User talk:Versageek

If you leave me a message here, I will reply to it here. Please check back for a reply.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will check your talk page for a reply.
This way, we keep conversations all in one location, making them much easier to follow. Thanks!
To leave me a new message, please click HERE

A Note About Advertising and Conflicts of Interest

If I reverted your link addition or removed your links from an article, please read this:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam

If you have additional information to add to the article, why not simply add it rather than having an external link?

Archive Jul06-Dec07, Archive Jan08-Current

BCB	This user offers thanks to BetacommandBot and it's operator Betacommand, for his efforts to enforce the the non-free content policy despite being subject to abuse and harassment for doing so.

To leave me a new message, please click HERE.

---

VPILF

Hi there, I noticed you recently deleted my redirection of VPILF to Sarah Palin because it was unsourced and had possible negative BLP issues.

I agree that there should not be a page titled VPILF for these reasons, which is why I created the redirect in the first place. Better that people be redirected to a non-POV page searching for VPILF than stonewalling them because of such issues.

I understand that wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place for original research, and can find plenty of reasonable sources from many different parties referring to Palin as a VPILF. Just google the term and you'll find all the hits from the front page refer to her and her alone. People are using this term and some getting interested in politics for the first time because of it.

However offensive it may be, the term is notable. While inclusion in the Palin article may be a bit much, I feel my redirect was a reasonable compromise. Wikipedia does not censor itself, and it contains materials that some people may find objectionable, offensive or pornographic. You may find the term offensive, but people will be searching for it, and they deserve to be taken to the right place.

Therefore I request that your decision be reversed, or at least explained in further detail. Thanks. -Buttle (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer you take this to WP:DRV, while you make a convincing argument - I'm still concerned about the WP:BLP aspect & would like to hear what other members of the community have to say on the issue. --Versageek 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds perfectly reasonable. I have submitted request. Buttle (talk) 11:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Psuedoscience

I noticed that you removed my category-changes from Pseudoscience. What i removed constitute examples of a serious ongoing problem with the abuse of the category identifier "Pseudoscience" when in fact the items contained therein aren't themselves psuedoscientific or in fact proclaimed to be so. This is encouraging a debilitation of Wikipedia's content and should be stopped by Wiki's administrators. I noticed on your User page that you are a self-described "Skeptic", which indicates to me that, in combination with this action you may be a compromised administrator. Thanks for making yourself known.-- self-ref (nagasiva yronwode) (talk) 05:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

You need to get a consensus before removing the psuedoscience designation from those categories. I have no strong feelings on the designation myself. I'll thank you in advance for assuming good faith and not assailing my character and integrity. I suspect your definition of skeptic differs considerably from mine. --Versageek 06:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Could you please comment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#XLinkBot:_Worst._Bot._Ever.? Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

done, thanks --Versageek 18:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: please slow down

I do indeed agree with the first part, and I do apologize for that. However, the second revert you listed added incorrect information to the page, as well as removing information, such as the stock trading symbol and changing the revenue information to info from 2006. miquonranger03 (talk)

Never mind. I'm slapping myself with a trout. Thanks for warning me. miquonranger03 (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

y is your bot blocking 'thesportsinterview.com' links

Y are these Chris Yandek interviews blocked? For ex, this Sanaa Lathan interview is good.
70.108.71.78 (talk) 19:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

according to XLinkBot's RevertList log, the link has been spammed by a series of IPs that have been connected to the site owner/operator. A quick check of the link addition database confirms that it was spammed heavily by a small group of IPs. As a user not in that group of IPs, if you feel the link is appropriate for this article, you may revert the bot. --Versageek 20:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

James Settelmyer

Did you have any problems in moving that page? I kept clicking the move button, and nothing happened. Corvus cornix_talk 06:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it worked for me the first time. I was thinking maybe you conflicted with an edit by the original author.. (eg: trying to move an old version?).. not sure, just a thought. --Versageek 07:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I was able to move Matt lee ok. Corvus cornix_talk 07:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

"controversy" of "Japanese People"

Your bot reverted my change made on "controversy" of "Japanese People". I've spent time to do my research and it shouldn't be reverted. Please check the changes and be a responsible human being. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.132.132 (talk) 02:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of diversity and inclusion

This is a very important concept in the diversity profession. If it appeared as advertisement, let's fix that. I have been creating pages for more than year now and have learned a considerable amount about what is needed to make a contribution. Your deletion with a comment about "deliberate advertising" needs some sort of explanation. Otherwise, it appears prejudiced, biased, and unwilling to work with contributors. I am certain that was not your intent, but I think you can see how I came to this conclusion if you think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diversityu (talk • contribs) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The combination of the tone of article and your username - which appears to promote an organization, tipped the scales on this one.. However, I did see value in the subject matter, which you are clearly familiar with. This is why I placed a welcome template at the top of your talk page, above all those notices about deletion. I do suggest that you change your username, or simply abandon this account and create a new one that doesn't reflect a corporate entity. This would help prevent misunderstandings in the future. --Versageek 06:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Short sales

I have recreated the redirect you deleted as an "implausible typo." Google News archives[1] has 16,800 hits using this term, and Google Book search [2]has 1456 instances of "short sales" referring to the topic covered in the target article. It is not implausible, nor is it a tyop. It is just an alternate and widely used for over 100 years for the practice of selling stock you do not hold in hopes the price will drop. Regards. Edison (talk) 03:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had intended to recreate it myself after deleting the underlying spam content, but got distracted by a phone call and never got back to it (yes, I have the attention span of a fruit fly. %-( ). FWIW, in the future, in 99.5% of the cases, if you place a redirect over an existing page, you should remove all the other content.. in this case, the page still had the csd-g11 tag on it, so it was appearing in the category for speedy deletion. --Versageek 06:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with the deletion of the spam article. I do not perform a great deal of redirecting. A redirect effectively makes the old article disappear unless one is persistent, but deletion is better for the likes of this. Edison (talk) 04:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Is XLinkBot working?

Please see the relavent AN thread. Thanks! NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 15:30, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Outside Edit

Hello Versageek. I wanted to respond to your bot's reversion of the link to http://www.YouTube.com/idiotikink from the Chris DiSalvatore entry. The user 'idiotikink' at the YouTube page is not Chris DiSalvatore, and has committed many copyright violations online. Feel free to delete anything that may come from this user, and any link that directs to 'idiotikink' in any form. My apologies for the concern. Timmy4412 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Observatory Photo

Hi Versageek!

You have a very nice image at Image:MariaMitchellObservatory_NantucketMA.jpg. Unfortunately, this is not the Maria Mitchell Observatory, it is the Loines Observatory built in 1968 by the then Director of the Maria Mitchell Observatory, Dr. Dorrit Hoffleit. Perhaps the photograph could be used on Dorrit's page. It's a fine photograph, but its not the right observatory.  :-)

I had the opportunity to observe a rare configuration of the Galilean satellites from the Loines Observatory on the evening of 17 October, and stayed at the Maria Mitchell Observatory dorms during that time period. -Richard "Doc" Kinne (talk) 01:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC), Astronomical Technologist, AAVSO.

Jeeze, I sure feel silly :( Thanks for letting me know! I've only been to Nantucket once.. and clearly didn't interpret the sign properly. Just out of curiosity. Where is the actual Maria Mitchell Observatory, in relation to the one in my photo? --Versageek 02:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm so sorry

About the Sydney Harbor redirect. I did not understand the situation. Please accept my apologies.

(By the way, can you elucidate me on what is going on with the whole redirect situation?) RJaguar3 | u | t 04:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

np, I suppose it's silly to play their game, but I was kind of hoping the Attack on Sydney Harbour page would have been reverted by the time the reader makes it back the second time via the redirect.. it may or may not work, that remains to be seen. --Versageek 05:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

What would be wrong with just deleting and WP:SALTing the redirect? RJaguar3 | u | t 05:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was salted when I created it.. but the concept I'm aiming for is that the enduser/reader never realizes that they were redirected.. (unless they read that little "redirected from" thing at the top).. I'll delete & resalt it in a little while. --Versageek 05:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I stepped on your toes – I got the RfD notice on my talk page and deleted it quickly. I'm not sure what you were trying to do, but if you need to undelete and redirect, no problems from this end. seresin ( ¡? )  02:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for deleting it, now that a different page is TFA, it was obsolete.. not sure it did what I wanted, but it was worth a try. --Versageek 03:30, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

calculator removals

Those two calculators were perfect for the debt consolidation entry. They dealt precisely with the material being presented. Why did you revert them?

Ooper01 (talk) 04:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

Why do you keep removing my external links? If you bothered to go to the link, you will see that it goes to the same website... No harm done and everyone will be happy.