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 BrynLlywelyn (talk | contribs) at 23:08, 1 November 2009 (→Aber Garth Celyn: 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 Template:Wikipedia ads
Wikipedia adsfile info – show another – #215
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 (you can consider to remove other links covered there).
  • 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.

The Fly Magazine

Hi Dirk,

JJ & Chris here, representing The Fly magazine.

Referencing this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Theflymagazine

User:87.194.72.93 is Chris' home IP address, and any usernames with the variation Niall Doherty belong to our editor. However, the rest we are fairly sure do not have anything to do with us. It is probable that people are linking to our reviews, as we are a reputable magazine in the UK, in fact, we have the highest distribution of all the monthly and weekly music titles in Great Britain & Ireland http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=44141

We have posted links to our reviews in the past, but we will refrain from doing so in future. Many of the links posted were regarding new and upcoming releases, which we get access to before they enter the public domain. For instance, we recently posted a link to a track-by-track preview of the new Julian Casablancas album, which was intended as a helpful and relevant addition to the Wikipedia entry.

We admit liability for posting links in the past ourselves, but we do not feel that we should be penalised for the actions of other - non-Fly related - people.

Please drop us an email

Best,

JJ & Chris

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.0.183 (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks really strange to me that there are so many editors who only add these links, all in the same way. And then there are hardly any other, established, editors who add the link. I will consider asking for some more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ecco Pro forums

I think it would be reasonable to provide one link to each of the two forums. What do you think about replacing the first sentence under Ecco Pro#Ongoing EccoPro community support with this:

Ecco Pro support is available at two user forums.<ref>[http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/ New Ecco Pro user forum] and [http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/ Original Ecco Pro user forum]</ref>

The links are a bit dubious but is there much harm in providing one link because they are (I think) the only existing outlets for the product? Johnuniq (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would be the 'official' link for the product (at least close to it) in this case .. a good case can be made to put it in the external links section, and I would not object that. It was more that it is certainly not a reference, nor is language like 'for more information see the new Ecco Pro user forum'. But that said, I looked at one of the forums, and to say that they provide actually information ... it's not a lot.
I see you started to clean, looks good! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know either of you, and you could be astrophysicists. For my own POV without intent as any personal comment about you, you are "idiots" who are destroying the wikipedia and in the end will be the end of the wiki. Instead of constructively adding to the article you simply look for something to do, like busy bees. But since you don't know *anything* about the articles' subject you have no idea what information is relevant or not. So you make 100% subject 'feels good' decisions, based on your own, ignorant feelings. And on the subject of the article you are simply ignorant. Not meant in any derogatory way. So, you feel free to delete researched and *referenced* material, such as the historic pricing. You feel free to delete most of the references in the article, am not sure on your logic for that, but am sure you have some. The website of the attorney who once worked on ecco isn't a reference that he became an attorney, it is 'pimping' to use you're own language. And so.. as you and others just like you do your 'work' the level of articles falls. Those who spent time doing actual research and writing see their work vandalized-- and that is *exactly* what you are doing, vandalizing other's work. And that, I think... is the death of the wiki. A source of knowledge open to contribution at first attacks those with knowledge. Then those without knowledge want to feel that they have something to contribute and so chip away at the work crafted. YSWT (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that is not a suitable reference. But I don't think that we will ever agree on that, so maybe we should agree to disagree. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:34, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting to realize communicating with you is a waste of time, but will try one last time. Why did you retag EccoPro as a The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. ? If just another one of your 'inadvertent' slips which degrade the article, please fix. If intentional on your part please explain yourself.YSWT (talk) 01:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you think that communicating with me could be a waste of time? I have pointed you to reliable sources, which are hardly used in the article. The ones which do meet that guideline hardly tell anything about the subject. And I did already explain, as did others. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New museums/archivists initiative

Were you aware of User:Witty lama/Sandbox? I just linked to your very useful User:Beetstra/Archivists, and any comments you have would be welcome. The page is likely to move into mainspace shortly. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am. I will have a look, and see what I can do. I think I choose more a hardline stand: be very careful when you are an archivist' and avoid the impropriety. Witty lama's version was different when I read it last time. Thanks for the note, though! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dirk, I was just stopping by to make sure you saw the note on the talk page of your essay. I'm with you on the hardline stance, however this change to the COI guidelines allowing the "[Adding of] pointers to primary sources in archives, special collections or libraries in the Research resources section of an article. Also, adding External links to digitized or digital primary sources or finding aids" seems to have changed since I last encountered a problem with an archivist (or, more likely, an intern)--it's actually been quite a while. I think my biggest gripes are that there was that note in the librarians list basically encouraging the spamming of Wikipedia with no mention of actually working with the community, and the fact that the archivists/librarians/interns did not seem to be bothered about becoming a part of the Wikipedia community (and their subsequent outrage at "us" for enforcing the guidelines/policies). I've only glanced at Witty lama's work, but it does seem to fill the need of a friendly place to point link-happy folks, and it explains how "they" is "you too" and I believe it encourages folks to do more than add links. At least I hope it does, I'm still not down with accounts whose only purpose is to add links. Johnbod if you're still watching feel free to quote me on the new essay's talk page. Katr67 (talk) 04:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I suppose you already knew your name was dropped here? Good job! Katr67 (talk) 04:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I did not know that sentence. I strongly oppose its inclusion, that should NOT be there. It might be that we can include something else there, but we will see. I am on the talkpage, pushing a hardline. I want that sentence to be removed.
Re. P.S., yes, it is in my 'pride' box on my userpage. Thanks anyway! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"aboutmyarea"

re: What you were looking for;

Here's the removal and log deletion back in may. I agree with its addition and keeping it blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Majorly? Since when is that a reason to remove sites that get heavily spammed by many, many socks over a long, long period of time ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Theres got to be a better way to track d-listed sites. Simply removing the entry and log only looses the evidence and rationael. The only viable way potentialy is to leave sites blacklisted and simply require whitelist request. Would allow for easier tracking through the use of seths spamlists tool, and none of the logs or past abuse evidence would be lost... --Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One should simply log the removal, not remove the log of the addition. Like the system on meta. But certainly links should not be removed per some off-wiki communication. I have contacted Prodego already, after I finished my sock-puppet listing I will consider to contact Majorly as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justify your censorship

How do you justify your censorship of discussion, let alone facts, on pages related to parapsychology, or psi research? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.19.4.148 (talk) 11:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do you justify your block evasion? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://arthurzbygniew.blogspot.com/

[2]

This is about my blog and this report: [3]

My blog is a VERY SERIOUS PRESS REVIEW in english, french and italian, sometimes even dutch (like here: [4]). Some big belgium socialist party fish are very annoyed by this report: [5]. This is why they try to blacklist me. If they had not taken part to the murder of the waloon socialist leader André Cools it would not be a problem. That is their problem, my blog is not.

Please remove me from the spam list. Take care and thank you.

Arthur Zbygniew —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.204.137 (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not blacklisted, so I don't know that you are talking about. However, being serious or not, the blogspot fails our policies and guidelines, and hence should not be linked or used as a reference. Please review those policies and guidelines, and your intentions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The aforementioned report ([6]) is not available elswhere on the net, so how can it break your guidelines? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.204.137 (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss on the talkpage, find (established) editors who concur that this is indeed a link that should be there, and that there is enough cause to break the policies and guidelines. If it is up to me, it fails WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, and probably more, so it should not be included. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The source mentionned is Père Ubu, the belgian equivalent of the french Canard Enchainé. Its is a satirical weekly, its archives were not available on the net till a couple of years ago after publication of this article, otherwise I would have linked to them. Furthermore Père Ubu has not been taken to court by José Happart because of this thereby reinforcing its credibility and the seriouness of its accusations. It makes Belgium or more precisely Wallonia look like a banana republic, a vision shared by some "connaisseurs". The rampant corruption is worse than Italy's. The murder of André Cools and the subsequent investigations epitomized this regrettable situation. A.Z.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.146.149 (talk) 19:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but that still does not make it a reliable source, it simply fails the guideline for that, and we are still not a soapbox. It is not encyclopeadic, you're looking for news servers, not Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This matter should be debated by french speaking people preferably Belgians to judge about the reliability of the sources. The French know that "Le Canard Enchainé" is one of the most reliable source of the french press and Père Ubu is its belgian equivalent. The daily belgian french speaking press is way behind it in terms of reliability. If you cannot quote Père Ubu, apart from Trends Tendances there is probably no belgian french speaking newspaper that can be quoted according to your guidelines. A.Z. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.24.78 (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS/N is down the hall, second door on the left. Good luck! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are links to another wiki, which has better information on the subject. How is that bad? Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 20:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, upon checking your policy I find that you permit these kind of links. Why not actually look at them, before warning. Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 20:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, if you read carefully, then linking to other wikis is not permitted, but discouraged. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, your sig is broken, your contibs link does not work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, whoops, thanks. I am from Wikia, BTW, and not just a random spambot :) Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I also should point you to the conflict of interest guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might I then ask why there are links to fansites and other sources of potentially unreliable information? Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 20:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I have Beetstra's talk page on my watchlist, and just wanted to add my comments to this. The link being added fails WP:ELNO #11 and #12. The Wiki being linked contains only 921 article pages and only 22 active users. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise to try directing more traffic to grow wikis. As to other links, the fact that other links exist is as issue with other links also needing to be reviewed an possibly removed - not a sign that additional links should be added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:25, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that it should be added, I will respect your policies. I am simply curious why there are other links to "fansites and other sources of potentially unreliable information". Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 20:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, you have a good point. Also, would you mind me removing the links to fansites? External links to the official website should be OK. Since there is a policy in effect against it, I will not add external links to other wikis, and wouldn't have if I knew about the policy before hand. Ajraddatz (talk | contribs) 03:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing out the guidelines. I had an oversight that user profiles (originating from mailing lists and forums) were included on the links to avoid. I'm just acting in good faith when I added those links because I'm aware that the links have no SEO-benefit but I thought i'm doing the person of interest a service by linking their own content stream related to their contributions to the open-source community. Acjacinto (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, I almost missed this one. It is not about benefit only, it is about building an encyclopedia. I am afraid that your links fail our external links guideline, and I suggest that you try to discuss before adding more (either on talkpages of pages where you think the link is of interest, though you might get more response when you find a suitable WikiProject). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:44, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding UnBlockBot (IRC)

Is it possible you could amend UnBlockBot to where it can catch an administrative backlog at Category:Requests for unblock? At present it doesn't catch any unblock requests past the first seven. -Jeremy (v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!) 04:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only 7? It should not care about the number of unblock requests there are.
OK, I had a look. Not really thoughtful of me. The api returns only 10 members, of which the first three are three subcategories (which the bot ignores). Never thought to increase the number of members there. It now will report up to 497 unblock requests. Sorry that I deprived you all from the work!  ;-) --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your warning

--Matheisf (talk) 20:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)I have not ever posted spam on Wikipedia. The label of spammer is completely unwarranted. Every link I inserted is directly related to the topic and adds educational material. You are obviously joining in with my new found opponents, without basis and without merit, and participating in what amounts to a lynching.[reply]

I can defend and substantiate each and every single link.

The supposition of any fairness, and proper intellectual discourse has rapidly faded here. Reading your threat, without any notion of how and why you take this position of authority, without having ever spoken two words with me, not having even heard my side, makes me seriously doubt your objectivity and neutrality.


FM

Your links fail our external links guideline, and your actions trigger the spam radar. Please read our policies and guidelines which are cited to you. Start with 'What wikipedia is not', and work your way though the external links guideline and the spam guideline. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanhero

Xrfjgted (talk · contribs), plenty more URLs to block.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, I'll collect the links and see if there are more. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aber Garth Celyn

Annwyl Beetstra

In line with what I believe to be Wikipedia policy, and having read your notes, I cannot see why you have removed the website link www.garthcelyn.com that I have included on several pages totally related to the web sites content. Several pages on the website include the material.

What do you think that I am doing wrong? Hwyl fawr,

Bryn

BrynLlywelyn

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Beetstra&oldid=323365511"