User talk:Beetstra/Archive 13

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


About Meteorological data of Burundi

I am Simoedg, I edited Geography of Burindi like
Why did you remove the table with meteorological datas? ( simoedg user page[[1]] ) Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simoedg (talkcontribs) 20:49, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The article is about Burundi's geography, not about Burundi's meteorology, the text in the table was spelled wrong, and the link was spammed. I consider discussing the table on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I edited the voice clime under the Geography page, so i think that datas about rainfall and temperature is opportune. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simoedg (talkcontribs) 14:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I note Beetstra has removed relevant info (including historic pricing, etc.) the ecco_pro page, and have noted a lot of complaints against Beetstra's removal on other pages. Nothing personal, and would have no comment if it was just an attempt to contribute, but he seems that no matter how many other editors will revert his deletions he just keeps reverting back and reverting back and reverting back. See now that many editors are complaining about Beetstra's deletions on all sorts of pages. YSWT (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't revert back and back, I revert links or data which is unreferenced, which has lousy references, or where external links don't meet our policies and guidelines. YSWT, read WP:EL, please. That is a guideline written by many, MANY editors, as are WP:NOT, WP:RS. Have you actually checked here what is linked.
No, No. actually you do. The price data in the Ecco_pro article was properly referenced. I spent a couple of hours researching and found actual HARD COPY reference materials with the info. *That* is how an encyclopedia is written. Wasn't it you who removed because numbers were in Dollars, and you felt that was 'too US oriented' or something ? At any rate, the info (and lots other info) was fully referenced but you, over and over insist on removing it. Each time with a different reason to justify. That is not my idea of collaboration. MANY editors are giving you the same feedback. As was the case with Ecco_pro part of your edit was helpful, proper, important edit, you took out link to spam pay-to-view website. BUT, with your persistent re-edit of other editors fixing of your global deletions, you've ended up doing the opposite. Last time I checked, you'd assisted to remove all the proper links to official website and software distribution location, and in its place the spam pay-for-view unofficial, warez site was linked. That is *not* how an encyclopedia is written. Wikipedia should properly link (as per policy) to official site of software and site of software distribution NOT to a warez site. Insanely, in this case you've assisted the removal of the FREE OFFICIAL distribution site of free software, and in its place have the article linking to a PAY for WAREZ site of the software. But since that site asks for payment in Euro, maybe that is OK for you ??YSWT (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain:

in this edit a large piece of data was introduced. Fine, except that it is unreferenced. How do we know it is true, YSWT? There is no reliable source here. Fine, in the next edit here a 'reference' was added. You see. Now it is referenced, is it not? Well, is actually a redirect to on a altervista page. If you look at the page, then that is NOT a reliable source. So if you have complaints, YSWT, go to WP:RS/N and ask. See what answers you get. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Link removal

Stop removing my External link where releveant. It mirrors verbatim other links that are exactly as releveant. MTBR has a singlespeed link and we added ours, verbatim the same. Do you work for MTBR? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Relevant, doubtful, spam, certain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
No, Beetstra, you've done exactly the same thing at the Ecco_Pro page. What is bothersome is that even though about 8 other editors tried to revert your changes, you (and it seems 1 other editor) just keep reverting over and over and over. Like you're just going to push your views on everyone else through force. Your response to me that I'm being personal with you just doesn't get it. It's nothing against you personally. But many other editors are complaining about your removal of relevant links. Its not just me. Maybe give that some thought ? YSWT (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
I have given it thought. Don't worry about that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Which 8, by the way? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
oooh .. .. but that are only 6, or actually, maybe only 2. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Archivist alert

Arcadia616 (talk · contribs) Katr67 (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Pointing to the already removed sentence in the COI guideline. Lets see .. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:54, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll have a look, thanks Risker. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Related to link added

Dear COLBot,

How are you doing?

My name is Abhishek Daga, and i am a regular user of Wikipedia. This is really a great place to find the detailed information on any topic in the world. I refer Wikipedia, to collect information.

I am passionate about the adventure sports activities and follow these sports everywhere. I have lot's of information related to different adventure sports possible and i feel that still everybody is not aware about the real taste of adventure sports. So i wish to share my information with the people who are looking to know more about adventure sports. I think Wikipedia is the best way to share information as millions of people refer Wikipedia to get the right information.

In the same process i have been updating lot's of information on different pages of Wikipedia and some where i have provided the link of the source from where i got the information. The latest link which i have provided on Wikipedia is "". I need your help to know that whether these kind of links are allowed on Wikipedia or not and if not then what sort of links are actually allowed on Wikipedia and how can i put them over here.

I really need your help on this, as i have lot's of information to share with the adventure sports lovers, as i also want to put the resources links, so that user can use those links to collect information. Please help me in this.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


I see your busy with chemicals right now, however somthing (i feel) is long over due on the WP:SPAM page. I've added WP:REFSPAM ie WP:CITESPAM. The Spam archives are full of this particular issue [2][3]. It seems since the no-folow was eliminated, spamming references to drive traffic is on the incline. Any way, a fyi cheers--Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, the spam part is not neglected, though shifted a bit to m:Category:COIBot Local reports (you may have seen the long list of additions beginning of this month, I tried to keep up for some time). And also we are working on making searching in the link-addition database public.
I saw your addition, and I think that it is indeed necessary. Bit more difficult to detect (they are more likely to look fine), but still a problem. If it is a real problem, there is a feature which makes XLinkBot also revert references (as well as someother things; I have actually been thinking to make two normal revertlists, one for links inside references, and one for links outside references .. there are some which have place as one, but not as the other). Let me know if that would be of interest. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Not tested: User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList .... --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
That seems to be a good idea. I'm wondering if even seting up an Wikipedia:Edit filter could assist (assuming the filters are seperate). Certainly would help in detecting what specific citations are actualy being abused. Sadly, I think once we start seeing the data on this, It'll show this to be a far larger problem than most would anticipate. Not sure how we managed before your bots.;)--Hu12 (talk) 05:11, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
A filter is going to be quite heavy on this, you'd have to select the links carefully. I think using LiWa3 and XLinkBot is a better method.
The bots are older than the time I started running them, but indeed, I wonder the same. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:58, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

What ever happend to...

MaxSem hasn't edited since Dec 08, same with the bot. I assume this was abandoned? --Hu12 (talk) 16:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, yes, they seem to have left? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Caller ID spoofing

Dirk, Please see Talk:Caller ID spoofing/Archives/2013#History and post your observations there. Vriendelijke groetjes, Peter Horn User talk 00:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Bedankt, but I don't really have knowledge of the subject. Those might be things that can be incorporated, if there are reliable sources for it. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

So, I'll need to go thru the Revision history of Caller ID spoofing and try to find some one who is knowledgeable. I have been on the receiving end of this farce for some 13 years now and I am sure that whoever is harassing me is not paying anyone or any service to accomplish his misschief. Peter Horn User talk 17:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

?? I don't understand? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:External links#Yahoo Groups

Rather belatedly I put a reply to your question Wikipedia_talk:External_links#Yahoo_Groups.--Lidos (talk) 18:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I've answered as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! Out of interest what is the procedure for getting a link, eg a Yahoo Group, assessed for whitelisting by an administrator? Should this be in the Manual of Style or Missing Manual, for newbie editors?--Lidos (talk) 09:13, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
There is no need to whitelist, any autoconfirmed editor can add the links without being reverted (XLinkBot only reverts IPs and editors who are not older than 4 days ánd have more than 10 edits). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

might need a data dump

Could I get a dump for Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/ see Spam case. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I dumped it on the talkpage. For ease of reference, I made a small section where I dumped the additions which are not by Worldenc. Have phun! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
thanks much!--Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

YouTube external link


Thank you for explaining that Wikipedia is not a directory but an encyclopedia. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

I think I'll just make a personal website that has the links to YouTube for the episodes of the show 'All in the Family'. Could make a link to this personal page at the bottom of the Wikipedia entry in the "See Also" section?

Jon Jonb107 (talk) 21:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, that has the same problem, does it not? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


If there is any way I can assist you in the testing or development of XLinkBot's new reference reverting feature, please let me know. If we were using XLinkBot, rather than hard blacklisting, for these "sometimes spammed and usually unreliable" sites then my objections would be nearly entirely addressed. Gigs (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The feature is there, and it should work, it has a separate revertlist, User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList. The list is empty except for email addresses. I am waiting for Hu12 to test some reference-spammers on it, we'd have to see if it then works properly. Feel free to add some you see fit and which are not blacklisted, and then keep an eye with me on the reverts.
But I am going to be honest, IMHO, these pay-per-view hosting sites should just be blacklisted by nature, just like we do with redirect sites and sites that contain malware. Not because they are unreliable sources (only), but because of their nature and the huge spam incentive. It sounds nice and friendly, but spammers are a different ballpark then vandals. As I said, spammers spam because they earn money that way. Vandals don't vandalise because they earn money that way. By far most of the documents on such sites are not suitable as external links, nor as references, whitelisting is IMHO the way to go, not XLinkBot (and that is what I suggested in a separate thread on the spam blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Your input is requested here MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC. The way I see it, we have two questions of substance that can more or less stand alone. Even if community consensus is against using WP:RS as a factor in black and whitelisting, it still may be practical to blacklist user-generated pay-per content sites. BTW regarding ning, I'm confused, was the intent to blacklist the entire site or not? Gigs (talk) 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm answering on the spam blacklist at the moment, your representation seems oversimplified and misses the points.
I have no clue, it might have been, but I don't see a log item, and haven't found who added the broken regex. Maybe it was something else that needed blacklisting, you'll have to find the admin who added it. As far as I can see, there is no reason to blacklist, it is not blacklisted, Hu12 only blacklisted one spammed subdomain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
RE Ning; Blacklisting the entire domain was never in consideration, re-read the request. --Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusation of Dishonesty

You have twice made an unfounded allegation of dishonesty against me on my talk page. User:Chelydramat has now acknowledged that the disputed material is in the source. This must be retracted unequivocally.

This allegation was allowed to colour the edit-warring allegation against me and several other editors who knew it to be untrue let it stand.

This is relevant text from Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident:

Myron Ebell of the Competitive Enterprise Institute said the e-mails showed that some climate scientists "are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research. Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

This is verbatim from the source [4]:

"It is clear that some of the 'world's leading climate scientists,' as they are always described, are more dedicated to promoting the alarmist political agenda than in scientific research," said Ebell, whose group is funded in part by energy companies. "Some of the e-mails that I have read are blatant displays of personal pettiness, unethical conniving, and twisting the science to support their political position."

Wikipedia:NPOV_tutorial states that Concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value violates NPOV. Compare the two texts above. How can it be justified to edit the source by excising the words whose group is funded in part by energy companies in the light of this fact? This isn't relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that's useful to fairly judge their value?

How was it 'contentious' to include the middle of a sentence the start and end of which were already quoted? A more than superficial examination of what went on would have lead you to conclusions opposite to those which you arrived at.

You acted quite wrongly in intervening as an administrator when your real interest was in a content dispute.Dduff442 (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You added the information 5 (five) times. READ WP:3RR. The information can be true, people may make mistakes, it is NOT worth pushing it 5 times. Next time, discuss on talkpages FIRST, and keep the discussion there until people are convinced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
And regarding the sentence, I searched for the whole sentence you added the last times, and that was not there. You are right, and I am sorry I did not see that, that the information was there. However, as it was contested information, I a) would not have included it to defend your cause, I may have given a remark on the talkpage, and b) I would still have given you a warning to stop pushing the information. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I accept that this resulted from oversight rather than malice. I was more concerned that other editors who knew the dishonesty claim was inaccurate let the accusation pass without comment and let it colour the proceedings.
As you're engaging honestly with me, I'm going to apologise in advance for labouring the point but my concerns are intellectual integrity and my personal honour and dignity. I add the following not to badger you further or elicit a response but for the record.
I added a comment [5], added it again after opening a discussion on the talk page [6], then edited it so it was verbatim from the source [7].
At this precise point, consensus had been achieved... Look at the succeeding edits; Nil Einne was 'fine' with the new wording and dozens of edits were made (including by Nil Einne) before User:Arthur Rubin's revert and User:Chelydramat's baseless allegation of dishonesty.
Viewed from this perspective, the affair takes on a new dimension. How was I, at this point, to believe that the info would be contentious when it was a verbatim excerpt from the source? How could User:Arthur Rubin reasonably revert sourced relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value without even commenting in the discussion?
It was at this point that the allegation of dishonesty was made by Chelydramat and things fell apart: users who knew this to be wrong let it pass, admins started swarming from all angles, the edit-warring allegations started etc. We both know how this ended, and the allegations and interventions of 'disinterested' parties were critical.
You yourself were interested in the content dispute but did not mention this when you issued your warning. I abided by your ruling nonetheless, declared my intention to lodge an RfC and allowed User:William M Connolley's revert to stand (consider this revert in the light of the NPOV rules above and in relation to sourced, validated information!).
My concern is *not* warnings about the 3RR etc, it is the lack of attention and balance in the interventions that followed. Arthur Rubin's intervention was to revert without comment sourced information. This attracted no criticism, nor did the dishonesty claim which numerous (other) editors knew to be incorrect.
This was the context in which the edit-warring allegation was investigated.
All I ask is to look at it from my perspective. How you would feel if this had happened to you?Dduff442 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Something like this did happen to me once, where we did have a source which stated 9.5 clearly, and where someone else was putting in the number differently 'because the definition of the scale only supports whole numbers'. I ran into a block for defending the source, and that is correct. Edit warring is one, but 3RR is a bright line, sometimes one has to step back.
The article has a large number of edits (I guess 30-50 per day!), and consensus can change.
having a conflict of interest does not disallow you to edit, to engage in these subjects, etc. etc. You'd better explain why you do it, indeed, but remember that the people who have a conflict of interest are also often the experts (and in a way, some people who are strongly contending the information in a way also have a conflict of interest). Keeping NPOv is a delicate balance, and the remark (even when sourced) is discrediting the subject, and when contested it should be discussed and not being kept there, whoever contests it. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I was at best in a gray area, I acknowledge.
What outraged me was that User:Nil Einne and User:Arthur Rubin (at least) knew the dishonesty claim was incorrect(see their edit summaries), could have corrected it painlessly but instead let it pass without comment, and continued to agitate for a block.
FYI, take a look at User:Chelydramat's contributions list. A scattered series of edits mostly relating to embarrassing material (Adult Swim) interspersed by interventions at very odd places. Compare the length of his edit list with the skillful way he employs Wiki markup. He's one to watch.Dduff442 (talk) 09:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I came here to mention to Beetstra that he'd made a mistake but it appears I don't have to since as I mention in my post on your talk page, when you took it up with him, he had no problem admitting the mistake. But since you're commenting on me here as well I feel it's only fair that I respond (although I expect Beetstra already knows this).
As I explained on your talk page, the thing is, you seem to think that for some magic reason we know of everything and anything happening on wikipedia. Sorry but we don't. We don't have a direct connection to the database enabling us to download every change and process it internally. We're not computers. Even in taking part in a discussion very often if it's a long one people are not going to read every single post (this often isn't a good thing, but it happens). In my case I made clear that I had decided against taking further part, so I still have completely no idea why you even expected me to read Chelydramat's post. I may have skimmed thorough it but since I'd decided nothing useful was coming from that discussion & in general it held little interest to me (& in fact had decided I had wasted too much time on it) it wasn't something I was going to worry about much.
Actually looking at it again and thinking carefully I may have noticed he/she was mistaken but you'd already challenged him/her on it so I didn't see much more to do. And he/she did acknowledge he/she was mistaken before I even finished my post & as I've also said my post effectively challenged his/her comment anyway even if not directly.
Since you also made a comment I feel implied I had reverted a sourced quote I of course had very strong impetus to say one final thing to ensure people who weren't familiar with the details understood my involvement. It should hopefully be no surprise to you that many people are much more likely to care to defend themselves then to defend other users (not always and not everyone of course). Since you also still seemed to be edit warring and still seemed to be rather confused over many aspects of policy, I decided to have on final go at explaining it to you something which I had tried to several times i.e. was already involved in.
BTW, I did not agitate for you to be blocked. It did seem highly likely to me you would be blocked based on your unfortunate continually edit warring and when I noticed WMC's post requesting a block I did think of responding saying I agreed it seemed the only course of action but I decided there was little point and in fact took no further part in anything related to that. (In fact IIRC I partially got distracted with other articles and related discussions.) When I noticed you'd been blocked, having mostly calmed down and agreeing with WMC that you seemed to be trying to help I decided to have a go from a different angle in trying to explain to you how I felt you were going wrong. In retrospect I probably should have waited to post it until you'd had time to calm down a bit as well, and apologise for that but I don't see how this counts as 'agitating for your block' given that you were already blocked.
As I've said when you have a problem with another user, your best bet of course is to take it up with the user directly which you did and Chelydramat acknowledged his/her mistake long before you were blocked. Some confusion apparently lingered with Beetstra, again taking it up as you did here would have resolved this a long time ago I'm sure. When you don't get a satisfactory response, there are plenty of avenues you have available. If you had wanted me to get involved (and I strongly suspect Arthur Rubin would feel likewise), if you'd politely asked us me may very well have done so. But we are all volunteers so there should never be any expectation that we have to get involved. And to repeat what I've said multiple times, you should not have any expectation we would automatically get involved in some random problem that you have with some random user just because we happen to be involved in the discussion.
P.S. As I've said repeatedly there is no grey area here. If you are edit warring adding challenged stuff back to the 'stable' version against multiple other users (several of who are usually on different sides of the debate) without anyone else supporting you on a recently coming off full protected article (in a very contentious field) where neutral/uninvolved admins have already warned they will block at the slightest sign of edit warring and that you need to get consensus before making controversial changes (which be definition includes all changes that someone challenges) all of which was I believe pointed out to you at the time; and you have already been given multiple 3RRs (even if one of them was by a user slightly mistaken something which of course you could and should have clarified before continuing when you would have been informed as you were here that it didn't matter) and have done it significantly more then 3 times that's no grey area. That's black and white. It doesn't matter how wrong the other users area. (Unless it's one of the exceptions none of which applied here of course.)
Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I could hardly take it up here when I was blocked. The 'confusion' lingered until this morning and I was obliged to attend court, so to speak, on two charges simultaneously; this was quite wrong. It was extraordinary that so many users could participate without one of them countering the dishonesty claim.
Indeed the 'confusion' lingered together with your 'advice' during the block appeal, hence my statement about you 'agitating' for a ban. You certainly did not object to the ban exactly, did you?
Let's just get back to the core issue: "concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value". You had no objection to edit warring in your favour, starting with Arthur Rubin's revert. At that point you re-discovered objections you'd previously shelved.
Aggressive and disingenuous (e.g. the WP:UNDUE and hilarious WP:BLP objections) mob editing created a false impression of consensus. The transparent dishonesty of these objections went without comment from you or other editors. Go to the talk page right now to see the real consensus. How four or five people ever thought "concealing relevant information" was a good idea is beyond me.
It is imaginable that a reasoned investigation, ignoring issues such as user prominence and mob sentiment, might have arrived at the same conclusion and banned me anyway (though I think I'd have every chance given the real 'zero point' of Arthur Rubin's revert rather than my first edit). What was unendurable was the travesty that actually transpired. I think you know this deep down, given the masses of type you've devoted to the issue today.
I believe -- with a rather greater certainty than in Arthur Rubin's case -- that you did not notice the dishonesty allegation but would question why you participated if you were paying so little attention.Dduff442 (talk) 13:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm losing track here. Who is asking who questions and who is answering to who or who is making remarks to who? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne -> Me -> Nil Einne. I didn't ask any questions.
Incidentally, the 'consensus' invented by Connolley and Rubin has reversed. It still seems like 'sorry' is the hardest word for them, but I take great personal satisfaction from this vindication.Dduff442 (talk) 14:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Nil Einne -> Me -> Nil Einne: take it to your own talkpages.

I am worried about that last remark of you: Wikipedia is not a battleground. You give me the feeling that you think that you, because you are a worker of the TRUTH are right, and that you don't do anything wrong, and expect others who make mistakes to be sorry. Cool down, Dduff442. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't the victim of a mistake, I was the victim of an attack carried out with deep cynicism by Connolley and Rubin. Count how many edits these guys trash every single day.Dduff442 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Count how many edits these guys made since they started. Stop with the battle. That article is a contentious area, discussion is the way to go, not pushing the info, however right you may be, and however wrong they may be. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


Hmm, I did not realize blacklisting didn't leave an audit trail like the edit filter can/does. Perhaps it should. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it does not. Not sure what it would say, anyway. You would see one attempted addition by a user, and because the first does not save, they will not try again. So it would never show evidence of 'attempted spam' .. so even with audit trail, I would not de-blacklist because of that. I haven't put the examples in there, but there are nice examples of link which got de-blacklisted upon request, and where the spammer nicely goes on soon after ( showed that nicely .. socks spamming it, it got blacklisted, deblacklisting because someone needed one instance, and new socks appear who nicely go on spamming the site .. ). As I've said a couple of times, spamming pays, and people get paid to spam. It will not stop, editors go through serious efforts trying to spam what we blacklist. Even a reverting bot is not going to help. It pays to have your link here, so they will revert. It is just a hurdle. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

AGF, etc

Regarding the addition to the facts section, those were your words. I put them there to clarify the difference in application between black and whitelisting.

Regarding Hu12, his behavior is completely over the top. Accusing me of using this RfC as some kind of personal vendetta is a clear assumption of bad faith. I have been very generous in the formulation of this RfC, as you are well aware, engaging the blacklist regulars for input. Hu12 has no basis for his accusations. Like I said, he is, by far, the worst offender when it comes to unsupported black and whitelisting decisions, and using the blacklist preemptively may very well be considered abuse. I don't think my comments are out of line. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

abandoned comment

As a side remark, I wonder if Wikipedia and the New York Times are wrong, if Stanford is wrong, or if this is another accidental overlap in name, but actually a different person? Linking is fine, Keith, but we can gain so much more from these archives, and vice versa. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think there is a conflict between the Stanford materials and the NYT? Keith Henson (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The date of birth are different ("Tillie Olsen was born in Nebraska in 1913 and has lived in San Francisco for most of her life." vs. "Tillie Lerner Olsen (January 14, 1912–January 1, 2007)", the latter referenced to a NYT article.). For the rest it seems to be the same person, I can't believe they are different. I think the Stanford article is wrong.

This exemplifies a bit what I mean, Keith. Archives do have more to offer than just external links. Here in this specific example Wikipedia has something to offer for them (I presume that their database is wrong), but on another occasion it can just be the other way around. That is why I am against blind and pushed link additions (this specific link would be a violation of WP:EL, linking to factually incorrect information). However, if an editor takes a little bit more care, then there is no problem. To me, it is not the loss of the Stanford editor that is the problem, it is the loss that such editors could have done so much more, could have given so much more added value then just linking to a database. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If I look further, do I see more discrepancies between the articles? There is also something about the date of publication of a book, is it 1961 or 1962. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


Looks fine, thanks. Gigs (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta

I had good info posted on that page, this is out of contoll.....why did you change the page. I called the State of Georgia and asked about how I could find out if they were two diffrent Schools, they were able to inform me that a new operations license was open for University of Atlanta. So it's a fact that are two dirrent schools, so why is this going on still just remove this info and leave the rest alone this page is way way slanted Against the school. Please Help!!!--Supercopone (talk) 03:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

All is sourced, they are NOT two different schools, one is a restart of the other. We've been through this before, I would really suggest you stay on talkpages first. If you remove the history of University of Atlanta, the page is very, very likely to be deleted, as there is nothing left. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


I have unblocked Supercopone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). He has handled himself poorly, but there are very serious problems with University of Atlanta. I will counsel him to make his case on the talk page rather than edit warring. With respect to your administrative actions, you seem to have a rather definite position regarding what the content of the article should be. You probably shouldn't be blocking other editors who differ with your opinion. Fred Talk 15:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please look at the past, the article has been handled by several admins who have properly sourced all information in the article. It is not the article that has issues, the SEO attack was real, the promotional language of the article is real, this is not 'the data is incorrect' (read the references), this is plain spamming, and sock/meat puppetry. But as I said, I will not take further admin action, and I did bring this to ANI. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I do still consider to reopen the SPI .. Mistro12 was in the list of sockpuppets, the sleeper account of Supercopone might as well be. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
I have unblocked Mistro12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). I have counseled him with respect to conflict of interest and have used checkueer to determine he is a different editor from Supercopone. Neither have any license to engage in edit-warring. Their mission with respect to University of Atlantia, as editors, is to look for reliable sources and bring them to our attention, and to comment on the talk page of the article. Fred Talk 02:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Fine with me. I see already where it ends, but I'll keep an eye. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I know they are different users. That is perfectly clear. It is meatpuppetry, not sockpuppetry. And whitewashing, spamming, etc. etc. Whatever. UofA can be deleted in a couple of days. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

COIbot question

If I had realized you were the one to maintain COIbot sooner, I would have brought my initial question directly to you. But, I now have a secondary question ...

What is the normal processing time for entries at User:COIBot/Poke? I'm not sure what priority entries on that page receive, or what other tasks may be using COIBot's processing time; but I noticed that none of the entries at the "poke" page appear to have been processed. Does COIbot have technical limits on number of links to a url it can research?

Just curious, for future reference. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm .. that does happen sometimes. COIBot seems to have lost contact with reality (it looks like it stopped parsing the diffs from IRC) .. I am restarting the connection, see if that helps.
COIBot is continuously saving linkreports. The cross-wiki and local reports get highest priority, after that these poked ones, and then some other ones (people on IRC can also ask for them). Lag is generally in terms of a handful of minutes, except when there are many which have to be saved.
The bot now saw the edit:

so they should be there shortly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help and the information. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 20:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

RE:"...a good investment for certain types of maniacs"

Yes, I did make that post after your request was posted;I did not want to leave the other editor confused on as to what I meant about the IP addresses. I am not going to continue this feud since I do not believe that user is worth of my attention. I am pretty sure he will be better off going back and editing his Iraq articles, but thats none of my business. I did, however, understand your frustration.--Satt 2 (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

This is exactly the type of response I expected from you. I hope you understand that your incivility is not wanted here on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I have noted on WP:WQA that you did respond, but not there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandal alert!

Hoi Dirk, you deleted User:Japheth the Warlock for vandalism. I am having a problem with the actual user, and a 3RR report (here, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Japheth_the_Warlock_reported_by_Vidkun_.28talk.29_.28Result:Stale_.29) seems not to be going anywhere fast. In short, the user keeps adding a link to an old revision of a WP article to Warlock, for reasons I can't fathom. I'm getting tired of reverting; I believe some stern, Frisian measure is called for (I can only apply West-Frisian sternness, I'm afraid). Thanks for your time! Drmies (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The deletion was totally unrelated with the user's edits (maybe it was the reason for it .. but in that way it is harassing). We'll see if they does it again, I left a final warning (though they passed the limit a long time ago; I should warn you, you as well, I would suggest you step away completely now). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm gone. Thanks for your help. Drmies (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I blocked Japheth the Warlock first for a week, but on a second review (looking at the other edits) have shortened it to 3 days. I hope it gets through. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

InChI in drugboxes?

Just curiosity: Why do you add InChIs to drugboxes [8]? As far as I know, {{drugbox}} does not recognise this parameter. Is it of any use if I add InChIs and InChIKeys when I create a new drugbox? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the validation, InChI and InChIKey would allow automatic checking of the images (where suitable). I did not think it was a problem (if it is there, a simple change of the drugbox and it is shown), and it helps in our validation work. I do think that it would be a valuable thing, though they are 'ugly and unreadable', especially for the bigger drugs. It would be good however, that they get parsed into the box in the end, as the parsed pages get indexed, and then a search on InChI would lead you to the wikipage. Regards, --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 16:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
It isn't a problem since non-existing params can't break anything; and as you said, we can always implement these params if people think them useful. (I'll suggest it at Template talk:Drugbox.) If the InChI is used for image validation, I'll better not add InChIs created from my images ;-) Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now... yes, you've guessed it

Windbuchencom.jpg Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010.
Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 21:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

University of Atlanta web sources

Has anyone archived the web pages cited in the article that might disappear or be changed?—Finell 21:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning to do all of them when I am back from holidays, but someone else might want to do the same. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 21:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Perhaps one of your page stalkers will will do it befor you return. I can't take on another project now. Enjoy your holidays!—Finell 22:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitelisting question

I have a question or two concerning a statement you made concerning whitelisting. While I hate to bother you here, the original topic was closed. If I might ask here...?--Gadflyr (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You can always ask, but if it concerns anything that can be explained by past actions that have been performed with the site (for example, see WP:SPAM, WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY), or any arguments you seem to make over and over which are of the type as described in WP:WAX or WP:OTHERLINKS, then I would say, don't bother. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 22:07, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Chembox issue

Hi Dirk. I hope you are enjoying your holiday. There is some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#MainHazards about potential changes to the {{Chembox Hazards}} section of {{chembox}}. Since you have contributed to the construction of this template, your input would be appreciated when you get back from holiday. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I am back behind my admin account. There are initial conditions there to hide modules which are in the chembox, but which have no filled parameters (otherwise one gets a header for a module without any fields displaying). I think that is where the problem is. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 22:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC) has a memory leak

I've had to kill it a few times.. not sure if it's something fixable. --Versageek 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, it has a 'necessary' memory leak (speed gain). They should automagically restart every now and then, but I do have a feeling that that is not always happening in the way it should be. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Another archivist

Just got a first and only warning template after I tried to be a bit friendlier. Maybe you could explain better: User:Amanda.nelson12. Cheers, Katr67 (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Busy with it, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Sigh, the good ol' discussion again. 'How useful is an external link' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that that poor woman's page has become a battleground for the never-ending debate. Thanks for trying anyway. Katr67 (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
I'm .. not happy (understatement). And what was said or insinuated is even worse. Bloody. If you want to use the links, then get the list and use them, which I continuously suggest, and for those who do follow my edits it is what I did/do (and not just 500 of them, thousands! Yes, it is a lot of work, I KNOW). And then getting this type of accusations, there is a reason why we have WP:SPAMHOLE, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL .. and I thought I was being friendly in the beginning, knowing this one was in good faith (though seen so many others). (sorry for the rant, Katr67, it is time for weekend, I think, maybe more useful than trying to get rid of the first sentence here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the user warning

Hello, thanks for helping with the situation earlier. I apologise if I am bothering you further, but could you possibly remove the "only warning"/downgrade it to a more friendly warning, or discuss with the user who gave the warning? I previously attempted to discuss with them, but they claim you reinforce their point that the user was disruptively spamming. I only worry that we will end up chasing the poor user away, especially after the battleground of debate on her talk page. Additionally, maybe that battleground debate could be moved elsewhere, as it got a little off topic? Thanks in advance, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Link for your conveniece to the warning user: User_talk:Wuhwuzdat, the user no longer wishes to talk further on this topic. --Taelus (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, I asked the user to compile a list for us to use, rather than adding lots of external links, so hopefully they will be able to do so and this can be resolved. Again, hope this helps. --Taelus (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Update, never mind, an RFC/U has been filed as the user who placed the warning is unwilling to discuss... Additionally, the user who was warned stated they are unlikely to contribute again, thus changing the warning will have little effect now. Thanks for your time, --Taelus (talk) 22:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I will get there sometime. But I'll express myself here as well.

IMHO, the warning was overdone, but as more people were already trying to get into contact maybe warranted. It is what I always push new editors, also if they are doing good things, to do: DISCUSS. There were concerns expressed, and I do agree with those concerns. However, I would not have reverted, but have chosen the way of discussion, and trying to adapt the edits. Still, that needed to be initiated, and that did not happen until the spam4(im), I wonder if other messages would have come through.

Some points:

  • These links generally fail WP:EL (yes, the intro of it, already).
  • This information is reference material.
  • The behaviour falls under WP:SPAM (spec. points of WP:SPAMMER), even for non-commercial sites.
  • For profit, not for profit, whatever, every organisation needs money, and therefore it is better to discuss FIRST, just to avoid impropriety, something that was not done.
  • Yeah, the link is fine, so will, e.g. for the Nobelprize winners that are in the contribution list, hundreds of other interviews. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, and hence WP:SPAMHOLE (yeah, these are not commercial, many others are, no need to feed them with the typical answers).
  • If it would not be reference material (which it is), then get the list, template it, and let a bot add it.

Maybe more to come. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


Regarding these edits, I don't profess to be an expert in this process, but the way I read it, except for the endorsement, your comments should appear on the talk page, not the page itself. (Hence, that's where I put mine.) What do you think? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but I tried to represent the situation to which Wuhwuzdat reacted in a more proper way, and I do believe that the RfC itself mispresents that, big time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps it does. But that has nothing to do with the question I asked you, which was:
the way I read it, your comments should appear on the talk page, not the page itself. What do you think?
Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I think they represent Wuhwuzdat's actions in another view, which disagrees with the original view of the RfC, and hence, I do not agree with the RfC. This is my view, which is more positive on the Wuhwuzdat side, and negative on practically all editors who have engaged against Wuhwuzdat on Amanda's talkpage and on his talkpage, and I therefore believe it is a view which should be on the page itself. But as I said, I am not a specialist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I think I now understand your rationale.
In that light, do you think that I should have put my comment(s) on the page itself, rather than the talk page? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems you wrote a reply to Themfromspace now, which maybe does not fit on the page itself, but a rewrite of it would, maybe, making it your view why you think that Wuhwuzdat was acting outside of policy/guideline. But I am not sure, as then it might be the same as the RfC itself (unless you have things to add). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Yes, now that you point it out, I agree that the two situations are not similar. Many thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:17, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Beetstra. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Wuhwuzdat.
Message added 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Additionally, just to ensure we are on the same page, my key concerns are with long-term conduct, as I certified with links to a previous WQA. I don't want anyone to think I have it in for Wuhwuzdat, especially over one incident, I respect the editor but felt I had to certify the RFC/U because they refused to discuss further at WQA, or at their talk page. Hope this helps, Taelus (talk) 11:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw, I already answered.
I know there were more concerns, but I do think that editors were very, very fast in saying that Wuhwuzdat was wrong, without asking for explanations. That may be a factor which has influenced Wuhwuzdat's further behaviour. I see that more with other spamfighters. They remove a link which is clearly spammed, and get a whole group of editors saying they were wrong .. maybe 'we' 'spamfighters' don't always assume good faith on new editors as we should, many editors certainly don't assume good faith on 'spamfighters' (and no, spam is not vandalism .. spam is a different ballpark; and note: this link is not spam, I don't think Amanda was really spamming, but good links can certainly be spammed)! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Aesthetic Realism Link Removal

Hi, your bot reverted my edit citing this website: [9]. It is the Rick Ross Insitute of New Jersey's Internet Archive ("An Internet archive of information about cults, destructive cults, controversial groups and movements. The Rick A. Ross Institute of New Jersey (RI) is a nonprofit public resource with a vast archive that contains thousands of individual documents. RI on-line files include news stories, research papers, reports, court documents, book excerpts, personal testimonies and hundreds of links to additional relevant resources.") Please explain why. The website is relevant to the subject and includes detailed articles that will be useful even if their content is somewhat incorporated in Wikipedia. This is not a personal website but a non-profit foundation. This site does not make controversial claims about groups but rather collects information and presents it without judgment for readers ("The information within The Rick A. Ross Institute archives has been collected to offer the public a resource concerning groups called "cults," controversial organizations and movements. However, the mention and/or inclusion of a group or leader within this archive does not define that group as a "cult" and/or an individual mentioned as either destructive and/or harmful. Instead, such inclusion simply reflects that archived articles and/or research is available about a group or person that has generated some interest and/or controversy. All the information archived must be evaluated critically, through a process of independent and individual judgment. Please note that there are links often prominently posted to a group or movement's own official website, which reflect their views. It is important to see what they have to say."). Also, if I undo your edit, will the bot revert it again? Is the problem that I'm using an IP (anonymous account)? If so, will you revert the edit yourself? If there are other links that seem problematic, please let me know. Thanks71.224.206.164 (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, on top of the page linked: 'Visit the official Web site of Aesthetic Realism Foundation' links to .. maybe you want to link that. The links you have added may fail our WP:EL guideline. You might want to read that. If you then still believe it is appropriate, feel free to undo yourself, the bot will not undo and undo-edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. The link you reccommended was included along with a few others. I think one of the sites may be considered a personal website (though potentially an exception for this topic), but that was not the link which caught your bot. I'll keep looking at it. (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Probable spam-machine

Check out User:Robbin' Knowledge. Always leaving a bp spam and often the information is redundant. But you are more experienced than I am with this sort of problem.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I left the user a message .. I am unsure, you think that the links are superfluous (I don't really see much gain of them)? In that case I think that all should be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

User MarkTapanes

Hi Dirk, it's late here and I won't get much chance tomorrow, so I hope you don't mind me asking if you could take a look - if you have time - at MarkTapanes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who seems to be a SPA linkspamming for . I spotted a report at WP:ELN and made a quick note at WP:SPAMIN, but I'm not sure how well patrolled the latter is. Thanks --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. It looks to me the content on the site is written by respectable people. Not sure how they get it, are the writers invited. Nonetheless, I am not sure if these links are appropriate on the articles or if this way of adding is appropriate. I'll leave a warning.
I did not know WP:SPAMIN, I think a better place is WT:WPSPAM. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
How strange, when I saw the report at WP:EL#User MarkTapanes, I put the phrase, "spam incident noticeboard", into our search and found WP:SPAMIN as first match. It looks like a new initiative (and asks for general discussion to be done at WT:WikiProject Spam), so I'm glad I asked you. Thanks again. --RexxS (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Could be, and it would be in line with the AN -> AN/I; COI -> COI/N; EL -> EL/N way, instead of a SPAM -> WPSPAM. Lets see what the editor has to say (it looks spammy, and if the editor fails to justify ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:40, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
As an afterthought, it looks like we have a reasonable article on Creators Syndicate (which quite properly contains the external link) - so an internal link to there would seem to me to be the proper way of linking in each of the edits MarkTapanes made. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh yes, true. But maybe the links to the pages there may also be appropriate, though it gives concerns: do they add? could they be used better? etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I am working with in his new biographical Wikipedia entry called "Danny Cohen (engineer)". We are both new to Wikipedia but having fun figuring it out. I noticed that there may be a 'bot problem with Danny picking a user name which was the same as his Wikipedia entry name. I am not sure what to do. Thanks for your advice, Kvgd (talk) 00:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Katy Dickinson (kvgd)

If you are talking about COIBot finding similarities between usernames and pages those users are editing, then yes, that is likely that my bot picked that up. Calling it a 'problem', well, no, that not necessarily. I do have to point you, both, to our conflict of interest guideline, and I would like you both to read it. Note that that guideline does not forbid you to edit your own biographies, but I would urge you to be careful. There may also be some information in e.g. our spam guideline and our business FAQ which may be of interest there. Please be sure to discuss when others have concerns. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

opposing Jimbo?

Did you mean to oppose Jimbo's proposal or that of Robert K S. You text suggests the former, but the indentation points to the latter. Pcap ping 17:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, indentation problem? I meant to oppose Jimbo's suggestion (don't think it will make a difference), will have a look and may repair. Thanks for pointing me there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm on your list for COIBot


I'm on your list and I'm not sure why. It's regarding the entry for Hamilton VA.

How can I get off your report/list... or basically, disappear? I'm very shaky on Wikipedia and don't really understand the directions on your main page.


Blondewyn (talk) 23:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You're one out of 1643 other additions, absolutely nothing to worry about, and I think that the edit in question is a fine, if not great, addition to our wikipedia, I mean, you're adding content with a reference! You're off to a great start, and I hope you're here to stay! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


Hi Dirk. Thanks for all the work you've been doing with your chembox/drugbox validation project. I'd like to make a request though. If it's not too much trouble, when you encounter incorrect chemical structure images, could you please mark them with the {{disputed chem}} template (which exists both here and on Commons) or otherwise notify the uploader. That way there is a much better chance that the image will be fixed, rather than simply removed. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

True, good point. I will do that from now on, though in principle, the images are not wrong, they are only not the compound on which they are displayed. Does the template take parameters to say why I found them disputed? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the template allows you to input a reason for the concern about the image. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Good! I'll add that when disabling the images. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Daisy Fuentes

I appreciate you were not the one who added the information, but you chose to format the link rather than remove it altogether- Perez Hilton simply cannot be considered a reliable source for a biography of a living person. Negative material about living people has to be extremely carefully sourced for legal and ethical reasons; we cannot allow gossip to sit in our articles. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, true. Sorry. Did not see that, you are completely right. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

LiWa3 Bots are dead

Hi there! Your bots in #cvn-sw-spam are dead. May you can bring them back to us? Thanks -Barras talk 11:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've got the same concern with the linkwatchers in #en-wikipedia-spam. Any help getting them back up and running would be appreciated. ThemFromSpace 01:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Curious that that is my only bot that died due to the change in IRC protocol, all others seem totally fine. I now just restarted the bot, and they are back online, and I've seen the first output. Lets see how long they stay, I do expect small problems still with the network. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My username overlaps pagename 'Heinrich Rau' by accident.

Hi, is there a possibility to avoid the creation of irritating spam links? Such links appear always automatically, when I edit the page 'Heinrich Rau. Thank you. --Henrig (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It took me quite some time before I understood what you meant, as if I, or one of my bots, was adding spam links regarding you? But you meant the generation of the reports where my bot tries to automatically catch cases of a conflict of interest. I am, since the beginning, aware that there may be accidental overlaps in that, and so are others who are looking at these reports, appearance there is nothing to worry about. I have however removed the lines in the reports and whitelisted you, COIBot should from now on totally ignore you. My apologies for the inconvenience, and thanks for the report! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. --Henrig (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Information.svg Hey there Beetstra, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Beetstra/listing21. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, funny. Those are bot-generated listings .. I hope I will not forget to remove it on regenerating the lists .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my English ist not very good. I don't understand well, what the link (see subject) means / want to tell. At least, I am in the german Wikipedia listet as User Nikswieweg. The Homepage (www.) is my privat homepage. You can please answer me by my User-discussion-page? Thanks. :-) Nikswieweg —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to answer. I deleted the report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I did not know it existed, but de.wikipedia now has a Conflict of interest guideline, de:Wikipedia:Interessenkonflikt. You might want to give it a look, though I don't think there is any form of problem there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

True jellyfish edit

I don't think that I was soapboxing at all. True jellyfish is meaningless, as evidenced by the first paragraph, where a lot of different things are said to be jellyfish. I'm trying to remove confusion, while leaving a trail for "the serious student". Have your way - it's not worth making rational changes when people just wipe them out. Most of this article seemed a year ago to be written by some student working at term-paper level and it made almost no sense, yet the arbitrators didn't mind that at all. I've spent hours trying to make this article work over the past year or two and most of my friends think that I am crazy. I guess that they are right.

And I add changes to the ctenophore article and the guy who doesn't work on ctenophores, but wrote most of the article, changes them back in seconds. Very disconcerting and not worth trying to help the average reader.

I'm fine with my work being edited by many people, as is to be expected in Wiki, but this instant-change stuff seems to be something else. You didn't even bother to correct the sentence to end with a period. Leuckartiara (talk) 10:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the addition with the part "... this term is confusing and really quite meaningless and should be dropped from modern usage." I don't think that that is something that Wikipedia is for, Wikipedia is to reflect how things are used outside Wikipedia, Wikipedia should not be used to 'set an example', 'push a view' (even when it is correct), which I meant with the soapboxing.
I did not notice the missing period, I was assuming (wrongly) that the original was fine. I would suggest you establish a good consensus on the talkpage now, and follow that consensus (you could consider to actually include a separate paragraph on the 'true jellyfish' remarks). That should keep it like this for some time, and if and when it is returning, then a new consensus could be developed if needed, or it could be removed per the old consensus. I think that is better.
I, for one, don't think you are crazy. But it seems a bit like that the 'true jellyfish' remarks are commonly used, so maybe removing it altogether will result over and over that it returns. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

My Page

You said that you were doing some cleanup on my page, what kind of cleanup? --Mjreuter (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I should have been more explicit. I have removed some 'registered' marks (which we tend not to include), and a 'reference' to the title (which is not a reference, references attribute content; the homepage of an organisation should be the first external link, and maybe it can be used as a reference somewhere (though it is generally not a source which helps establish notability, e.g.), it is not a reference for the name of the company (you can think the argument in the way of 'if I create a webpage for my company blah then that proves that my company is named blah'; that is a bit circular ..). I hope this explains, happy editing (by the way, the article does not look too bad, you might want to consider moving it to mainspace so more people can help working on it)! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically you helped make my page better and more legit? Because its bringing me to a screen now where I have to compare yours with mine, which is a hassle, so if its all correct on yours shouldn't I just accept all your changes? --Mjreuter (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And, shouldnt the link for the Altoona Curve Baseball team be included in the "external links" section? --Mjreuter (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you are talking about an 'edit conflict'. I would suggest to try to keep as much as possible of both.
No. External links should tell more about the subject of the article, and be directly linked to the article. That is, you are writing about Total Sports Entertainment, so a link to the homepage of Total Sports Entertainment is there appropriate. Total Sports Entertainment worked for the Binghamton Mets, so the two are related, but not directly, so a link to the homepage of the Binghamton Mets is not appropriate on the page Total Sports Entertainment, but it is on Binghamton Mets (where the link is directly related, and you will see that it is already there). If Total Sports Entertainment now would have a blog, where they would publish information and which is strictly moderated by the organisation, then that might be a possible external link on Total Sports Entertainment (except when the blog is so notable that it has an own page). I think in most cases you can say that when there is a Wikipedia page which can be linked, that then the external link is superfluous. For more information, see the external links guideline (what I mention about not directly linked is somewhere in the section about 'links to avoid'). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I never thought Wikipedia would be this confusing :) --Mjreuter (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry about it .. and don't worry to make mistakes, it goes quite quick when you get the hang of it, and there are many people willing to help. If you have questions .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay so right now, my article is in my userspace, so the general public cannot view it right? How do I get it so that I can get others, such as yourself to help me edit it before I publish it. I know you mentioned earlier to put it into mainspace? How would I do that? --Mjreuter (talk) 15:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You can move it there. There is a move-tab at the top, which opens a page with a suggested move-to name. Make sure the title is displayed correctly, and confirm. That should do it. Also remove the tag at the top. It may need some more references though. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Ill work on trying to find some more references. Thank you! --Mjreuter (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So when I move this page like you were explaining before, where does it go? And when I have to rename it, am I suppose to name it what it would be if I typed it in the search box on Wiki? --Mjreuter (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The page is now User:Mjreuter/Total Sports Entertainment (it is now a sub-document of your userspace 'User:Mjreuter'), you have to move it to Total Sports Entertainment (so it is not in userspace 'user:Mjreuter' anymore, but what we call 'mainspace'). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so. So when I move it, I just get rid of the "user:mjreuter" part when I am renaming it and that automatically puts it into wikipedia for the world to see?--Mjreuter (talk) 14:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep (including getting rid of the / ). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Scary. Okay, I will give it a go, in a couple days. Thank you!--Mjreuter (talk) 15:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Noo .. it is not scary. Don't worry making mistakes, everything can be repaired, undone, &c. Be bold! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was my links removed when i followed wiki rules?

This medievil sourcebook is a book composing several books in one. I am no spammer. Why don't you check the links I added instead of accusing me off linkspamming? How can these persons remove my work when I followed the wiki rules perfectly? Should I contact the wiki committe jury to resolve myself of these charges? I also linked to specific lives of saints which you removed without any reason whatsoever? Please help!Humilityisfine (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Not one person complained over my additions before this history2007 started accusing me off linkspamming. If you check the pages yourself you will clearly see that every single page I linked to is what the specific wiki article is about. They call me a linkspammer but their evidence is, "it seems that he is a spammer" IT SEEMS? Is that how wiki works? Please check it yourself and help me. PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I know countless of works that many different pages have that still are linked to wiki. Just because many pages have a work dont make it unworthy to link to. Am I right? My english is not perfect so I hope you can understand what I am saying. I'm Swedish. I hope you can check this manually. Peace Humilityisfine (talk) 02:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I qoute wiki's article: "More than 130 more distant sources have been identified for the tales related of the saints in the Golden Legend, few of which have a nucleus in the New Testament itself;" We are clearly dealing with many books about many different topics compiled into one book. I was linking it all to relevant to the relevant topics and now after history2007 called me a linkspammer and you listened to him without checking it, it is all gone in a second. PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 03:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't u answer me so I can know if you have checked the info I told you? I'm pretty new here so I need some help and guidance. Should I or must I speak on the talk page every time I want to add a link or some other info to a article? Should i tell the other users to add the link or article addition instead of me because I'm banned now? I don't really get what happened? I did not know that this was the rules. Pleas helpHumilityisfine (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)Humilityisfine (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


  1. Someone, at a certain point, had concerns about your link additions. You did not address that, you kept adding links. Please discuss.
  2. You started adding links on the 9th of Feb (if I see it correctly), and those additions were noted at the 12th ..
  3. WP:OTHERLINKS .. sure, there is a lot of crap on Wikipedia, a lot of crappy links, but there are concerns rising about your link additions, please discuss.
  4. There is also another user having concerns.
  5. The link seems to be a unreliable source. I would suggest that you convince others that it is not before adding more links
  6. We are all volunteers here. We may not answer immediately, people sometimes have other things to do.

In short, it is fine to edit yourself, and to add sources where necessary. However, if your style of editing or a certain edit is challenged (like here your link additions), it is better to discuss it with others first before adding more links. The concern here is that this is not a reliable source, and that you add it as external links. It is a book, one does not have to link to a book (especially since I am sure there are more copies available online on different sites), it is better to either link to a 'linkfarm' (for modern books, the ISBN number is a good one), or to put it in a list with 'name, author, year .. ', and no link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I received no warning before the user history2007 went off on a rampage to remove all my work. If so, where is that warning? Did I ban this site or am I banned? No one complained at all to me before he went through my pages and removed all. If the source was not liked on that talkpage, then remove the link from that specific page, but don't allow him to call me a spammer and remove all my work when not one person contacted me about wrongful link additions before we started having an argument and he felt to call me a spammer. So, have you watched the links he removed yet or are you goind to take his word for it? What do I know about other pages, I found great pages that had wiki pages and wanted wikipedians to read them since they are free, is this not in accordance with your rules. As far as i know, it is. Really would like for you to clear me from these slanderings Peace Humilityisfine (talk) 09:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, History2007 was the first to warn, you added a couple links more, and then stopped. Another editor gave also a warning, and I issued one as well.
No, we don't link because we want people to read something, we link because it adds, etc. etc. And we are not writing a linkfarm here. Please read the policies and guidelines linked in the warnings.
Nothing is banned, you can still edit, the link can still be added. But we do need some discussion on whether the link should be included, if it should be included in external links sections, or if it should be used as a reference, or not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand all of that, he removed alot of things which no one disagreed about as far as I could check. How long must I await an answer on a talkpage to add anything? Of course it's because it adds to the article, otherwise it's no use. You removed the life of Anthony for example which added very much to the article, what was the reason for it, did you even check my additions? PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait until consensus. And yes, I checked, I explained how it could be added above to be of full help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please look at this user, he is making some outrageous statements on the talkpage making up things about wiki rules and saying that things violate when it dont. He uses the word indication alot.

Thank youHumilityisfine (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Another user with concerns, all concerned with the style of linking. For me, there is no reason to link to the website, see my comments above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read his arguments against the work? I cannot find these things anywhere in wiki rules, maybe you can direct me there. Have you read what he said? Humilityisfine (talk) 13:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:RS to name a few (you might also want to read WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:MOS, etc. etc.). As has been said a couple of times, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. There is enough reason not to create linkfarms or even add links, it is content we are after. I know that the website you want to link to promotes their links being added everywhere, but Wikipedia is not the place. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What was not good content with the St. Anthony page I linked to. Should I have to hear that I'm a spammer every time I want to add a link, will this stamp never leave? Cannot a page tell other webpageowners to add a link to them? Where is that rule? PeaceHumilityisfine (talk) 14:25, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What did it add? Why this link and not just mention the book. Or use the site to expand the article. Etc. etc.
No, you don't have to hear that you are a spammer when you add a link, but if you focus on one site, where the site in question encourages to link to, then linking to that site indeed can result in warnings for spamming, especially, again, if there are concerns that there is no necessity to link to the site.
The label will go .. when you can convince people that the link is necessary, and when you start to use the articles you now only link to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Edits on chemical data


You recently wrote the following to me, in regards to changes I have been making:

1. Please do not change the flavour of English. If one is chosen at a certain moment, then we don't change it. See WP:ENGVAR for more information. 2. Please do not change units without having a reference to back it up. If someone filled the chembox and found the unit to be g/100 mL, then so be it. You can't just change it to g/100 g, since you do not take the density of the solution into account (and no, a 10 g/100 g solution of NaCl is not 100 mL, try and see). --Dirk Beetstra

I will address these points: 1. Almost all of the references on Ethylbenzene (the chemical that prompted your response) as well as any of the other chemicals I have corrected are American. For example, NPI, NLM, NIOSH, EPA Chemical Database, and ATSDR are from America. Writing "colourless" and "odourless" may be a stylistic choice ("flavour", as you say), but it adds nothing and isn't referenced. It simply makes no sense to have British English spellings of words that weren't taken from British English sources. "Flavour" is one thing, accuracy is another. It's a superfluous style change that has no basis in reference. 2. I am changing units because Wikipedia's own Solubility Table page ( is almost exclusively in g/100 g, so it makes sense for individual chemicals to be listed as such. You're also mistaken in how you're reading the solubility of each chemical. Every chemical's table is listing the solubility of the substance per x amount of water. A 10 g/100 g solubility IS the same thing as a 10 g/100 mL solubility because the "100 g" (or mL) is referring to the amount of solvent (water) needed, not the amount of total product after dissolving. You're referring to concentration, I am referring to solubility as it is listed on Wikipedia. My reference, if still needed, is the Solubility Table link I provided.

Thanks, stephen —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What the external references do is of no concern to us. If an article is written in UK English, we stick with that. Please do not change that.
Yes, in a way, it is fine, but 15 g / 100 mL is not 15 g / 100 g. If you change it, it changes. No, the 100 mL is the end-volume, not the 100 mL added.
Therefore, please stick with the used ENGVAR, and if you change the concentrations, change them correctly. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr.Jaonne Xavier Thompson,

I don't like to pester, but the above has ALSO been created at Dr.Jaonne Xavier Thompson. I've seen it in various iterations while newpage patrolling for a couple of days now. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 03:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw it in the external link feed (which also includes a form of 'newpage alerting'). I deleted some, when I was looking for more others were already gone (or I missed some). Some have strange forms, missing spaces, comma at the end .. maybe a bit of blocking may stop this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

WhizBase page

Hi Beetstra, you have sent me a message and last warning for my article about whizbase. Can you please explain me the problem. I am not trying to advertise whizbase, just want to make a simple article about it. Please can you help me with that?

regards, Ashraf Gheith —Preceding unsigned comment added by NurAzije (talkcontribs) 09:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, you recreated practically the same article three times (and was it deleted once for being a copy of another page?). I'd suggest you work on it in your userspace (e.g. User:NurAzije/WhizBase), and start from scratch. Be sure to include independent references of it, and avoid any promotional language. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, I said the majority of links were not added by me, after clicking on the on the 'WikiProject Spam' link it seemed that way.

As regards it containing 'user-supplied non-reviewed material' can I ask you to take another look at the texts section Here which contains the best collection of documents about Gibraltar on the net. If you have any suggestions on improving that section, please email me.

It may be that I use links to that site because I know the content is there and will remain there. For instance in the articles dealing with the IRA terrorist action in Gibraltar, the ECHR do not seem to make the court documents readily available, and some of the links used only give part of the judgement. I've been at pains to only use a link to the version on where there is no better one. There has certainly been no attempt at SEO spamming, either on wikipedia or elsewhere. Its not that sort of site. However, I think I will put some more effort into updating it in future as its less grief that continually arguing about Gibraltar pages on wikipedia with editors with an agenda. --Gibnews (talk) 15:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The blacklist

Can you have a look at my blacklist request for Quite frankly I am sick of having to squash the daily additions of this scraper site to WP. (While you're there, please have a look at the others. I'd rather forget about them.) MER-C 11:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I did this one, but I am quite busy. We really should find more people active there, I don't have too much time, but I know that it is a lot of work (and there is quite some to learn before knowing the problems of spam), and, as Guy said, a perfect way to get trolled mercilessly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

LiWa3 Bots are dead

...or at least they do not report events to IRC. Just to let you know. Thanks Barras talk 20:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I restarted the linkwatcher bots & coibot this afternoon, the parent linkwatcher had died. XLinkBot is dead, it won't start due to a compilation error. --Versageek 22:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Now, that is curious, the parent linkwatcher tends to die now? There must be some strange 'exception' taking place. I'll have a look (also at XLinkBot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:36, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
XLinkBot has been solved .. I have to see what is wrong with the linkwatchers. Strange thing is .. there is not an error message in the log that helps. I'll keep an eye. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with white-listing, please

Hello, Dirk. I noticed you recently helped an editor by approving the whitelisting of a domain that ended in -- so i am asking your help on another such domain. It is -- and i have posted my request at the white-list request page. I was intending to use the site as an external link -- but would prefer, actually, to use it as an internal ref as part of an article on the meme AC Transit Bus fight -- but i can do neither at this point without white-list approval. Thanks for any help you would care to give. cat yronwode Catherineyronwode (talk) 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. well, we are talking here about the 'Unofficial Fan Site for Amber Lamps'. Fan sites are generally not suitable external links (nor references), if they are unofficial it gets even worse. You might want to address those issues as to why you'd like it linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC) fun

I shut down the tvrage whitelisting request. The January one was made by a very similar IP address and was also forcibly shut down. Same ISP, same city. Same arguments being rehashed over and over again. Somehow, I get the feeling a dead horse is being flogged. MER-C 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC) fun

I shut down the tvrage whitelisting request. The January one was made by a very similar IP address and was also forcibly shut down. Same ISP, same city. Same arguments being rehashed over and over again. Somehow, I get the feeling a dead horse is being flogged. MER-C 13:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

If you post this twice (see post above) .. more dead horses ;-). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

  1. Proposal to Close This RfC
  2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 02:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 2

As you are of the view that the site is 'not all bad' I would welcome suggestions on how it could be improved so that it becomes non-contentious. Sometime later this year the whole site is in for a makeover as it has not been revised for some years and elements of it are getting stale. However, the texts section does contain mostly useful documents. I'm making the suggestion here as I think you will give a neutral answer. --Gibnews (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to improve, that that site hosts the documents is fine, but when it is not the original, we don't need to link to it. Indeed, I said 'not all bad', but find consensus for what should be included (and the example linked on your talkpage was just one of those which were properly removed, and should be replaced with a better link, or with a proper reference to the document (without link)). That text you reference in the diff is NOT the original source, it is just a scan. I strongly suggest you search the way of discussion on talkpages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Not all bad can also be solved with blanket blacklisting, and then separate whitelisting discussions for those documents which may be necessary. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
OK, But some of these documents are actually rather hard to get hold of, that one being an example. I don't think its available online and I got a copy by asking the returning office for it and he provided me with a photocopy of his which I scanned. If you think its necessary I could get it signed by the authors or a notary or a statement about it from the House of Commons library who probably the only people with a copy, and its not online there.
I am reluctant to enter into discussions, as the ones on talk:gibraltar have involved months of argument amounting to hundreds of kb about changing a couple of words and there other things to do. --Gibnews (talk) 16:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
No, it is not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Is this a good time to cite the Gibraltar Electronic Commerce act ?
The idea is that an electronic document, eg a scanned .pdf has the same standing as a paper version. --Gibnews (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
We are not in court here. We are talking referencing. I am sorry, your site was deemed an unreliable source, and the information is equally available from other sites, some of which (in case of this pdf) have an original document there, not a scan. And that one is an official UK government source, and the document is .. issued in the UK .. closer to the source, is it not? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
The document was published in Gibraltar, as is the website. However, the law is based on and EU directive and I expect it applies +/- in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe. What is an 'original' document these days is a very hard thing to define. If we take the Treaty of Utrecht article X, There is a Spanish version and an English version but neither are definitive. see This. I most certainly agree with you over the reliability of sources. I really do not think the discussion on as a reliable source to date was fair or detailed, and removing references without replacing them is negative, and as you are of the view its possible to find sources, perhaps you could encourage RH to do that rather than engaging in what I see as vandalism. --Gibnews (talk) 09:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
I think that is what I did in basis. See what is properly asserting the data, what is not. Removal of a 'bad' reference is not vandalism, having it there gives a misplaced sense of reliability of the Wikipedia data, removing said reference and asking for another is better. I am surprised that you said a couple of times that your documents are not published anywhere else (or words to that effect), while I find so many hits which (complete or in part) have exactly the same part online (and if they are incomplete, there will be more; and incompleteness might still be sufficient or proper to use as a reference if the information that it is suppose to cover is in the document referenced). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Final point; the 'trilateral process' has had a number of meetings which are variously reported. The one at Cordoba was the one where the telephones issue was finally sorted out. The Liberal party page which is probably the best but was added in April 2008 wheras the one on was done the day after the agreement in 2006. If you have a link to the observers report on the referendum, please include it or mention it on my talk page as it still says 'citation needed'. The user reverting RH has a virgin media UK IP and is clearly not me. -- (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Gibnews, take it to the talkpage when you think that the site is the best one .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

RH is now claiming is blacklisted Here I have not added anything. --Gibnews (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply at the ArbComm .. Gibnews, I asked you (a couple of times, already) to NOT revert and to discuss if someone removes things (and I hope that others do the same). Nonetheless, you did (yes, I saw the edit war that came after that). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello from Black Mountain in western North Carolina

Beetstra, since you're the first Wikipedia person who's so kind as to write me explaining a reverting of an Edit of mine thereto, and your country of The Netherlands is where I was thrilled to arrive with a choral group on the Saturday in 7'88 when Holland defeated Russia to win the Euro Grand Nat'l Soccer Championship (Ole!); which turned Amsterdam orange with revelry, such an exciting beginning my first visit touring Europe, this is simply to say Hello, as I proceed trying to resubmit my Edit within the guidelines. (BTW, I was born 10'39 in Detroit, MI.) Joe Tomczyk, 26FEB2010 (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

gibnet again

Hi Dirk - sorry for the imposition, but I've been responding to some of the Gibraltar-related threads on ANI. I've just locked History of Gibraltar due to edit warring over the link. In the light of your comments at, are you able to review the situation? Thanks, EyeSerenetalk 14:47, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Never mind, all sorted :) EyeSerenetalk 18:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I see there is an ArbCom opening .. I'll leave a response there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

PS Ryde - spam whitelist req

Steam Railway states that there were over 2,000 signatures (correct at time of going to press, petition still open then), but there were over 3,000 when the petition closed. Why is this deemed not suitable for inclusion. Yes, it's a primary source, but until a secondary source gives the exact number it's the best I can find. Mjroots (talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It's just that I don't see the significance of that then (note, I did not decline), I don't think that the existence of the petition and/or the number of 3000 make it worth noting, unless an independent source notes it as being notable. Until then it is original research. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I know the petition is now closed, but see this, this .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I saw those, and agreed with their removal. As the ship is now (being) scrapped, mentioning the petition and citing it cannot be seen as being biased in favour of keeping the ship. It is a fact that over 3,000 people signed the petition and that should be properly cited in the article. Mjroots (talk) 13:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
That's the point, no, it is not. Has it been checked that these 3000 are all really different people .. in short, there is no editorial oversight on petitions, and therefore they are both primary and unreliable as a source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Doesn't the mention of the petition in "Steam Railway" magazine count as being from an independent source? Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
From my experience in signing other petitions on the Number 10 website, I'd say that there are pretty good safeguards in ensuring that all signatures are from individual people. Mjroots (talk) 13:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Mentioning in Steam Railway: yes, that is an independent source that shows something about the relevance, and that can be mentioned, but the petition itself is not, it is both primary and unreliable.
I've signed some as well .. no, it is not, it is easy to circumvent, there is no real identity checking before signing.
Note: You really should be trying to convince people on the whitelist page, not here. Others might disagree with me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Common Chemistry

Could you help me with these problems I encountered while checking the CAS Nos. of the drug articles I created?

  • Paricalcitol (131918-61-1 ): Common Chemistry shows Z configuration between the conjugated double bonds, my formula (from PubChem) shows E. Surely that bond doesn't rotate freely?
  • Technetium (99mTc) arcitumomab (154361-48-5 ): CC gives the result "Immunoglobulin G1, anti-(human carcinoembryonic antigen) Fab' fragment (mouse monoclonal IMMU-4 γ1-chain), disulfide with mouse monoclonal IMMU-4 light chain" which fits arcitumomab, but isn't unambiguous since there is no reason why someone else shouldn't make an anti-CEA Fab' fragment with a slightly different structure.

Should these pages be added to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index, or what else? (By the way, CC doesn't seem to contain more that a couple dozen entries. I didn't even find bupranolol.)

Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

For what I see
I would put them both on the index.
CC contains several thousands of compounds (at the moment 2429 out of 6324 pages (38.4%) with a chembox are indexed; 1138 out of 4343 pages (26.2%) with a drugbox; which means that we have already over 3500 which are available on CC). We indeed have to see what to do with the rest .. of course most will have a correct CAS number (and I hope that CAS will expand their scope on commonchemistry). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, when they do not match .. don't index them -> somewhere there is then a mistake in a database, and we have seen problems left and right (in my current check-run I have also already ignored about 50 compounds). Those will come up later, and then we will see what to do with them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
ad paricalcitol: I was referring to the single bond between the two double bonds. As far as I can see, it shouldn't rotate because of the overlapping p orbitals of the two double bonds. (\\/\\ vs. \\_//) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if that barrier is high enough to prevent all rotation. I do agree that 'clashing' of the two rings may indeed hinder a complete free rotation --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I've added both. Thanks for your help! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


Your script has blanked a few pages -- Desoxymethyltestosterone, Caroxazone, and Cinitapride. (talk) 16:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

More like a glitch. It did Amentoflavone correct, then blanked Desoxymethyltestosterone, Caroxazone, and Cinitapride (three in a row!) and then worked correctly for Desoxypipradrol and 6 others. I did not change the script in between (it was a single run). I'll try to 'catch' mistakes in saving (I'll now do a check for pagesize before and after the save, both should be >0, and the pagesize after saving should be the same as in the buffer of the script (boohoo .. makes the script even slower ..) .. Thanks for catching this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Andorran dynamic IP address space monitoring by COIbot

While browsing my userpage backlinks, I noticed backlinks in COIbot's daily logs [10][11]. I see the reason for this is that there was some spamming a long time ago in 2007 by another IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), and ever since then COIbot has been monitoring all edits from the IP range on any pagenames containing "andorra". But is nearly half of all of Andorra the country's dynamic IP addresses, and all Andorra's non-commercial users get dynamic IP addresses. I think monitoring this range is indiscriminate and no longer necessary because for a long time almost all the "hits" are false positives (mostly mine because I make lots of edits to Andorran articles from Andorran IPs) with no problematic spamming of any domains by Andorran IPs since the original report (what very little there has been has been spotted and reverted by me and other editors). As far as I can tell I think it could be discontinued without harm. What do you think? (talk) 00:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

That is indeed an old rule for some spammer. The additions are very old, and the site is on the meta spam blacklist (globally blacklisted). That rule is indeed obsolete now, and does not need to be there, so I removed it. Thanks for catching this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi Dirk, totally agree that content is king. That was what i was trying to do - bring up the standard of outbound linking, with particular reference to the pages that claim "official" and also those that link to 404s.

On a more personal level, i didn't sleep last night as a consequence of the blacklist. Very horrible trying to navigate this site, and get things "right" ....all the while trying to do the best thing. <BR
You are so right, there were three editors "on me" - it felt quit ebullying and upsetting actually.

How do i get this link whitelisted. I feel bad as i have ruined it for someone else... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Galesbury (talkcontribs) 11:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you really should go to the meta blacklist, and request delisting there (see: Defer to Global blacklist). Note, if it are three editors, then it is not bullying, you might have wanted to listen first and address their concerns. That others are 404's is not a reason to include more either, you might have wanted to discuss those as well .. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, I make the point about bullying because I was trying to communicate with the first editor, then there was another and another...and that for a new guy was how it felt: bullying. Neverless, the aim is to improve the Liga 1 pages (Pandruii is woeful for instance). I will try to figure the whitelist place out, but will give up soon as it is not my site, and i just wanted to edit a subject i know a fair whack about.

Well, I would really suggest you to go to the meta blacklist .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Another more pressing blacklisting request

The editors at Kasur District and Kasur need a break. See WikiProject Spam report. I haven't bothered posting it on the blacklist talk page -- that would be akin to crying out for help in the middle of the Australian outback (without a phone). MER-C 08:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Emergency stop applied ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


MER-C 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom case has opened

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gibraltar/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (utc) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ecco_Pro replacing official and free distribution with pay to access 'compusol' bootleg links

Beetstra, once again it looks like you've been participating in replacing the free official licensed distribution links for ecco pro with pay-to-access bootleg software spam links for "compusol". have noticed posts like this on the web as well:

To All:
To request a Wikipedia reference to our "Eccopro" group which was removed please go to the discussion area at "" and see the recent admissions there. Click on edit (at the right edge) for the

March 2010 section and leave your comment at the bottom of the page as requested by Wikipedia's Dirk Beetstra!! Please follow Wikipedia's rules, come up with references if possible and please do not use 'inappropriate' language.

Thank you for your help!

additionally, the bogus and libelous claims that I run a warez site etc., seems also inappropriate.
Was truly surprised to see you associated with this. The compusol links to a pay-to-access site are clearly spam. The removal of the link to the official and free distribution site is vandalism to the article.
The attempt to 'recruit' editors to support the efforts is a serious violation of wiki policy.

Please revert the article and remove the spam links, and revert the proper links.

especially since your co-editor in all this is clearly a single purpose account, your involvement is surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YSWT (talkcontribs) 22:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I am still wondering who is saying that you are running a warez site? As far as I see I only said that a forum is not a reliable source (especially open ones), and that they have to be used with care. And I said that the language which was linking to the forum is unencyclopedic and inappropriate. I think I even said that it is very well that you provide a free download for the software, and that it is not in my capacity to check legality of that, but that does not mean that Wikipedia needs to link to it. Moreover, I think you mentioned that the compusol download is not legal, which is then equally libellous if it is not backed up by appropriate information. But as far as I can see are we not linking to a (legal or illegal) download at the moment, but to information on the same site, which is not the same. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


(In reference to Dirk, you don't have to reply to all his comments, and you don't need to address all the flawed arguments. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I know. I was already thinking about dead horses this weekend. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

A new article

I have a question...after you create a page and move it from your userspace into the form for the entire world to see, a notice appears on the top of the page that says "This is a new unreviewed article...etc" How do I get rid of that notice? --Mjreuter (talk) 13:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a 'template' at the top. In this case there is '{{Userspace draft|source=ArticleWizard|date=January 2010}}', that is what creates that. see Help:Template for more info. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
In this case, I would suggest you wait until someone else removes it, just to avoid comments on that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

But if its best that I wait until someone comes to remove it, I may be waiting a while. Its already been close to a month since I posted it and the "notice" is still there. --Mjreuter (talk) 13:14, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, good point .. let me do some research. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! --Mjreuter (talk) 13:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Just had a quick look .. I saw one (the only one I clicked...) which was tagged since January 12. That would need attention. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there anything specifically that I should be doing, or is this all up to other people now? --Mjreuter (talk) 13:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It started in October 2009 (and if you see the table on the top-right of that page, it is going up quickly ...). But where to find help, now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
On that article, you can improve, go on with it, or edit something else. I don't think that you can do something specific, except finding other knowledgeable editors who might want to have a look for you at the article. May I interest you for a Wikipedia:WikiProject? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I will think about it, I don't have a lot of free time during my days. But let me get back to you! --Mjreuter (talk) 14:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


ok Mazsa (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:

I followed your advice and the IP no longer seems to be active on any other wikis. Do you think we can unblock it? It's showing up in a database report for unusually long blocks. Thanks, –xenotalk 15:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. The abuse was severe, continuous, and unstoppable at that time, but .. it has been solved. I've unblocked the IP, the library will also have other users who may want to contribute. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
I see you unblocked .. you are aware that that IP is blocked in I don't know how many wikis? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Like the user above it seems they haven't been active since 2010 Jan ? I was just doing some cleanups on indef and unusually long IP blocks per WP:IPBLENGTH. No issue to you reblocking if you think this IP is still a problem. (Shouldn't this be handled at m:Global blocking?) –xenotalk 16:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Lets see. The second IP tried to create an account and edit that way, but got quickly blocked indef on that as well. I think they still have the same IP though, otherwise we would see them editing with a new IP. The other one is one I forgot, and looking back, blocking it for that long is/was useless (seen the plethora of IPs they had available; but well .. WP:RBI sometimes pushes you over the edge and they did manage to re-use some IPs quite often (using the same public computer)). Maybe it should have been, shortly, globally blocked, but I don't know if that existed by then, or if I was aware that that would help. This was quicker, as I could hit the block-button myself.
Thanks anyway for reviewing, though maybe you could, for the latter, have warned the admins that blocked the editor that you lifted the block completely .. if it is blocked for that long there are serious problems, which are not met by just unblocking and waiting until involved admins see the abuse come back ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I seem to remember that COIBot is able to work out who added links to a certain site on the project. Could you check who has added links to per this discussion? Is there anyway to do this without asking you or going on IRC? Thanks Smartse (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

There is another discussion with more info on the blacklist:, the biggest offenders are there. I requested a new report from COIBot (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/, but there are 3118 additions, not sure if COIBot is willing to save that many records. I hope this helps, but if you need a full dump of all additions, then I can get that for you (but it is more work, and not nicely formatted then). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the blacklist discussion, that looks like the best place to continue discussion. I don't think there is much need for the full list of contributors to be honest, it looks more like a reliable sourcing issue than outright spamming to me anyway. Smartse (talk) 14:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No, over 600 links by one editor (a pure SPA) is spamming (whether it is someone involved in the organisation, or a regular contributor linking mainly to his own posts). A good faith bad edit is still a bad edit, and the editor was warned before. I think I stand with my conclusion. Rigorous cleanup, and if spamming continues (either by the same, or by other editors) .. then I am considering blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree it needs cleaning up, I just think it was probably done in good faith. I tend to consider spam as being bad faith. It doesn't matter as the result is the same. Hopefully somebody from WP:SONG might help out. Smartse (talk) 14:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't really exclude that it was done in good faith (though the IP was warned early on ..), but it is stretching it. It was however also used by regulars (though not on this massive scale) .. so that makes me tend towards waiting. The IP is now for sure aware that this was not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of "Mohanad Alwadiya page"

Dear Beetstra,

i have created a page called "Mohanad Alwadiya" this page is under the living people category.

i have created it because i had my training with Mr. Mohanad and he was such an influential figure in my life. he is a reliable source of information to the media and he is always searched by them. so i thought having his page, approved by him, on wikipedia would be a good reference to all the people who want to know about him.

can you please tell me why was the page considered promotional?

thank you

Abhy.harbor (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The language: "is renowned throughout the industry for his professionalism and for producing outstanding results that go above and beyond clients’ expectations"; it was tagged for deletion as spam by someone else, but the general tone is like that. Moreover, the article was totally unreferenced. You might want to read WP:BLP and WP:SPAM to learn more about promotional pages and the impact of biographies. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)



I would like to ask your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania with an important Hungarian population

From the Romanian Constitution: "In Romania, the official language is Romanian". Also, According to Local Public Administration Bill (promulgated in 2001): "Where over 20 of the population is of an ethnic minority, all documents of a legal character will be published in the ethnic minorities' mother tongue.".

My opinion is that according to wiki rules Hungarian names should be listed before for example German names, but still in parantheses, in Italics: Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name, German: German_Name)

We just want to respect the standard naming policy WP:PLACE, Foreign language names and first sentence usage rule

User:Rokarudi, instead of focusing on the discussion, falsely accuses the editors who don't support his POV that are sockpuppets of User:Bonaparte

Can you please express your opinion here?

Thanks in advance for your answer and sorry if it wasn't a good idea to post this message here (Umumu (talk) 16:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

I saw the thread. I think that you might want to put an RfC on the situation, see what established, not involved editors think, and go with that consensus. It is for sure not worth edit warring about. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


New message at mw:Extension_talk:Chemistry#Full_equation ManishEarthTalkStalk 04:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


Hi there. I wanted to let you know I disabled filter 232 because it was destroying filter performance. At the time I disabled it, it was taking over 6ms and 200 conditions on average to run and caused a spike to over 2% of edits not being checked by the edit filter (letting some particularly problematic, i.e., oversight-worthy edits through). With the filter disabled, we're down at 0.02% of edits not being checked. I'd like to optimize the filter so we can get it in, but I don't know enough details about what it's trying to target. Do you have any information? Alternatively maybe you can just take a second look at it yourself to try to help it out. Just an FYI: I think the reason the performance is so poor is because of the "or" operations inside of it. The EF doesn't handle these very gracefully and they tend to destroy the otherwise natural short-circuit logic. If there's a way to eliminate them, that would be best. Thanks! --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I did not notice that. I had to tighten the filter yesterday, as it gave false positives.
The problem is quite massive socking as part of a very long term abuse, now in another style of Joe Jobbing. Current style is to spam the link of the 'enemy' (another wikipedia user of which this is not a sock ..), but aggressive removals or other annoyances are known. See User:Eurobeerguide for examples (though not all socks are identified and found ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:39, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of e-TimeTracker page


I don't understand why you just deleted the content of this page.

Could you please explain it to me or reactivate it ? Thank you. Benoît BEGUIN. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benoit.beguin (talkcontribs) 11:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Plain advertising. Please rewrite a non-advertising version in your userspace (User:Benoit.beguin/e-TimeTracker), thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

--LawrenceOfPersia (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

My Links

You complained about my link to Edward Lane on the Historical Society of Montgomery County Illinois. You said the link looked "spammy". Here on Wikipedia there is 1 short paragraph about Edward Lane. On the Historical Society web site they have 26 copyrighted pages of information on Edward Lane. His marriage certificate, his death certificate, his burial record, a photo of his burial crypt, complete information on his wife, both children, his mother in law, his biography, all his census records, all his families census records, a photo of his home, the history of his home, information on his law office partners and his photo.

The Historical Society of Montgomery County is a nonprofit organization, their web site is free and there is no advertising.

Why did I post the links? Our family has lived here since 1835 and I'm very familiar with the people and places in Montgomery County Illinois.

Thanks for your two warnings and I won't post anymore links to what I consider useful information and you consider spam.

(AceOxygen (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2010 (UTC))

You did not read my message in full, then, I certainly did not complain. I did not say that your links were spammy, I said, at least 2 times, that they are appropriate, useful, etc. etc. I also explained why I put the templated remarks, as they link to the appropriate policies and guidelines, and that they were not meant to be a warning.
I am sorry if you feel bitten, but I do think that you misunderstand my remark completely. I would, as I say in the message, encourage you to carry on editing, especially for the remark 'Here on Wikipedia there is 1 short paragraph about Edward Lane. On the Historical Society web site they have 26 copyrighted pages of information on Edward Lane' I would ask you to continue! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:53, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I did not mention one specific article, why do you think I meant Edward Lane? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


Why didn't you add this two sites to the blacklist?

--Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 08:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I revertlisted them (User:XLinkBot/RevertList). I did not look at what sites were spammed, but this may indeed be bad enough for blacklisting. Is the guy persisting (I don't see any XLinkBot reverts)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Forgot that there was a blacklist request for it as well .. Crystal Clear action edit add.png Added. Thanks for the poke. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

External links


Hi, what should I do, if the External Links section doesn't exist? Thanks.

Signature button.png
When you leave messages, please remember to "sign" your name, by putting ~~~~ (four tilde signs) at the end. This will add your name, and the date and time. You can also do this by clicking the 'sign' button, pictured here.
Did you want to add one? To add a section, you just put the title surrounded by two equals signs. The format of the 'external links' section is;
* [ This is Google]
The asterisk makes a bullet-point. For the policy on what to add, see WP:EL.  Chzz  ►  09:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
For more help, you can either;
  • Leave a message on my own talk page; OR
  • Use a {{helpme}} - please create a new section at the end of your own talk page, put {{helpme}}, and ask your question - remember to 'sign' your name by putting ~~~~ at the end; OR
  • Talk to us live, with this or this.
The last of those is particularly useful - please try it; pop in now and say hello.  Chzz  ►  09:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that I'd like you to discuss first which links to add, LawrenceOfPersia. The links that you have been spamming are not suitable for what we are doing here (writing an encyclopedia). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

David Tang

thank you for your work cleaning this up. i was reliving the life of Sisyphus, with my reasonable edits being reverted by fans of Sir Tang. I was being cautious with my edits, but i fully respect your bold removal of the repository. maybe now it can stay clean.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Always happy to help, but, hmmm, I did quite some cleanup recently. Which one was this? See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man

Dear Mr. Beetstra

Please have a look on this external link I want to place in the lemma "Vitruvian Man".


Probably you want to de-blacklist me.

Vriendelijke groeten, Best regards,

Rob ten Berge

PS Tip: Google (eng): Vitruvian Man -- (talk) 00:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah. You really should start a) reviewing your intentions, and b) read our reliable sources and external link guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
By the way, I have blacklisted this YouTube video. Have you noticed the reverts of things you do:

Stop you blatant self promotion, you are NOT here to improve Wikipedia! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

2-aminopurine structure

Hi Dirk

I think I discovered a small mistake in the 2-aminopurine structure, the hydrogen on the N7 should be on the N9 and the double bond should be between the C8 and the N7 instead of between the C8 and N9. I just registered to wiki so I have no clue how to change this structure myself

Kountraya 15:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you have to go to the Chemicals WikiProject, I am not involved in drawing molecules, but there you can find the specialists. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hp quality center - external link.

Dirk, I am new to Wiki

I saw that you again removed the external link.

Now knowing what to do I have also asked for editor assistance as the link is completely appropriate to the product.

There is a marriage between them. the reporting application cannot work without QC.

I see your view on taking people away from Wiki. Do you think I should add the reporting tool it into Wiki too?



Deansmithok (talk) 13:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions. I saw your edits. No, we are not a linkfarm, that link is not about the product, it is about another product that is closely, but not directly related to the product that the wikipage is talking about. Moreover, you added it to more pages than only this one. Do what has been suggested over and over, discuss on the talkpage. You might even want to consider to write a wikipage about the product you are linking to (if it is notable enough), and that may have a place linked to or from other pages, but your linkplacement is not according our policies and guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, Thanks for getting back to me. I am really a QC man as opposed to a reporting man, but will try with the new item in Wiki. I have emailed qcreporting and ask that someone there does it. It really is a great tool for us that have to use QC. I do not agree that it should not be in the external links. You say it is close but not direct. Then the other QC external links are as irrelevant as they are closely related but not to the product itself, just a web page. They are as close as the reporting tool of QC, hence the name, QCreporting. For us that are in the testing field the reporting tool saves many hours a day of a terrible task. I see your worry of making a linkfarm, but is that not one of the most wonderful things about Wiki. You can research the item and the closely related items should you follow the link - is it not the same as the See Also? Regards


Deansmithok (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When you (or someone else) have created the article, and it is deemed notable enough, then yes, in the See also would be an option, or maybe the text itself can even tell about it. Depends on the situation there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk

I have added a new page in my user talk sandbox. Please could you help with

  • criticizing the page so that I can address any issues before setting it live
  • helping me with adding in the images. I have taken some from my work of fictitious data, but I can't upload them. Can I send them to you for uploading so that I can reference them?

I am also quite nervous about the external links. There were many scary things in that first mail I got from you. At this stage I have left the external links blank. I don't think QCReporting is referenced anywhere in Wiki at the moment. But I think it is worth referencing somewhere. My wife and I are both contract testers and this tool has changed our lives. We both come home before 7pm now :).

If the new page is ok to insert then I could reference it from QC page.

Please let me know.

Kind regards, Dean Dean (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk, I don't know how busy you are.... Are you able to help me with this? Best regards,

 DeanDean (talk) 08:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, got caught up in an annoying spam case. I can't help you with the images, first of all I don't know how to do it (not using that myself), and secondly because I don't know the licencing there.
Regarding the article, this looks like a really good start. I did a bit of things. But I think you should choose a bit different layout, I would move some stuff into a 'history' section, and make that the first or second section after the lede.
You will need some more sources, I am sure that there are some independent reviews about it (i.e. sources which are not connected to the product or to HP, but who are knowledgeable in the field, and preferable where the publication has some form of 'editorial oversight'. I think here it will be typically software review magazines.
You might want to see if there is a suitable WikiProject to help you further. Wikiprojects are 'groups' of Wikipedia editors with similar interests. There is likely one to be about software, or about this type of product, or something like that. Members of such a wikiproject may be able to help you with more specific references, or with some layout and things. Or provide images or help with that. A list of WikiProjects can be found via Wikipedia:WikiProject
Happy editing, and if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Dirk.

That's really great encouragement... I'll look up the reviews and WikiGroups.Dean (talk) 08:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Harborough FM

Thank you for blocking the user who insists on editing the entry for Harborough FM. These are malicious edits and are the work of someone who used to be a part of the organisation but was asked to leave. He seems to be waging a smear campaign against one of the owners of the radio station part of which is editing this entry and linking to his own version of our website. This has been disabled by as he was infringing the copyright of our site. Legal advice is being followed up and in the mean time thank you for reverting his vandalism.Dave Smith (talk) 23:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! The does not work, maybe you could suggest this specific one for blacklisting (see WT:SBL)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Mohanad Alwadiya page


i took your advice and i avoided the promotional tone in my writing. but it still got deleted from your side. can you advise on how to improve my writing?

Abhy.harbor (talk)

Yeah, I am sorry, but it is still way to promoting. I would suggest to look at some other 'similar' pages, and try and create it in User:Abhy.harbor/Mohanad Alwadiya. By the way, if the company Harbor Real Estate is not notable enough, then the owner Mohanad Alwadiya is likely to be less notable. And be sure to include references to reliable sources, independent of the subject(s). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Link Removal


You removed all the links I've added to wikipedia.

  • 10:52, 9 April 2010 (diff | hist) Ambient music ‎ (→External links)
  • 13:52, 25 March 2010 (diff | hist) Type polymorphism ‎ (→External links)
  • 09:31, 12 March 2010 (diff | hist) Domain Name System ‎ (→External links)
  • 09:19, 12 March 2010 (diff | hist) Matrix (mathematics) ‎ (→External links)
  • 09:32, 10 September 2008 (diff | hist) Truth table ‎ (→External links)
  • 09:28, 10 September 2008 (diff | hist) Register machine ‎ (→External links)

Can you clarify exactly what your issue is with each link?


Kind regards, Samuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm still waiting for clarification from you.

I get the feeling that you simply removed all the links without reviewing the actual content. I've reviewed all the polices you've suggested and they don't cover the content I've linked to.

I believe it would have been more appropriate for you to discuss the matter on each pages 'Talk' section rather than blatantly removing all the links.

Kind Regards, Samuel —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did not know we were in a hurry, but well.
No, they do not comply. We are not a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia here. You say that linking to examples is appropriate, no, it is not, why would we link to these examples, there are many sites out there which have examples, or which could be used as examples. And what do examples tell more about the subject then a piece of prose in the text could? Why not include one specific, notable example, and tell something about it. And as the guidelines and policies suggest, "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", so I suggest that you discuss the inclusion on the talkpages first, or maybe find some editors who are knowledgeable in the field and discuss with them (e.g via a wikiproject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 12 April 2010 (UTC)


Why don't you remove all other examples linked on those pages? At least, that would be consistent and your argument would make sense.

Can you please confirm whether you actually reviewed any of the "examples" as you've called them, and again, please clarify on a case by case basis why links which have been okay for over a year are suddenly not okay?

Kind regards, Samuel


On the page "Register machine" there are three external links. Under the criteria you give, you should remove all these links.

 - Wolfram Math: Advertising, doesn't add anything to the article
 - Minsky Register Machine: Doesn't add anything to the article
 - Visual Register Machine: Same as first link (wtf?)

So... can you understand why I'm completely confused by your seemingly random policy of link removal? At least the page on my site which I had a link to had a working interactive truth table generator which actually doesn't have any advertising, doesn't cost anything and actually _enhances_ the article.

Many of the other links were in the same spirit. Please can you _REVIEW_ the links before making such sweeping remarks.

Please clarify your position.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Mwaagh, you might want to read WP:WAX and WP:OTHERLINKS. That other links are there can have other reasons, still you were spamming the link you were adding. If you think other links are also superfluous, please discuss that with knowledgeable editors. If you think your link is appropriate, then discuss that also with other editors. Still, we are not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I've read those policies. They don't explain your behavior, and I don't think they cover the links I've added. Again, you've glossed over all the details with broad sweeping conclusions.

I'll make it really simple for you: How is the link for Register machine to my site spam?

Here is the link:

According to the policies, the other links should also be removed, so can you please do that? If you refuse to do this, can you please explain why not?

Also, sure, I'm happy to discuss it with other editors. Can you please indicate who I should discuss with. Can you please let me know why you don't discuss with the editors before removing links? Wouldn't that make sense and be respectful of peoples contributions?

Kind regards, Samuel—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

No, a) I do not say your link is spam, I said you were spamming it, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. b) the other links that are there are NOT a reason to a) demand removal of others, b) a reason to add more. IF your link warrants inclusion, discuss that on the talkpages, if the other links should not be there, discuss that on the talkpages. As the external links guideline says "The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.". That is not what you are doing. Do you realize that that maybe has happened for the other links? That is EXACTLY why I send you to WP:WAX and WP:OTHERLINKS, and why I now cite the beginning of WP:EL 'it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.'.

So now up to you, can you convince other editors why YOUR link should be included? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


Regarding the comment you made "if the other links should not be there, discuss that on the talkpages". So, why did you not do this?

What link have I been spamming? This link has been on that page for almost 2 years. Over 2 years, I've added about 5 links to Wikipedia. Does this constitute spamming?

Kind regards, Samuel—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Hey, we are all just volunteers here. I did not notice that the other links are .. questionable, I only noticed that your only actions here were to include one link which I did notice to be questionable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
And since you keep asking me, I had a second look, regarding this diff and this very thread, could you please read our conflict of interest guideline? And on the basis of that, you should not be the one including your links, and if you want a reason to remove the others, please show that they were also added by the maintainer of the sites. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


I feel like you are highly prejudiced and inconsistent.

I'll try my best to follow the advice you've given me, but I find your behavior highly offensive.. You don't take the time to answer my questions properly and continually spew forth masses of bureaucracy. I don't think you've directly answered a single question I've asked you.

Samuel—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well, I explained that your link is not a suitable external link, and you were clearly spamming that (you here discuss one example, but other examples of your link additions are clearly to promote something where you expect money for, for example your edit to Ambient music .. I mean, 4 songs, meaning what exactly there, how is that a suitable external link and how is that not spam). For some other edits, sure, maybe it is appropriate, but the onus is on you, as you want to include your link. That other links are (maybe) also questionable is not of concern for the inclusion of your link.
I gave you a good faith remark, and a welcome. That contains the remark 'please discuss it on the article's talk page' (and of course you are more than welcome to discuss here as well).
You come here to discuss why I removed your links, well, I explained (in the first remark to you) already that that link fails our external links guideline, we are not a linkfarm, and you seem to be spamming. That is why I removed it.
Why did I not remove the other links, well, I did not notice, and I would need to fully research why those links are included and by whom. You may be right, maybe they are also superfluous (especially the double one), but that deviates from the argument why your links should be included.
I may not have answered your questions directly, but you also don't seem to be able to tell me why this was a necessary edit. Over the last 3 years your only reason for coming to contribute to Wikipedia is to add your links. And only when you are made aware of this, you start complaining about the other links. You may be offended by my behaviour, I myself are equally offended that you seem to be here only to promote your own goods, what, even to earn money?. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk - grabbing at straws are we? All that music is available for free. If you want it on a CD I'll happily provide it to you - thats what costs money.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Straws, no, your link additions fail our external links guideline, you promote your site. Even if it is for free, thát is not the issue, the issue is that you are promoting your site. You really do not grasp that the external links guideline (and all other policies and guidelines here) are written by many editors here, and are generally agreed upon. Your links fail that guideline, and you were spamming them. That is why I removed them, and that is what I said early on. You fail to get that that type of edits are not welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Let me answer your question. There are no links on the ambient music page to any actual music. The music I've made available is under a CC license and I thought people might enjoy to have an example of music available. If that link wasn't appropriate, by all means remove it - but the removal of all links without review?... what are you thinking?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

That is what I also said already, the onus is on you, you want them included. As I said, the external links guideline is agreed upon by many editors, and it is explicitly spelled out in there. Removal of external links does not need widescale approval (though when the links do add or are added under broad consensus, deletion of them could be called vandalism, but here there is no consensus, and I still have to see if they add, some sure did not). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk - since you are so fantastic at removing links, can you review the following:

I think whether my edits are welcome or not should be decided by concensus - not by you. I've taken the motivation to start a discussion on the relevant pages - which is something you should have done in the spirit of improving wikipedia, not simply deleting content.

Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I'm done with you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I cited the text, all the editors who wrote the external links guideline disagree with you. Sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Just in case, if you'd like to reach a wider public, you could go to e.g. the external links noticeboard, or find a WikiProject (Wikipedia:WikiProject for a directory) which would be in line with the articles you edited. That would give a good second opinion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Dirk - I'm not interested in reaching a wider audience - I'm simply concerned with improving Wikipedia.

Some of the other pages also need your attention:

sure, and many more. I've pointed you towards where to find second opinions and more info.
But to help you out of the dream .. content, as in written prose, thát is what helps Wikipedia. Not only the addition of external links, I already pointed you to 'what wikipedia is not', let me also tell you what wikipedia actually is. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Sentry Gun Page

I've been watching you fight with this other guy on the sentry gun page. it seems that you are in the wrong here. you don't allow the paintball sentry website but you allow the other commercial one. if there is to be no commercial advertising then the samsung sentry links should be removed also since it is the same thing but much more expensive. i think you've clearly let your personal bias guide your editing instead of logic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

CLEARLY links to commercial products are allowed as evident by the fact that you allow the samsung sentry links to remain on the page, clearly. So you already contradict yourself there. I've got hundreds of unbiased references for the sentry project website and it is the only site selling sentry guns one the web (dare you to even attempt to prove me wrong). it is the same thing as the samsung sentry but much, much cheaper and non-lethal. And, like the samsung sentry, there is no competition for it. the sentry project website ranks higher (#1) than even the sentry gun wiki page proving even further that it is absolutely relevant. all the reasons which you make up in your head for the sentry project removal also apply to the samsung sentry proving your illogical bias. you couldn't come anywhere close to proving me wrong on that one either. at the very least the sentry project website should be allowed in the references or the external links. that sentience "There are also real, fully autonomous sentry guns for hobbyists" is singularly referring to the sentry project website. (so are a few others.) how can i know that? I put them there d**b**s! if you were less dense you would've noticed that in the edit history. all this brings me to my final point, since external linking to commercial products is clearly allowed as evident by your actions, what's it going to take, or what does the site have to be in your distorted, biased view, to be allowed on the page (in the references or external links section in the very least)? if we can't come to an agreement the page will be constantly vandalized like it has been since you began your misguided, uninformed, illegitimate editing. I am well aware of all of the bots and tools at your disposal. any new utilization of them will be circumvented just like they have been before.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You are only here to promote your link, nothing else. YOUR link is inappropriate on Sentry gun, ESPECIALLY in the way you are linking it. Talking about the other link (that you remove in order to add yours, which makes it clear you are only here to promote YOUR site) is a) a question of WP:WAX/WP:OTHERLINKS, b) may be discussed and hence found merit for inclusion, what was not done with YOUR link, c) is linked only in the external links section (while you find it necessary to spread your link all over the article), d) your link is TOTALLY inappropriate on this page, it is about a sentry gun for Paint Ball, not about a Sentry gun itself, e) your link is undiscussed completely, and f) you are free to discuss removal of that link on the talkpage. Stop your self promoting, you are not only damaging Wikipedia, your link can now not be used here, and we can not exclude that e.g. Google uses the contents of our blacklist to adapt search rankings on your site, in which way you have hereby damaged your site quite a bit. I am sorry, but spammers are not welcome here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Edits by Piskov

Beetstra, I see your point on external links to recipes and I get it. I will add those only when they pertain to ingredients, history or customs for examples. As to reverting edits though, please be careful. Many of those pages contained errors which I fixed (including internal Wiki links) and reverting the page to a previous state erradicated those too. I will go in and make them again, but again please be careful when reverting a page going forward.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Piskov (talkcontribs)

I did notice that on some occasions, and have in many cases only removed recipe links from the external links sections (not only this one). I will try and take more care. Thanks for the remark, happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Link removal 2


Can you please explain why did you remove all the links I have worked hard to collect for all the internet users?

I really do not see what is the advantage of removing the items I dugg for hours, and preventing people access the solution vendors.

Please, explain.

Thanks, Aharon—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonh (talkcontribs)

Well, see 'we are not the yellow pages' (and there is more in that policy that applies to said lists). If people need those links, google is there, or dmoz. Those links in such lists are inappropriate, they should be linking to the wikipage instead. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Links to Cosmetic Analysis

Hi Dirk,

thanks for supporting Wikipedia.

I am sorry for bothering you, but I noticed that your Bot removed my links to Having read the guidlines for linking to external sites in-depth, I understand that it is not allowed to publish more than 2 links on the Wikipedia network without permission.

Even though, I think that Cosmetic Analysis can provide valuable additional information to visitors of Wikipedia. Our website offers manufacturer-neutral, scientific, and well-balanced information on cosmetic products and ingredients. Cosmetic Analysis' main goal is to protect consumers and propagate the importance of skin health to the public. Thus, some of the product and ingredient analyses available on Cosmetic Analysis may be of interest to Wikipedia's readers.

Some examples of such analyses:

In order to finance the scientific research and to keep the website free from advertisments, a paid membership is required to view all information on Cosmetic Analysis. However, I want to provide links (like the examples above) that do not require a membership.

I know that these links will work as a promotion of Cosmetic Analysis. But they also offer a real value beyond the information that Wikipedia provides. And, as you may have noticed on some of the analysis pages, we also offer links to Wikipedia's INCI page, where it provides useful information.

Dear Dirk, I hope you understand my sincere intentions. Will you grant permission to publish our links?

Looking forward to your reply.


André Pankratz, webmaster of Cosmetic Analysis

Cosmeticanalysis (talk) 13:56, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark and explanation. First, there is no-one who grants someone to do something here, but certain things should not be done. I am afraid that, even if I would find it OK, many others would disagree. And well, I do have problems with link additions only. Editors who only add links tend to violate WP:SPAM, links quickly violate one or more points of WP:ELNO, and you, as webmaster, would also have a conflict of interest. Better not to just add links, but to discuss. But:
You say that your website provides information beyond Wikipedia. So why not actually try and enhance Wikipedia itself by adding information (i.e., content, not links only) to the pages here on Wikipedia. Then links, even those behind a pay-wall, can be used as references, and that would a) benefit Wikipedia, but also b) benefit you. I mean, then your information is really used for what it is worth.
May I suggest you to contact a suitable WikiProject, you can find a list via here: Wikipedia:WikiProject. In such WikiProjects editors with similar interests come together and organise the articles they find interesting. If you find a suitable WikiProject there, then you might be able to interest its members, and they might be interested in the information you have to offer, and use that information.
I hope this helps, and I wish you happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:17, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. I like your proposal and will discuss it with the representatives of Cosmetic Analysis.
I will be looking for a suitable WikiProject. At a first glance, extending the stubs in could also be useful, as well as adding information to cosmetic ingredients like What do you think about that?
I am a bit concerned about the "spam alert page" that has been generated about Cosmetic Analysis by your Bot: Is there any possibility to remove that page? I didn't mean to spam at all!
Again, thank you very much. --Cosmeticanalysis (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a good start. There are many pages which need attention. Be careful with the parabens, they are subject to much controversy (as are some other groups of chemicals), and editors are easily blocked on that type of articles if they don't keep really strict to the neutral point of view policy.
The report is just a report, telling what happened. You could consider to give a remark at the bottom, in the discussion section.
You might want to have a look at WP:USERNAME, and be careful that you use only one account per person (and not more persons on one account, or use multiple accounts simultaneously; your current username may be blocked as it would violate that policy, which does not have anything to do with the person behind it, but just on the basis of a name). Happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


Thanks for blocking User: Their new attempt at a WhiteSmoke article has been refused. I had one CSD'd about a year ago. WhiteSmoke software is a pure marketing scam. Based mainly on heavy and sophisticated spamming by paid spammers, a fake website with fake testimonials and a fake customer support forum, they sell a product that does not work. All references and links to this 'company' in Wikipedia should be deleted. --Kudpung (talk) 13:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I encountered them before as well. But maybe blocking the IP for a year will finally get the message through that Wikipedia is not going to be the place to be .. though it is a good example of the persistence of spammers, many get fooled by the 'oh, it is just a form of vandalism' .. no .. this shows that they earn money by spamming, and they will persist. Thanks for the support!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Bohm Dialogue

Hi - I am one of the people who contributed to the article. I am going through the revisions and notice that you contributed to it. I have a question for you, please. Under Links, several of them were deleted. Was that you, the bot, or just how and why did that happen? Can you fill me in? Thank you. Ahalani (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Both, IIRC. Some of the links there were inappropriate, the page is about the Bohm Dialogue, not about specific groups which practice the Bohm Dialogue or similar examples. If a group that is practicing (am I using the right word) the Bohm Dialogue is notable enough for Wikipedia, it should have an own page here, and there a link to the groups' website would be appropriate. That is what is meant with WP:ELNO #13 'directly linked to the subject'. Interviews with Bohm which largely are about the Bohm Dialogue might be suitable, though then they might also serve as (additional) references. I hope this explains why I removed some of the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:47, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Baker

Why delete the information on Steven Baker? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehallmec (talkcontribs) 13:57, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered already on User talk:XLinkBot, and there are several remarks on your talkpage regarding that subject. However, if you have any further questions, don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Genostar link

Dear Beetstra,

Could you tell me why you have suppressed the link of Genostar in the Bioinformatics companies list? Genostar is a real bioinformatic company.

Regards, Pierre —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierocielo (talkcontribs) 23:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, you see:
  • Geneious combines many DNA and protein sequence analysis tools.
    • a Wikilink, some text .. the link should have done it
  • Genomatix offering biology driven analysis pipelines for microarray analysis, ChIP on Chip and Solexa/454 data. Multiple tools and databases for analysis of gene regulation. Comparative genomics and most complete and quality checked genomic annotation for 17 species.
    • a Wikilink, quite some text, the link only should have done it
  • Inte:Ligand
    • Well, this is formatted as it should be
  • Korea Computer Centre Sinhung Company
    • Also, as it should be
And you add
  • Genostar provides streamlined bioinformatics solutions to optimize and accelerate research processes: sequence assembly, mapping, annotation transfer and identification of protein domains, comparative genomics, structural searches, metabolic analysis, modeling and simulation of biological networks
An external link, quite some text. I am sorry, the only reason you add that link, is for promotional reasons. And that is exactly why I removed it. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm, and we are not here to promote a company. If it is notable enough, try writing an article on it, and use a wikilink to link to it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Sentry gun

Ambox warning pn.svg

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Sentry gun. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sentry gun (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

!voted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Birch reduction

Hi there.

I chose your name (and four others) from WikiProject Chemistry, specifically for organic, as an active Wikipedian in the field, who might be able to help.

I have been working to help Howard Zimmerman with the article about Birch reduction. Prof. Zimmerman wrote a new, much more detailed article - I helped them format it, and tried to help with avoiding WP:OR and suchlike. It has now been merged into the original article, but I am most concerned about these types of remarks he made;

while Wikipedia is great for non-scientific stuff, for scientific stuff the editors and administrators seem to want textbook material and not the original refereed literature. Thus V8rik thought that Jerry March's book (great for superficial coverage) on two pages has only the basics of the Birch Reduction and nothing really on its mechanism. The texts don't touch the matter with rare exceptions. So to rely on texts and to treat refereed literature by experts in the field as either irrelevant or wrong - seems crazy to people who work directly with the subject. The texts often are laden with errors and don't keep up with advances.

I wonder if you could contact Hezimmerman (talk · contribs). I am sure they have a lot to offer Wikipedia, if only they are guided in the way we work together.

Many thanks,  Chzz  ►  01:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for a couple of days due to family matters, but I was already made aware of this situation. Interesting situation, which seems quite busy with resolving itself, but I'll keep an eye. Prof. Zimmerman certainly has a point, Wikipedia can advance past Jerry March, we don't have to stop there, but on the other hand, we do not have to keep up with the current knowledge too close ('established knowledge'), it has to stop at 'well established knowledge'. Thanks for taking this up. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

External Link Spam

Hi Dirk,


Also, you might want to review all the other links there most of them are spam. Is there any way to easily see who added a link for checking conflicts of interest?—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

User:COIBot does that to a certain extend, but not the network-heavy stuff (doing a whois on every IP, and match certain strings from the result .. which might be great, but is difficult).
Anyway, that stuff should go, that type of link, any online calculator except if it is the subject of the page (i.e., that the page is about that specific calculator, not that the page is about general calculators and the page linked to is about a specific one) should go. I have emptied the section. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Cross-wiki spam, by the way. Multiple accounts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:45, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

external link to farmville community

Hi Is there a particular reason you have denied the farmville community a link to their new tips page,


(Pstanbra (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC))
Yes, see the external links guideline. 'Yet another cheats page or otherwise community page for farmville'. Not of much use, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:05, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Removal of links on Fraternity Page

I am a Brother of Alpha Phi Delta, and not only did you remove the links from chapter websites, but you removed the listing of all chapters with a statement "This is not the yellow pages." I can understand your view of the links but this aren't spam links and how and what gives you the right to remove all the chapter listings. Every Fraternity has a listing of it's chapters.

Definitely not cool.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

That does not make them right. See WP:WAX and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

My Warning

Hey Beetstra... I appreciate your efforts to reduce Spam on Wikipedia. Today I Received a Warning from you regarding me adding a spam link. The issue is that this computer is used by many users, and I am the Administrator of this Computer. I am a very frequent user of Wikipedia and I like to edit Wikipedia Articles if they have any mistakes or if a new discovery has been made, but i never add links, all i do is edit the passage. I would Request you to cancel the Warning. I will try my best to figure out who has added the spam links. I do realise that you did this for the good of Wikipedia, but if another spam link is posted by this spammer, I will lose out on a lot. I will make internet restrictions for non-admin users more strict and will make sure that this wont happen.

Again, i request you to remove this warning as it will put me in a difficult position.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well, the spammer has been using your computer, though it will be clear that the IP is used by more editors, and no-one here will hold it against you that you have that there, it is just a record of one editor on that IP that used it quite some time ago.
In principle, you can remove the info (though it may be frowned upon; you could consider archiving it to User talk: 1, link to that archive from User talk: and insert a template at the top stating that the IP is used by multiple users. You might want to have a look who exactly used that computer that day to perform the edit (as they used more IPs in the range) and .. talk to them. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecco Pro

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. YSWT (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I started the thread, and you still did not answer my questions. And for your accusations, well ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

linkspam question

Hi, Dirk. I recall there was report page which listed ELs whose host IP was in close proximity to the IP of the anon-user who added it to an article. Now I can't locate either the page or my bookmark and thought you might be a good candidate to ask about it: do you know what I'm talking about and could I trouble you to point me to the page? Cheers. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean their mention on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports (subpages, by date), or on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports (subpages, domain)? I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks -- it was the latter. It was hiding in plain sight: I had looked at the page but for some reason didn't recognize it as what I was looking for. Thanks again! -- Rrburke (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


I'm reviewing some older SBL requests and trying to determine if they are stale or still ongoing issues. To get a refreshed COIBot report, to I just need to re-poke the url ... or do I need to delete the original report page first? I wasn't sure if a report page already exists, would the bot regenerate a new one, or use that as a sign to skip over the poke as already completed (even if outdated)? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 16:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

It just overwrites the old version, so you could potentially even look at the diff and see what is added (though the bot changes so much that sometimes the diffs don't make real sense).
If the files are the same, then it might seem that the bot did not save the report .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I was hoping that was how it worked. --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 17:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Harbor Real Estate

i have done the changes your what do i do now?

and thanks for your prompt responses—Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhy.harbor (talkcontribs)

I'll have a look. Give me a minute. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:37, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I guess, one option is to use the move-tab and move it into mainspace .. and hope that others agree that it is notable enough, properly referenced, etc. Just give it a try. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

thanks, i'll try it now

Abhy.harbor (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

COIBot poke

COIBot has been missing quite a few pokes lately, e.g. [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]. What's up with that? MER-C 11:28, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No clue, it appears that sometimes it does not process them properly. The last ones here were processed, but there were no new additions found, so the report did not change, and hence, the bot did not update. But I'll keep an eye, things seem strange. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If it saves, it should be in User:COIBot/LinkReports .. if it is not there, COIBot really missed the addition, otherwise the report just did not update as there were no new additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
For a lot of those domains, there was no report. Isn't it meant to spit out something like this? And no, they didn't appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/m:User:COIBot/LinkReports (the one currently remaining turned out as a red link) until just now. MER-C 12:46, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
If there are no additions, they are indeed supposed to be like that.
But you are right, there is something wrong, sometimes they simply don't save. I am not sure where that is. When I am looking, then COIBot is picking up the edit, the domain gets into the queue, but sometimes, saving .. no .. I'll run through the code, and see if I can find why. Thanks for poking me .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

My message about you threatening to ban me!

I'm sorry, all those links are totally fine, I know the bands well and we are good friends with them and they all approve of bright young folk. It's a great site that gives extra information about the subject. I have heard bands say they use that site themselves to see when their gigs are because they are so unorganized. Those links of great help and relevance. I agree with you removing spam links but they certainly aren't spam! If you have MSN I would be happy to speak to you there.

So lets have a look here:

What to link

There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link.

* Is the site content accessible to the reader? * Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? * Is the link functional and likely to remain functional?

All of those questions the answer is yes, so I don't see why they are being deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Only Random Person (talkcontribs) 16:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

True, but also:
  • "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.".
And as I said in the last message, we are writing an encyclopedia here. The interviews you want to link to might be useful to extend the article, not just there as external links. And seen the edits of the IP who originally inserted them, see WP:SPAM (and that goes for the action, not necessarily for the link, especially here).
And as the guidelines also say, when in doubt, go to the talkpage, and I personally always suggest to go to a Wikipedia:WikiProject and see if you can be of help with an appropriate one, or vice-versa. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

What's your problem?!

Can't you just leave the page alone, it's not for some huge rock star it's for a small folk musician so please stop being so pedantic. I have been asked by the person whose page it is to improve it because people keep on deleting things from it and reducing it to a few sentences beacasue people like you who don't know the facts are removing things. I understand what you mean about 'it's not a linkfarm' but what I'm linking to are websites that regularly post updates and edit things so I can't copy down the whole website into the article and change it every time they update the site. And I'm not stupid I have checked if any of things I have written about have a wiki page but they don't. So I haven't linked it because I think the red text that goes no-where looks untidy. None of the sites I have linked are off-topic or trying to sell things. They are totally relevant and useful. The sites I have linked are either the bands official site or have their full blessing. I don't mean to be rude but you're going way over the top. Please stop ruining it. Thanks.

The Only Random Person (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

@Beetstra: Clearly there is a problem. Is it fun to threaten contributors ? Does it give you a sense of power ? As a real person and very legit person using my same handle here as everywhere on the web, my words may be cause for some reflection. You've threatened me, (and other editors a the Ecco_Pro article), and you've threatened multiple editors who complain on your talk page. Do you not see a pattern ?
Let's assume the source of your threats is some sincere desire to help the wikipedia. If you have to resort to threats that means your other communication or the way you do things has FAILED. And clearly, has failed repeatedly. Maybe you just feel you are smarter than everyone else, or that the wiki is 'owned' by those who delete lots of stuff from lots of articles ? In any case, if you're resorting to threats you're missing the coolest part of actually being part of a community. Which is what wikipedia was, and I sure hope still is. Just some food for thought. YSWT (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
YSWT, mind your own business. If you have complaints about me, start a thread for that, but stay away from others.
The Only Random Person, I have pointed you to the guidelines, the links you are adding are NOT appropriate. Sorry, but please read them again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at article for Reid Stowe


I need some help with a certain editor who insists on putting defamatory information about Reid Stowe in this article. I have tried over the last week to reason with this guy, but he is getting unmanageable. I need to find out how to take care of an issue with edit wars on BLP's, as I am relatively new here and do not know all the proper channels. Please see my comment at Talk:Reid_Stowe/Archive_1#Child_Support_and_Smuggling. I have already left a warning at the individual's talk page.

I noticed that you have done some appropriate editing in this regard at the said article, so I thought you might be able to direct me as to the proper course of action. Skol fir (talk) 20:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I may have found what I was looking for here: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.
If you have anything else that might help, let me know.
Skol fir (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I watchlisted the article .. maybe it is time for some protection there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

As one of the minor editors of said Wiki entry, it is my opinion that Skol fir is being the unreasonable one here. ANY reference to Stowe's past which sheds an unfavourable light, no matter how well documented by reliable third-party coverage is being deleted/contested, whereas ANYTHING with a positive light is being allowed regardless of the source. Sometimes, the source(s) for the positive information is/are exactly the same publications as the information with the negative information, but ONLY the negative information is being deleted or contested. As this is an article about Reid Stowe, I would think for it to be a balanced entry would mean that either all the reliable information pro or con should be included or the entry as a whole should be marked for deletion. I'd rather not have that happen. A link to (The LARGEST online sailing website on the planet) has even been marked by an admin as a spam site. Clearly, it is not. Regards Aloha27 (talk) 09:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I only see reverting going on, I have not looked into who is the bad party. I did see that here parts of referenced material are deleted, whether positive or negative, the ongoing reverting tells me that there is no consensus for it. I hope that protecting will enforce that discussion to come to an end and that a stable version will develop from it.
Seen that this saves, shows that this is not blacklisted. And there is a difference between being a spam site, and a site being spammed. The latter is a reason to blacklist, the former actually is not.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Oh, wait. Now I see .. I already earlier came to this. Continuous pushing, and no discussion. I'll remove the specific forum link you are referring to .. note, a forum is NOT a WP:RS .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your prompt response. I do not believe there is a "bad party" involved in this, only an extremely one-sided article which disallows almost any attempt at balance, which I believe is paramount to any Wikipedia entry. Thanks again! Aloha27 (talk) 10:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello Beetstra - Thank you for getting involved with this. If you follow the history of the article over the past couple weeks as well as the discussion page, you will note that while claiming neutrality, Skol fir's edits are clearly meant to shine the most favorable light on the subject of the article. A member of the subject's on-shore staff could not have done a better job of using Wikipedia as a marketing tool to promote the subject's current voyage and drive traffic to the voyage's official website where they are solicited for donations. The voyage's website and direct quotes from the subject of the article make up the vast majority of the article's content, making the article a self promotional autobiography.
There are a couple of very significant things about the subject's past which need to be included in the article:
Drug Conviction - Even Skol fir, who appears to be intimately familiar with Reid Stowe does not deny Mr. Stowe's conviction for drug smuggling and his time served in prison. He simply challenges the source - Gothamist. Perhaps not the best source, but there are others, including a link Skol fir added to an article in which the subject himself indirectly acknowledges this important chapter in his life -
"Stowe has his detractors: authors of Internet posts who paint him as a fraudulent, Svengali-like figure who seduces women and spirits them into danger. One blogger pointed out that Stowe had been convicted of drug dealing.
He acknowledges having served nine months in prison for conspiracy to deal drugs in the Caribbean — helping transfer marijuana from a Colombian vessel to some yachts in 1987."


Child Support -- At the time of his departure, Reid Stowe owed a substantial amount of money in back child support and NY had a warrant out on him. This is also a critical aspect of Reid Stowe's life and very significant when one considers he is returning home very soon and will meet his son who was conceived on the voyage for the first time. In this instance, Skol fir challenges the validity of the source - The New York Daily News (NYDN), however Skol fir appears comfortable with the many cites in the article from the NYDN contain favorable information about the subject. The NYDN is a respected source of information and the author of the article in question did his homework to verify his facts with the proper authorities.
External Links - There were 3 external links that provided additional sources of information on the subject of the article and his voyage. These were repeatedly removed by supporters of Mr. Stowe and were eventually black listed. These links contained information and commentary that were often contrary to the message the subject of the article and his supporters are trying to deliver. What we are now left with, are three external links which only tell the story that the subject and his supporters want Wiki users to see.
Though editors don't have to be neutral in their approach to a subject, the resulting article does need to tell all sides of a story.
I would ask that you revert the paragraph about the subjects drug smuggling and child support issues, including adding an additional reference to the article above from the SF Chronicle and restore the 3 external links that have been black listed. Otherwise, you might as well simply delete the entire article. As it stands now, this Wikipedia article is little more than a free, autobiographical advertisement meant to drive traffic to Mr. Stowe's website and increase revenue to his PayPal account.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to comments. Regatta dog (talk) 16:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
It is all fine with me, get consensus on the talkpage with each other, or try to involve other knowledgeable editors (I am not, and I will stay away from content decisions). Edit warring, even when right, is not getting you or Wikipedia anywhere. Be careful reverting, discuss first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the direction, Beetstra. I've asked Gosgood to try and help out. He created the article and has played the role of mediator on a number of occasions. Regatta dog (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Zoybar is a great example of an open hardware project

Why did you remove their link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bborg96 (talkcontribs) 14:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

See the external links guideline and the warning I left you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following is a summary of the remedies enacted:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may, in his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor editing Gibraltar or other articles concerning the history, people, or political status of Gibraltar if, after a warning, that editor repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia in connection with these articles.
  • Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently the Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard) or the Arbitration Committee.
  • Gibnews (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing the Gibraltar article and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for one year. Should Gibnews return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Gibnews is strongly warned that nationally or ethnically offensive comments are prohibited on Wikipedia and that substantial sanctions, up to a ban from the site, will be imposed without further warning in the event of further violations.
  • Justin A Kuntz (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from editing Gibraltar and other articles concerning the history, people, and political status of Gibraltar, broadly construed, for three months. Should Justin A Kuntz return to editing relating to Gibraltar following this period, he is reminded to edit in accordance with the principles discussed in this decision and will be subject to the discretionary sanctions remedy should he fail to do so.
  • Ecemaml (talk · contribs) is admonished for having, at times, assumed bad faith and edited tendentiously concerning the history and political status of Gibraltar.
  • Editors are reminded that when editing in subject areas of bitter and long-standing real-world conflict, it is all the more important to comply with Wikipedia policies such as assuming good faith of all editors including those on the other side of the real-world dispute, writing with a neutral point of view, remaining civil and avoiding personal attacks, utilizing reliable sources for contentious or disputed assertions, and resorting to dispute resolution where necessary.
  • Any editor who is closely associated with a particular source or website relating to the subject of Gibraltar or any other article is reminded to avoid editing that could be seen as an actual or apparent attempt to promote that source or website or to give it undue weight over other sources or website in an article's references or links. To avoid even the appearance of impropriety, it may be best in these circumstances to mention the existence of the source or website on the talkpage, and allow the decision whether to include it in the article to made by others.

For the Arbitration Committee, ---- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 23:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism taskforce and your CheMoBot

I've recently created a new project oriented towards subtle vandalism, something that edit filter is under-equipped to handle. Johnuniq suggested your bots as a possible / working solution. I'd appreciate your input at the taskforce and on its talkpage. Shadowjams (talk) 09:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll have a look, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)



You deleted my page but I wasn't done working on it. It wasn't even published. How can I change it/get it back? The material wasn't saved elsewhere.

Thanks Itcwaterloo (talk) 13:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)itcwaterloo

Well, it would need a big, big rewrite before complying with our policies and guidelines. I have undeleted it (it is now here, but I would really want you to review the policies and guidelines, and make it, significantly, less promotional, otherwise it will certainly be re-deleted before it gets published or when it gets published. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Are the external links a problem? Itcwaterloo (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)itcwaterloo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcwaterloo (talkcontribs) 17:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be one, yes, but also the language, the style, etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you poke COIBot?

I've had some stuff listed at User:COIBot/Poke for about 24 hours.

I very much appreciate your making this tool available to all of us. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The bot had some severe problems last Wednesday, and afterwards I did some upgrading (you can now see the sizes of the queues, which may help in getting an idea of how long it will take before things get saved), and this weekend it has been down for almost a day (Versageek restarted it ..). As MER-C mentioned below, the bot did not save at all. I will have a look, but I think the problem was that there were some 'XWiki' and 'Local' reports waiting, and the poked ones never came to work. Queue now seems fine. I hope it all works now. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
You might want to know, that XLinkBot now can use multiple revertlists (they are all listed from User talk:XLinkBot], bot in the right top corner). MER-C now has a 'private' list as well (see User:MER-C/RevertList.css), so they can revertlist domains they is working on while considering blacklisting etc. (it makes the case stronger if the editors are warned quickly (especially IPs might get the banner then ..) and it can be seen if they insist in reverting the bot; and it may keep mainspace cleaner so one has less work cleaning up before blacklisting). Also COIBot has a 'private' list, which can be updated by command from IRC (while still keeping the required logs for the why on-wiki).
If you'd like a 'private' list as well for that purpose, you can make it so in the settings (both m:User:LiWa3/Settings and User:XLinkBot/Settings need to be adapted .. LiWa3 refreshes its settings a bit slow, so it may take a bit of time before it really works). Though you have direct access to the 'real' revertlist. Happy hunting! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hidden categories?

Do you think User:CheMoBot could hide categories like Category:Drugboxes_which_contain_changes_to_verified_fields and Category:Drugboxes which contain changes to watched fields (which I happened to encounter on Escitalopram)? (talk) 22:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That should be set on the categories, it is not something that CheMoBot controls (it only 'controls' whether the page should be in the category). I think the cat should have a template on it. Will have a look when I come to it. In a way, it should be solved, either by correcting the 'offending' entries, or when those are correct, by updating the 'correct' revid in the index. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:26, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

XLinkBot and supplementary revertlists

[18] [19] MER-C 09:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

COIBot died totally. MER-C 12:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

GOOD, so that works. Thanks for letting me know, and enjoy using the tool.

Yep, severe problems with COIBot, I don't know what happened, but something made the bot die completely. Versageek restarted the bot. When you notice that the bot has died, notify also Versageek, they can also restart the bot, one of us should be around, normally (I obviously was not this weekend, just for a sec to poke Versageek, and later for a sec to see if all worked again). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Substing Welcome Templates

Just a quick note, can you make sure you subst welcome templates when you add them to a users talk page? Thanks =] ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 19:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


Laff alert.svg The References removed tag count has now exceeded 200,000. Although seriously, that's a sign that Wikipedia might want to modify the edit filters. mechamind90 21:22, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Why? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Any filter may need more to allow and disallow. Note that I was not specifically saying that the References removed filter should be changed, but others like Repeating characters and Nonsense characters should probably be more strict.
I mentioned it to you, not specifically saying you are the one who should do it if it's needed, but according to public filter details you were the last one to modify it.
But I wouldn't know (my log is publicly empty) if it is affected by "Preview". If it is, it needs more to disallow. If not, both allow and disallow could be examined. mechamind90 06:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm still confused. The filters you are referring to are all set to 'tag', not to disallow (and they should). It is not forbidden to remove references, there are cases that repeating characters should be there, and there are cases where nonsense characters are sensical. These are merely edits which may need a second eye, as they, often, are a problem, but they can't be set to disallow, as that would be to bitey. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Tellurous acid

Your picture you added doesn't work. Thanks. --Chemicalinterest (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the filename from the box. That helps in autocategorisation of the box (see Category:Chemical_pages_needing_a_structure_drawing), which is (should be?) monitored by the editors who make images. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

CoIBot Whitelist

JamesSteamPacket (talk · contribs) is interested in the Isle of Man Steam Packet Company, and his edits there trip the CoIbot filter. Is this a suitable candidate for the whitelist? Mjroots (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I had a quick look. James trips COIBot just for what COIBot was designed to do :-). But a quick glance at the edits shows that the COI here is not a problem (which is certainly does not need to be ..), and I have hence whitelisted the user globally. COIBot will practically ignore James from now on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spam blacklist update

Hi, please see an update at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Abercrombie_and_Fitch_variations - thanks. AV3000 (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Changed the rules .. ;-) .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again! AV3000 (talk) 20:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding: the "spamming" of the article "Baldness treatment"

I published this originally in my talk page (, and I'm writing directly to you as well. This is in regards to

First, I am sorry if I broke any wikipedia rules.

The link I was refering to is blacklisted by Wikipedia, and although I had searched for a reason, I could not find it. I did not know that when a link is blacklisted you may not even mention the fact that it exists.

But more important than that - why did you delete my entire edit, and not just the reference to that link? The information I had added was true and well-phrased: there were no direct allegations against the drug manugacturer and only FACTS were mentioned.

Wikipedia is an important source of information. For me personally, I read Wikipedia's article about it first, and was about to take this drug, when I stumbled upon other references that mention its side effects. I consider myself saved from a potential disaster.

Men who are considering this drug should have access to this information.

Thanks, (talk) 15:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and the information you state in that diff:

An online forum for those who suffer from these phenomena can be found online, but is for some reason blacklisted by Wikipedia and cannot be added as a reference to this paragraph.[1][2]

is just that: 'an online forum for those who suffer from these phenomena can be found online'.. sure, forums exist for everything, but is it notable enough to link here. And that text is plainly confusing.

Now the ref: ''. Many, many blogs fail our reliable sources guideline, and so does this. Same goes for YouTube. Anyone can publish anything there. Hence, that information is totally unreliable. Please find better sources, and next time, please word your additions neutrally. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand and accept your comments about my references. However, I still believe that the fact that several people claim to have been permanently, irreversibly hurt because of a drug is important in itself. This is not said about every drug out there.

I ask that you let me add this information back in, this time worded more carefully, without the references. (talk) 04:55, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Still, it is soapboxing. Facts about people being hurt by drugs would be welcome, that users come together to talk about negative effects of drugs is probably true for every drug (I know we have articles about negative effects of quite common drugs), if it is significant, I would suggest that you try to write something like that .. but mentioning the forum is .. on the edge. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

When I wrote "without the references" I was thinking about the forum as well. I will only mention the fact that several people have made claims about the drug, and if I find a reliable source, I will reference that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

 :-) OK, thanks, and happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


Please could advise why you have deleted 4 hours of my work updating the UWIC wikipage. It is now incorrect. The template is similar to what other universities have put together. For instance Oxford Brookes. The information was correct,non advitorial copy and the images are images that i shot myself and clarified within the information saved with the images.

Please advise on your decision to revert back to the old copy.


Ruth —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwic2008 (talkcontribs) 14:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are free to correct, but as I said "With a proud history tracing back to 1865, the University of Wales Institute, Cardiff (UWIC)[1] provides an extensive portfolio of student-centred and career-focused learning opportunities that are accessible, flexible, lifelong and of the highest quality." is grossly inappropriate (especially as a starting sentence), as was, and still was after reverting you, a lot of the language in the article. Please keep a neutral point of view, and other articles may make bad examples, the article on Cardiff University may make a better example of the language that is used for articles. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

So why revert everything that took 4 hours to do. I am a novice here, but the images are allowed, To talk about reseach centres etc is allowed...or ar you going to wipe every univesity that has done the same thing. You have done this to me beofre. If you have issue with the UWIC page please contact me before wiping the whole lot. I could have corrected that introduction in moments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwic2008 (talkcontribs) 14:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I have chosen a middle way, incorporating most of your info, but taking the old intro back. There is some more promotional language to clear up. Please do note your conflict of interest, and that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not an advertising piece for the UWIC. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I will just go back in amend the number of campuses and the student figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwic2008 (talkcontribs) 14:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)