User talk:Beetstra

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 – #170

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 -

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)

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)

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 [2]. 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 [3]. 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 www.healthyheating.com. 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 www.healthyheating.com 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: http://www.healthyheating.com/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)