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 – #5

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 (you can consider to remove other links covered there). 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 - 22 - current 23 - 24 - 25 -

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, [2]. --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. [3]. 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 • Spamcheck • 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)