User talk:GraemeL

I am: OUT

• I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
• If I posted something to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7

Blocking this IP

The IP that is logged here(209.173.13.167) should probably be blocked from editing. It is actually a proxy server for a high school with a one-to-one program(ie each student gets an laptop). All HTTP traffic is sent through this server. I believe this violates wiki's policy on proxy servers. I'm a tech here, BTW.

The Vandalism

Hello, I recieved a message from you saying that I had vandalised Wikipedia, there must be some confusion, I am not the person that message was sent to.

On our Domain all the IP addresses were switched around a couple of months ago, so my IP address would've matched the person that previously had that address.

Sorry to confuse you, Stephen Dalbiac. :)

Mediation Case: IPTV

Ajshroff has added a link to (probably) his own website http://iptv.ajayshroff.com/ and claims in the edit history:

Spoken to Admin ' GraemeL' Admin said Link is valid. Please contact admin for further issues

You are welcome to comment on this at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-28_IPTV --Fasten 12:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Help on Click fraud please

Can you lend a hand on the Click fraud page? I've got an editor (User:Visualize) who keeps readding a commercial link and is removing content from the talk page. Thanks. Monkeyman^(talk) 15:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Amazon Web Services Example Sites

Hello, I don't understand why we can't post example ECS sites in this section. I think it's helpful for a developer to look at example sites. Someone has updated the section again: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Web_Services I don't see why they are allowed to link but other sites are not permitted like Amazon light. I wonder if there is a way to challenge wiki link rules for certain content. -tekwizad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.113.225 (talk • contribs)

watchlist organization

What would you think about organizing your linkspam watchlist by date? The problem with the watchlist now is that many of the users on it are inactive. If it was organized by date like:

===Month of most recent linkspam===

• User A
• User B

it would be much easier to identify users whose linkspam is a continuing problem. Also (or alternatively), users whose linkspam is a continuing problem could be bolded.

The watchlist is a great idea, and hopefully it will become more widely used.TheJabberwock 01:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, been on a wikibreak and haven't been monitoring things. Now I'm back, I'm about to go through and clear out the entries that don't look as if they're coming back. This should help a bit.

I might split it up into two sections along the lines of "Longtime problem spammers" and a short term list. I mostly delete items with no activity for 3 months unless their history seems to indicate long gaps between spam runs. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm looking forward to the results, or I can do it if you're too busy. Meanwhile, I changed all the addresses on the page to use {{Vandal}}, which is more informative. TheJabberwock 03:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ack! There is a reason that I didn't use one of the templates. If It's just a list of contributions, I can highlight a dozen of them at once and use a bookmarklet to open them all in new tabs. This makes checking them a lot faster than having to click individual links one at a time. I've changed them back to being contributions links.

If you want to have a go at splitting them up into short term watches and recidivists, that would be great. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

commerical links

Hi Graeme. Those links were conversion rates. I was merely changing them from one commercial link to another... especially the one that says "More competetive rates." Don't you think "Other currencies" is much less instrusive to the site?

Master's degree

Hi,

Re: Removing the external link on this page, do you think you could please go to Talk:Master's degree and explain to the user why you think the link should be removed?

They came onto #wikipedia-bootcamp asking for an admin. I just want to show them how to discuss.

Thanks. --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 01:19, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, I'll let him know on his own talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Links that you missed

I just came across MORE external commerical links in Web Conferencing. The offender was Infinite Conferencing. Additionally, I cleaned up the list of external links since they all seem to be an attempt by SEO people to influence Google.

I hope that you concur.

ttishgar

Sildenafil

Do you think it would be worthwhile to protect/semiprotect sildenafil considering someone has been repeatedly adding the same linkspam from different IPs, despite warnings and your block of one of the IPs? I tried to add the offending link to the sitewide spam blacklist, but ironically the shared IP I edit from seems to be blocked from editing there. --Ed (Edgar181) 15:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is a spam magnet and if we semi protect it, they might just move on to more sneaky tactics which can be a pain. I've been running the last few IPs through my open proxy checker and have blocked one of them so far. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I got fed up blocking and reverting and semi protected it for a while. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That linkspammer was surprisingly persistent in the face of such an obviously futile task. You were much more patient that I would have been.  :) --Ed (Edgar181) 17:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Converter Link

Question. I noticed you removed the link to my unit converter page, but you did not remove the links to the other unit converters. Why? Do they have something my site doesn't?

They were not being spammed across multiple articles like yours was. Please stop adding your link, or you will end up being blocked from editing. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Its a unit converter that is actually applicable to more than one topic. Visit the site. See for yourself. Either way, I'm done with Wikipedia. I just don't understand the methods used for "clean up".

Spam

I'm not adding links to commercial or personal sites.

the link is not commercial. I can't find any advertising on the site. How can it be considered commercial?

How can you label the link as "spam"? It isn't "spam" and you know it. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.68.53.40 (talk • contribs) 67.68.53.40.

Your only actions are adding that link. At least three different people have removed the link and you contimue to put it back. Please contribute to Wikipedia in a way that does not involve adding external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

You have now contradicted yourself, the link isn't "spam" and it isn't commercial. There is no reason why a good external link can't be added.

Your entitled to an opinion but, deigning users access to some very good, on topic information is the very last thing Wiki is about.

I commented on this on the article's talk page. "Very good" is debatable. It's a link to a crappy site full of press releases. If it's not spam it's SEO. Are you going to add scitechinfo links to every article that has a corresponding scitechinfo category? Let's hope not. · rodii · 16:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

"Crappie", is your opinion and nothing else. You have now stated you don't like the site and you don't understand what is on the site(if it's not one it must be the other). —This unsigned comment was added by 67.68.53.40 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, "Crappy" is my opinion. "Crappie" is a fish. :) And so far your only defense has been that you disagree. The site is an aggregator of press releases. It has no contact information except for a gmail address, no mission statement, and no original content. Why would a site like that exist except to be a link farm? You tell me. And what value does that link add to the article? Why that link? So far all you've done is revert and be pissy. Make your case. · rodii · 18:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh hey, Graeme--sorry for taking over your talk page. · rodii · 19:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

;-) np. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:13, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Pub Crawl Link

Question. We noticed that you recently removed our link within the Pub Crawl External Links. Our site ciddytours, is specifically dedicated to pub crawls and subsequent reviews of pubs in Waterford Ireland. We have at least 5 recommended pub crawls in the Waterford area on our site. As a result we were bemused to see that you had arbitarily removed our link as spam and yet you leave similar links alone. Perhaps when you get an opportunity you might let us know, what your definition of spam in the context of this article is? —This unsigned comment was added by Darrers bag (talk • contribs) .

Oops! I removed it because when I looked at the site, I thought you were selling organised pub crawls. Having gone back and looked at the site in more depth, I see that you are just providing free routes and advice. Feel free to add the link back to the article --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Clarification - User:Darrers bag

Links

re: external links.. I didn't realize we weren't supposed to do this. Sorry about that! Will stop now. —This unsigned comment was added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs) .

Ok, no problem. thanks for understanding. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar, OTR & PUA Review

FYI. You may want to look and comment here: Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/Proposed Changes. For your reference, the guidelines are referenced here: Barnstar Proposal Guidelines. Thanks -- evrik 18:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism box

Hehe, I don't make a big deal out of it. I don't think I'm going to un-reverting the reverting of the vandalism box in the future (if that makes any sense to you!) - the only reason it's there is to try and stop vandals from vandalising the actual page, and it seems to be working quite well :) — FireFox • T [19:43, 24 March 2006]

from 0waldo

This is TOTAL BULLSHIRT! You do any thing you want here, uncontested, junior dictator - delete the useful link, ho, hum - why am I not even thinking that this is something new? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0waldo (talk • contribs)

Linking to your own sites is nothing but spamming. BTW, I've removed the protection from your talk page. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

THANK BOG AND HORYGALLEULYA BROTHERS AMEN ALREADY!!!!!!!!!!!!!! at least I can EDIT ME own page!

Thanks for getting me out of a giant crack in a boars butt! :) 0waldo 02:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks!

It's nice to know that people are following me about, remembering the things I'm forgetting to do in my first week of being an admin! Like putting blanked warnings back. D'oh! I'll get better at this, I promise ;o) ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:17, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

no problem. Keep up the spam fighting work! --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Preview is your friend

I'm trying to do it in different sections, and I'm too lazy to do the whole article, so I have to check the references section every time, so I can't really use preview. BTW, how'd you add the new page to the template so fast? --Rory096 19:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but I didn't foresee these problems, considering the "experienced" help I was supposed to be getting in #wikipedia :-/ I think I have it under control now. Thanks for the help! --Rory096 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Cheers

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Thats 8 times in my first week, boy aint I lucky. --Scot^t 17:16, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's probably a good sign the you're annoying vandals and spammers. :) --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1

Reach out Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention." Stress Alerts The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them. Note from the editor Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!

The last AC meeting (full log) Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen. Signed... Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

my sincere apologies

i am very sorry i did not realise i was doing wrong .......... i have built up a 2500 page website for the peak district area where i live and just wanted more people to use it for their knowledge so am very sorry will not do any more links .. take care james - peak district online

Thanks for understanding. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial link?

Hello,

I wanted to add http://www.how2skate.com/ to the skateboarding_trick page. This site is full of trick tips, so I don't understand why it wouldn't be allowed.

If it's because of the advertisements, why do you allow a link to skateboard-city? This site has even more advertisements and less quality content.

If I should add more real content too to be able to add the link, no problem, I would be glad to add more content.

Best regards.

I removed it because your only actions on Wikipedia have been to add the same link to multiple pages. If you want to contribute to the project, please add content to our articles instead of links to external sites. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Didn't know sorry! Family Guy rocks!

you ask me not to add site

you ask me not to add site but I felt it was relevant to the subject. If you are looking at a article about online casinos you may want to know what these sites are. Particularly the biggest which is what the site I linked does.

Anybody wanting to find a casino can use a search engine. Please add content to Wikipedia, rather than adding external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

GLASGOW CELTIC

How can a true Briton allow Irish Catholic fifth columnists, censors and propagandists to obscure the ugly and sectarian roots of their own football clubs (or anyhting else)??

You are a disgrace to the UK. You probably vote Labour.

Bowling Forum link

Hi GraemL,

On the 26 March 2006 at 15:57, you amended the external links of Ten-pin bowling to "Remove forum with only a couple of dozen posts". I think that I linked to the news section of that forum which was my mistake and only listed a couple of dozen posts. However, the proper link is this: http://www.tenpinscotland.co.uk/modules/newbb/ which shows that their are actually 269 posts with 71 topics. Now, you may still not want to link to this forum but their are many more posts and it is the third leading Ten-pin specific bowling forum next to the BTBA and BJ forums which are linked. In Ten-pin bowling terms (excludsing other bowling) this is a significant forum. It went down so lost a lot and is now back-up with a promise not to lose data again (new back-up system) so it will take off again and possibly take over th eother two as it was VERY popular. Anyway, something to think about. Yours sincerely.

You seem to be the expert and I'll take your word on the links. Feel free to put it back in. Oh, I was going to post thanking you for creating articles for all of those red linked players. I'll thank you here instead :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:17, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi GraemL,

I wouldn't say expert but it is a significant interest of mine. Believe me, I do not want to put nonsensical links on Wikipedia, it is an excellent resource and that would ruin it. I have done before and learned from my mistakes and am getting better at Wiki (if that's the term) but can only learn and improve, as with everything. As for the RED links, no problem - althogh they are far from the standard that I want them at, I asure you that I will work on each one and make them Wiki-worth (again, if thats a term) - it's just a matter of time really but it shall be done. No need to thank me at all.

Yours sincerely.

Rangers

Idiot is right. Let me know if I can be of any help. Guinnog 17:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block

Hi,

Just to let you know that User:MickDerrig is without a doubt the same person as User:216.194.4.216 and User:216.194.3.172, both of whom you blocked earlier. All three seem to be sockpuppets of User:Rms125a@hotmail.com who has a long history of inserting sectarian POV into Ireland- and Scotland-related articles. Demiurge 18:50, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've blocked him already. Feel free to drop a note if you find any more of his socks wandering about. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:53, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Back yet again as 69.31.83.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Demiurge 21:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
  • And again under BarbaraGlowniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Demiurge 22:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Blocked as a sockpuppet and I semi-protected the article for a while. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help, I believe there's an RfC on this user's conduct in the making. Demiurge 22:35, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Would that be an RFC? :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• I've started that RfC, you can find it here if you wish to contribute. Demiurge 20:25, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Advice on Celtic Park article

Hi GraemeL,

Just wanted your view on the above article. I was involved in a bit of to and fro with Bill the bear over whether a BBC poll should be cited or not (last seen on 11:01, 27 march 2006). I see it as valid, he doesn't. I see his point to a certain extent, and there probably was a particular interest shown by Celtic fans, but the fact remains that the result of the poll was Celtic Park being voted the UK's favourite sporting venue and awarded with a plaque. It's perhaps not too big a deal, but I do think it adds something interesting to the article. However, I suppose the main issue is whether citing such polls is seen as acceptable or not - the help pages I have read are not clear cut. I would welcome some input, as you seem to have a balanced view, and I wouldn't want to compromise the articles integrity over a small issue. Thanks Gourlg9a 00:28, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually a bulenose and trying to remain neutral on the subject. :P I was prepared to take the link on the uefa site as enough proof, but it's fairly slim proof as it's the only place on the site that mentions the status and that's only in passing. The uefa web site is a mess, you would think they would have links up to the stadia that they consider the best in Europe. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i've been following that one with interest and researched it myself only to come up with contradictions all over the place. And you're right, its disgraceful that their website is so cumbersome. However...! I wasn't actually talking about that - I was talking about the reference to the BBC Five Live poll last seen in my edit [here] Gourlg9a 00:39, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think the poll is worth mentioning in the article. It's relevant content and verifiable. The poll wouldn't be scientific, but that doesn't make it not worthy of inclusion in the article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:44, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the advice. Lastly, any thoughts on how best to go about getting the information back in without going down the road that I was previously on with Bill the bear? Sorry, still a bit of a newbie, so just making sure i'm not being unreasonable. Gourlg9a 00:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I would put it back in without re-adding the 5-star stuff at the moment. Use an edit summary saying that's it's verifiable and not related to the other controversy going on. Then see how it goes. He may just have removed it thinking the two paragraphs were related. --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, i'll try that. He was actually removing it before any of the 5 star stuff was an issue, so I have my doubts, but we'll see. Gourlg9a 01:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't look far enough back in the history. Might be worth mentioning in the paragraph, that it was an internet poll and not scientific. If you mention that, it cuts off his argument. All that's really left open to him is virifiability, and you have the link to the BBC site.

This is why I tend to only do vandalism reverts on Celtic related articles. Otherwise I just end up letting my own POV show, which is bad for the project.

Anyway, I'll have a look tomorrow and see how things have progressed (or not). --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:07, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem mentioning that, only I don't know how the poll was conducted - it may have been internet, webmail or phone (a discussion I tried to progress in the discussion page).

Nevertheless, as you say, we'll see what happens tomorrow. Thanks again for the advice. Gourlg9a 01:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Recipe Websites

Response to : [[User_talk:mkamensek]

That's fine, but I think it's more likely to be spammed on the main article. Personally, I think we should remove the external links altogether unless they're to a "Recognized Authority" on cooking/recipes. What do you think? --Mkamensek 17:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Refrain

I'm sorry for what you consider to be a spam link. I will not add the link again, although I believe it is genuinely relevant. We have added over one hundred unique and informative articles about Drug Rehabilitation for the benefit of our users. Someone researching Drug Rehabilitaiton on Wiki would be well served to check out the articles we have online, written from a uniquely qualified perspective.

That said, the "non-profit" Drug treatment center is the same thing, and if you take a look at the site which adds little original content, you will see for yourself that the intention is merely for organic google rankings.

A true non-profit Drug Rehabilitation Resource would be the SAMHSA Rehabilitation Facility Locator, available at http://findtreatment.samhsa.gov/

Thank you for your work on Wikipedia. My apologies for any misbehavior. I am going to make a donation to Wiki now in an effort to make amends.

Thanks for understanding. I'll replace the other link in the article with the .gov one you provided above. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:49, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Camera phone pitures

I also disregarded you because you previously broke the rule by lightly thinking, and it disregarded my comment.

It is necessary to correct ”Video call on a camera phone” It is thought that the logo of Sony Ericson in an opening photograph corresponds to the advertisement. It is necessary to correct it.--218.183.76.45 13:49, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's innocuous. Linkspam is a far bigger problem. I don't think we need to be that paranoid about advertising. You have had your 3 revisions for today, so I would like to draw your attention to the three revert rule. --GraemeL (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

It's your logic, and doesn't have the change in the violation of the rule. Well, the company name of the photograph should scold the correction the extent that cannot be read. I think that you may personally put the respect and admit if the logo is SHARP. However, it is not possible to permit with Sony Ericson. --218.183.76.45 14:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Block request

Could you please block User:69.249.212.156 It's the same one that's been vandalising in the past few minutes. You can remove this afterwards -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -Author of Deleted Articles 17:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He's only edited twice and had only been warned once. I added another warning to his page and will keep an eye on him for a bit. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: User:66.213.10.5. I think it's the same guy jumping IPs. -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -Author of Deleted Articles 18:01, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

He hasn't been warned for almost two months. Please ensure that propper warnings are given before requesting blocks. Also, use WP:AIV for requesting blocks. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry about the rather fiery nature, but I don't like vandals, and I'm just learning the protocols. If you have any tips, do you mind dropping them on my talk page (e.g. links to policies, guidelines and procedures for alerting admins?) -- Mkamensek ^(talk) -Author of Deleted Articles 18:10, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

sure, np. See Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace for a list of templates to use. It's customary to go through a minmum of three warnings before blocking. This is normally some sort of combination of {{test1}}, {{test2}}, {{test3}} and {{test4}}. I normally go 1, 3 then 4, or 2, 3 then 4. You might start higher and use fewer warnings if the user has had previous warnings in the last week or so.

Always substitute the templates on their talk pages by doing something like {{subst:test1}} --~~~~

Looking at the CVU page might also give you some more tips.

Feel free to ask again if there is anything else I can help with --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:17, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Links

Hi Graemel and Wikipedia Team!!!

We´re artists, musicians, ecologyst, etc. We have an Alternative and new Encyclopedia about Psychedelia, Shamanism, art, culture, travels, Psychedelic Trance Scene, health, etc. Promoting the new and alternative artists and musicians. Also, we have a shop with articles of another artist, and made by us too. (artesanal articles, recycle material, natural seeds, etc. a little shop, another artists ans musicians in the article have shops too) We added our link in the Article "Psychedelic Trance" - "Trance" - "PsyTrance", because we think our little encyclopedia have good and alternative info about important information about that topics related to the real psychedelia (hippie movements and alternative arts). We are a Forum too... but this is not the only "section" of our site. Lso in our forum we talk about more serious information. We have a suscription for our encyclopedy, as a colaboration to keep this proyect growing. And is a opened colaboration. No a exact amount o quantities. Our links pages: links to another pages with the same profile, or websites with serious info too. Sorry for added our link here to many times, but we didnt know that was not rigth :( , We think our website is not an comercial website.

http://www.nativosweb.com/enciclopedia.html (Nativos Cosmic Encyclopedia)

User: Nativos

Sorry, but it's a foreign language link. It may be welcome on thw wikipedia version for whatever language it's in (showing my ignorance of languages). See m:List of Wikipedias for the full list. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:32, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Links 2

Sorry for disturbing :P http://www.nativosweb.com/enciclopedia.html Info in english and spanish too... Take a look there. Thanks :)

Sorry, I missed the English link. I still don't personally think that it should be included as I can't seem to get any information out of it and it is unfortunatly hard to navigate. It would probably be best if you add a question to the talk page asking what others think before posting it again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 19:42, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Links pruning enquiry

Dear GraemeL,

I saw that you erased some links to record labels on the “Psychedelic Trance” page. Your revision was listed as a “linkspam cleanup”. Would you please explain to me why you did this and why you consider those links as spam?

Those links were to the record labels of some of the biggest and most important Psychedelic Trance labels in Cape Town. I am of the opinion that the “Psychedelic Trance” article would be incomplete without at least some of those links that you erased.

Psychedelic Trance is a very big part of the culture in Cape Town and not at all underground. I am of the opinion that an article about Psychedelic Trance with no links to Cape Town labels is incomplete. Many of those labels also organize events all over the world. Nano Records, for example, is a joint UK/South African promoter and record label that regularly throw parties in places like Brazil, Japan and the UK.

I’m brand new to Wikipedia and would appreciate it if you would advise me on any mistakes I might have made when I added those links.

Regards,

Kobus le Roux

WP:NOT a web directory. Feel free to link internally to articles on the labels. The record labels own articles can have external links to their own web sites without a problem. Having a list of links in the trance article to every record label in existance is just spam. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Removing an article

Please can you remove the article Jadburgh which was created as a redirect from the genuine article Jedburgh by some incredibly amusing individual, sorry I don't know how to do this myself. Fraslet 16:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. you need to be an admin to delete articles --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought, thanks. Fraslet 17:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Links

I understand Wikipedias policies, yet under external links for the category "Credit Cards" I see links to Ericdigests.org which has a google ad on this page. Which means, that they are earning revenue. Which means, it is a commercial site.

Also, the "Who killed Richard Cullen?" link has google ads also.

Also, the "Article from Evolt" is promoting an Amazon book called Practical Javascript for the Usable Web Is this not a source of revenue?

I have contributed many articles and external links to the Wikipedia and don't understand why I can't get my very useful Credit Card articles and information listed as an external Credit Card resource?

Thanks, Christian

We have over one million articles. It's hard enough just stopping new spam without getting all of the old spam cleared out. I do go through random articles validating the usefulness of their links, but I can only do so much.

All of your edits have been adding external links and, as far as I am aware, all of them have been removed. Please contribute new content to articles rather than adding external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Relevant data

Thanks for the response...

I would consider the Credit Card information that CreditCards.com could provide in an external link as authorative reference material that supports facts in the article. That is why I have posted a few times. If you take the time to review our research and reference materials you might change your mind. I understand that tons of people are spamming multiple categories, but I am trying to provide the Wikipedia community with some reference materials.

Best Regards, Christian

Ambient music external links

Kindly cease removing selected valid content from this page unless you can provide a coherent rationale for doing so while simultaneously retaining other equally valid content untouched. I presume you know something about the subject of your edits? --Gene_poole 03:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The links violate policy. Please do not violate the three revert rule and re-add them. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The links do not violate policy. Please do not violate the 3RR and re-delete them. --Gene_poole 03:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Bahrain IT Team

Are these more imporatnt than Bahrain IT Team ? can you explain please ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_men%27s_club http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_men%27s_club Many others exist that are not important !

I see Bahrain IT Team has been recreated verbatim. · rodii · 02:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Help desk: nn-club

I perused VegasWikians deletion log and your contributions but I couldn't find the club this user refers to or the talk page you said you posted to. I'd like to take a look at this. Can you tell me which user forgot to sign their question and what article this is about? - Mgm|^(talk) 18:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The original article was at Bahrain IT Team and the user making the request as to why it was deleted was Alhoori. I posted a copy of the deleted content to his sandbox (User:Alhoori/Sandbox). Sorry for the delayed reply, I was away for the weekend. --GraemeL ^(talk) 12:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0 links

These 2 links are quite irrelevant. I hope you have seen them. Geek 2.0 is quite supportive of Web 2.0, might want to have a look before deciding.

1. Design for Web 2.0, by Jason Kottke, 6.10.2004
2. We the Media, by Dan Gillmor, July 2004, an Open Book* online, ISBN 0-596-00733-7, (*see also Open Books)

I don't particularly care, the Geek 2.0 link is being spammed by somebody who is constantly changing IPs to avoid getting blocked. If it's added again, I will request that it be added to the project wide spam blacklist. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0

Why is it ok to have a link to someone's book (We the Media- Dan Gillmor) that has almost nothing to do with Web 2.0.

And the Jason Kottke article isn't even talking about Web 2.0 !

It's ok with me if you don't want other actual Web 2.0 supportive links added, but please delete the ones which are spam, ads, and irrelevant.

GDP

I changed the GPD per capita because they were inconsistent with wikipedia's own referance link of GDP per capita per nation. In some cases, the homepage of a country displayed a GDP per capita that fit with neither IMF's, nor CIA's account. In some cases, the nation's GDP per capita rank was inconsistant with IMF's and/or CIA's. For example, look at South Korea. On the homepage, it says the per capita GDP is $24,130 (27). The referance link shows South Korea on neither the IMF's 27 ($21,419, rank 29) rank, nor CIA's 27 rank ($20,300, rank 38). I was in the process of changing them all to IMF's, if only to make them consistant. I will stop. Why are they inconsistant with wikipedia's own referance link? —This unsigned comment was added by Gregtrueblood (talk • contribs) .

Fair enough, but you were editing from an IP address (not logged in) at the time. If you make such edits, filling in the edit summary box with the reason for making the changes is advised. Otherwise, they are pretty much impossible to tell apart from the usual sort of vandalism we see to such figures. If you fill out the edit summary, people will know why the changes are being made. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:02, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Subtle?

Subtle as a flying hammer, Graeme...

BTW, I noticed you made an edit of Dubai earlier on...I'm off there tomorrow! (Don't want to tie up your page with non-Wikipedia trivia, but I am excited...he he) Camillus (talk) 01:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice, I've never been to the middle east. Work or holiday? Enjoy it anyway. --GraemeL ^(talk) 01:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, without wanting to get off-project, holiday only (my brother lives/works out there). Camillus (talk) 01:06, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Weblog link

Hi GraemeL, a while ago I had placed a link on /wiki/Psychedelic_trance for psytrancemusic.blogspot.com. There are three people writing for this blog. One of them noticed that we were getting some visits from Wikipedia and stupidly decided to place a bunch of links all over the place a few days ago. I do sincerly apologise for that.

We would appreciate it if you would allow a single link to return to the psytrance central page as the site has a fair amount of original and we hope useful content that contributes equally to the external links list. Thanks for listening.

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Very few blogs meet the criteria for being included and 99.99% of them are only added to drive traffic to the site in question. Unless a blog has its own domain and is often quoted in other places, the chances of me not removing it are slim. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You are right about the fact that Wikipedia is not a collection of external links and I apologize again for what happened. I sincerely believe though that you are mistaken on the contents and nature of this blog. Because we cannot aford a hosted website at this moment does not mean we cannot contribute to the World Wide Web with our thoughts and opinions for the music we love. If that is worth a spot in Wikipedia is something that I guess you decide.

Sorry if I gave the impression of disparaging your particular blog, that was not my intention. External links are supposed to provide authoritative sources for information not already included in articles. As blogs are most often collections of personal thoughts on a subject without editorial oversight, they almost always fail to be authoritative. --GraemeL ^(talk) 20:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Web 2.0

This is what I posted on the Talk page of Web 2.0: I don't understand why GraemeL keeps deleting the following 2 links from the supportive category.

1) Geek 2.0: It has the best definition of Web 2.0 I've come across, and it is also a very supportive site of Web 2.0. I'm not sure how this can be made to fit into the current article: "On April 1st, 2004, Google launched GMail, which went on to ignite the whole Web 2.0 / AJAX revolution which we are witnessing right now. There is no agreed definition of Web 2.0. I like to think of it as the re-birth or second-coming of the web. The Web 2.0 websites are more like web applications, and have a rich, highly interactive and generally well designed user interface. They could also be using web services offered by other sites (for eg, Google Maps, Flickr photo web service, etc). Syndication and community are also associated with a site being Web 2.0. AJAX is the technical term which is responsible for the increased interactiveness of Web 2.0 websites. But the fundamentals remain the same - what's under the hood of a Web 2.0 application is as important as it was a few years ago."

2) The State of Web 2.0: This was written recently by Dion Hinchcliffe, who is the editor-in-chief of the Web 2.0 Journal. It also has a very good explanation of Web 2.0, alongwith nice charts and diagrams. It also has links to many other useful definitions of Web 2.0

How can you justify your decision ?

They are not authoritative sources and as such have no place as links. Besides, the article already has too many external links. --GraemeL ^(talk) 14:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Appreciate your response.

Protein Analyzer - block upgrade

Howdy, I blocked this guy indefinitely and left a note on User talk:Protein Analyzer to that effect, but afterwards realized you'd blocked him already. So, to make the indef block stick, I had to undo the previous block which you'd done. It wasn't my actual intention to change your block, but since I'd already left him a message saying he was blocked indefinitely, I figured I better actually block him indefinitely. Anyway, if you disagree, feel free to change it. Just wanted to make sure you knew what happened. Friday (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No problems. I was actually close to instituting an indefinite block on him myself. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:26, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Commercial links

Thanks for the heads up about commercial links. =)

No problem. you have enough contributions that I thought a friendly reminder was more appropriate than a warning. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Link deletion

Hi GraemeL, I read your mail to me on the deletion of my link.

I am not making any money at my blog and do not accept advertisments or solicitations.

However many of the sites that are linked under espresso are commercial links.

Please reconsider the link to www.thirdwavecoffee.net

as it contains good information on coffee and is not selling anything,

Thank you,

Joel Starr email address removed to avoid spam

Please see some of the posts above for the reasoning. Feel free to ask any questions after you read them. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:09, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...

Is your talk page starting to get a little bloated? :-) Mine is very long...I'm going to archive it soon. --HappyCamper 00:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. I archive when it's over 50 threads and yours just happens to be number 51. I'll probably leave it a day or so to make sure that everybody has seen any replies and then chop the first 50 to an archive. yours is at 143 threads which is definitely on the tubby side. :P --GraemeL ^(talk) 00:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)