User talk:SiobhanHansa

Please leave messages for me at the bottom of this page, and sign your post using four tildes (~~~~).

I move messages to the archive when there appears to be no more movement on a discussion and I'm bored enough to clean up this page. If I've archived too hastily, feel free to move an item back to this page, or just pickup here without the context.

• Archive

Signpost updated for March 20th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 12	20 March 2007	About the Signpost

WikiWorld comic: "Wilhelm Scream"	News and notes: Bad sin, milestones
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 14:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Free PDF link

Hello. I don't understand why my link is being removed when it is not advertising. It is a link to a free PDF workbook related to the category I put the link in-funerals. Please review the PDF http://www.monumentsinstone.com/Articles.asp?ID=129#download and let me know the reasoning here. 24.178.116.29 16:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of a project whose naming conventions would be affected (WikiProject Sharks), your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Neil916 (Talk) 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Social Work Podcast

Thanks for your email. I checked out the policies before adding the links and believe they fit neither the definition of spam nor conflict of interest. Although the podcast website is registered by me, it is in no way a personal website. I believe the links do not constitute spam because they do not constitute personal promotion. Because the podcasts are audio articles that are based on research, include references and are professionally recorded, they are consistent with the links to websites containing similar text-based scholarly information. They just happen to be audio recordings. For example, on the Gestalt site, there is a link to the Manchester Gestalt Center. This site contains more personal promotion than the social work podcast (there are links to personal bios, for-profit-training, etc). In contrast, socialworkpodcast.com, has no commercial value, nor does it promote me personally any more than an authored article promotes the author.

The second concern, that the links could be construed as a conflict of interest, is curious because the specific links dealt only with the subjects under which they were listed (e.g. gestalt, stigma, etc). They constitute no more of an endorsement by Wikipedia than any other link.

When you listened to the podcasts, did they appear to inconsistent with the spirit of Wikipedia external links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jonathan B Singer (talk • contribs) 15:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Siobhan,

The section of the external links guideline you quoted makes sense. As per your suggestion I added the recommendation to the Talk section of one of the entries and will add to the other entries as I have time.

I personally think the site lacks authority and notability

I'm interested in knowing why you think the site lacks authority. Is it because you don't know who I am?

these podcasts are effectively audio blogs

The information in the podcasts is scholarly in that I cite where I got the information I'm talking about. Not only do I cite it in the podcast, but I also cite it on the website in the form of a reference page. I'm wondering if the site included a notice that the podcasts had been peer-reviewed in a way that was similar to scholarly journals if that would change how you categorize the podcast. These podcasts are not "my opinion" about the topics any more than a summary of the theory on some of the linked pages is an opinion (for example, http://www.mythosandlogos.com/Rogers.html on the Carl Rogers page).

What would be in the spirit of Wikipedia would be for you to add content to our articles!

If you check my history, you'll see that I do add information to the articles. I did not add content to the articles I linked to because the my purpose was to augment the information available, not replicate it.

external links don't bring content within that general mission

I believe that audio versions of information generally found on the Wikipedia pages (for example a scholarly audio program on existential thearpy) is congruent with the mission of wikipedia. Would it be better to embed the file in the wikipedia page? --Jonathan B Singer 02:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Siobhan
Thanks for your response. I will look into posting audio on the sister site.
I can appreciate that it is a big world out there and I do not expect that you would know me. I'm a small fish in a big ocean. Here are a couple of links to recent scholarly articles of mine that relate to clinical intervention. (No expectation that you read them).

• Adolescent Latino Males with Schizophrenia: Mobile Crisis Response
• Making stone soup: Evidence-based practice for a suicidal youth with comorbid ADHD and MDD
  

--Jonathan B Singer 16:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Message I received warning about spamming???

Good afternoon, My name is Anton Kisiel. I have been a active and important contributor to the Pose/ Daz Studio/ 3D communities for 10 years. I was refered to this discussion page by a wiki representative via email.

Today i received this rather rude and presumptuous message. I seek to resolve this matter permaently.

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing anyone from linking to them from any site that uses the MediaWiki spam blacklist, which includes all of Wikimedia and Wikipedia. -- Siobhan Hansa 00:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Recently I have created a free resource to the users of the following software packages: Poser /Daz Studio/Byce,Vue all of whom can use Poser content. The figure resource I have created for free use, called Apollo Maximus, is not spam or a commercial Item,. My site is not a store. I do not sell anything 3d related. I do create resources for 3d artists in these titles. I am the originator, creator, and sole owner of Apollo Maximus. My addition of this external link on pages that do allow community links, specifically the Daz Studio page.
Forgive me if I have formated this wrong or in the wrong spot. I have been trying to add this link *Free 3D Human DazStudio/Poser Figure:Apollo Maximus <http://www.antonkisieldesigns.com/~akfiles/htmlpages/ApolloMaximusFree3dhumanfigure.htm> .The link is directly relevant, valuable, and of interest to the Software topics it is posted to. The links on mutiple pages above are all simultaneously being removed whether posted by others or myself. Why are links on the Daz STudio page allowed but when someone posts a link to my resource, their entry is removed without discussion?

I started posting myself when this was brought to my attention. My attempt to re add it, and not being entirely familiar with this site's very complicated commication process has lead me here. It seems because the link keeps getting removed daily, and thus I re-add it I have received a spamming message.

as that regardless of whether the link is posted by others or myself, and that similar additions are allowed to remain, and as that multiple references to the software entry above are being simultaneously removed without discussion or proper explaination, I would appreciate resolution to this matter for concern of bias.

I would also appreciate my link to this free community software resource not being deleted, where others, within the same scope and topic, are permitted to remain. I would also appreciate any spamming references or actions being removed.

I have received a misguided message that I am somehow spamming the entries above. I have not been Spamming these entries think close examination of the link and the wiki subject would show it's value as a community related resource permitted under external links. I have simply been re-adding them as they have been deleted, assumingly by someone not wanting them seen.

If this is an issue then I seek arbitration. 71.241.209.123 08:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)Anton Kisiel (snipped email address for your inbox's well-being --Geniac 13:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC))

Hi Anotn, I'm responding here and on the IP addresses where previous messages have been left about this link in the hope that you will see this response.

The links were removed because they violated our guidelines in several ways:

They were systematically added to multiple articles by single or related IP addresses without community consensus. Mass addition of links in this manner is spamming by our definition, regardless of the website that is being added.

None of Wikipedia's articles allow "community links", we encourage the addition of a few external links that add encyclopedic value to an article. And occasionally editors of an article will agree that a link that doesn't add encyclopedic value is nevertheless a good link to have and should stay. A link to free software does not add encyclopedic value, though it may be considered useful by editors.

We also ask that people connected to a website do not add links to that site directly to the article but instead put a request on the article talk page asking regular editors of the article to consider adding it.

If you still believe the link should be added you need to post to the talk page of each article you believe the link is appropriate for (for each article there is a "discussion" tag at the top of the page, click on this to get to the talk page) and ask other editors to consider the appropriateness of the link. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad this user finally identified himself, because I'm sick of reverting his links and now unsubtle product inserts. I'd like to address his claims. First off, his website is a commercial web site, he sells his services off of the site. The "free" product he claims to offer is copyrighted and the usage restrictions that come with it hardly qualify it as free (even in his letter to you he claims to be "owner" of the product). This link is simply self promotion for his design services. Second, the type of "free" 3d model that he offers is commonly available by the thousands all over the net; entire web sites are dedicated to cataloging and offering them...hardly a subject of importance or interest. Third, his claim that "The link is directly relevant, valuable, and of interest to the Software topics it is posted to" is complete nonsense. If you look at the spoof IPs he's been using, he's posted his SPAM everywhere from articles on a popular 3D terrain editing software package to an article on one of the original chatterbots. Hardly relevant or valuable to those articles. Even after his warnings and his letter to you he's tried to change tactics by inserting non-linked information about his products onto Wikipedia. Isn't there some three strikes you are out rule? He's wasting a lot of people's time. -- anonymous 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"Mr. Kisiel" is operating under at least nine different addresses/names posting his links now. In some cases he has posted Spam and been reverted by separate editors three times in the same article in one day. If you'll note the changelogs for the past week for a lot of the attacked articles they simply amount to editors having to remove his Spam again and again. I see that you and others have warned him about this repeatedly under multiple names and addressees and since that time he has ignored you and posted exactly the same link again and again on a daily and sometimes hourly basis. To put it politely, I doubt very seriously there would ever be any reason or consensus reached to post his links in any Wikipedia article. For that matter, I can't see him ever making a legitimate contribution to Wikipedia, though he does seem to be an expert on stalling, wasting peoples time, and self promotion. Is there any way to elevate this and stop this guy? As far as I can tell, the only contributions he has ever made to Wikipedia are posting the same Spam link in articles close to 100 times now. Thanks in advance for any help you can give here. -- anonymous 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Woops, made a new post: see below - dan 71.205.121.151 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

MilitaryAvenue - thanks for responding to my question. Please read.

Good Afternoon: Thanks for replying to my question about Militaryavenue.com being considered spam. I am new to wikipedia and now understand the reason. I will not include any further links to MilitaryAvenue. I will go about it as you have suggested. I am concerned that having militaryavenue.com listed in the spam section of wikipedia is going to cause problems for us. Can you help me remove it with the understanding I will heed your advice. I think it is apparent that I am trying to resolve this and not simply out to spam. I do appreciate your help in this matter. Thanks - new wiki username is grandrapidsdan. 71.205.121.151 18:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Grandrapidsdan, Thanks for responding and taking the time to check out our policies. The pages you are listed on are not a list of Spam sites, sites like google, myspace and buy.com are listed. It's simply a set of working pages to document our history. Removing information from them means that we no longer have documentation of what has been done and makes it much harder for us to understand how often we get things right or wrong, what has been looked at in the past and (eventually we hope) what the best approaches are to building the encyclopedia.

Wikipedia's list of identified spam sites is kept at: m:Spam_blacklist with discussions at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist (and archives). Your site is not on any of those pages. I hope this reassures you. If you find there are negative affects of our document pages we would appreciate hearing about how it impacts you. While we want to stop inappropriate links on Wikipedia we are not trying to upset the reputations of sites that happen to be listed on our working pages. -- Siobhan Hansa 02:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Custom chopper bicycles

I am trying, with the support of the majority of the subculture I represent, to present unbiased, documented information. I have made many changes using other biographys as examples, but I have only a few newspaper articles to reference. I believe that the chopper bicycle article I authored is not different from articles on other cycle types that are not in dispute. I also feel that the emergence of the modern chopper bicycle movement and custom chopper bicycle designers such as myself, is newsworthy and should be documented. As for my biographical information, I have been getting many calls since my TV appearences and I believe people would like to know something about myself as well as my bikes. PLEASE HELP. I am trying to learn the ways of wikipedia and I don't want to abuse the system.DocChopper 02:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)DocChopper

THANK YOU ! DocChopper 03:35, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

There was an article about Doc's Choppers in the first issue of:

Strutter Magazine ZMAG Publishing Inc. 15110 Danby Road Georgetown, Ontario L7G0B1

Vol.1 No.1 January/February 2007

How can I reference it ?? DocChopper 04:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Can I change my user name to Doc Chopper, (with the space?)DocChopper 04:11, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried to follow instructions, but the names are too similar. Requested help. Will canceling my original account get rid of my previous work or should I wait to transfer the information?

Or did I already take care of it?

DocChopper 05:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

redirected everything, including the Doc Chopper article to the user page, but now I can not find the Doc Chopper article. Can I add the external links, like press release info, and the rest to my user site ? I still want to work on the Doc Chopper article too.

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 08:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

govitwiki.com

COMMENT: I'm confused as to why you removed the link on the eGovernment page that links to govitwiki.com. According to WikiPedia's own criteria for "what should be linked" the site very much conforms to those guidelines. Please closely read #3 and #4. The government IT wiki site meets those criteria exactly. GovStuff 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

"What should be linked

  1. Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
  2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
  3. 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.
  4. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews."  GovStuff 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

added comments

You wrote to leave comments at the bottom of your page, but there isn't anyplace to leave comments, so I added this section.

"Please suggest your site on the talk pages of other articles you believe it is useful for. Other editors can add the site if they agree with your assessment."

I believe my project is very useful to the social change wikipedia page, as it discusses and reveiws global social change. How do I suggest it to the editors of this page, so the editors can consider adding it in?

The global social change research project [1]

This project is not a peer reviewed journal or major published book. However, our reports are listed on the web sites of the Development Gateway, Eldis, UK's Government Social Research unit, newsletters of the International Institute for Sustainable Development and the American Sociological Association, the UK government's Policy Hub. Our web site is listed on the web sites of 5 sections of the American Sociological Assocation, as well as many other sociological associations and on the sites of many other organizations and people. See [2]

I believe all of these links are a good indicator of how well respected our project and reports are.

thanks

gene

gsociology 17:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)