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 – #184

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 -

Thank You!

Hi Dirk,

Saw your response and just wanted to relay a simple thank you for the information.

Kind regards,

Johnbushiii (talk) 17:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome! Hope it helps, see you around, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

COIBot related

Hi. I've just found my username listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cia.gov, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/fides.org, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/catholic.com, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/digital.fides.org.pl. Ouch! Anyway, I'm not CIA / Catholic / Catholic promoter. You may never be absolutely sure of the 1st one, though ;).

• the cia.gov related diff is rv spam vandalism
• catholic.com: adding a link to an article which I've destubbed; the link is to a Roman Catholic comment/POV on an Eastern Orthodox tradition (the subject of the article). I'm EO (see my userpage and edits). The guy writing the ext linked page is (presumably) RC (I've never edited RC related articles). So no spam/COI. I've found it interesting enough to be included in ext links: an apologetical RC article link about an EO tradition, like let's see the others' POV, per RC good (as close) enough; Protestant theology too far (rejection of Tradition, no saints cult), so no good on the topic (their POV in the theological article, not in the place article); secular scholar sources on the Assumption of Mary? nah :P. The diff in EO/RC POV are also addressed in the article, plus wikilink to the RC similar article.
• fides.org/digital.fides.org.pl: the link points to a ref which I've used only for the year of a text. The ref is to a theological studies source. Overall, not much info on the article's subject. I've been there, made some pics (especially for WP), seen the article was stub, expanded it, searched for sources, found very few, used them as good as I was able. The article was accepted as DYK.

Thanks for reading. I too assume COIbot's good faith. Cheering you both, adriatikus | talk 08:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have whitelisted you, thanks for the remark and the explanation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mesoporous silica help

Thank you for your help with the Mesopourus silica article. Apheontai (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico Magazine/New Mexico Tourism Department

Dear Mr. Beetstra,

I do not understand why you have removed the links I have placed in the New Mexico article globally for the New Mexico Tourism Department (www.newmexico.org) and New Mexico Magazine (www.nmmagazine.com). The New Mexico Tourism Department is the state of New Mexico's official website for promoting all attractions statewide, while New Mexico Magazine is the state's official magazine, covering the history, arts, culture and people of New Mexico. These are not private businesses, nor has any spamming taken place. You were wrong in your assessments and mistaken to remove the links.

Please advise how I should go about reinserting the links so they are not arbitrarily removed again.

Jon Bowman Associate Publisher New Mexico Magazine

PS: I checked the Wikipedia article for the Netherlands, and found a link there for the official Holland travel administration. The New Mexico Tourism Department/New Mexico Magazine is the equivalent for our state, so these links should be treated equally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonRBowman (talk • contribs) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

JonRBowman, as the template that is left on your talkpage says, you have a conflict of interest, and therefor it is better for you to discuss the links. Moreover, the links you add are not appropriate on the article New Mexico (they are appropriate on the page for the magazine or for the Tourism department). Indeed, other links may also not be appropriate, that is not a reason to add more of them. The way you were adding the links, to many, many wikipedia, is spamming, and is very easily explained as having a promotional intent. Therefor, I ask you to stop, and start a discussion on the talkpage, i.s.o adding the links yourself. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra

Mr. Beetstra, There were already Tourism Department links in the main Wikipedia New Mexico articles (English, Spanish, French, etc.), but they were outdated and inaccurate. All I did was substitute the correct URLS, and then add those same URLS to the related articles in other languages. I checked and it's not just New York, but the official Tourism Departments are pretty much listed for all the states -- California, Hawaii, Virginia being the first ones I reviewed and all had these links. Maybe I'm the wrong person to add the links, but they should be added to bring the New Mexico articles in conformance with those for the other states and nations. Jon R. Bowman ^{T C} 09:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

That other links were there is not the point (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), they probably should also not be there, the article is about the country, not about the tourism department or about one of the magazines. And still, you should not be adding the links, you have a conflict of interest. For you it is the best to discuss and suggest on talkpages. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Invisible Barnstar

		The Invisible Barnstar
		Beetstra, For all the unseen contributions you've made to this project and in recognition ...Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you! Hu12 (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Did not have this one yet! See you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Links

I don't really understand this policy. Why have the links I posted to reviews been deleted and why are you threatening to block me from editing the website?

All I'm doing is adding further links to the website that may be of interest to people. You've even deleted links to reviews of albums people have not previously reviewed. Surely by removing reviews of albums that are currently not written about you are in fact detracting from the overall usefulness and quality of the system.