User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Skip to bottom

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        
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

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.


There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

  • If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
  • Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz).
  • Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
  • Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.


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).

Vandalproof.pngWarning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
Choco chip cookie.jpg This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.
Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svgThis user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

disable blacklisted link (they block archiving)[edit]

Please explain: [2] : given internet archives exist for at least one of the changed links and black point out the location of the blacklist (me being stupid). Thankyou. 19:12, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: the link is blacklisted, either here or on meta. Because it is blacklisted the archiving bot can't add that link to the archive, see This has nothing to do with internet archives like the wayback or similar. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks .. I missed on \bthelondoneconomic\.com\b on [3] the first time. Seems only to be in place since 15 June 2020. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talkcontribs) 02:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I noticed it was yourself who added them here: [4] thoug its been a bit difficult to track as not in the edit summary but there's supposed to be something on talk. I may try to find that. Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:56, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Given this is stupid o'clock for me and I am well capable of making stupid mistakes I would expect a search for thelondoneconomic at [5] to find something. Failing that I'd expect to see it on [Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-02] or maybe [Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-03] or [Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2020-01]. But I am seeing nothing. Are you able to explain this further? (NB: I did some significant work on The London Economic article page a while back but have no association with the site, but it perhaps explains why it caught my eye). Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Djm-leighpark: Discussion is here. unsure why it is not in the archives. I will try to solve that later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Beetstra (1) I'm quite concerned why that is not in the archives (and thanks for intending to look at this) and (2) perhaps more concerned of the allegations made in the discussion in the example given. It doesn't mean the stories I'm seeing now are what were being seen then but if that author of The London Economic (TLE) is fake or is being faked that is a serious allegation. Can you please investigate further and confirm your support for this blacklisting on the basis of the request. I also realise from template Template:LinkSummary other TLE articles have been called into question. One by a Guest Contributor is certainly of dubious standard and concern. Please appreciate I am unfamiliar of the ways of Project Spam and of intrepeting stuff in that context. As it happens (and perhaps unfortunetely in the context of starting this conversation here as it was triggered by your edit to the TLE talk page, I am also at currently at ANI for concerns of faking citations (In this case from offline books) and also in a discussion on the Daily Mail. My projection for the day is quite busy albeit disjointed and subject to variation and while I may contribute to WP I may not be able to in depth look at this. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Djm-leighpark, I have solved the archiving problem, the archiving bot removed the discussions here, but they never arrived in the archive.
I am pinging Billinghurst, Praxidicae and 1997kB here, though I think it is better that we get a re-discussion on a noticeboard (likely as a removal request on m:Talk:Spam_blacklist). I do recall that there was something wrong there when I pulled the trigger on the blacklisting, and with these 3 editors in the request I do believe that there is a strong case behind the request. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
I do note that the picture of Peter Wakefield is still the picture of Alec Ross (author). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The London Economic no longer exists, it did for a short time and now it was sniped by the same black hat SEO firm that operates several hundred other sites that were sniped (ie. The Frisky,, etc...) Praxidicae (talk) 12:34, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Also I can't find my edit on Wikipedia about it but this was also included in a package deal (that also listed all these other fake sites/sniped sites) a few months ago for guest posting. As an example, see this, though it isn't the one I am referring to. Praxidicae (talk) 12:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Praxidicae In simple terms I see current stories from The London Economic. e.g. the story here seems currrent for today: (I'm not concerned about the quality of otherwise rubbishness of the story ... just that it indicates it exists at least as a brand). Now it may be its been "sniped", certainly there were claims of a take over. The alleged main person has a Wikipedia account that may been around for some time (follow my recent contributions). I will say at the moment I am not happy but I am also willing to be open that I am in midst of fakeness where little is as it seems. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
There are no "simple terms" here. What is it exactly, that you want me to do about it? Praxidicae (talk) 13:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae: I need to get to a better device and in a different environment where I have less distractions and look at things more precisely; but I think the concern point is guest articles on thelondoneconomic, as opposed to "regular" staff articles. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Praxidicae .. I will apologise for not reading your post completely ... I said I ought to not get involved in any depth earlier this afternoon and then I did, focusing on your assertion: "The London Economic no longer exists" which seems not true in every sense of the word .... though it may be perhaps the TLE of 2020 has more compromised integrity compared to the TLE of say 2017 (and I am mulling that point). The peopleperhour link you give is interesting, my first impression was to dismiss as a scam ... my second impression is more open. I remain concerned about the precise nature of the manner and scrutiny of [6] given the emotive language used, example given, and possible allegations about the fake nature of the TLE journalist; which at least first glance may be a possible issue. The claim the two stories are the same (from e.g. a common press release) seems false at initial glance due to a completely different shape and date. I'd fancy a deep scrutiny on this case but I have ongoing RL issues today and have already verbosely gone on too much and my mind is also elsewhere so I am probably rambling while I'm trying to fit this together. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
perhaps if you would make a coherent statement ever, people would listen to you. Do not ping me again. Praxidicae (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Djm-leighpark, please bring this to an appropriate forum if you wish to remove this, but IMHO this is rightfully blacklisted so you will need to bring a coherent and strong argument there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 02:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Thankyou. Considering options. Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Link you disabled that blocked archiving at Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput[edit]

Please, solely for my education, would you please explain why the URI scheme https:// that you removed as shown by this diff was blocking archiving? Thank you. NedFausa (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

NedFausa, not the scheme, the link is blacklisted and no new links to that website can be added. That link was still in an (old) discussion on that talkpage. Now the archiving bots are taking that section, and trying to post it elsewhere (in the archive) before blanking it on the talkpage. That first action does not work, as that would then add the link to the archive and hence the bot is not archiving that page (as the bot takes a lot of sections in one go, it does not archive anything because of one link). The solution to allow archiving is to 'break' the link so it is not an external link anymore and that is not blocked by the spam blacklist.
As it is a link in a talkpage, clickability is not a must, so I remove the https://. I could also have nowikied the whole link, or have broken the domainname, I just have to make sure that it is not a proper link anymore. Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation! And thanks for breaking the link. As a result, Lowercase sigmabot III archived 14 discussions (-71,154‎ bytes). That helps because the discussions were long and the page was hard to navigate. NedFausa (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Protection of Time series database[edit]

As someone who's been heavily WP:INVOLVED in discussing inclusion criteria on the article and have edited Draft:TimescaleDB to add maintenance tags, you shouldn't have fully protected the article on TSDBs for 6 months. Consider filing a request at WP:RFPP in the future and not taking administrator actions w/r/t to the article as well. I agree with you on the specific example that was being added but right now you're using administrator privileges to benefit yourself in a content dispute. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:59, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess, no, I am protecting the article in the same way as before, Continuous additions of unverifiable material or spam. I have not edited content. Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Time series database § RfC on inclusion criteria. I've started a formal RfC to try to resolve the dispute on what time series databases should be included in the article on them. As someone who's commented in discussions related to this in the past I'm notifying you as a courtesy. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 22:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Chess, forgot to thank you: thank you! I have brought my point forward, consistent with my administrative actions on that page. Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020[edit]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).


Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed AngelaJcw69Just ChillingPhilg88Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)