User talk:Gogo Dodo

Archives
April 2006 – June 2006 July 2006 – September 2006

NetObjects, Inc.

Can you visit the NetObjects, Inc. article again? It was tagged as advertising. I made some changes to meet the complaints. What is your opinion? --Peter Eisenburger 11:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is able to place an advert-tag? --Peter Eisenburger 06:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Considerating your advice I did some further editing. However I wanted to keep the numbers because that's what people want to know about a company.--Peter Eisenburger 07:35, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. So, I can go on writing more articles ;) --Peter Eisenburger 09:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I make it in a row ;) NetObjects Fusion will be the next article due in autumn 2006. I already have some pieces and images also. Probably after that I will go on with a smaller article covering Rae Technology as the "missing link" between Apple and NetObjects. --Peter Eisenburger 06:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your Message To Me

You wrote: [1]

Exact how are links to photo galleries of the subjects in question considered "commercial links or links to your own private websites"? There is no "advertising" involved, as you claim, as the links indeed point to photo galleries of the subjects involved. None of these galleries are my own personal websites. In fact, I am being very generous with my free time in even adding these links in the first place. I am doing this for the sake of helping out other people who may be interested in seeing more photos on the subjects in question. I gain absolutely no benefit from the work that I'm doing, other then the "good feeling" of knowing that I'm helping others. I am not hurting Wikipedia, or anyone else. Quite the contrary, I'm trying to make Wikipedia better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.184.226 (talk • contribs)

While I appreciate your enthusiasm for adding to Wikipedia, I don't think the links were proper as they were to a file upload service who account owner was a commercial website. The photos themselves are of questionable legal standing. You adding it to the top of the External links sections didn't help matters either. -- Gogo Dodo 06:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

disputing the Branham High School article

Sorry about that, I was just tagging my friend's article for fun. I did not know it would show up immediately. Again, sorry, and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windows2142 (talk • contribs)

Replied to your Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 05:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Bolivia

Can you try and do a revert on this? Whatever I do, I can't change it, or revert. It has a lot of accumulated vandalism. I think maybe going back to 2006-10-04T10:02:21 219.79.53.194 will remove most of it. --ArmadilloFromHell 02:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Replied to your Talk page. -- Gogo Dodo 02:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalise

Moved from my User page. -- Gogo Dodo 02:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry. I shall never vandalise another page again. (Omit this edit, I am unable to email you) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.158.32 (talk • contribs)

Hello

1. The Website(http://dunkers23.googlepages.com/stevefrancis) does not have any banners or pop ups nor does it encourge buying products. 2. The website is Non profit 3. The website has nothing but Steve Francis highlights and dunk videos. There is no reason not to put the website up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.113.6 (talk • contribs)

You're link spamming and several other editors agree with me. -- Gogo Dodo 21:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

List of photographers

Thank you for your repeated deletion of unsuitable content.

Unfortunately, the average article-worthy photographer has an article that isn't worthy of them, or of course no article at all. If you're into additions as well as (very helpful) removals, do please consider "adopting" a photographer. (And of course there are some very dubious photographer articles too. A lot might be PRODded for vanity or lack of verifiability or both. Actually I have one in mind right now.....) -- Hoary 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This user is a recent changes patroller. Whew, you're a tougher (wo)man than me. I used to patrol new pages, but cumulatively, over time, the degree of vanity and puffery made me depressed about the human race.

I send you a virtual book token ("It's the thought that counts", right?) for a couple of good photo books. -- Hoary 08:00, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your message to me

Hello, I am new to Wikipedia and have added some links to bank pages on Wikipedia. You commented that the links were in violation of the external link policy. The website to which I have linked, myBank.com, provides listings for every branch in the U.S., free of charge.

As I understand the policy, the links satisfy multiple categories of proper Wikipedia links. Specifically, the links, which link directly to branches of banks with Wikipedia pages, provide "neutral and accurate material" and "meaningful, relevant content". Moreover, there is no attempt to profit from the user. The website does not require registration or include advertising. And, the site is accessible, useful, and tasteful. The data is correct, is based on FDIC data, and is updated to ensure its substantive longevity. Furthermore, in an attempt to be a good Wikipedia "citizen", (1) the links I included directly link to the relevant bank's branches (thereafter, a user can narrow the list as desired); and (2) I have always put these links after the official link of the bank. Finally, I thought I was being helpful by making the link very clear: "Find this bank's branches on myBank.com."

I welcome your feedback, as I have every intention of being a good wikipedia "citizen". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.193.24 (talk • contribs)

The problem with your added links is that it provides no additional content that the official bank sites do not already provide. While I applaud your wanting to contribute to Wikipedia, I don't think this was a proper addition. -- Gogo Dodo 04:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Peg Lautenschlager

User:24.196.119.219 has removed the "Controversy" section from the Peg Lautenschlager article again after you warned him about doing that. I have reverted his most recent edits. --TommyBoy 03:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I just read your reply and I agree that it appears to be "whitewashing". Unexplained removal of properly-sourced or insertion of poorly-sourced negative information in U.S. politicians biographies by anonymous users seems to have become a major problem on Wikipedia. I have previously had similar problems when editing the articles on Mitch Daniels, Jo Ann Emerson, Claire McCaskill, and Jan Schakowsky. --TommyBoy 05:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

My user page

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Have a good day--M W Johnson 04:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -- Gogo Dodo 05:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries

No worries, fellow alliance member! I agree, it was pretty weird...Maybe keep an eye on that person. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 07:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)