User talk:Dan1679

Talk page for user AbsolutDan

If you are initiating a new conversation, please click here or use the + sign above (next to the edit this page button) to create a new section for your comment. If you are continuing an existing/past discussion that is less than 14 days old (not yet archived), please find the discussion and click "edit" to add your comment to that discussion. Please be civil. If you have a problem with any of my edits or reverts, please state the issue calmly and factually, and I will respond in kind. Please sign & date all comments by adding ~~~~ at the end of the comment. If you need to discuss something that doesn't belong on the Talk page, email me.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 14 days are automatically archived to User talk:AbsolutDan/Archive005. Sections without timestamps are not archived

Archives
Archive001 Archive002 Archive003 Archive004 Archive005

RobNelsonFilms

Not sure how to add information to this so that it gets to the needed sources, but I wasn't spamming. I'm new to Wikipedia and I'm not sure how it works. I just tested it out by adding some of my most resourcefull pages to the appropriate sources, considering the links on the pages that I found when I was researching the info for my site weren't all that good. I thought it would help out. I thought users would like to see that.

I realize Wiki isn't a source of just links to good info, but its not encouraging me much to help Wikimedia if my additions aren't even noted. I don't think they even looked at my site additions. Sheesh.

Besides, we're not commercial anyhow. We're a collection of 5 graduate students that make articles on biology info.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam"

Rob —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.101.13.136 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:PAIN

Hi, Dan. Reviewing your claim on WP:PAIN that WikiRoo had been "namecalling" in edit summaries, I thought it exaggerated. "Dissident" isn't even a negative word. I did write a lttle note advising him against using words like "progagandist" in edit summaries, though. But considering that you're in a content conflict with WikiRoo and have recently filed an RFC on him, you might want to consider that actions like WP:PAIN reports for such mild-to-non-existent infractions may reflect badly on you rather than him. I also frankly have a bit of a problem with the note from you that I saw on his page. It's misleading to suggest that editors have an obligation to " try to find something positive to say" to balance critical input that they make. Please review WP:NPOV, as it's our most important policy. And please don't try to deter people from editing articles "if all you can think of is negativity"; that's misrepresenting WP:NPOV in a big way. Intimidating people from contributing is altogether frowned on. Best wishes, Bishonen | talk 12:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC).

WikiRoo continuing with attacks

On the AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Unique Regional Government Structure in Ontario, WikiRoo continues with paranoid personal attacks and unfounded allegations, accusing everyone who disagrees with him as being either sockpuppets or a cabal. You already gave him a 'last warning'. Time to pull the plug on him? --DarkAudit 18:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Cellular Automaton

Dan,

First, as a recognised researcher in the field of cellular automata (I am the only person who has ever constructed a self-replicator within von Neumann's 29-state cellular automata), I am well placed to give these comments.

Second, Hiroki Sayama is also a well recognised researcher in this field. I suspect that it is he who added the link which you have construed to be spam. Frankly, the article is relevant to the field, for it discusses models of self-replicators within the space of a cellular automata. The link given is to his paper, as available from an MIT Press website.

Third, while I can agree that the article Cellular Automaton is becoming overly broad in its references, this would also include the mentions of Wolfram's work, and he is clearly interested in self-promotion. I know Wolfram (even if only as a passing acquaintance), and I do not regard his work in ANKOS as being particularly important. Sayama's work is far more relevant to the topic of cellular automata. ANKOS is relevant only as a picturebook of the output of some systems of cellular automata.

Forth, what may be more relevant to your act, is the creation of a list of topical papers, and have a single link to that list within the references section of the Cellular Automaton article. What should not be done is a wholesale exclusion of relevant material.

Finally, in my opinion, the article is poorly named. A cellular automaton is a (single) finite-state automaton that resides within a (single) cell of a system of cellular automata. In this regard, Wolfram is using the language correctly. I find it quite strange that persons having interest in the topic of cellular automata persist in misnaming (see the discussion page of the article for some relevant exchange between editors).

The article should be titled: Cellular Automata. William R. Buckley 16:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the near immediate reply. I have been reviewing the Wikipages respecting the issue of spam, and in particular those messages which discuss apparent actions of Scientific American. About this problem, I am probably in agreement with removal of the link, if only because such links are added to inappropriate places. I really do like the idea of having separate pages which list all relevant external publications (be they magazines, books, movies, websites, etc.), with a single link thereto within the references section of other Wikipedia articles.

The link to Sayama's paper, even though it is through the MIT Press website, is not promotional. Sayama's paper has been published (in 2000), and the link which you removed provides article readers with a means to obtain Sayama's paper. It is not promotional; it is informational. Further, since the paper has been published, it is citable. I will work to find a more suitable place to put such links. Perhaps the Wikipedia community could work with the Scientific American people to adjust their means of providing links. Wikipedia articles would clearly benefit from having external references, such as SciAm articles. It seems the issue is more a matter of how and where such links are obtained and provided. Please know, I do support your deletionist (is that the correct title) activities, even if I do not clearly understand the tendency. I am probably more of the inclusionist bent, even as I hold that Wikipedia should be a strong information source.

Finally, I do well appreciate your comment respecting the suitable place to discuss concepts like article naming. In fact, you will find (upon review) that the discussion page for the article Cellular Automaton does already have some debate of this issue. Indeed, I initiated that debate. William R. Buckley 17:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

cyLEDGE

The cyLEDGE article has now been edited to take into account justified criticisms by several users. Please accept our apologies for what may have seemed excessive or unclear marketing jargon (the jargon which, for better or worse, we are most familar with...), and have done our best to follow the Wiki Style manual. Though cyLEDGE contains the company site as an external link, it is not so much a marketing campaign than it is an attempt to communicate what we are doing and get reactions from other people working or interested in the field. Since there is a natural affinity to cyLEDGE's activities and open-platforms such as Wikipedia, it is important for us to be present there - an additional paragraph has been added to make as clear as possible what the issues at stake are, and which we are trying to come to terms with. I hope you will reconsider your proposed deletion in view of these changes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knusper (talk • contribs) 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiRoo

Hi,

You may very well be right. Two things in which to take solace, though: 1)WikiRoo is now blocked; and 2) IP addresses can't have their talkpages deleted as easily (being multi-user, they don't have a right to vanish of the same kind), so any griping he does from there will be universally visible. If the IP in question is WikiRoo, it is also possible that he's just confused, and didn't realize that asking to vanish meant that he'd be blocked permanently. As an eternal optimist, I still hope he'll figure all that out and set himself to constructive editing. Best wishes, Xoloz 05:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned to GaryWill at his talk, the answer is no. Blocking an IP can lead to inadvertent "collateral damage" (the blocking of innocent users on the same network); as well, it is a virtual certainly that someone else will come to possess WikiRoo's exact current IP address someday (people move -- IPs move too.) For these two reasons, indefinite blocks of IP addresses are forbidden, more or less. The "right to vanish" only exists for registered accounts -- which makes sense, since editing behind an IP is a form of anonimity anyway. Best wishes, Xoloz 00:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

are you an admin?

In that case it is meaningles talking with you, by using violence your are going to impose your POV anyway. Karnagio 01:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yanksox

Please see Requests for adminship/Yanksox. Thanks Tyrenius 13:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it will cause any problem, now it's been sorted, and your explanation given. Good job there was one that occurred before where it happened, or I wouldn't have known either. Tyrenius 13:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan, don't worry about your comments and please don't be so hard on yourself. I deeply appreciate your kind words towards me. If you need anything feel free to contact me. :) Yanksox 21:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

request to clean up the history of frustration

Wiki has a policy to keep things like users IP adress confidential. What realy got me going was when I first signed up and right away someone plastered my IP address in a banner across my user name page like a branded criminal.

That was the catalist to the whole escapade when I found myself reacting to being under personal attack which started me fighting back at everyone like Don Quixote.

Kindly delete the IP page entirely. I don't want my new work getting prejudiced by that initial foray. Wiki does have a policy of not publishing IP adresses of its editors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikiWoo (talk • contribs) 04:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

looking for your support

Hi AbsolutDan,

Looking for your support on my first article which I think I've put together properly and nicely. I have quite a few editors saying Keep, but I don't know if a bunch of other people are working together to show up at the last minute with a bunch of delete votes to kill my work. I expected a few like Will who have not cast their vote, so I believe they are holding back till the last minute to ambush this article just before the vote tally, to take away my ability to resolve or comment on their reasons.

I also have ideas for more articles and I don't what to invest too much time if others are going to use tactics to undermine it. This is the vote page and I would appreciate your review and comments and anyone else that may be interested in helping to expand Wiki wiht new content.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Emil_Kolb

WikiWoo 19:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Laser Tag and WP:EL

Hello Dan. You don't know me, but I spotted a comment by you to another user on their talk page about Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. I was hoping, when you get the time, if you would kindly take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Laser Tag and WP:EL and perhaps give your input. I would appreciate it. Cheers! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 18:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments and will contact you if I need further assistance. Cheers again! -- moe.RON ^{talk | done | doing} 17:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wiki(Woo) and the Susan Fennell page

Since you've dealt with WikiRoo before on the Susan Fennell talk page, I was wondering if you could come by and explain original research and citing your work. I've tried, but he finds the idea of citing everything added "ridiculous." He is attempting to insert his own original research into the article and claims that he has referenced it by giving links to general Google search results (that is, he has extrapolated from the mass of results for a specific set of search terms, and then cited the search as a "reliable source" for his conclusion). OzLawyer 19:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep, thanks. OzLawyer 15:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

He's back

This time as WikiWoo. This is getting tedious. --DarkAudit 14:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Lord Strachan

Dear Dan,

I read your notes and such about "vandalism", and the articles I have created. Lord Strachan is an actual figure in Scottish and British Parliament, the youngest in fact! I'm currently writing to you from Glasgow, Scotland, and I believe a couple of My Friends attempted to write this Lord Strachan page a while ago, but they were deleted as well. Hmmm . . .

As well, I can see you getting angry at the Fettes College thing, and I am a little sorry for that, but Lord Strachan did attend Fettes College, so can you perhaps write that in there?

Please respond to me why writing about a current political figure is wrong, Thank you,

Avakynesian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Avakynesian (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dan, here you are - Lord Robert Keith Strachan House of Lords - Heaton and Others (Respondents) v. Axa Equity ...Lord Strachan heard the twelve actions together and in April 2006 he gave judgment in all of them. The parts of his opinion dealing with liability and with age ... www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020425/heaton-3.htm - 30k - I don't know if this is what you want, but it's some publicity about Lord Strachan. Thank you for your time, but, perhaps; If I give you the iformation and images and such for Lord Strachan, could you maybe make it? It shouldn't be that hard to find info, or images, but I already have them, so if I give you this stuff, perhaps could you do it? Avakynesian 04:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

AbsolutDan: Is he a rogue admin with a vandetta?

If you continue to vandalize my talk page you will be reported to other admins. Please provide a link to wikipedia guidelines that say I cannot clean up MY OWN talk page. Also, while you are at it, I suggest you read this article and pay close attention to what it says. Get a life, you robotic idiot. Cshay 19:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

First off no I am not an admin. Second, when you originally removed the warnings from your talk page, you did not archive them. I see that you have since followed procedure a bit more closely and archived the warnings, so I assume that you have since seen Wikipedia:Removing warnings#Vandalism. However please bear in mind in the future that quickly archiving warnings can also be seen an attempt to hide the warnings, and could as such be considered vandalism as well. If you have any other questions or concerns please let me know. However please be civil in your messages. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Question

Hi Dan,

I wish to post a page on my product www.activexls.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Activexls

It get the box saying it is under editorial review.

I do not wish to publish marketing crap, but to create awareness upon such products

It is a great tool for .NET and Java developers. I don't think software should be excluded from WIKIPEDIA just because it's NOT open source —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mihaigheza (talk • contribs) 14:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?

Hi Dan,

I can't believe you would remove the link to a relevant article and leave the other links intact.

C'mon Dan. Do I need to make it a link to a PDF to make it valid? What is the differentiator here?

If people come here for info and value (as I hope they do,) then this link is clearly that and not promotional.

Yes, I run a for profit business, but I do not promote that business anywhere in the article and you have to look carefully for advertising on my site. That is not the case with most of the other articles; who are also "for profit" businesses (even though some pretend to be otherwise.)

I am also well aware of what is appropriate for Wikipedia and see your subjective judgement on the remaining links as very suspicious to say the least.

I wrote a bit of a treatise on this subject some time ago and will share it with you if you are open to another viewpoint if you'd like to email me at jb@tpslean.com

I'm not looking to pick a fight here, but I am a bit tired of people picking and choosing what links can stay or must go based on inconsistent criteria. It just seems to me that something is not working as designed here.

Look over the other links and tell me if they aren't promotional in some way or another. They are; and some are flagrantly advertising.

I wish to contribute every bit as much as the other folks on this site. And yes, like others, I appreciate traffic to my site from Wikipedia as well. Even though thus far it has only been an annoyance.

All the Best,

Bill —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jbillh (talk • contribs) 03:32, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

Actually, we probably agree much more than you might think on maintaining the integrity of Wikipedia. I believe in its value and also want to preserve it

I don't particularly like the argument that now that you are watching the Lean Manufacturing article that all of the previous posts must be relevant. I assure you that what you are calling an olive branch is exactly what most of the other posts are offering.

If you are being so bold as to take links off an article page because of your supreme knowledge of how things should be, then maybe you should exercise some of this wisdom on the other links. Not to be a smart Alec about it, but is it just luck for the clearly promotional sites you let slip by or are you just doing your job half-way? Either seems insufficient and lacking due diligence.

In the bigger picture shouldn't we put a category on the site (in the External Links section) for "Related Articles" and "Other Resources?" These links could lead to another wiki page separate from the main article page to avoid clutter and such, but still add value to the visitors.

All I truly want here is fair treatment and due consideration for what I am trying to contribute.

I'm going to re-post the article link to a PDF version that does not reside in my main website. Visitors may read the article and benefit from it or not and click on the link on the final page of the article or not as they see fit. I've been told by many people in this field that this article is needed and appreciated. I want to share it. People will vote with their clicks.

All I ask of you is that you leave my link there for a few days and see if anyone else takes issue with it. If the community determines that it is inappropriate I will pull it myself if they don't beat me to it. That said, if we are to get real "pure" and "letter of the law'ish" about it, then we all have some work to do on the main page, especially regarding the books and external links sections.

Thanks for what you are trying to do.

--Jbillh 06:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Man, what a thankless job you do. So ... thanks. --Ideogram 03:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Says one idiot to the other LOL Cshay 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Articles and links from Idcon

Dan,

I tried to edit some of the pages according to what I saw on the page earlier. It looks as if you have reverted all my posts. I'm new and don't know the rules 100%. I felt all my posts went according to the style of the current page. However, perhaps I made a mistake. If so let me know.

I have posted 2 articles. one on the preventive maintenance page, one on the root cause page. I see many other article on the pages so I hope this is not a problem (unless you are a competitor to my company?). Let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.126.96 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

me again. Got a log in. I saw your post. It's my first time here, so perhaps I made some mistakes. I understand you have to remove SPAM, perhaps a couple of my post could have been interpreted that way, I'll try to be more conservative. However ...

I tried to add content as well as links (mostly to interesting articles), but you deleted content as well, why?

There are many links to articles on the pages, the links are mostly to commercial sites, If I feel we have good content, why can't I add links to valuable articles? I think I can evaluate which article is reasonabe interesting since I've worked as a consultant in this field (for the posts I make) for 35 years?

If you can't accept article links from me, I think you have to remove them all from your pages (are they yours?). I don't see how you could be the judge of the quality of these articles since you spend your time in front of a computer, not in plants doing or training on these topics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idhammar (talk • contribs) 04:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dan,

saw your message and saw your point. But, if you follow your own guidelines. How can you have links to pages on the Root Cause page that aren't even to article information? For crying out loud, you even have trademarks for software names in the links you allow!! Where is this community of concensus that allowed those links? Where do I go, because someone is not following guidelines, or the little community is made up of a cartell of SPAMMERS. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idhammar (talk • contribs) 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Round and round we go...

Hello Dan,

I understood you in your previous posts but fail to accept that it is appropriate or sufficient to only cut new posts to the external links section. It just seems to me that someone inclined to help keep wiki clean would be more thorough on the pages they monitor. Perhaps 1400+ pages is just too many to do justice to when it comes to spam hunting?

In the meantime, I offered a free and relevant article with no strings attached and it is booted while blatant advertising that links to nothing but homepages and books remains. This is why I feel so indignant about all of this. Doing this job half-way is not doing it correctly in my humble opinion.

It is not my goal to somehow "beat the system," but there is no way anyone else can chime-in about the appropriateness of my links if you zap them as soon as they show up based on your interpretation of things. That just gives one editor too much power in my opinion. And that power and judgement is only being cast on new posts. Whether or not there is value in a post or a link should certainly be determined by more than one person. That is why I say let the people who know the topic decide.

We could go round and round here but my life is much too short for this. Although I sincerely appreciate what you are trying to do, I cannot get on board with how you are applying your editorial license.

All the Best,

--Jbillh 16:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)