisted against the specific accounts and domains; though the links may be good, I think it is good to monitor the behaviour of these accounts, as they seem to be quite POV. Hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

All wiki spamsearching

You were a touch too late: I pushed the code out earlier today. As for the list of wikis, I started off with this, put it into a spreadsheet, copied two relevant columns into a text file and creatively used find and replace. Thanks anyway. MER-C 14:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

No problems. Good work, anyway! Now Shadow should get the linwatchers database for all wikis. Then you see at once who added the link. See you around, regards, --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Chemportal

Hi Dirk

A heads up about User:Chemportal, [6]. --Rifleman 82 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I welcomed the user and left an explanation of policies and guidelines (which s/he may be violating). Website may certainly be useful, but should not be added in this way. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

InfodriveIndia - pls advise

Hello , I am Rakesh Saraf , Director InfodriveIndia. InfodriveIndia is a free International Trade Resource with huge statistical and database driven content of around 200,000 pages. Our website has been reported as spam. [7]. I and my colleagues have added few links of main categories of our content in the most appropriate and related categories of wikipedia. I admit we may not be very familiar with wikipedia technical terms, but we have certainly added value to wikipedia in a ethical manner.

a) Links added meet the guidelines in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL#What_should_be_linked.

b) links added don't have links on similar subject almost all the time.

c) The content we have on our website is the most comprehensive and upto date then even the Govt sources.

d) Any user with exposure in International trade is welcome to check the above.

I read in your talk about Wikipedia not being a linkfarm and I appreciate the idea, however our content cannot be added directly in Wikipedia as a article ..as it is database driven and voluminous and WP:EL point 3.1.3 mentions that such links "Should be added". Can you guide us ..? In case we have done any technical mistakes ...can you advise what we need to do ? Thanks. Rakesh —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakesh999991 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your question. I first link here a template with some links:

• infodriveindia.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

If you click on the COIBot link here, you see that there were three accounts, of which 2 have a certain conflict of interest (as you acknowledge above). The way these accounts were adding links (as I linked from the spam-report on WT:WPSPAM; see this diff of an edit by you) is blatant spam, and from that example edit it certainly looks that your main intentions were to link to your site, not to improve the wikipedia. The last account adding the links ignored a final warning and still was adding the link days after that warning! Also, it was the third account in row performing mainly link additions. There is no interaction with me, or other editors who showed concerns that the links as added now may not have been appropriate. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm!

If your database contains good data, it could have been used as a proper reference or (some of its contents) could have been used to enhance the wikipedia. But I am afraid you will first have to convince some people that you are going to follow the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia before the link will be removed from the blacklist. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dirk , I have asked my colleagues to first go thru the rules and regulations and get themselves familiarized with Wikipedia. The Content of InfodriveIndia.com is very good but needs custom programming and also professional knowledge, hence cannot be added directly in wikipedia. I request you to revert back our links and also remove "black listing". Tks RakeshRakesh999991 10:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is impossible to link to relevant content on your site directly? In that case, the link would not be suitable as a reference (as it is not attributing the data stated in the wikipedia article), and also not be suitable as an external link (per WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided point 14). And please don't try to tell me that the information you are providing is not suitable for inclusion as content in this encyclopedia, that might be true for picture sites, but not for sites which provide content themselves. The three accounts involved in this case did not discuss after being pointed to the policies and guidelines of this site, I think it is more than fair that you now first provide us with some good examples. I think the best place for that discussion will be with the people in an appropriate wikiproject (you can find a list here: Wikipedia:WikiProjects). For removing from the blacklist, you can make your case at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist where it can be reviewed by more people (but it would certainly help if there was support from an appropriate wikiproject first). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

(Please continue the discussion on WT:WPSPAM here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#infodriveindia.com. Thanks)

From ChemPortal

Bonjour,

Pouvez vous m'expliquer la même chose en Francais ??

Merci,

Cordialement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemportal (talk • contribs) 16:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I can't explain it in French, as my French is really bad. Maybe there is someone who can help you who speaks French? You can have a look here for people on this wikipedia who speak French: . Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

F/A-18

Hi Dirk,

I received a message that a recent addition to the F/A-18 page was deleted. It was about a link I added which was not conform certain guidelines of wikipedia. I don't understand this as I thought it was a good addition since the page linked (dutchops.com) contains a lot of data on this particular aircraft. At the moment at my University this site is rather "hot" as these guys are quite busy adding interesting stuff. I think it is therefore a valuable addition to the wikipedia website as other visitors could use this site just as well as I can...

I hope you guys would reconsider...

Keep up the great work,

Aviation Manager —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation Manager (talk • contribs) 20:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we are writing an encycopedia here, not a linkfarm. Maybe you can use the site to add content to the wikipedia pages, and use the site as a reference (see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT)? Also, the site was recently spammed by someone with a conflict of interest, so accounts performing link additions only are at the moment under investigation. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,

I might contact this website team and ask if I could improve the wikipedia website by using their site as a reference.

AM —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviation Manager (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible spam

Lynu Eng (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - this editor has added many external links to dozens of different artists, not just on Ross Bleckner - (you can find the link there) Ross Bleckner on TerminArtors. I remembered the Archives of American Art situation so I thought you might want to monitor these edits. Modernist 21:50, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted them all. MER-C 03:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I see this has been reported to WT:WPSPAM. Thanks for reporting, Modernist, and merci for handling, MER-C! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

TerminArtors link delete from Carpaccio

Hello, I see you deleted all three external links I put in. As you may have noticed all three was accompanied with a notice on the discussion page. If you check the discussion page of e.g. Carpaccio (one of the place from where you deleted the entry) you will realize that there is no one there to discuss with. What I am supposed to do? Actually, what was that you especially did not like in our link? What is the difference between TerminArtors external link and e.g. the link of Web Gallery of Art (they are even from the same country as we) on the very same Carpaccio page?

Lynu is my wife and we were in lengthy discussion with Cliff and MER-C about this external link thing. At the end, all they had to say was that Wikipedia is not for promoting websites. Yes, we got the message. Still, we believe that our links provide added value which is for the benefit of the users. And still, we do not feel that external links (or submitters) are treated on an equal basis which, of course, should be the added value of their submission.

I am sorry if I sound upset, I do not mean to. I am just a bit discouraged and disappointed by the cold welcome.

Sincerely yours Abenhakan 18:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion. The terminators link was already under discussion earlier on our wikiproject on spam (actually the discussion is still active). The link was there evaluated as not adding too much to the pages, and as with the other account, your edits concern mainly the addition of the links. Editing wikipedia is based on getting consensus, and it is a bit assuming bad faith that if there is no discussion on discussion pages, that one then does not have to wait if people might respond to your posts. And still, first adding the link, and then starting the discussion is certainly the wrong way around.

If there is not a lot of discussion on talkpages, the edit history of the page itself can help you find people who are quite involved in the subjects, and discuss with them, or open a thread on a wikiproject (a list can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject. If the latter agrees that the site is adding information to pages, then addition to external links sections can be considered, still it is better to a) use the information the link provides to add content to the pages, and please observe our neutral point of view policy/pillar, performing additions/edits to link to one external site only is not exactly neutral.

For the record, if Lynu is your wife, then these accounts can be considered as meat-puppets (see WP:SOCK), and your wife is performing link additions cross-wiki (on more than one wikimedia project). That type of spam may result in meta-blacklisting of the link, after which it can only be removed if established editors agree the link does add to the wikipedia. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Friend, thank you for your reply, I really appreciate your efforts in dealing with us. For the record, up until this disacussion ends we of course do not put in any new links so no need for further threats or punishment. Please, allow me some remarks. Lynu is my wife, no secret, and she put in a number links to different non-English Wikipedia pages, no secret either. No conspiracy here, my friend. We are from Hungary and the population of our country is, unfortunately, not very strong in foreign languages. That is why we put in a limited number of external links to the Hungarian Wiki. We did not have any negative comment at all, the editor in charge said hello and asked us to put our external links at the bottom of the list, which suggestion we of course followed. She added that she liked our site. See, no problem. Same with the German site. The strongest foreign language in Hungary is German so we put in ten or so external link to the German Wiki. No negative reactions, no problem. The "original" English Wiki, being far the strongest and most populated, is, I guess, a natural choice for the third step. But, unlike in the other two cases, we experience a lot of problem. Any comment on this?

You mentioned that you evaluated the link we submitted. This we see as a very positive thing and appreciate the effort. Since you did not specify the person who did it, and since neither Cliff nor MER-C mentioned it (they actually suggested that it is not really the point of concern in this situation) I assume that it was you who checked our site. Thanks again. Since you removed the first external link from the page of John Singer Sargent (or at least this was the message we got) I assume that you checked that link. That link pointed to Sargent subpage at TerminArtors. Now, at our site you presently find 439 works of Sargent, categorized by movement, technique, theme, date and the location where the work is held. Fully searchable along these categories, also with multiple criteria. We are a company incorporated in the EU, in line with EU legislation. The site is in English, no harmful code. Exactly the same (of course with a varied number of works) can be said about the other 500+ artists we have in the site. You say not much added value. Seriously I ask, what would you consider enough added value in case of a painter?

We take your advice and will put in review request to the discussion pages of the artists where we think our external link would make a difference. I seriously hope that the review requests in themselves will not be considered as spam.

Since I believe I am elder than you, have extensive experience in this field and also have good intentions, please, allow me one slightly personal comment. People working hard on a specific project in many cases develop strong emotional attachment to that project. In case of people who work on a volunteer basis it is even more so. The harder one works the stronger the emotional attachment can be. This is a fantastic thing and exactly this attachment is which makes the difference, which makes any project strong and vibrant. However, these people, with all the best intentions and with fully good belief tend to take any criticism of their project, or even harmless actions which are not perfectly in line with their subjective taste, as a vigorous attack againts their child. Nothing like that is happening here.

Sincerely yours Abenhakan 14:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My advice is, contact an appropriate wikiproject, and let them evaluate your link. Until now I only see link additions by you and your wife, which is, even for good, informative links, considered spamming on this wikipedia (see also our neutral point of view policy, only adding links to one site is not really neutral and what wikipedia is not policy, not a repository section). When I see the site, I see that everyone can upload images, I hope these picture additions are evaluated independently, otherwise the site probably fails the reliable sources guideline (which is also mentioned in the external links guideline). You also say that it is your site, therefore also our conflict of interest guideline is of interest here (again based on the neutral point of view policy. I hope this explains, regards, --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice we will take it. Very shortly I reflect on your remarks. neutral point of view policy has not much to do with our site. We do not favour or disfavour artists, movements, museums, etc. we display them. Also, we are very much aware of the reliable sources guideline and we are maintaining somehow similar guideline at our site for our own good sake. I do not see the relevance of the our conflict of interest guideline section either. That section, as I read it, discusses editorial bias, I see no mentioning of External links there. Actually, however, reading these articles were quite useful since I found a couple of very interesting articles I am sure you are familiar with. One is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers another is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith. I am sure in most cases you take those guidelines as seriously as the guidelines you kept citing. Any advice beyond starting on discussion pages and trying Wikiproject? Cheers, Abenhakan 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Neutral point of view as described in the guideline does affect wikipedia (it has nothing to do with your site). What I mean us that you are only adding links to your sites, I am sure the European Library, Project Gutenberg etc also has good info, but those links are not adde by you. In that way you are giving a singular view. Why should the page have a link to your site, and not to the others (and with that still obeying WP:NOT#REPOSITORY.

If you read WP:COI, you see: "Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," but if you have a conflict of interest avoid, or exercise great caution when ... Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)". Therefore WP:COI certainly applies.

As you can see from your talkpage, I gave you a good faith warning (first level, see Wikipedia:User warning templates; "Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant."), with an explanation of why, on this wikipedia, your edits are of concern. I also left you a welcome message which links to the necessery policies and guidelines. Assuming good faith and not biting newcomers does not mean that we should ignore edits by new users, it means that we, early on, point towards the necessery policies and guidelines, and suggest discussion. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 17:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

New article about Eurotech Group

Hallo, my name is Alessia Di Floriano. I work in Eurotech Group, a company based in Italy. Eurotech's key people would like to have an article on Wikipedia about the company (like HP, Nokia, etc). I had just done an article about Eurotech on 1st August, but this contained some phrase a little advertising. Now I have done a new article about Eurotech with some editing. I would like that you could read our article before its pubblication on Wikipedia because I'm in good faith and I don't want generate problems or discussions with Wikipedia's Administrators. I would like to change our username "Marketing Eurotech" too, because don't respect the Wikipedia's criteria. Could the username "Eth mtk" meet Wikipedia's criteria? Please could you tell me how I can do that (into the special page changing username, or into changing username-usurpations or create a new account with a new username)? Thank you in advance for your support. Kind Regards, Alessia Di Floriano —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.8.67.146 (talk) 14:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. I think it is the best if you contact an appropriate wikiproject (a list can be found here: Wikipedia:WikiProject) and ask about the article there. Someone associated with the wikiproject can then move the article for you.

Regarding changing username, you indeed need to follow the instructions on the change-username page, and select one that you think is appropriate. If you don't have too many edits, it is often easier to create a fresh username. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

reverts on Jacqueline Novogratz

Hello, SocialEdgeJill is my contributer user name. I recently added a video interview with Jacqueline Novogratz to her page. You have reverted this addition. Can you explain and provide direction on how to add this valuable multimedia content link? Thanks. Jill Finlayson—Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialEdgeJill (talk • contribs)

Hi. Thanks for the question. I don't know if that link would be allowed per our external links guidelines (after all, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm). Also, you seem to have a conflict of interest, in which guideline we strongly discourage adding links to sites we are associated with. And, you are adding external links only, which in Wikipedia is defines as spamming. If you think the link really adds to the page, either discuss it with an appropriate wikiproject, discuss it on the talkpage. But maybe you can improve the the pages by adding content and using information as a reference (of course, still obeying our [WP:NPOV|neutral point of view]] guideline]]). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have added content in the past that was cut down and put in external links, so I thought that was the appropriate place for links to relevant content unique to this individual. I can add more (neutral, descriptive) content if you think that will help. If one discusses it on the talk page, does this eventually get converted into an external link? Can you take a look at the links you reverted and let me know if you think they are specific enough to add enough value to not be considered "linkfarm". I do believe this content is appropriate, relevant, and valuable to someone researching the person - it is an opportunity to for them to see the person interviewed on important issues. Any additional suggestions would be much appreciated. Jill—Preceding unsigned comment added by SocialEdgeJill (talk • contribs)

If other editors are convinced that the link adds to the page, then it may get added in time, yes. A faster way is contacting an appropriate wikiproject (see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject). I see that you are describing interviews, guess they would be very suitable to attribute some data available on the pages, or to expand pages further (and as you also know what information is available in other peoples interviews, maybe you can also use information from those). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)