This is a Wikipediauser page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cumbrowski.
Are you tired of seeing spam in Wikipedia? You can do something to help reducing it, visit the WikiProject Spam and learn how you can help to clean spam from Wikipedia.
... the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.
Conflict of interest aka WP:COI argumentation. WP:COI can be a helpful thing that should be leveraged but controlled at the same time. WP:COI can be offset if being worked in teams and perfectly WP:NPOV conform.
Affiliate Tip - affiliate marketing news source (also Google News source)
CPA network general information that describe what CPA networks are
defacto2.net - warez scene archive (no article at Wikipedia yet)
DEViANCE - warez group
e-Consultancy - Benchmarking, case studies and research in internet marketing (UK)
eTail - e-Retailing industry tradeshow
Internet Retailer - print publication of the internet marketing/e-Retailing industry. Organizer of the Internet Retailer trade show and publisher of the top 500 guide, which includes the top 500 US e-Tailers and some information about each company.
Marketing Sherpa - Benchmarking, case studies and research in internet marketing (US)
Opt-in email list info what that is
Registration path dto.
Revenue Magazine - print publication of the affiliate marketing industry
Reve News - affiliate marketing news source (Me just creating an article for RN would qualify as WP:COI on my part. I need to seek help from other editors or assist anybody who decides to create an article for this.)
Tradedoubler Affiliate Network (UK, one of the/or the biggest in Europe)
ZanoxAffiliate Network (German), one of the biggest in Europe, since 2006 also in the US)
Product Data Feed for affiliates
Web Services API in Affiliate Marketing
Planned Article Updates
nofollow article - add use of nofollow for control of PR flow within your own website
My Contributions: I provided some minor content, helped with cleaning up the article and contributed to the discussion about the content of the article. I was researching resources and helped the main contributing editor User:Jehochman to get the article finalized for the "featured article" nomination. I also contributed to the discussion for the nomination. The article was promoted to featured on June 1, 2007.
My Contributions: I provided a considerable amount of content to the article between May 30, 2007 and December 17, 2007, when the article earned the status (about 30%, based on Wiki Dashboard as of 12-2007). I also nominated the article for the status of Good Article and supported the reviewing editor by implementing recommended changes to the article to improve it. I also have to thank User:BozMo for his substantial contribution to the article.
Here is a deletion frenzy going on and I can not keep my list updated. I also don't want to, because I don't want my userpage turn into a "link farm" plastered with links to valuable articles that are being threatened to be deleted into oblivion.
While a lot of Guides that are relevant for the AfD can be applied with objectivity, does the main guide WP:N (Notability) is subjective by it's very nature.
What is notable? and notable to whom? What is an objective and measurable threshold that eventually defines, if something or someone is notable or not? How many people know about it? How many people it affected directly? or indirectly?
Millions of people know about who this years "American Idol" is, but how many people are really affected by it? What qualifies as "affected"? Watching it on TV? Very few (several 10,000 probably, may be more) know about the elementary school I went to for 10 years, which was build in the early seventies and was closed and demolished just a few years ago. What's left is an empty spot, a meadow, which has been at the same spot before it was built. How about individuals or small groups of people that are active outside the publics eye (on purpose) that cause the change of history (for the good or the bad). Only very few know, only a few are affected directly, but millions or billions are affected indirectly.
One might argue that notability is already giving if one person takes the time to collect details and references to events and starts writing an article at Wikipedia about it. For others is it necessary that it was mentioned in one of a few major newspapers to become notable. Either is okay, depending on the definition what Wikipedia is.
The first argument is the one that is right, if Wikipedia is about all human knowledge, then the simple fact that something is or was is enough to be notable. There you have to separate only between two types of articles, 1. referrenced to allow an outsider to verify it and 2. not referrenced and not verifiable = speculation / theory. Should 2. be excluded? Of course not. Do you know how many "facts" that are general accepted as such are in reality only speculations and theory? More or less probable, but that does not make a theory to a fact.
The second argument is correct, if Wikipedia is about general human knowledge that was confirmed by todays official acknowledged authorities or past authorities that are acknowledged by today's authorities.
That is a choice that can be made.
A Practical Note
If an article makes no claims (except for its existence, which can be proofen with a single link if it is about a website) and is not promotional, why not keep it? It is already a good start to build upon. Deleting it will only change one thing. The next editor who starts it (and there will be one) has to start from scratch again and do the same stuff that was already done before once more.
Notability is subjective (unfortunately), if you boil it down to its smallest components.
My Subjective Point of View
I for my part consider everything that a GROUP of people cares about as notable, even if I am not part of that group.
The things you can find in Wikipedia and not in the mainstream encyclopedias is what makes me appreciate Wikipedia and is direct cause why I started editing it. I don't come to Wikipedia to learn about Britney Spears. I come for the stuff you have to scrape off the supplemental results of Google, the WayBackMachine or I know that it exists but can't find it anywhere on the Internet, because it is either buried somewhere, not indexed by search engines or was never converted into digital format.
The more I use Wikipedia the more I regret how careless I was with original sources of things that were readily available at the time and now lost in time or stashed away by somebody who does not care or know about it.
Did I mention that I am what is called an "Inclusionist"? ;-)
All my Text Art Images which I already uploaded to Wikipedia are flagged as PD, but I went beyond that and released my complete work as Text Artist and my few Scene Art Pixel Graphics into the Public Domain. See Details here.
You can release your images into public domain as well. Simply add the {{PD-self|date=December 2005}} Template to your image that you uploaded to Wikipedia or grab the HTML Code generated by the Template below and add it to the Page with your Image on your Website.
I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby release it into the public domain. This applies worldwide.
If this is not legally possible:
I grant any entity the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.
I moved this section of my userpage to its own page for easier reference. You can find the resources at its new location at User:Cumbrowski/WikiResources.
Screen shot of the template look and feel at an user talk archive page (reduced in size, watermarked and links highlighted)
There exist a bunch of solutions for archiving talk pages. You can find the official Wikipedia guide to this subject here.
The solution based on the templates {{archive box}} and {{atnhead}} or {{talkarchivenav}} are nice, but generic to fit all types of talk pages. As a compromise were some good features and options excluded. For that reason did I create a custom version of the {{atnhead}} and {{talkarchivenav}} templates at my user space, which you can find at
Template:UserTalkArchive. To see the template in action see User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 5. It has a documentation how to install the template properly. If you have any comments or suggestions to improve it, let me know.
Main features and improvements
Setup guide provided, which is easy to understand and simple to follow
Automatic check. Shows link to next archive page only, if it exists (supports 41100 archive pages)
Improved layout and images added to better highlight the important things and improve look and feel
Adds at the end of each archive page automatically the Wikipedia user page template
Links to user page and current user talk page added
"Do not edit this page" statement highlighted (bold and red)
Shows additional list with all existing archive pages and links to them (also max. 100 pages)
Create a new User Talk Page with the suffix "/Archive 1". A link to the archive page would look like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Username/Archive 1
It will say that the page does not exist yet. Go and press edit.
Add at the top the following code. {{Template:UserTalkArchive}}
Open your default talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Username and press edit.
Select everything you want to archive and cut it out of the page ("Ctrl-X")
Paste the content into the new talk page after the {{Template:UserTalkArchive}} template
Add a link on your standard talk page to the Archive page {{UserTalkArchiveBox|auto=long}} * * You can also use {{UserTalkArchiveBox|auto=yes}} instead to make the linke to the archive pages on your main talk page exclude the word "Archive" within "Archive X" in the anchor text to only show "X" instead.
Save the standard talk page and you are done
Notes
The next archive pages would work the same, just call them .../Archive 2 ..../Archive 3 etc.
The {{Template:UserTalkArchive}} template is a modified version of the {{atnhead}} template and adds the little box to the archive which you can see here User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 1. It creates a link to your current talk page automatically (that's why the specific name .../Archive X). It also adds a little navigation to the previous and next archive page. In addition to that (my custom part) does it add a reference to your user page and shows your name (that it is your user talk archive) and the {{userpage}} at the bottom. I also changed the font sizes and colors to emphasis the important parts.
The {{UserTalkArchiveBox|auto=long}} on your main user talk page creates a little "Archive" box with links to all your archive pages automatically. You don't have to change that one anymore. It automatically detects, if new archive pages were created.
.png){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
