Jump to content

User talk:Beetstra

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rakesh999991 (talk | contribs) at 10:00, 8 October 2007 (→‎InfodriveIndia - pls advise). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 ad for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dravidian civilizations
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #96
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.

I'm sorry. I will not do that again, someone told me they removed them maliciously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.132.192.133 (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Maybe you can use them as a reference? Thanks, and happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Code

Hello Dirk,

I noticed that you have flagged Children of the Code as spam. In particular you removed our link on the page of Dr. Michael Merzenich. We are not spam. We don't have anything on our site for sale. We only advocate learning. The link we added to Dr. Merzenich is to an interview with him that we conducted. Here is what Dr. Merzenich says about us on his own "On the Brain" blog:

http://merzenich.positscience.com/2007/06/01/a-great-resource-for-a-general-understanding-of-dyslexia-and-its-human-and-societal-impacts/

We are a social education project doing very important work in fields related to the 'learning health' of children. We've interviewed over 120 world leaders in neuroscience psychology, linguistics, orthography and other areas related to learning (www.childrenofthecode.org/interviews/). Again, we don't advertise or sell anything. Please help us in our relationship with Wikipedia. If you really believe our link is irrelevant to Merzenich, even though I can't understand why, please don't generally black-list us. Thank you.

David Boulton www.childrenofthecode.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.130.183 (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines spam as the addition of external links only, and seen this text, you also seem to have a conflict of interest. As we are writing an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm, I suggest that you either try to contact an appropriate wikiproject, or try to edit according to our policies and guidelines (especially our neutral point of view and what wikipedia is not policies are of interest here). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denatured alcohol

Hi Dirk

Wondering if you could help me here.

As per Talk:Methylated spirit#Move, I have suggested moving methylated spirits to denatured alcohol, because methylated spirits are merely one type of denatured alcohols. I have not had any response for two weeks, so I believe there is no opposition to such a move.

I have cleaned up the denatured alcohol article at my sandbox: User:Rifleman 82/Denatured alcohol. Could you delete denatured alcohol, and move methylated spirits there? Then, I can copy and paste my version of denatured alcohol there, and avoid a copy-and-paste move. --Rifleman 82 11:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, seems OK. I will do that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:14, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Done, too. Thanks! --Rifleman 82 09:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

User:Chemportal

Hi Dirk

A heads up about User:Chemportal, [2]. --Rifleman 82 01:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your question. I first link here a template with some links:
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beetstra&oldid=163056374"