User talk:GraemeL

I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
If I posted something (other than a warning) to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.
If I missed an update on your talk page, please poke me with {{Talkback|your username}}.

I am: OUT

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14

Re:

hey thanks. And I'll archive it now. I was going to once we got to November and I guess we're there now aren't we.... Thingg^⊕^⊗ 19:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back

Welcome back GraemeL, been a while :) -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thanks. Been two years since I last edited logged in. I have been keeping my hand in doing anonymous edits though. ;-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

what the hell??? how come in my own user talk on the disscussion part, every time i clear the section you keep replacing it with the crap you guys wrote on there? why cant i clear it out and write what i want to on there? what is the problem with that? --Dabullgod01 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The warnings should be left there so that people issuing new warnings can see the previous ones. You can add on to the page, but please don't remove the warnings. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:07, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also..

Why was the content of my user page deleted? Was it because i said i dont like black people? Is free speech frowned upon here? --Dabullgod01 (talk) 01:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a place for you to spout racism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Research & Education Network

Typing "User talk:204.184." in the search box gives a dropdown list of recurring SharedIPEdu vandals from the same university. Is it time to consider a broader measure?LeadSongDog (talk) 18:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, can you give me some more detail? Surely they don't have a whole /16? A range block might be appropriate for major vandalism, but contacting their administration team might give better results. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to take the time to go through all of them, but I've checked some at each end. All checked had vandalism:

No problem. I'll have a look through them tomorrow and probably contact their admin before taking any action on WP. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thx.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article deletion?

Good day,

I had posted an article about a therapy device under the Back pain and treatment section of wikipedia. It was removed and I received a file on my talk page regarding conflict of interest.

The therapy called SpineSix BioMotion Spinal System is in use at many hospitals and clinics. Purpose of the article was to be informative from a stand point of this being a legitimate therapy. Not an advertisement.

This is the first therapy of its kind and as such, it was my intention to have an article written on it. I had made attempts to site credible sources from within Wikipedia and I had planned on sighting outside sources as well.

Please let me know what process needs to take place in order to have an article properly placed.

I do have ties to the company that developed the SpineSix technology. my question is how does one write an article on a subject if they have no working knowledge of that subject?

Thanks for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medicepts (talk • contribs) 18:54, November 5, 2008

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Please sign your comments on talk pages by adding --~~~~ which will translate to a signature when you save the page. I'll post a welcome message with some useful links to your own talk page when I'm done here.

This edit by you was reverted by [[::User:Arthur Rubin|Arthur Rubin]] ([[::User talk:Arthur Rubin|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin|contribs]]), probably because it read like an advertisement. That's why I posted the conflic of interests message to your talk page.

The best way for you to proceed is probably to post to Talk:Back pain explaining that you have a conflict of interest, but you think that your therapy has a valid place in the article. Then people with a knowledge and interest on the subject can comment on you proposed changes. I only have the page on my watchlist because it gets vandalized/spammed frequently.

Feel free to ask me any other questions you may have. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orgasm

Thanks for the heads up. I saw it straight after and responded there. -- SiobhanHansa 16:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I just added to my comment on your page saying never mind because you had seen it and replied to him. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: 3RR

Hi

Noted, with thanks.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links on Treadmill

This is Wikipedia. If I want to post a resource to something, I will - spam implies posting something for a commercial benefit, seeing that I work at an opera house and have no connection with the web site in question, please stop reverting my posts. That site contains lots of pictures of different brands of treadmills, along with their specifications, and the wikipedia article in question barely says anything about that. Please leave a message before accusing of spam. thank you.

mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.4.105.48 (talk • contribs) 03:22, November 7, 2008

It's an online store and not suitable for either a reference or an external link in the article in question. Please read the links in the warnings posted to your talk page which contain the guidelines for linking to external sites. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

I appreciate your commitment to Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. However, there is no edit war other than the two users enforcing their POV upon an article. There is no lack of consensus, only a created controversy.Sauve.sean (talk) 16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me here remind you of the policy for deletion that you have subscribed to:

Deleting things for the sake of deleting is BAD. If it's true, verifiable, NPOV, etc. it's the sort of information Wikipedia is able to accept. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia. It is SUPPOSED to have INFORMATION.

The edit that I made is true, verifiable, NPOV, etc. Please review this when you adjudicate the case of my edit. I noticed that you did not leave messages with the other two users involved. Can you please give all parties your neutrality when deciding these things also?Sauve.sean (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an strong opinion either way on the wording in question. I was just pointing out the WP:3RR to you, so that you know that if you somebody reverts your changes again, you can't re-revert the wording for 24 hours. One other user has reverted you twice. I'll warn them if they revert a third time. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackened

Yep, hail lord meta! Khoikhoi 21:10, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Redirect

I ended up redirecting to Loss mitigation instead of Refinancing, since the former page talks about loan modification. - Akamad (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt on RFPP

Would you reconsider your decision to only "semi-salt" Corpse pussy, and for only a week? I can't think of any reason we would have an article under that title, and permanently salting it for all non-admins prevents it from becoming an issue when your protection expires, or from creation from sleeper accounts. If, for some reason, the title becomes an appropriate target, someone will request unprotection. I don't want override the decision of another admin, but since you protected the title, you might want to make it a bit more durable. Horologium (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I was erring on the side of caution, but you're probably correct. I did watchlist it, but I'll convert it to full protect and indef. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Horologium (talk) 22:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re:Oi!

Thanks for the barnstar - made my day :) -- SiobhanHansa 02:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep banging the rocks together. --GraemeL ^(talk) 02:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do it on purpose:) That article is problematic and I suspect it will always attract SPA'a and those wanting to turn WP into a comparison shopping site. So as many eyes as possible... Have fun. -- SiobhanHansa 16:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hey

Are you the administrator that deleted my page for Sketches of a Young Man Wandering? If so I would like to dispute that.

Brandy Lewis (talk) 02:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was. To dispute the deletion, go to WP:DRV, read the instructions and fill out a request for review. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:01, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you'll need the article name to ask for a review. It was Sketches of a Young Man Wandering --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Word. Thanks. Brandy Lewis (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandy Lewis (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC) So now should I recreate it and use the hold on command?[reply]

No. Let editors comment on it at WP:DRV. If they decide it should be undeleted, an admin will close the discussion and restore the article to the encyclopedia.

Just because the article was speedy deleted, doesn't prevent an editor from re-creating it. However, you might also want to read the policy on original research if the review of the book was your own work. You would have to find a reliable source for an independent review to use as a reference. There is also the fact that it appears to be the authors first book and I don't feel that it would meet the book notability criteria.

Please don't be discouraged by all of this. You're obviously enthusiastic and getting to know all of the policies and guidelines is difficult to do when trying to get your first article up and running. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the administrators

Ok don't add to wikiepdia this webiste if you don't consider it's important, but don't say that I only want to ear money because you don't know the situation.

I'm a student (catalan) that as a secondary school project (two years, like the degree one, but for secondary school) I make this website, and I don't separate the information to earn more money, I make it because it's more useful for the visitor, I recognize that there could be more information, but sorry I'm not a professional as you think you are, and I made what I can. I thought wikipedians were another type of people, I like too much the purpose of wikipedia, but now I've seen that the administrators of the English wikiepdias are as what you've demonstrated. Is possible that I'll edit in the Spanish wikiedpia, but, not here, please, because your and administrators, could you erase this user RobCatalà , and now I think that I've waste lot of time doing Interwikis, wits this user, and all this work for nothing. It's very good to have bots antispam, but if a website is not spam, you should reconsidered, but well, English users are (I won't continue to avoid wasting time. If your are a legal person don't erase this post, It's not spam, or vandalism, but it's important because other people can read it.

If you think that my reaction is not logical, please read this, if now you go to a page, and make spam, without knowing it, I only put the links in others wikiepdias, because I know that English is the most spoken language in the world, and in all countries there are people who speak it, and a bot undo all, (logical, because is spam) you should think -oh, I should solve this- so I did, I went to the bot page, I talked with the person who controls it, and he agreed me that It was my fault. So I said sorry to everybody, and that I won't make spam again. For the moment a normal thing. But I don't understand that in three seconds a page or a user could be block, but to unblock, you can spend days... So the person who controls the bot said that I should wait an administrator, and wow, this two persons thing that because they don't want, oh, the link can't be in this page. So, good administrators, I don't want to think when you'll have to take important's decisions.

If you don't understand something sorry but this isn't my language. And remember Ohnoitsjamie or GraemeL delete my user please, and bye for ever. --exRobCatalà (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you feel that way. My only involvement in this has been to comment on your site on the talk page of [[::User:Ohnoitsjamie|Ohnoitsjamie]] ([[::User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Ohnoitsjamie|contribs]]) which I have watchlisted. I don't see how he has acted badly in this case. He is just trying to keep up the quality of external links in the encyclopedia. Try not to take this sort of thing personally. The link was removed because of its quality, not because of anything to do with you personally. I do hope you reconsider and continue to edit on the English Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to involve you, I'm only angry with OhNoitsJamie, and yes, it's personal, because he has made a prejudice, because he have overseen the page, and I imagine that he saw an advertisment, and he said -ah, spam- but he can't know if it was true. And I make a message and send to him, and I sent too to you, but I shouldn't do it.

I think that this bot is very usefull, and important too, but I don't understand why it's too dificult to arrive to be in the whitelist. And why anybody can separate the websites wich realy are spam, with the ones that an user (like me) put it in lot's of wikis.

And why nobody trust me about that I won't put the link in others than in the Spanish one and the English one.

I only want to add that thsi website should be usefull because the people who visited it from the wikipedia visit at least 12 pages per view.--RobCatalà (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you posted to Talk:Park_Güell and have received the support of one editor. Let it run there until Tuesday to see if anybody else comments. If there seems to be a consensus to include the link, I'll look into it further. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FallingSandGame - Sources

Could you tell me if the sources that I currently have on my test version of the fallingsandgame article (which is located on my userpage)

It includes information from forums and the forums' wiki page but I myself have written the majority of the information myself (that have been cited) from researching and interviewing, so I know that it is very accurate.Neilnapier (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your references is that they're not reliable sources. You need to find independent information outside of the FSG website, blogs and forums. News stories in reputable media sites, academic reviews etc. are verifiable. I wouldn't do too much work on the article itself until you can find such sources. I did a search on Google and wasn't able to find anything that would be considered reliable. However, you may be able to find some if you do some more extensive searching.

Best of luck with it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for quick block help with 81.158.191.112. Regards, Chuckiesdad (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just happened to catch it when I refreshed my watchlist. Keep reverting and tagging them. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Destination Club

I do not consider adding an external link to Halogen Guides spamming. There are a handful of sites that cover the destination club industry and offer the public information regarding this nascent industry. Halogen Guides is one of those sites. Why would this be considered spamming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdot (talk • contribs) 06:30, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, all of your recent edits have been adding links to the same external site. Secondly, the site offers paid listings and is thus not impartial. Please contribute to the encyclopedia without adding dubious external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your logic is if an internet media site offers paid listings, then it isn't editorially objective? Does that then imply that the NY Times Real Estate section or the WSJ's Real Estate section is also non-objective? Shouldn't objectivity be determined by the quality of the editorial content and whether the site lists all companies in its directory regardless of whether the site gets paid? The site that I linked to has been quoted by both the NY Times and WSJ as a consumer resource in the destination club industry. I'm unsure why you have an objection to this, since you obviously are not an expert in the space. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wdot (talk • contribs) 06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone Card

GraemeL, I have been sort of "watching over" the Telephone Card article for over a year. I am the person who provided/edited the Virtual Card sub category and the companies listed are, in fact, those who have contributed to the pioneering of the online phone card niche. I also provided the citations requested by other editors. Because none of the companies had their own Wiki article, there is nowhere else to link to. Also, I know and do not care about the links being no-followed. Mention of these companies is deserved because they are the ones who have essentially created the niche. NOW... If you propose that I create an article for each company, please let me know and I will proceed accordingly. Finally, as you can see, this article has already been through many long-time WP editors. The mention of these companies should remain.

Eric—Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.209.9 (talk • contribs) 16:35, November 10

If they are pioneers, then they should meet notability criteria and you are welcome to create an account and create articles for them providing that you can cite reliable sources. Then you can link to the company articles from Telephone card. External links such as these in the article body serve no purpose but to promote the companies and drive traffic away from Wikipedia and are almost always inappropriate. Please don't add them again --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me with your statement, "..drive traffic away from Wikipedia." WP is a HUB, which means it can and should always link to other related information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.178.209.9 (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP location

Thanks for your note on my talk page. I am quite novice in this area and I'm not sure if my advice was actually any good. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. It's difficult to give an answer without detailed knowledge of the setup anyway. Your advice was fine. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SharpeSoft

I want to know why one of my links have been tagged —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 21:45, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your external links because you were breaching the guidelines for external links.

The article you created was tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, presumably because you made no assertion as to the notability of the company and the article seems to be blatant advertising. (The article had not yet been deleted when I started writing this)

You might want to also read our guidelines on conflicts of interest. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked why you keep deleting my links and you have not personally answered them other then some standard response that does not satisfy my concern. Each link I add has a very direct correlation to the articl or topic —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the links above and on the warnings on your talk page. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of businesses. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen much worse articles and to the notability of the company just look at not only the private companies associated with it but also to the public agencies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 21:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are other businesses allowed to have a site. Not a single thing I added is an opinion. Every single thing I added is fact. And can you tell me why my links were not relevant to the topics they were linked to? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 22:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't use that old straw man. We're talking about your attempts to use Wikipedia as a means of promotion. If you continue down that line, you will only end up blocked and your website may be added to blacklists, stopping it from being added to this and other projects controlled by the same foundation.

Please take 30 minutes and read through all of the links you have been given to policies and guidelines. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:03, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not answer my questions, tell me how my links are not relevant and how other companies can have their own sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 22:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are commercial links inserted purely to promote your business. It has nothing to do with relevance --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:10, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has everything to do with relevance. In the link help page it says you can insert links to companies if they are relevant and my links are relevant —Preceding unsigned comment added by SharpeSoft (talk • contribs) 22:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:EL

Links normally to be avoided

Links mainly intended to promote a website. See External link spamming.
Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Advertising and conflicts of interest

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.

You violate both counts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It helps people who look at the topic to see what real construction software looks like and what it does. But if it would make you happy I could add all that in the talk pages instead

And tell me how to make the page I added acceptable with your standards

re: electrosex

Hello, just dropping you a line to clear up a point: Are external links to commercial sites not allowed? If so then the original link to PES should have been deleted a while ago. I am happy that you chose to keep the like to smart stim. That particular website also has detailed discussions about how to build home units, but I have no idea what discussions to link to that section.

Qybix

p.s. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qybix (talk • contribs) 03:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to commercial sites are generally against guidelines apart from in articles about the company that owns the site and a few other exceptional circumstances.

Forums are pretty much frowned upon too, but that one seems to have a high number of users. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

new user

I am new to the wiki. some how my post keeps getting deleted. I am adding a link to an external site that is official on the topic? I have read the rules and see no reason to not be able to post. please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.226.100 (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad. It is appropriate for Monterey Peninsula Country Club. Please leave it out of other articles though. I'll remove my warning from your page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 04:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly note regarding talk page messages

Hello. As a recent editor to User talk:203.36.202.139, I wanted to leave a friendly reminder that as per WP:USER, editors may remove messages at will from their own talk pages. While we may prefer that comments be archived instead, policy does not prohibit users -including anonymous editors like this one- from deleting messages from their own talk pages. The only kinds of talk page messages that cannot be removed (as per WP:BLANKING) are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... and these exceptions only exist to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. Thanks for your time. Your fellow admin, Kralizec! (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Thanks. My understanding was that only applied to registered users and not to the talk pages of anonymous IPs. I stand corrected. --GraemeL ^(talk) 04:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I found out the hard way myself! --Kralizec! (talk) 04:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) Thanks again. I read through a lot of policies and guidelines when I came back to refresh myself and catch up on changes. I managed to miss that though. Don't hesitate to let me know if you notice me doing anything else incorrectly. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dermatology

Sorry, that was a mistake! I will re-add that template. Thanks! Still working on the article. Also, if you are interested in derm, I am looking for more help at WP:DERM? kilbad (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I noticed you were doing a major rework of it and happened to catch that diff. I thought it might have been accidental. I only have it on my watchlist because it's a vandalism/spam target. No experience in the area to be able to help out. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a banner somewhere I can put on the page to indicate I am working on it? I cannot seem to find it? kilbad (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several, take your pick at Wikipedia:Template messages/Maintenance. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myiptest.com

Hello, what is the problme with web page myiptest.com ? it's not a spam link it's very related to External links, because on myiptest.com there are 2 FREE services, users have to know how and where to check IP for Blacklisted. On my Page I don't have any ADSSSS. Then what is the problem of my link in DNSBL article ? Myiptest (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of pages that provide the same functionality. Why should yours be allowed when the others are not?

You appear to have a conflict of interests in that you seem to own the site in question. Adding links to your own site is against the guidelines for external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

Hello... thanks for cleaning up the rest of the blog links; I got half-way through the list and then noticed the rest were done. Saved me a fair bit of time. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Much quicker with multiple editors on the cleanup. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good call...

on the dmoz suggestion. You beat me to it. Hopefully thats what comes out of this rather than another linkfarm section. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare) _]} 23:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully. I'm monitoring it, but keeping out of the way until somebody comes up with a concrete proposal for the text. An experienced editor is moderating the discussion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what i added was so useful are you calling me a lier?

what i added was so useful are you calling me a lier? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvl 75 black mage (talk • contribs) 16:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parrot pages

Incidentally, there are a lot more edits that added external links prior to 6 November 2008 that are still in place. I am not sure if you have deleted only a portion of links by design or accident. Snowman (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatigue. I only went through the ones I could rollback. Feel free to continue the cleanup. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what yo mean. I must have clicked to go forward instead of back in the contribs. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you did two lots of 50s. We were trying to make contact with the editor, but he did not reply. These edits were the subject of discussion on the WPBirds at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Birds#World_Parrot_Trust_Parrot_Encyclopedia, and your observations would be useful. Snowman (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just went through the rest. A lack of response from the user indicates to me the possibility that it may be a bot. I haven't cleared up the ones I couldn't rollback and will have a look at the discussion. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I posted to the discussion. I do wish I had seen it amongst all the warnings on his page. If I had, I would have held off rolling them all back. If they decide the links are worthy, I let them know they could go through my contributions and rollback my reverts. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Article on Epiplex - Quick Deletion Advise

Hi I am little surprised by the quickness of initial reactions. However, I understand this is a good sign that people are watchful here.

About the article, I think the problem was with extrenal links I have tried to make some changes, hopefully it should be ok now.

I am trying to add this topic since it is on a matter of interest about which I know something. Epiplex is well known among Screencasting and Simulation generation tools such as Adobe Captivate, Infopak, Outstart and Firefly. While only Adobe Captivate is covered on Wikipedia.

I have used Epiplex at several top notch organisations in my 10 + years of career and I wanted to share information about the same( my experience was at Genpact which is biggest Indian Outsourcing organisation - www.genpact.com and at Tata Consultancy service - www.tcs.com , which is biggest Indian IT company, there are more than 250 companies who use this, with many among fortune 1000.)

As far back as in 2004 Epiplex had won two awards for [ http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_/ai_n6235563 Innovative Business Process Improvement Product]

If one checks the net, one can easily find several resources about it.(Though you can not find everything on Google, some of which would be actual user experience and which will be known over a period of time.)

I am somewhat distracted right now, and therefore it would be great if you could give some specific info if any further alteration is needed in the article.

The coverage on screencast technology is rather limited on Wikipedia and it can be improved if we add stuff on missing tools and technologies, I guess that would be inline with the objectives of an open community.

Thanks for allowing me to put my point of view.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratbeans (talk • contribs)

Ill remove the speedy delete tag from the article. Please read the links I posted to your talk page as they explain how to add sources acceptable to the project. You might also want to find some other software articles and look at them for guidance on what you should be working towards. I'll also do some basic cleanup of the article and keep an eye on it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , that was helpful. Digital Tools 04:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Regards 04:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have created the article again in the sandbox, this time with references. Would you mind having a look, so that this can be put back. Currently somebody has deleted it. Digital Tools 06:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stratbeans (talk • contribs)

I made a few formatting changes. Mostly to automate the inclusion of the references you added. The article still needs more references to establish notability if it's to avoid being speedy deleted again if you move it to the article space. Some of the external links in User_talk:Stratbeans/Sandbox might be useful for that. Also find a reference for the Microsoft award,

Apart from that, more links to other wikipedia articles would be good. You might want a section linking to the wikipedia pages of competing products.

It should look much better once you make the above changes. Drop me a note again once you've made them and I'll have another look. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted media articles from Wikipedia articles

Dear Graemel,

There were some media articles that I posted on three articles. One of the articles, Cleaning Cards, I worte yesterday and included the articles as references that the products are used and approved by different people in different industries. The other Wikipedia articles were Slot Machines and Currency dectectors that the media articles covered more directly as they were about slots and bill acceptors. I'm not sure why they were deleted but would appreciate knowing so not to repeat the same errors.

Jimmy Timmins (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Going to take a look at your deleted contributions. I'll get back to you here shortly. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what it was now. Not deleted articles, but adding links to other articles outwith Wikipedia. While they may be useful, they don't really add anything to the articles just dumping them into a section at the end called "Updates" like you did here. If the information in the article is not up to date, then update it and add your references using the method described at WP:CITE. Having somebody read through the article getting out of date information, just to get to the end and be told to go elsewhere to get new information is far from optimal. Hope this helps. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on Article Check 21 page Deleted

Dear Graemel,

I posted a new section called Updates on the check 21 page and it was deleted. The Check 21 article seemed to be rather dated and the advent of the desktop scanners have had a huge impact on how the banks and businesses put the Check 21 laws into practice. I'm wondering why this was deleted? Is it more appropriate in the discussion area then in a facts area. Were the links to the companies that manufacture the desktop scanners the issue? Please help so that I better understand what to use and not to use.

Jimmy Timmins (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply above. The references were not great as they referred to individual supplier pages as you stated, but the reply above describes the main reason. Try and work them into the body of the article and try and find some generic references that aren't manufacturer specific. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Cards Page

Dear Graemel,

Last one and I'll leave you alone. I wrote the Cleaning Cards article and it is tagged for clean up. Your comments also noted rm external link fest. Wikify some. Tag for cleanup. I noticed that you removed most of the external links I had are those frowned upon? What is Wikify?

Jimmy Timmins (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the policy on external links here. It was probably a bad edit summary on my part. You were using external links to link to other Wikipedia articles. To do that, you put [[Currency detector]] to link to another article and it produces Currency detector. Where you want the link to have different text from the title of the article, you would use [[Currency_detector|bill acceptor]] to produce bill acceptor, which links to the same article as the previous example. Linking to other articles like this is called wikifying.

Tagging it for cleanup just means it needs some work to conform to Wikipedia standards and isn't a big worry.

Some of the external links I removed you can probably use as references. Read WP:CITE for information on how to do that using <ref>Reference details</ref> and the {{reflist}} template.

Asking questions is good. Don't hesitate to ask again if you have more. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I appreciate your answering everything have a good weekend Jimmy Timmins (talk) 20:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Have fun editing Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Debate

Hi,

What is the reason for removing the link to DeepDebate.Org from the list of debate sites? It seems like it belongs right in with all the others.

Thanks, Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeBoxerd (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not intended to be a web directory. I cleaned the rest out too. If you can find a site that acts as a directory to other debate sites, that would make a good addition. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:56, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

I'm sorry I put some links to www.crohnsboy.com under crohns disease, colitis, scd diet etc I do apologize if I was spamming or something. My effort was very sincere to just help some people who may view the material and be able to change their life. THere is no financial catch or anything to this website it is completely from the heart and also provides useful information, hope, and motivation for anyone suffering from a Inflammatory bowel disease.

Is there a proper way I could add the site to those categories??

If not I do understand and I am sincererly sorry as my intent was not to spam your site by any means. Sorry for any inconvenience.

James

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crohnsboy (talk • contribs) 03:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have a conflict of interests as you are associated with the site you are attempting to add. I see nothing on the site that indicates that it has content of an encyclopedic nature and thus it is unlikely to be a useful external link. The domain itself was only registered six weeks ago and it is asking for donations. You might try posting to the talk pages of one or two articles to ask if any editors interested in the subject think that your site is worth linking to. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Waverley

Hi there I assumed that my link added to the page because it allowed visitors to actually see the ship. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.130.12 (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. If the pages has minimal prompting to buy the CD/DVD version, I would probably have let them stand. However, they just contain too much advertising of the product for my liking. Feel free to post to the article talk pages and ask other editors for their opinions on the value of the link. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I understand - if I posted directly to the tour - as opposed to the landing page - would that be relevant and acceptable? Many thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.130.12 (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. Offer both alternatives when you ask for comments on the talk pages. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:33, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Barnstar

Thanks a lot for your appreciation!! ^LeaveSleaves _talk 17:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Keep up the good work. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My deletion

Hello, I deleted part of your page as it made a referance to the Pope. Since all you do all day is go round deleting everyone elses stuff Im very shocked about this, please use allah or vishnu if they dont care about this issue. But dont use my leaders name in vein.

I look forward to your apology.

Ben.

Please click on where it links to and stop vandalizing my user page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im outraged that you are ignoring this complaint. I am a good christian man and i ask of you to stop. Sato1212 (talk) 18:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sato, the pope is catholic not christian ~Fitzy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.183.169 (talk • contribs) 20:39, November 17, 2008

Haha

Yeah, i started laughing when i read that

and sorry bout that page edit, my friend was looking it up and i was playing a joke on her, and i was actually fixing it as you deleted it

70.19.183.169 (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. That sort of thing happens sometimes. A single warning on your talk page isn't anything to worry about. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, keep up the good work man, you caught that one fast :-P 70.19.183.169 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought i'd let you know of my account so you can keep in touch with me, im the same person as above (70.19.183.169) ^.^ have a good one TippmannCommando (talk) 21:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

link issue

What is the issue with the link to: http://www.cardhub.com/Education/

The is an amazing and very objective credit card education center —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.209.90 (talk) 14:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site receives commission for people who sign up for cards through it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUT, the education center is COMPLETELY free of any ads or promotions! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.209.90 (talk) 15:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to better understand the policy about external links, please help.

Hi Graeme,

I did read the policies regarding additions to pages on the wiki. I'd like to better understand them, since the the external link I posted on the page about meditation was deleted. I hope you can help me.

Basically I do understand that we don't want tons of external links on any given page, nor to encourage spam. On the other hand, I took a look at what was on the meditation page and found this link: http://www.learnmindfulness.co.uk/videos which is a link to a site that is marketing specific material on meditation. My thought was that the link to my site, iMeditateNow takes the reader to a site that provides an open forums on many different kinds of meditation, and is a jumping point to a lot of information about meditation.

So, what I need to understand is why http://www.learnmindfulness.co.uk/videos fits the policy of what should be posted on the page, while http://www.imeditatenow.com does not. This clarity will help me when posting in the future and save folks like you who are maintaining the wiki. (Thanks so much for doing that.)

Thank you.

Best regards, wildoaklane0 (talk) 20:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (talk • contribs) 17:35, November 18, 2008[reply]

Forums are discouraged in the guidelines as sites which should normally not be linked to. I also had a look at the forum before reverting you and it only contains six posts, so linking to it seemed to be an attempt to promote it.

As for the video link, I did look at it when it was first posted and decided that the content outweighed the commercial interests. Any editor (including you) is welcome to disagree with my call and remove it if they think it's overly commercial. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand what you are doing. Thanks. I'd by lying if I didn't admit to wanting to promote my site, though my intentions are good. I haven't found any wide-open non-profit non-affiliated meditation communities on the internet. I want to provide that. I have submitted a request to the OpenDirectory project. Personally, I'll be conservative about the external links I remove because the Wikipedia can't, and shouldn't have to, stand alone. (I have children in school and they're not even allowed to site it!) Thanks again for your feedback and work on the Wikipedia. wildoaklane0 (talk) 20:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you understand. Yes, Wikipedia does need to have external links, but we also need to try to limit them to those suitable for obtaining information we don't cover. Best of luck with your own site and have fun editing Wikipedia. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why?

i didnt do anything wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.9.68.18 (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

borsodas

why did you get rid of the nyc info i put into the dubstep article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsodas (talk • contribs) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This edit. It was nothing but unreferenced promotion, complete with external links in the article body. I only removed the links. [[::User:Kaini|Kaini]] ([[::User talk:Kaini|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Kaini|contribs]]) did what I should have done and removed the whole thing. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:V and WP:RS for what you need to add to have the text included. If it's not referenced, it just looks like promotion. Please read WP:EL as well as external links should not be in the article body. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

so if i add sources i can get my change in? i live here in nyc and know alot about music i am trying to make as many music contributions as a i can but its really hard when people block what i see as good content. i understand and respect that you are trying to keep quality high. i will add sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsodas (talk • contribs) 00:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources are independent and reliable, then yes, it should be alright to add it back in. Remember that there shouldn't be external links in the body of the article. You should use <ref>References details</ref> for your sources and they will show up in the references section towards the bottom of the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ok thanks for your time and knowledge i appreciate it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Borsodas (talk • contribs) 00:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

200.109.222.132

I'm not sure if you blocked this account as a result of my AIV report or independently. Please take a look at Morocho12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): clearly created to evade the blocks on 200.109.222.132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Blandinocm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)—Kww(talk) 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was as a result of the AIV report, but I had it on my radar. I was the one that blocked the IP previously. Block evasion account taken care of. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you might want to add a comment to future AIV reports on this IP requesting a hard block. That will stop registered accounts from logging in on the IP. I've converted the current block to a hard block. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. This guy looks pretty dedicated to his cause. I can understand his frustration, because it's a shame that there isn't a reliable Brazilian chart. Adding in a chart that has been designated as crap isn't the answer, though.—Kww(talk) 16:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps posting a longer description of the problem with an offer to work on a new template with him to the IP talk page will help. Probably worth the attempt to avoid escalating blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

for handling the stuff with that user with the legal threats. (I was away from the computer for a while....) :) Thingg^⊕^⊗ 19:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Somebody else blocked him. I thought about doing it myself, but decided a warning would be enough. I'm not moved to undo the block though. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

legal action? Sounds like you had your hands full graemel, if you ever need a hand just let me know TippmannCommando (talk) 19:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection

Hi, GraemeL. You may want to check your recent protections. The script you're using (I assume TW, because I know it's doing this) forces indefinite protection, regardless of what duration you set. I fixed the article which you just protected for RFPP, but you may want to go through and check others you've protected with this script lately, and adjust durations as necessary. :) Regards, لenna vecia 19:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha! I noticed and you beat me to the change. I thanked you on your own talk page while you were posting this. :-) --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was the first time I used the script too. I'll go back to manual protection. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for protecting Holly Marie Combs' article. Unfortunately, User:Jessicaharris2008, a known vandal (judging by her talk page), has become an established user via her unreliable edits and is able to continue her efforts. What would the next best step be to resolve the issue? - Dudesleeper / Talk 21:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try taking a look at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. You should hopefully be able to work something out through one of the options there. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Hypertension

Dear Sir,

I made an edit to the hypertension page regarding an important clinical trial for the treatment resitant hypertension. I noticed you promptly deleted it. I am only trying to provide valuable data to wikipedia users and would like to learn what I did wrong so I can make an entry that will not be deleted.

Can you please let me know what was wrong with the entry you deleted?

Thanks,

Jose Puerto —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.210.90 (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but apart from the promotional nature of the content, it also qualified as original research. I posted some links on your talk page while you were posting this. A non-promotional mention may be applicable in the article once the trials are completed and published. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear GraemeL, Thank you for your response. As both an interested party (I work for the company that is developing the device) and an avid wikipedia user, I appreciate the valuable work you are doing to ensure the quality of entries. Per your explanation above, I understand that only properly sourced published data should be posted. That data does exist and I think fits your criteria. Additionally, a large study is currently underway and I would like to let wikipedia readers know about it and refer them to a website were they can learn more. Is this a valid objective? Following is an entry that I think would work. Can you please let me know your thoughts?

Investigational Implantable Device Treatment for Resistant Hypertension

A pacemaker like implantable device designed to electrically activate the baroreflex, the body’s own natural blood pressure regulation system, has shown potential in feasibility studies. Results published on a group of 13 patients reported an average systolic blood pressure reduction of 29 mmHg (from 189 to 160) after three months of treatment and 39 mmHg (from 189 to 150) after 12 months.¹ Results published on a separate group of 10 patients from another early stage trial reported an average systolic blood pressure reduction of 24 mmHg after three months of treatment.² Based on these encouraging early results, a larger pivotal trial enrolling 300 patients is currently underway. To learn more about this trial go to [www.bloodpressuretrial.com]. (1) Scheffers IJ. Journal of Hypertension 2007;25(Suppl 2):S141-142. (2) Bisignano J. The Journal of Clinical Hypertension 2006; Suppl A8 (No 4):A43

Take out the sentence including the external link as they are strongly discouraged in the article body.

Move your references into the body of the text and surround them with <ref>reference goes here</ref>. this will automatically generate links and add the references to the appropriate section at the bottom of the page.

If you do the above, I wouldn't object to the content being added. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If not in the article body can I place the external link somewhere else? How is this done? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.210.90 (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the external link doesn't seem suitable. It is little more than a promotion for people to join the trial. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Since this is the only device of its kind, can I add the brand name in the article so that people who are interested can google it and find it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.210.90 (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A pacemaker like implantable device designed by company_name to electrically activate the baroreflex would probably be OK in the first sentence. By the way, none of this guarantees it will not be removed by other editors, but it makes it more likely that it will not be removed. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll proceed then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.210.90 (talk) 17:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

official webpages

Thanks for that.

The actual websites should follow suit of the official ant and dec website and Joe calzaghes official site, so hopefully they will be very good.

It would be good to have the official web link pointing to the holding site as alot of fans do wish to know what is going on regarding their actual webpages but I understand that this is not a viable policy of wikipedia and I will respect the rules! (I cant be blacklisted on my first week as an editor!!)

Adam Heayberd (talk) 15:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Adam Heayberd[reply]

Re: Talkin' Baseball

Many thanks for the block. I'm going to see what I can do about cleaning up the page as well. -Dewelar (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Good luck with the cleanup. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]