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 69.203.4.73 (talk) at 14:15, 5 December 2008 (→‎Wikipedia Soap Bubble Page: new section). 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 Canoeing and Kayaking
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #109
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.

Vitruvian Man

Ik ben totaal geschokt door het verwijderen van mijn laatste bijdrage aan wikipedia. Dat ook mijn gebruikerspagina totaal gewist is slaat alle fatsoensnormen. Ik heb naast een druk leven als beeldend kunstenaar en zanger weinig tijd over. De bedoeling is mijn werk gratis te verspreiden. Ook heb ik hopelijk voldoende getracht de licentie-regels in acht te nemen. Ook heeft het me als nieuwkomer op wikipedia nogal veel moeite en tijd gekost om aan al die regels te voldoen.

Ik zit nog inwendig te trillen. 't Is net alsof iemand je kunstwerken kapotslaat. Voor mij is het eigenlijk niet net alsof...

Nogmaals, ik heb zo nauwkeurig mogelijk getracht aan alle regels te voldoen.

Zou graag mijn gebruikerspagina terugkrijgen.

Rob ten Berge--Rob ten Berge (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer in English. I am sorry, you are violating quite a number of policies and guidelines here (WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:Userpage to name a few). I'd suggest you read the policies and guidelines that are linked in the welcome template at the top of your talkpage, and then discuss with established editors here before recreating any material. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your work. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bit strange to communicate with a Dutchman in English

I've understood that a userpage is not the same as a talkpage or a homepage. I've also understood, that it's perhaps better to upload GFDL-licensed pictures on WikimediaCommons before placing them elsewhere on Wikipedia. However I am an artist is your more "neutral" or scientific viewpoint for me also comprehensible. It's NOT for the sake of promoting my work that I pay contributions to wikipedia. Therefore I've got my homepage that I almost don't dare to name here. I am still shocked because you erased my userpage as well. I can't believe that you investiged my contributions longer than a minute. I should be pleased if you want to replace the contents of my userpage and as well the picture I made about Vitruvian Man (2). It's my own logo. I can understand that you don't want a link to my homepage next to the logo.(image). Perhaps you change your mind. First have a look to my former contributions which are accepted by other moderators. Best regards Rob ten Berge--Rob ten Berge (talk) 16:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Investiged = investigated. --Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you remove some external links in the Vitruvian Man article which were accepted for over a year?

How should you react if someone erased your userpage.

Golden Rule = Don't do to others....etc.

This * was accepted for over a year. You erased it.

--Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If no-one noticed it before, then that is quite clear. Other links have been erased a couple of times, and you added them over and over. The same goes for the pictures you uploaded, which have also been erased a couple of times. Yes, I saw what you did, and what you link to. You do have a conflict of interest, and you are only linking to you own work and images, which do not improve the encyclopedia. You are not providing content, you only add links and images, can you explain me why your image tells more about the Vitruvian Man then any of the other images on the page, or tells things about the Vitruvian Man that other images do not tell about it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Rob ten Berge (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Assume good faith. Best regards. For reconsiderating my contribution you could perhaps search for my work elsewhere on internet. I think you're clever enough to find it. In Dutch: "Eerst de plaatjes, dan de praatjes". In English: "First the pictures, than the text". By the way; Leonardo's "Vitruvian Man" and my versions of it are far from being my only field of interest. There's a difference between opinionated and obstinate. And still I hope on help from other users instead of being erased before contact. Or even without contact. "With a little help of my friends". Rob--Rob ten Berge (talk) 01:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking around on the links you are adding, and my question stays the same, what content can you add about Vitruvian Man, what more knowledge can you give? And my mentioning of Vetruvian Man was not excluding that you could add things to other pages. But the information that you have added until now is certainly not suitable for an encyclopedia. We convey knowledge, not links, images or original research. You are still free to contribute content to whichever subject you feel appropriate, but I was asking you not to continue in adding your external links or your images in this way. Please read the documents linked in the welcome message on what we are trying to achieve here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your remark about Vetruvian Man could possibly have to do with Vitruvian Man. :-)

I placed my external links on the place where they belonged. I still don't understand why you deleted eg the link about "mirror writing" which was accepted long before you deleted it. Yes, I saw what you did. You deleted all my contributions you could find. And how can I react via a talk-page or user-page since you deleted it?

It's problaby an idea to make a |||simple start-schedule ||| for new wikipedians. That would withold less people to contribute to wikipedia. Or even to stop because their contributions were deleted too often without discussion. I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can find me in the sandbox. --Rob ten Berge (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk,

I hope to get my user-page back. Means the possibility to start it again (without explaining external links). It's understood that I've to read a lot more guidelines. But a basic place to start is welcome. Thanx --Rob ten Berge (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical data revisited

I decided to try and generate the tables myself; the result is at User:Itub/Chembox property count. It doesn't take that long because you can download 50 articles at a time using the API, aand you can selectively download section=0 - which almost always is the one with the infobox - to save bandwidth. So in fact it takes less than an hour doing one operation every 30 seconds! One good use of these tables is that it allows us to spot chemboxes using the wrong parameters. --Itub (talk) 09:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this looks good. Nice work, and this should give us a starting point for further work. Thanks! One question: could you also make a list of tables where you only count the parameters in the main part of the box (so not in the 'modules'). Some fields moved in a rewrite of the chembox over 1 year ago. E.g. I think that the molecular formula was in the main part of the box, and that moved to the properties ones. Are there still boxes around where they are 'misplaced'? IMHO, only the images and IUPACNAME and othernames should be in the main. Let me check:
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{IUPACName|}}}|IUPACName }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{IUPACName|}}}|{{{IUPACName}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{SystematicName|}}}|SystematicName }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{SystematicName|}}}|{{{SystematicName}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{OtherNames|}}}|OtherNames }}      |par_value={{#if:{{{OtherNames|}}}|{{{OtherNames}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Abbreviations|}}}|Abbreviations }}|par_value={{#if:{{{Abbreviations|}}}|{{{Abbreviations}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Formula|}}}|Formula }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{Formula|}}}|{{{Formula}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{MolarMass|}}}|MolarMass }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{MolarMass|}}}|{{{MolarMass}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{CASNo|}}}|CASNo }}                |par_value={{#if:{{{CASNo|}}}|{{{CASNo}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Density|}}}|Density }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{Density|}}}|{{{Density}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{Solubility|}}}|Solubility }}      |par_value={{#if:{{{Solubility|}}}|{{{Solubility}}} }}|par_var_label={{#if:{{{Solvent|}}}|{{{Solvent}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{MeltingPt|}}}|MeltingPt }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{MeltingPt|}}}|{{{MeltingPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{BoilingPt|}}}|BoilingPt }}        |par_value={{#if:{{{BoilingPt|}}}|{{{BoilingPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{LogP|}}}|LogP }}                 |par_value={{#if:{{{LogP|}}}|{{{LogP}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{VaporPressure|}}}|VaporPressure }}|par_value={{#if:{{{VaporPressure|}}}|{{{VaporPressure}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{HenryConstant|}}}|HenryConstant }}|par_value={{#if:{{{HenryConstant|}}}|{{{HenryConstant}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant|}}}|AtmosphericOHRateConstant }}|par_value={{#if:{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant|}}}|{{{AtmosphericOHRateConstant}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{pKa|}}}|pKa }}                    |par_value={{#if:{{{pKa|}}}|{{{pKa}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{pKb|}}}|pKb }}                    |par_value={{#if:{{{pKb|}}}|{{{pKb}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{IsoelectricPt|}}}|IsoelectricPt }}|par_value={{#if:{{{IsoelectricPt|}}}|{{{IsoelectricPt}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{DeltaHf|}}}|DeltaHf }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{DeltaHf|}}}|{{{DeltaHf}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{DeltaHc|}}}|DeltaHc }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{DeltaHc|}}}|{{{DeltaHc}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{EINECS|}}}|EINECS }}              |par_value={{#if:{{{EINECS|}}}|{{{EINECS}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{EINECSCASNO|}}}|EINECSCASNO }}    |par_value={{#if:{{{EINECSCASNO|}}}|{{{EINECSCASNO}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{PubChem|}}}|PubChem }}            |par_value={{#if:{{{PubChem|}}}|{{{PubChem}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{SMILES|}}}|SMILES }}              |par_value={{#if:{{{SMILES|}}}|{{{SMILES}}} }} }}
{{Chembox entry|par_name={{#if:{{{InChI|}}}|InChI }}                |par_value={{#if:{{{InChI|}}}|{{{InChI}}} }} }}

These are the parameters that the main part of the box can handle (excluding the image part), most of them are now in the subboxes, but they are still handled here for old reasons. The transfer run that chem_awb did may have moved them to the right position (it was capable of doing that), but I don't know how complete it was for those. From this list, I think only the first 4 would have a place in the main part of the box (though they might also be in the identifiers subbox), the others should not be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (available at the same page). For the last table, I excluded IUPACName, OtherNames, Name, Abbreviations, Reference, and anything starting with "image" (the test for "image" was case-insensitive). --Itub (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eww. Quite a list, that should be cleaned at some point. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vitruvian Man

Dirk,

Gaarne zou ik mijn door U "talk-page" weer in 't blauw zien opdoemen. Zonder basis-communicatie dreig ik hier in een vicieuze cirkel te geraken.

Persoonlijk voel ik me van hier het kastje naar de muur gestuurd, terwijl ik hoop dat het duidelijk moge zijn, dat aan mijn positieve intenties niet getwijfeld mag worden.

't Lijkt me verstandig eerst hier een antwoord af te wachten vooraleerst weer een "talk-page" in te richten.

Vriendelijke groeten Rob ten BergeRob ten Berge (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can create a new one, but preferably not with anything that may even seem self-promotional; Some guidelines are here on Wikipedia:User page, specifically Wikipedia:User page#What may I have on my user page? and Wikipedia:User page#What may I not have on my user page?. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The content of my userpage, where I tried to prepare my contributions specialized on "Vitruvian man" got lost. Should be pleased to get them back. Several moderators have links to their own homepage. So why may I not have at least one explaining link? The following link is an example of a schedule I made in ca1984, and should not be considered as spam http://www.flickr.com/photos/vitruvian_man/246603661/sizes/o/ It's mostly own work. And this time I want to finish it. Perhaps you can give me the proper licence? There are a lot of sites and forums with less complicated rules. I hope to see for the future a very simple starters schedule where starters can fill a form in less than 5 minutes.

For more info you can find me by eg Google.

Thanks Rob ten BergeRob ten Berge (talk) 03:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanoid Robots

Hi, I am sending you a Webpage about Humanoid Robots, it is a Resume with a lot of new technologies. If you like new ideas to improve your research or produtcs... you also can find there the list of the most famous robots with videos on Youtube. 

                   http://luisbeck007.googlepages.com/thelistofmostfamusrobots

                   http://luisbeck007.googlepages.com/goodideasforthehumanoidrobot

Luis Beck —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisBeck007 (talk • contribs) 13:57, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, not sure though why I get this, though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaundon

Hello again, Beetstra ... I'd like a 2nd opinion on this article:

The PROD-2 was contested ... do you think it's worth the hassle of an AfD?

Happy Editing! — 72.75.82.202 (talk · contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done … article has been rescued by Some Other Editors. :-) — 72.75.82.202 (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
For being nice at AFD. SunDragon34 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Wikipedia needs more niceness! SunDragon34 (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!  :-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MaritimeQuest

Hi Dirk, Long time since we have been in contact. I am currently away from home and am not able to recall my log in to wikipedia so I will let you know I am the owner of MaritimeQuest (Michael Pocock).

The reason I am contacting you is because I have noticed that someone is using images from my site in Wiki commons and he claims he has permission to do so. I say he has not contacted me in any way to ask permission to post the photos and he has used several photos sent to me by contributors which should not be used without their permission.

His name is Jaypeepacres, and again I say he has not got my permission to use these images, and he is in no way affiliated with me or my site. I do not want to be accused of some spamming incident as I was last time. As I am sure you have noticed there have been no further postings by myself to wikipedia.

If you should like to contact me my email is <email removed>

Please sort this guy out. Regards, Michael Pocock —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.40.224.77 (talk) 02:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the case, I guess you should contact OTRS or something like that, I guess this should be handled by them. See Wikipedia:OTRS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you should email them, the email is info-en at wikipedia dot org, preferably with a list of images which are used without permission (they can do everything from there). Even if you think that you would be willing to give permission, it is better that they first get deleted, and that you then re-upload them giving the permission yourself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Aspartame controversy

I have nominated Aspartame controversy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aspartame controversy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC) DHeyward (talk) 08:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there,

I appreciate your trying to help keep the links at AIS clean. This has been an ongoing discussion and there was a concensus already reached; although I haven't been active in it for a few months. I'm going to restore the links and would suggestion your contributions to the talk page for figuring out which links need to be trimmed. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 06:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the remark, but discussion? I did have a quick look on the talkpage, but it is not obvious where is the discussion, and most of the links do not satisfy WP:NOT#DIRECTORY/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY/WP:EL .. I would suggest to kill the list, move it to the talkpage, and there prune (not leaving them in the main article). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance templates

Hi Dirk, when you're back, I'd like to discuss with you the use of importance templates on chemicals articles, e.g., Tellurium dichloride. Personally, think the current result is too blatant, and I'd like to improve the situation. Wim van Dorst (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hoi Wim, yes, the result is quite blatant, and in a way it worries me that these articles are so 'nietszeggend' (saying nothing) for such a long time. 'Tellurium dichloride is a chemical compound', there must be something to say about those guys. Is it a common starting material for Tellurium chemistry (either the organometallic compounds, or for the materials things? IMHO, however small the use, that little 'extra' would be enough to remove that template. For now, the template just says what it should say 'this article does not say why it is important'. Any idea on how to quickly get at least a little statement in each of them? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Third party comment: I think in some cases there may really be nothing interesting to say, like I posted here. Some of these "problem articles" were the result of an overenthusiastic drive to have articles on compounds of every element, and as a result a few articles on non-notable compounds were created. --Itub (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case .. we may consider that deletion is an option .. ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth party comment: Yes, I think we should delete a few as needed. We could take a look at the bottom end of the SelectionBot selection for deletion ideas (YAs is there, and see this!). However, I completely agree with Itub - I used to joke about some of the articles I started like gold(III) chloride, and yet many such articles now get a good amount of traffic, or at least a non-trivial amount (examples AuCl3, GdCl3). I suspect that if the tellurium dibromide article were to be B-Class or even Start (with a few refs), we would see a rise in traffic above this, so expanding content & quality probably helps over the longer term. That means - yes, we should definitely try to expand these articles beyond the MP/BP information. So overall let's continue to defend our content from those who just don't understand the subject, while being vigilant in deleting compounds that really are non-notable. And for the ones we keep we need to expand them, but for that there is really no substitute for pulling books of the shelf and consulting Chem Abs. Which is, of course, why I've only worked on about three such stubs in the last year...... Walkerma (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If all there is to tell is a bp and a mp, then indeed we should consider them as simply not notable enough. But as soon as there is at least something to tell that should be done. Gold trichloride and gadolinium trichloride are already a bit more used than tellurium dichloride (apparently) is. As soon as there is use, articles link to them as well (and they link back). And for the specific tag, as I said, I am quite easy satisfied, as long as there is even the smallest use for them, that tag can go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point actually was on the blatantness of the templates, not on whether it was properly applied. Sometimes I use wikipedia just for the information, as I would use a paper encyclopedia. If I then have at last found a shred of information, as those 56 people did when searching for YAs last month (nice graphs, Martin: you always have those nice tools!), then I, as the simple end-user, am overawed with all those non-article tags stating there is something wrong with the article. Now, if these tags would go on the talkpage? Or be a humble categorization or so? Fortunately, there are not many people who actually use them (I didn't post on this page by co-incidence). Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

True, but there is IMHO actually something wrong with those articles. I could write a bot that generates for all chemicals out of a list the same article by finding a chemical database (a catalogue, or something similar; that would even give me CAS, mp, bp, and some other data already; and the only 'content' would be "Compound is a Chemical compound."), that does not mean that these articles should be there ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why then not use the Wikipedia:Deletion process? IF there is something in an article (even 'YAs is a chemical compound'), THEN I'd like to have the article as end-user readable without obscuring templates. I was (am) about to discuss this at the talk page of the templates, but thought I'd ask you, as an active editor actually using them. Wim van Dorst (talk) 22:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Well, all those tags are used in mainspace, {{coi}}, {{importance}}, {{unreferenced}}, {{deadend}}, {{notability}}, {{wikify}}, {{uncategorised}}, &c., &c. Putting such tags on talkpages does not give people the inclination to actually do improve the articles so that the tags can be removed. These articles were tagged in this way as I do expect that there is more to tell, and (all) these tags are supposed to hint visitors to actually solve the problem. But seen the fact that indeed they have not been improved for a long, long time, I am tempted to put them through a deletion (though using a deletion process to push people to find something to tell about these articles ..).. Wikipedia is not a repository of chemical compounds .. we do have notability guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the articles were tagged originally with  ???  by non-chemists. I just did a retagging. I did not know anything more about the compounds, and this way of tagging might have given people a chance to do something about it. I hate to toss 'm up for deletion if they may be notable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Czech RC IRC

Hi! Your bot on Czech recent changes's IRC invite this and after few seconds he has left and after few seconds he invite ..... . It is crazy :D --Orange.man (talk) 20:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, which, there are two of my bots in that channel (COIBot, IntLinkWatcher2)? I guess you mean COIBot, as I did manage to stabilise the LinkWatchers not too long ago. I may be able to do the same with COIBot (but it may prove more difficult, as they do different things). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I have now been there for about 30 minutes, and both seem stable. Maybe you were referring to a situation earlier, where I restarted the linkwatcher a couple of times. If you have further questions, you can find me generally during UK daytime in freenode's #wikimedia-alerts (where these bots also are), or in other 'spam' related channels on freenode. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam/LinkReports/harrysworldatlas.blogspot.com

I recently expanded Usta Mohammad. Looking for info on size/population, I found what seemed like good data on http://harrysworldatlas.blogspot.com/2008/03/pakistan-pk-balochistan-province.html, and put it in with a reference to the source. Checking "what links here", I saw Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/harrysworldatlas.blogspot.com. Should I remove the reference to this source? It was not clear to me from the write-up. Please answer on my talk, when you have time. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll answer on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response. I dropped the ref anyway. Maybe someone will find a more authoritative source Aymatth2 (talk) 19:10, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is often the case with blogspot .. they seem sometimes OK references, but in most cases they should be replaced by better ones anyway. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:11, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

parkguell.net84.net not a bad website

parkguell.net84.net, Is a good web of Park Güell. I can understand to don’t put this web in all the wikis that I’ve put. I don’t think that are not useful, but I can understand that if it’s not the language, ok. But in the English Wikipedia, and in the Spanish wiki, they are useful. So I if you put the link (or don’t block me to do) in this two Wikipedia’s, I, as Malet user, won’t make spam again. If you to know if you can trust me, see my user page in Catalan wiki (user malet). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcelona 2008 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already answered on meta, please read my answer there. You might want to contact Mike.Lifeguard. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping!

Hi Dirk, check your inbox—you've got mail :) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a spammer!

the link I suggested to www.lerostrue.wordpress.com has been refused...I do not understand. Could you help me, please? I'm am at the same time the author of the videos and the text contained in the blog and the blog's author. I created it to share documentation about the work done in the psy hospital of Leros and transform it in a human service.. help! maurizio costantino <email removed --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.47.36.92 (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If you were reverted by XLinkBot, the bot not only reverts spam, but also other link-additions which do not (or may not) comply with policies and guidelines. Please review our conflict of interest guideline; if you think you comply with this and other policies and guidelines, you can add the links, otherwise discuss them on talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorcarbon royal mess

We have a young turk (user:Shootbamboo) who knows little chemistry but is a rapid-fire editor, loads articles with zillions of references to minutia, and is confrontational and uncooperative. I've never seen anything like it. And he/she has more time than any of the rest of us. Shootbamboo understands that tying content to references makes that content virtually unremovable (a flawed aspect in WE's etiquette) and he/she essentially ignores very experienced editors, but with all the usual thank you's. Fluorocarbon has been highjacked irreversibly (will soon become IUPAC-guided, ideally), and now a new assault on a neutral perspective on new articles containing C-F bonds is being developed. No administrative-level editor in the chem space is on this. Walkerma has commented usefully if meekly, Fvasconcellos is not there, Edgar82 has commented but stays away, Cacycle has said little, TimVickers is not there, Rifleman is also silent, even Ben is missing in action so far. It's only me and Itub. I am swamped in my real world although I chose to do battle much of yesterday on this issue, but I cannot keep it up and the forces of persistence are prevailing over good sense. So I am pleading for a note from you on Talk:Fluorocarbon. For all I know, Itub and I are at fault, but the project would like to hear from you.--Smokefoot (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look. I see he is very active etc. It would indeed be good if the consensus is first developing on the talkpage, but it looks to me that he is quite active on talkpages as well (which is good). I'll keep an eye and hop in when necessery. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beetstra

Good day Beestra! I'm here to add an article I've been working on about a radio station. Could you help me on it once I've uploaded it? I've tried real hard but there might be a few mistakes. With your experience, I think I moght be able to get a real good article going. Thanks! In Citer (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you contacted me, but I replied on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of organofluorine articles

Dirk, I see the wisdom in merging. In the spirit of merging, I favor the general term organofluorine instead of the specific organofluorine chemistry. I am going to apply those merge proposals. Would you support me in this? Thanks. -Shootbamboo (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do, also organophosphorus chemistry, organosilicon chemistry redirect to organophosphorus and organosilicon respectively, so that would be in line with that. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consistent line if you look at a broader set of articles. Whatever is decided, we should probably reconsider the titles of all these articles:
I don't think organofluorine (or any of the other adjectival titles) is the best name for the reasons I gave at Talk:Organofluorine chemistry#Merge_tag_.28Organofluorine.29. --Itub (talk) 17:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a nice list for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry. Not sure which is 'the best'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry#Naming_consistency_for_organo__________chemistry.2Fcompounds. --Itub (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempted translation of Dutch article (IR of HCl)

Heya Dirk

With google translate, I attempted to translate nl:Infraroodspectrum van waterstofchloride into English and put it into hydrogen chloride. If you have the time, could you take a look and see if I made any mistakes? Thanks! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Rifleman 82. It looks good, I think. Both the Dutch article as well as the translation have IMHO some problems, I guess it could link back to the article on Infrared spectroscopy more, and it lacks to my feeling some explanation (why do we see the P and R, and not the Q?). But hey, this is Wikipedia, expansion and improvement is a naturally occurring phenomenon! Good work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One day, I'll dig up my old textbooks and write it out nicely. I did the experiment before, and I used to understand it, but nowadays I treat instruments as a black box where you put a sample in and out comes the spectrum! Of course, if someone beats me to it! Thanks for your thoughts! --Rifleman 82 (talk) 13:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite sure

Might be worth keeping an eye on? I'm never really sure about things like the sub pages. Regards --Herby talk thyme 11:56, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a good way to start, I left a message on his talkpage with some recommendations. A conflict of interest does not have to be a problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are a life saver!

Thank you for your help on my user page, you're a real life saver. I would give you a star, but I don't know how to do it. Thanks for your help so far. I'm going to see if my Obadiah School page can get a review later, and working on the WMLK article. Again thankyou! In Citer (talk) 14:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! I had a quick look, one thing, try to get rid of the external links in the main text, either make them links to wikipedia pages, or remove the link at all. Having those external links in the text is something that is frowned upon. Some may be good as references (see the citation guideline and the footnotes guideline). Also have a look through 'what wikipedia is not', you link somewhere to a schedule, that is also something that should not be done, that is outside of the scope of an encyclopedia. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk -

Sorry, didn't see your message before I undid your edit. I did read the external link guidelines, and I still do not understand how a link to my thesis degrades the article or violates the guidelines of Wikipedia. I'm not selling anything on the external site, there are no copyright violations, my thesis was published by a third-party and recognized for its academic vigor. The information therein is helpful to people interested in understanding Watchmen more deeply and the granularity of detail may not be appropriate for the article. I'm not really getting why you and some others feel it is inappropriate. Please let me know, and if you could do so without linking to Wikipedia policy pages (the interpretation of which we clearly have a genuine and good-faith disagreement). Thanks, Seffron (talk) 16:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron[reply]

Well, if you think the link is of interest, then you can convince other people on the talkpage. You were reverted a couple of times by different editors, apparently they do not agree. We are writing an encyclopedia here (based on content), not a repository of links to interesting sites, you may be interested in an Open Directory Project. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm new to adding content here, I don't want to step on toes. Wikipedia is not the most intuitive for new users. In your comment on my talkpage, you called the link "spam", which I think is a bit excessive. Also, there are currently 3 links (not including mine) - hardly a "linkfarm". In addition, the link to my piece had been on the Watchmen article for as long as I can remember (years?)- why all of a sudden is it not appropriate? In any case, I will take your suggestion to heart and begin a discussion about it on the Watchmen talk page. Seffron (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)Seffron[reply]
Ah. You say "my piece". In that case I should also point you to our conflict of interest guideline. That it was there for years is not a reason to keep it, if it is deemed inappropriate or unsuitable, then anyone can delete it.
For as far as I can see, the link has only been added by an IP and you in the last weeks. If I look before that, the link was not there (e.g. somewhere in the beginning of November (revid). And it has been reverted over and over again. I don't know if it has been there for a long time (for that I should look better), but I doubt it (last year there was a linkfarm there..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hapticity

I have no problem making any images needed, I have ChemDraw so that would be easy, if you have any compounds from the text as it is right now, you want images of just ask.

One example would be in reactions, where the addition of a ligand, changes the hapticity of Cp. The one from my notes is not the greatest as it is a transition state, but I'll see if I can find others where there is a permanent change:

CpRh(CO)2 + L -----> {η3-CpRh(CO)2L}----->CpRhL(CO) + CO

Ok found one, not the prettiest but it'll do:

CpReMe(NO)(CO) +2PMe3 -----> η1-CpReMe(NO)(CO)(PMe3)2

Also, I did some work on the Bridging Ligands page as Hapticity, Denticity and Bridging ligands to me are all related areas that students often get confused on. Especaially since they all use the greek letter superscript number format and all deal with ligands. PedroDaGr8 (talk) 18:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited to remove a bad example. Upon rereading the notes with a better understanding than I had when I took the class, my prof's example was incorrect.PedroDaGr8 (talk) 19:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try and get to this next week. Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I made some examples of the upper reaction. Tell me what you think. I am worried this may be TOO busy and distracting, even if it does show a change in η. If you agree I can make some single examples of different η values. Including one for the fluxional section showing the difference between an &eta3 ligand and a κ3 ligand.
Colored Version Black and White Version

PedroDaGr8 (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, how do you go about having an article rerated? The bridging ligand article is rated as a stub and low-importance, but I feel it deserves to be higher than low importance as it deals with one of the ways that ligands interact with metal centers. You have normal binding (Cl- single bond), hapticity, denticity/chelating and bridging. Just my humble opinion. I would like this article rerated, as I am trying to get it up to par (I feel it is no longer a stub too). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PedroDaGr8 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those images look nice, I think I would prefer to use colour here.
Rerating is no big deal. If you are unsure discuss on the talkpage, or with a wikiproject, otherwise just re-rate it. There are a lot of articles in the {{chemistry}} and {{chemicals}} which might need a re-rate, and we might disagree on some of them in the end. I think I agree with you here that 'low' is not correct, bridging ligands are quite important, I would have gone for 'mid' as well. For stub/start/A/B/GA/FA etc, follow the link, and see what we have set as boundaries for those (the boundaries are not too strict anyway). If the stub-tag can go from the page itself, then you can also change the tag on the talkpage to 'start'. For A and B some independent eyes would be good, and for GA/FA more is needed. I hope this explains, will have a look at the article myself today or tomorrow. Thanks already! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-ordered the page a bit, and included your image, together with some explanation. What do you think? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular Design software changes

Hi Beetstra. Why you rewrote from the links to the not existing wiki pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talk • contribs) 14:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was noted in my edit-summary, we are not an internet directory, see WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Subjects in this encyclopedia are there because of their notability, if they are not notable enough for an own article, then they are probably not too notable for an external link either. If people want to find the software, a Open Directory Project may be more appropriate. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Beetstra. You have changed the working links to broken links. How it improve notability? Moreover you have changed only external links and left unchanged the internal. Therefore, I assume that it is not a notability problem. In accordance with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY 1. ".. Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic ..." What occurs in this article. External and internal links are equally famous and equally important for this article. If you read section WP:NOT#DIRECTORY you will see that this links satisfied all of its topics. While broken links significantly reduces the value of the article. P99am (talk) 16:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, nope. Redlinks invite people to add or write the articles. And if they are not notable enough for articles, they probably should just go. Another option could be, to add another column to the end of the table, with a 'homepage' link (or something similar). As it was these lists are just spam-magnets. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will do so. You are right about the spam-magnets. I see that spam already begun. But over the Redlinks I still have doubts. According to my observations Redlinks typically occur after the removal of articles. For me, it a sign of that reference is not notable rather than an invitation to their writing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by P99am (talk • contribs) 17:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That generally also makes it not notable enough to be listed in such lists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, I don't see a good decision. I even can not do red references to MOE and to NAB so that these abbreviations have different meaning in Wiki.P99am (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then consider unlinking those? Or find the proper pages where they should link. The way the list was, is not proper, per 'wikipedia is not a mirror or repository'. What do the redlinked software programs add to the article except for 'they also exist' (the answer to these questions may make them notable..)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Programs listed in the table does not come from Wikipedia. These programs
1. well known
2. qualitative
3. this is the best programs, which cover the needs of Molecular Design in many aspects. Please note that no one program possess all the properties.
I well understand the problems that you mentioned and agree with that.
1. Links are the attractor for spam. Indeed already were added two references, one of which I have to remove.
2. Links should not be a catalog. Of course, but cited references are not exhaustive list, and not by accident. They are the best, in my view, meet on the subject of the article. Perhaps this topic was not sufficiently clear shown, so there is a suspicion that it is just random links from the network.
The idea of articles is to compare the best programs of molecular modeling in terms of their support for the molecular design. This is a nontrivial issue. Not all the molecular modeling systems are suitable for molecular design and none of them cover all aspects. I will be thinking how clearly reflect this.
As a temporary solution, I made a column Homepage, as you said. Perhaps the best solution is to write the missing articles. But this is no easy task.
Thank you for your help and sorry for spend your time. P99am (talk) 13:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned spammer re-spamming

Hi Dirk,

Do you remember previously banning the user "Motjaba Cazi" for constantly spamming the "iPhone OS version history" article?

Well, he was later unbanned on the grounds that he wouldn't post the link again. However, on the 12th of November 2008, he added it back in again (iphone.cazisoft link).

Want to take a look? Thanks.

83.138.151.69 (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.
20 records; Editors who have added cazisoft.com: Codegear (5), Hervegirod (4), KelleyCook (4), II MusLiM HyBRiD II (3), Mojtaba Cazi (2), 217.218.17.205 (1), 217.40.61.217 (1)
20 records; Links added between 2008-09-25 21:15:30 and 2008-11-15 16:13:51; Days when cazisoft.com was added: 2008-11-12 (5), 2008-11-15 (4), 2008-11-04 (3), 2008-10-04 (2), 2008-09-26 (2), 2008-09-25 (2), 2008-10-02 (1), 2008-10-01 (1)
This may call for blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He did not actively add a link, he adapted a reference in the article. Still questionable but I'll leave it for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apology

i wanted to apologize to you because i did not assume good faith with your statement "(which is good)" when you commented on how i contributed to talk pages. i was paranoid and i thought you might have been conspiring to get me kicked off of wikipedia at the time. sorry. -Shootbamboo (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do recall making that statement, but not where. Don't worry, we are not here to get people kicked off wikipedia, and I do see that you are contributing a lot and very good. Apologies accepted! Happy editing, and hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thank you for accepting my apology. -Shootbamboo (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, let me add my link to Aho page. What we both are trying to do, is to provide free and rich content to the user. There are many sites, which contain ads, but not all of them contain content :-) Tell me, if you think TOC and review doesn't make a link valuable enough and I will remove it by myself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talk • contribs)

I have left you another warning and a list of policies and guidelines to read. Please discuss on talkpages before proceeding. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:33, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment this points in the rules:

  1. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
  2. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
can not be integrated, it is a book! Perfect reference I would say. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:50, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing, man?

Delete this link: http://www.paked.net/subject_pages/computer_science/prog2.htm from bubble sort, too, please.

Just tell me, what is you point. The link, I have mentioned contains very small piece of content, but at the same time contains Google Ad. Remove it too, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talk • contribs) 15:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but that is not a reason for inclusion. And I don't see that link being added by single purpose accounts (I see more than 10 editors, and in the top-10 of people who have used the linked I see at least 3 very established editors). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:51, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bear lake (utah/idaho) page external link

I believe the link provides value to those wanting to know more about and potentially visit Bear Lake. I can't place the google map on wikipedia, hence the link. Please consider reinstating the link to www.utahfishinginfo.com/utahlakes/bearlake.php

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fish edit (talk • contribs) 18:04, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, nope. As I see it now you are pushing that link (other editors also reverted additions of you), and since we are writing an encyclopedia here (and not a linkfarm), I don't think links help. But if you can convince other editors on e.g. the talkpage, then be my guest. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

coitoolbot's sql

I think I fixed it.. at least it isn't eating the lists of additions on the reports anymore. I removed the 'DESC GROUP BY revid' portion from a hand full of lines.. The web seems to suggest that it's failure to work is an old MySQL bug.. I saved your copy as coitoolbot.20081124. --Versageek 23:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the syntax of the SQL. I hope it works now. I wanted the sql to select single 'edits' in stead of every link addition (the latter would result in 60 lines if in one edit 60 times the same link was inserted). I'll keep an eye to see if it is resolved now. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonless reversion

I undid your reversion at Dynamic array, because you did not give a reason. The link also looks helpful to me. I guessed maybe you removed the link because it had advertisements? The ads for that page don't make it spam. Also, please try to leave an edit summary for reversions. Thanks. Fresheneesz (talk) 03:20, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid again, I used rollback on a (coi-)spammer, and this is the general edit summary they give. I reverted User:SPTWriter as his 'contributions' contain almost completely of adding 'simpleprogrammingtutorials.com' (to top of list). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

kerrang interview whitelisting request

hey dirk, not sure if you saw my reply on the whitelisting. there's no copy of the interview on the kerrang site, but both losethegame.com and the kerrang dj have now replied to me confirming that the site has permission to use that recording. as this addresses the last remaining concern (copyvio), do you think you can approve the whitelisting now? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation via an WP:OTRS ticket has not been received yet. An email that only you have seen is not sufficient proof. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
so are you basically saying you think i made those emails up? wp:copyrights says we don't need the publisher's permission to link to a copyrighted work, we only need to avoid linking to known copyvios. i would understand your concern if i was trying to upload a copyrighted work like an image etc, but if you are trying to oppose a valid link because you have reason to believe that what it links to is a copyvio, i think the burden of proof that it is a copyvio is yours. nevertheless, as a responsible wikipedia editor i have taken reasonable steps to make sure it isn't a copyvio. since you insist, i'll go try to figure out what this otrs thing is, but i do kind of wonder whether you would be insisting upon all this if you didn't have the personal involvement in this area that you were warned about before. Jessi1989 (talk) 16:42, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, the work on the Kerrang website is probably copyrighted. So linking to that work when hosted on another site may be in violation of copyright (and as such a risk). I am going here with the remark that it is then better to have (proper) proof that the copyright has either been transferred, or get official confirmation. That is not saying that you are a liar, but with the possible problems with allowing linking to the site anyway (whitelisting a link on the site could result in usage of that link throughout wikipedia, not only for the one page it was allowed on .. ), I hope that you understand that we are a bit overly carefull here.
OTRS is a system behind wikipedia, where the foundation is (amongst others) notified of official transferral of rights, which is needed for certain information to be used on wikipedia. You'll read more on Wikipedia:OTRS. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for the info... just checking out wp:otrs but i can't see where i go to open a ticket. could you point me in the right direction please? thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 19:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, difficult to find I see, you need to follow the link to m:OTRS. I think you have to send a mail, but also there it is not completely clear to me. There is a list of volunteers, maybe you can ask one of them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hey, i'm still a little confused by this otrs thing and re-reading what you said above makes me think you might have misunderstood something. you refer to "the work on the Kerrang website", but there isn't any work on/from the Kerrang website. what has happened here is that jonty haywood was interviewed on kerrang radio about himself, this site, the game, and another site he's famous for in the uk. as i said in the first place, it seems silly to suggest that a radio show wouldn't give someone permission to host a recording of their own interview. and as kerrang don't put up recordings on their own site, i need to link to one on losethegame.com. if i were to download that and put it somewhere else to link to, that would be a copyvio as i don't have permission to do so (actually if you read the DJ's email maybe i do now), but since haywood got given the interview recording, it's apparent he does have permission. so i don't think it violates any copyright laws or wiki policies to link to this recording. if you were already aware of this and still think i need to use otrs then i'll give it a go, but i'm not really sure what the otrs will tell us that we don't already know. thanks Jessi1989 (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, my mistake, I should say 'the work is probably copyrighted by Kerrang'. And I don't think it is too silly that 'news items' are copyrighted by the organisation that created them, it is what they sell, if people could copy and publish that for free then they would loose their money. Maybe Kerrang is different in this, but that I don't know for sure. Hence, probably better to get the data official (but I am not a specialist here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, just read what i said and it didn't come across how i meant it. i understand that news items are copyrighted, of course. what i meant was maybe you thought that the interview was up on the kerrang site for a time and that haywood may have stolen it from the site without permission. however, since kerrang don't post their interview recordings online, haywood can't have stolen it from their site and so must have been given it instead. what i mean as being silly would be kerrang giving him this recording if they didn't intend him to do anything with it. also, i have these emails from both parties telling me that this is correct. i realise that until i figure out this otrs thing i will be the only person to have seen these emails other than their senders but what i am saying is that even without these, the chance that this is a copyvio seems pretty unlikely given the above. Jessi1989 (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notify

I notify you, that I posted an inqury to arbitration about you actions against SimpleProgrammingTutorials.com website: Wikipedia:Administrators —Preceding unsigned comment added by SPTWriter (talk • contribs) 21:26, November 25, 2008

It's actually on AN. Seems like straight forward spamming to me. --GraemeL (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notification, I am on my way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But of course...

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Beetstra for diligence and never-ending hard work in fighting spam on Wikipedia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:JzG (talk • contribs)

this one is for you too :) --Versageek 05:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to both! Much appreciated! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories and COI report

I noticed that in a category I was looking at, Category:Transgender and transsexual writers a page from a COI report was included: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2007, Jul 24. I edited the report to add a colon before the word Category so that the log would not be included in the category. I just wanted to check with you to see if this bug still exists with the bot or if it now inserts a colon if someone spams a Category page.--Larrybob (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think I solved that (if I am correct I add a colon before everything now). But I'll check it. Thanks for reporting this to me! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kensington Market map

Hi, I am just curious if you had any special reason for taking out the link to the cute little "Google" map of the Kensington Market area? I kind of liked it... --Zlerman (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The users of that link are mainly IPs (in a not too large range) spamming that link. I don't know if that link is suitable per the external links guideline (some are pretty advertising), I think it would be better to upload such images if they do add to the pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What of course does not mean that there can be cases of proper and appropriate use, feel free to revert this one if you believe it properly adds to the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:28, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From my personal knowledge of the area, the map is just perfect. I will revert and watch for flack. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 16:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did add the domain ibegin.com to XLinkBot to desuade the IPs to add it in an inappropriate manner (but that should not affect you). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I don't understand the format, but I am basically adding a neighborhood map that lets developers download all data points for a neighborhood. For web development in the local space, it greatly accelerates and simplifies the process (I know as I have developed in the local space for 4 years). There is no advertising on the site - what is so wrong with it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.226 (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at the spam guideline and the external links guideline. Not sure if this is appropriate, but I guess it is best to discuss this with an appropriate wikiproject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did. As a developer, neighborhood boundary maps are often times commercial, and a free solution which lets me download the entire data source is very useful. If you look at my history, none of the links I have added are commercial - in fact, I have gone and removed commercial links. This is a useful resource for developers wishing to take the concept of a neighborhood and implement (and thus not about funneling traffic offsite, etc). Even Zlerman found it useful.
Yet, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm or an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have lost me. Is defining a neighborhood's boundary not useful? Or (not being facetious) - would it be better to list the coordinates on the wiki page and then use the places. link as a referral? Would that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.226 (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is useful, but may not be within the scope of wikipedia. Therefore it may be better to discuss.
(ec)Take this edit. I don't think that that number of links is 'a few' (see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL). And I would argue, what does this add to the page? Stops can also be mentioned in the text, and I don't think that is within the scope (this would be similar to naming all crossings in Route 66 .. by far outside of the scope of wikipedia). I would really like you to discuss the links before adding them. Just as a side note, you say you are a developer, are you a developer for ibegin.com, if so, then I should also point you to the conflict of interest guideline (in the other case you can ignore this last remark). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:50, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioning the coordinates in wikipedia is also not suitable info I would say. A description of the boundaries may, or an uploaded image (which I think is really the best solution). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I do not develop for them, I heard about them at an NYC Tech meetup. At the same time - I still believe that the coordinate information is very useful - as a quick example, if you were to define the boundary definitions, you could analyze all the geotagged entries in Wikipedia and calculate which entries appear inside each neighborhood - useful information! An uploaded image is far less useful than the actual neighborhood - beyond the copyright issues of it being based on the Google Maps API, the information is far less useful (a simple image vs coordinate info) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.226 (talk) 18:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That still does not mean that we need the link on every page, and that we should create linkfarms. Still my suggestion stands, please discuss this with a knowledgeable wikiproject. Thanks. ----Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:14, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now I think of it, having the actual coordinates on wikipedia of the points would be more useful, that would make searching in wikipedia possible. ----Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 21:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Glad we agree on that :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.240.226 (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. Is there a wikiproject concerned with the coordinates I see on pages (those that link to a 'linkfarm' on the toolserver via a link in the top right of a wikipage?). I guess this is worth a discussion with them, see if you/they can come up with a trick to include them on pages (I never thought about it, but areas need a different approach then 'single points' on a map. But I don't think these links are an appropriate way forward (how does http://places.ibegin.com/view/52/ enable wikipedia to see e.g. if a certain notable building is in this area?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mbeychok

I learned today that Mbeychok quit wikipedia because of me (he's back now). Since you said goodbye to him, you probably read his version of things, but didn't have mine. I don't really care for comments on the whole situation as it's water under the bridge to me, but I would at least like to have the chance to clear my name. You don't have to agree with me or even reply, but I wrote on a rant on my user page, and I would appreciate if you took a minute to read it. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 10:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick read. All I will say is, that we are all voluntary editors here, with our own ethics and our own limits. Sometimes one steps over a limit with someone (and with some that happens quicker than with others), and when that involves two long standing editors, then it is better to keep calm and talk it out together. Did I say before, that there is nothing wrong with being bold, but when editors object with reason (even if it is only one), then it is better to discuss first before re-applying the edit, maybe it is worth discussing? Really, Milton is a good editor, and he knows what he is talking about. I think that the issue got resolved properly, and I think the two of you should have a nice cup of tea together. Enjoy! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Evanier

Hi,

I have been reading the blog entitled "Is Mark Evanier Mentally Ill" all year and think that it's inclusion in Mr. Evanier's Wikipedia page would be appropriate. The blog publishes most every day and is a serious examination of how one comic book writer's obsession with defaming a noted artist resulted in a phenomenon of hatred toward the artist.

I realize that most blog content is considered inappropriate but much blog content is, in fact, used in Wikipedia.

I submit that this blog's content is relevant to the subject and provides a balanced view.

Bonehead Bob (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)Bonehead BobBonehead Bob (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, blogs are generally not good external links (and they are quite strictly named in the external links guideline. Above that, we are not writing an internet directory of a linkfarm here, we are writing an encyclopedia based on content. Blogs may sometimes make a proper reference, but in practically all cases need also reliable sources to back them up. Note that I only left a message, I did not leave an official warning. But your pushing of that reference without discussion is not the way forward.
That much blog content is used in wikipedia is not a reason to use it here, it may even be a reason to have a look at all those cases, and I am afraid that much will have to go. I suggest you start a discussion on the talkpage, or with an appropriate wikiproject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject, a short way to an appropriate one can be via banners on talkpages or via regulars in the edit history of the page). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:49, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allrightee, then! Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonehead Bob (talk • contribs) 21:42, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest rebuttal

My edit to Nelson Muntz was listed as a conflict of interest. Can you prevent that from happening again? --Jnelson09 (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, I would say it is listed as a possible conflict of interest (bots are stupid .. they don't make a decission, humans should analyse the results with reason). But you've been added to the whitelist, thanks for pointing me to this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I draw your attention to...

Verbal seemed to find this interesting, may I suggest it as well? WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 15:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... I had been thinking along similar lines ... Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

shado-x.com

SHADO CONTROL http://www.shado-x.com is not a spam link. Remove your undo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I answered on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHADO CONTROL at http://www.shado-x.com is not a SPAM link. It provides the official review for GAMERA: THE BRAVE with pictures provide by Kidokawa Picture, including the original PRESS PACK. Now, I don't know what discussion you are having with competitive reviewers that use some sort of cyber-bullying moral judgement, but all of SHADO CONTROL's reviews are official. They were at the press briefings in Japan. They are official. Read the reviews based on those links and you will see they are official.

I will state however, that there exist many reviews and references from an on-line apparatus known as TOHO KINGDOM. That is *NOT* an official TOHO site, they are not authorized to use one (1) picture from Toho, they place Toho's (R) trademark in their domain and violate Toho's Trademarks. Those are what require to be removed from wiki-pedia for actual facts. When Wiki-Pedia wants to allow trademark violators, such as Toho Kingdom to parade around as if they are an official Toho site, when they aren't even close, then you have to consider reality.

SHADO CONTROL has the official sources. For any additional requests from SHADO CONTROL please forward them to the President of Toho Pictures. Here is the address and phone number. Have a nice day.

<personal data removed>

SPOCK SEAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talk • contribs) 14:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may not be a spam link, but the way you are editing is disruptive, and your actions are here defined as 'spamming' (or link-pushing if the other term offends you). I stand by my suggestions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your suggestions are incorrect. Then remove all of TOHO KINGDOM's links. They violate TOHO's Trademarks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talk • contribs)

OTRS is that way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That personal information is my information. It's public information. That IP encompassed numerous IPs from the same location, we did a check. In fact the numerous users were in fact one to three users. Additional comments came from the same user. In fact that same user wrote comments that all parties were contacted, which was NOT true, because I am the party and in contact with all the parties. An additional post from the same user stated "no (financial) consideration", which he knows nothing about. So, because the user used multiple IP addresses to remove information, I stated to "lay off". Sorry, but that was said due to multiple IP addresses from the same user made to look like numerous users.

Return the movie review links as they are all official. I see you have no plans to write or call the name and numbers provided. I don't know how official you want it. Thank you for your correspondence. Return the GAMERA: THE BRAVE link, because you will not find any more accurate information anywhere. Any information yo0u receive about Gamera: The Brave will be less than what is provided from SHADO CONTROL, the official information, using the official sources.

SPOCK SEAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spock seat (talk • contribs) 14:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing with them, I am sure they will be willing to do that. I will not return the information, I ask you to discuss and then let others include the information if they think it is appropriate. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(three discussions threaded together Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Factoring (Finance)

Regarding Factoring Finance.

You recently removed links and information regarding the World Factoring Yearbook and Factorscan.com

You claimed these were inappropriate, yet they are used by the majority of factoring companies.

Wikipedia is designed as a source of information, where Wikipedia can only provide a certain level of information, to link to a dedicated information site can provide a full, more detailed explanation.

Those who link to the web page will find all the information they need about the industry, furthermore people may also find the World Factoring Yearbook essential as it is the only annual publication on the factoring industry.

Perhaps as someone outside the industry it is hard to perceive the value of information on such a niche industry. There is no advertising here. There is nothing to be advertised. Only factual publications etc.

Can you please confirm your reason for removing these items and the reason for threats being made regarding the placement of links and information. Surely informing people is the very reason for Wikipedia and it is of paramount importance to keep it as factually relevant and up-to-date as possible?

Many thanks for your time.

FCI —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theboyrolt (talk • contribs) 13:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm and not an internet directory. You have been adding that link over and over again to that page, and it has now been removed quite some times. Your actions on that page are here described as spamming. We are not a site to promote that site! Please discuss further additions of that link on the talkpage, or with an appropriate wikiproject (you may be able to find a wikiproject also via a banner on the talkpage). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Soap Bubble Page

Dear Beestra,

I recently edited the soap bubble page of wikipedia with a short paragraph on my invention the Bubble Thing. The facts it contains are true and the link is no more commercial than many others by other bubble artists who appear on the same page. I don't know what your interest is in erasing what I wrote or whether it was even intentional but I would appreciate your allowing me to state the simple facts about my work. If you have some quarrel with me (of which I'm unaware) you are welcome to email me at ds@bubblething.com or call and I'll try to sort it out with you. Thank you and best regards,

David Stein, inventor of the Bubble Thing

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beetstra&oldid=256042029"