User talk:Beetstra/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there

Dirk Beetstra        
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.


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

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

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

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

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

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

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

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

Reliable sources

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

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

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


I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Vandalproof.png Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
Choco chip cookie.jpg This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.


This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot III. Timestamped threads older than 7 days are automatically archived to the current archive

Talk started 20/3/2006
1 - 7/9/2006
2 - 29/11/2006
3 - 05/02/2007
4 - 05/03/2007
5 - 15/03/2007
6 - 29/07/2007
7 - 06/11/2007
8 - 31/03/2008
9 - 22/09/2008
10 - 03/02/2009
11 - 17/05/2009
12 - 13/11/2009
13 - 27/5/2010
14 - 13/12/2010
15 - 5/7/2011
16 - current
17 -
18 -
19 -
20 -


The importance tag

I do agree with you about the stance of the importance tag. Is there a way to move those articles out of the CAT:NN category? Or better yet, could there be another category formed placing the articles with unclear notability in it and the articles with unclear importance in another? Diez2 01:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, I didn't remove the importance tag on those chemical formulas that you had to reinstate, just to let you know. Diez2 01:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I saw you did not remove the importance tags, those were removed together with the {{prod}}.
The best way to get them out of CAT:NN would be to improve the articles and add the importance they have; some of these articles may indeed not be notable enough and should be removed. The CAT:NN for June becomes smaller and smaller, and now the difficult ones surface (and apparently a big number of them are chemical compounds in June). I have already suggested a couple of times, that the assessment of that should be done by people in an appropriate wikiproject, not by 'random' wikipedians (nothing personal). I would be in favour of creating a {{importance-expert}} (parameters subject & date; in a way a combination of the {{expert-subject}} and {{importance}}). Articles in the backlog CAT:NN could then be moved to that tag and the wikiprojects can then be asked to actually start working on that backlog.
Splitting up the category in 'unclear importance' and 'unclear notability' does not really take away the backlog, just a fresh one is being created. Moreover, some of these articles may indeed be not-notable enough.
Another consideration; we have a backlog, and there are articles that need work. These are quite pressing but maybe we have to consider that that backlog should just be there until the articles are improved.
Is there a place where we could keep this discussion but where we have a bigger audience, the notability wikiproject seems to stay quiet on this subject, and it is bound to surface again in a couple of weeks. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Paris Sud


I apologise if my posting a link to my site "Paris Sud" is considered spam, however, this site contains articles about the local area to the south of Paris including départments:

   * Paris
   * Hauts-de-Seine
   * Val-de-Marne
   * Yvelines
   * Essonne
   * Seine-et-Marne

The idea is to cater for residents who speak English, although obviously all French speakers are welcome to visit and participate. We organise get togethers as well.

My link is not to our group, however, but to our site where factual information concerning all aspects of life in the southern banlieue of Paris are displayed. This is why my link to this site has been added to the various places in the region featured on the Wikipedia site.

If you feel that this has nothing to do with Wikipedia then I will respect your decision and cease to post my link, even if this could be interesting to visitors of the local area, as per current links where I have posted.

Best Regards,

John Nelson. Paris Sud

Thanks for the remark. I reverted because you were only adding the link, which is, under the wikipdia definition, considered [WP:SPAM|spam]]. I am sorry about that. Regarding the link itself, you were adding a link to the homepage of the site, not to information that is symmetrically and directly connected to the subject of the page. If the site contains good information (which might very well be possible; please check with [WP:RS]] and WP:A), consider adding content to the pages, and add the site as a reference. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Are your ears burning?

Hello Dirk. I reverted some edits a new user User:Neilrobertpaton made where he added some blatant linkspam to a number of articles. He now tells me you said it was OK. I've replied on his talk page. If wish to comment, that would be the place. —Moondyne 10:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Moderator .. hmm .. new function in wikipedia. I don't seem to have had an earlier contact with this person. His additions look like the additions by (see discussion here). I think I have been misinterpreted here, I did not say to that person that he could add the links in the text, I told him to consider adding content, and using the site as a reference. I do believe your reversion was right in this, this is not 'content with a reference', Moondyne. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:36, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks and cheers. —Moondyne 11:46, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Dirk, Have just seen the above entry by Moondyne, about my links. Didn't notice it at first. My apologies if I misunderstood what you said about text and references. I thought you meant that it was ok to put a link in a piece of text. Silly me. As I said, I won't be adding anymore external links, but how Moondyne can say that my links were "blatant linkspam" is beyond me. My links have all provided relevant info that was of general interest. It looks to me like some of these people just like to go on a witch-hunt, burning links wherever they find them. Got nothing better to do, people? Neilrobertpaton 11:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

external links

Hi Dirk, Do you know who Moondyne is? He took me to task over some links I added. I was interested to know if he actually has any authority in these matters. The subject of external links seems to be a tricky one at Wiki. All the links I have contributed have been deleted, even though they don't fit the Wiki definition of spam, which is that spam is there to promote a website. My links were not there to promote a site; they were there to provide info which is relevant to the subject and of interest to readers. However, I have decided to take the hint. I have accepted that Wiki doesn't want external links, so I won't do any more. Personally, I think the real reason is that they don't want the competition. If I provide a link to an external site which has information of interest to readers, that site is then in competoition with Wiki. Obviously, they don't want that. I've learned my lesson. No more external links, unless I discuss them with you first. I want to be a constructive contributor to Wiki, so from now on I'll behave myself. Neilrobertpaton 11:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer both posts here.
The way you were adding is regarded spam under the wikipedia definition (first line: "... wide-scale external link spamming, ...") I am sorry, but the link you provide does not comply with WP:EL, pictures can be incorporated into wikipedia.
About witchhunt. In a way, yes. I do concur, we all have better things to do, but wikipedia has the policy WP:NOT, and the guidelines WP:EL and WP:SPAM and I am afraid that some people have to 'close the floodgates'. Currently there are 5.98932 links added per minute. Many of these (if you see the feed on IRC) are to sites where one could ask, whether or not these sites should be linked anyway (per WP:A, WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM); external links tunnel people away from the wikipedia, information should be incorporated into the wikipedia, not linked. About the only reasons (in short) to add a link is to a) attribute a claim in the content and b) when the external site provides information that cannot be incorporated, all others are, most of the time, unnecessary.
You don't have to ask me explicitly for every link you add. If you read the policies and guidelines, you will see what is appropriate, and what not. A link to the official site of someone, fine; reference to a newsitem on a good source, fine as well. But links to picture sites are most of the time not-done; when you own the picture (or the picture is free), upload the picture and use it in the text (it makes the article better). If in doubt, ask on the articles talkpage, or indeed, ask me or someone else at WT:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:04, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking care of Noroton's links, though I don't know if the "form letter" was quite appropriate; it seems to be intended more for a user who is spamming his own site. --NE2 21:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him a second note. See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Olivia (singer)

Hey, I think we went to revert some vandalism at the same time. A user is blanking out sections, then I put it back, then it looks like you accidentally removed it again. I've already reverted the page twice so I don't want to do it again. Did you mean to remove those sections again? - eo 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I repaired it, I saw that it went wrong. I came here because user:Shadowbot was throwing an error at us. Strange, I thought I started with the right version, but apparently somewhere things did not go right. Hope this version is OK now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:43, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

link to educational website


I recently submitted a revised article "caligo" and added a link to the website, but the link was removed.

Please be assured that the website exists purely as an educational tool, it's purpose is to educate visitors regarding the anatomy, taxonomy, biology, ecology and conservation of butterflies and their habitats across the world. It is entirely non-profit making, and provides a huge amount of educational material. It is invaluable to anyone with an interest in butterflies, and includes a considerable amount of educational information. I feel therefore that the link should be allowed to remain, and would also like to add the link to the "butterfly" article.

The link reads as follows :

If this is unacceptable, would the simpler link as follows be acceptable ?

Many thanks Adrian Hoskins ( webmaster of )—Preceding unsigned comment added by learnaboutbutterflies (talkcontribs)

The link is not allowed per WP:EL as a plain external link. You could of course consider adding content to the article, and using information on the site as a reference (assuming the site contains verifyable information). Seen this posting on my talkpage, I must warn you to read WP:COI first. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


Erm I think you reverted to the wrong state by mistake! Cheers Lethaniol 00:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers Lethaniol 00:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for telling me .. it happened just over midnight here, so I missed the one edit of 'yesterday'. Admins are looking into the case right now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Noham Chomsky

Hello Mr. Dirk - I recently added a link to Noham Chomsky's page to the video of his talk at one of his visit - the reason for this was thaht the quality of that contribution is at least on the level (if not better) of the other link to his talks and interviews in the same section. Therefore I'd suggest to have this link on the page.

Thanks, Marko Grobelnik (—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grobelnik (talkcontribs)

I seem for the moment unable to find that edit you are referring to. Might it be that you were adding external links to a number of pages and that I reverted that? --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I found the page, you were talking about Noam Chomsky. I reverted the edits of Special:Contributions/ because they were link additions only (which is, under the wikipedia definition, spam). I did not check whether the links were legit, if they are (please read WP:EL, WP:A), consider using them as a reference. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable Links?

  • I must say I am a bit confused. Why did you undo my enitre edits? None of the links I added were acceptable? I'm not trying to be snarky here. I'm just wondering what is okay to add to the professional reviews sections.-- 01:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Please review WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and WP:NOT. The way you were adding links was, under the wikipedia definition, spam: '.. wide-scale external link spamming, ..'; you are using this IP mainly for adding external links. I noticed that you seem to know your way around the wikipedia formatting; I noticed as well that other IP's in your range add the same link; just to be sure, may I ask you to read WP:SOCK (I will leave it to you if this applies or not). WP:EL states that links should be kept to a minimum ("... but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic."), as does WP:NOT#REPOSITORY state "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines." IMHO, these links fall in the same category as fansites, choose one or two representative, not a list of 12 sites (diff to your addition of 3 more; IMHO, there are too many already). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Connecticut Commuter Council

I've left my reply to your message back on my talk page. Noroton 04:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, my reply was pretty angry. I don't think I insulted you (and if I did, I apologize, and I'll remove any insulting comments if I find them or if you point them out to me), although I was pretty harsh. For a calmer version making essentially the same points, I contributed to the discussion here: Wikipedia Talk:External links#Adding links to organizations to articles about related things. I do appreciate your message. Noroton 06:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I will answer on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

External Links

On the subject of inappropriate external links, there's a good example at the Siddha Yoga article. The link is to Leaving Siddha Yoga, and it is just a plug for another website. Neilrobertpaton 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I see the link is used as a reference and in the external links section. The external link on this page can be removed (superfluous here). Feel free to remove external links when you think they are spam, or not on topic or violating WP:EL/WP:NOT/WP:SPAM, and when you are in doubt, discuss with other people first (e.g. on the talkpage or at WP:WPSPAM). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't delete the links

Hi Beestra

please don't delete the links since they are a great source of further information. thanks. this is not advertising, this is information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by despres (talkcontribs)

Please read the links I am providing you, you are spamming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Cyc and external links to

> If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me

Mr, Dirk - regarding the link removed from the page about Cyc ( where I added link to a video where Cyc people gave tutorial on Cyc - I have to say I disagree with your decision - the link would certainly give new qualit to the page and it is not just "an another link on the page". I also checked with the research director from Cyc(Michael Witbrock) which supports me - so, if possible,please leave the both links on the page. Thanks, Marko Grobelnik

PS. this is communication with research director of CYC:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Witbrock" <>
To: "Marko Grobelnik" <>
Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2007 7:41 AM
Subject: Re: cyc videos @ wikipedia

> Someone called Dirk Beetstra reverted the page, removing your links.  
> Here's a link to his reason, which I don't understand.
> M
> Marko Grobelnik wrote:
>> Michael - I put two links to two of your presentations from our video 
>> server on Cyc's wikipedia page Hope 
>> it is ok. must be some of you who is editing this page.
>> Marko

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Grobelnik (talkcontribs)

As I also pointed out in our earlier discussion above, the way these links were added is, under the wikipedia definition, spam. For that, and that is described in the guideline, it does not matter whether or not the links are legit. Please understand, that the external links sections are not there to provide links which tunnel people away from wikipedia. WP:EL clearly describes what links can be considered and which should not be avoided. The intro of that guideline is very clear, consider incorporating information first. Also, take into account WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, which should be applied to the linkfarm already available on Cyc.
I am also worried about the sentence in your mail: "I put two links to two of your presentations from our video server on Cyc's wikipedia page Hope it is ok", if I read this correct, you are affiliated with the organisation, so you have a conflict of interest.
Hope this clarifies, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Removal

Is this not considered a worthwhile addition to the Chery section on Wikipedia? The link itself could be use by future contributers for research, as well as for visitors to gather/garner the latest info/news/updates on Chery automobiles.

Your link removal policy seems rather strict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 12:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Maybe, but you were, under the wikipedia definition, spamming the site. Please read WP:EL and WP:NOT, we do not provide external links to tunnel people away from this site. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

World Urban Areas...

Understand some of your deletions...

However, our World Urban Areas list is one of 3 or 4 of the world standard lists. It has been listed on the World Agglomerations page for many months. In fact, it is the only list that attempts to not only provide population information but also land area and density data for all over 500,000. I am reinstating this one. I can understand your concern about the others and had not been aware of the guidelines.

Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographia (talkcontribs)

The problem is a) the word 'our' in '...our World Urban Areas list is ...', from which it is clear you have a conflict of interest, a guideline I asked you to read. And b) you are adding these links in some cases to the external links sections only, which is, under the wikipedia definition, spam; moreover, these links are better served as a reference. Please do read the appropriate policies and guidelines. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

By the same criteria the City Population (de) reference should also be removed. Or are you saying that if someone else adds the link to the demographia site, it is ok? The Brinckhoff site too is a personal site and one, like ours, that provides information accumulated by someone who is expert in the field. Our site is not commercial (despite the "com") Rightfully, either both are in or both are out.

To clarify.. the Brinckhoff site is.... *Principal Agglomerations of the World—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographia (talkcontribs)

(edit conflict)I pointed you to the policies and guidelines. In short, no, in many cases link additions are not OK, per WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:A (and in your case, WP:COI), etc. That links are there, or if there are no links, is not a reason to add more. And no, it is not a both in or both out case, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines." (though they may have to go, you can add a template {{linkfarm}} to the beginning of long external link sections if you think it is not appropriate for you to remove them; if you decide to remove, be aware of WP:POINT). Also, WP:EL gives some alternatives than adding links to external link sections. Please discuss specific cases on the talkpages, or on WT:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Two of the links you took out had been on the site for months (if not years). They should be restored.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographia (talkcontribs)

If I cleaned out a linkfarm per WP:NOT .. then I don't see why I would readd them. They probably should not have been there in the first place, see the introduction of WP:EL for more information --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, one wonders how the Brinckhoff page survived your clean up. If the demographia reference probably should not have been there in the first place then neither should the Brinkhoff page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by demographia (talkcontribs)

Sigh. We are currently operating under a link addition rate of 5.7558277 links added per minute. You were spamming your link across these pages in combination with good edits. I decided to clean up after you, resulting in your links being removed. You were notified for the first time about policies and guidelines more than a month ago, and warned not to add your link and read the policies. You added your link again after I asked you to read the policies and guidelines (that first message of today was not an official warning, because I wanted to give you a chance to review your actions; the following messages were official warnings). I have redlisted your site as well as the other links, and I have generated a report on them. I am sorry that we noticed your conflict of interest and spamming and that we hence cleaned too many your links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Did not see the note from a month ago and was unaware of these policies until your first note today. The links I re-added were those that had been there before, not the ones recently added and I explained why. When you rejected them I did not attempt to re-add them. I was not notified that we were in any peril of an "official" warning. It therefore seems inappropriate for a "report" to be made or a "redlisting" (not sure what that is). Please advise.

Figuring out the system a bit better. In my talk history see no record of a communication from you before today. As I indicated I saw none, but unless I am misunderstanding something about how things work, the month ago communication you mentioned does not appear to have made it. Anyway, look forward to your response on the last paragraph.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Demographia (talkcontribs)

(edit conflict)The note was on your talkpage (it was not posted by me, but the welcome message is there since 31 Jan 2007; posted by user:Francs2000), you had the chance to read them (even without that message, they are also linked via the wikipedia mainpage). I will replace it with a more elaborate one shortly.
Redlisting just means that we now notice when these links are added to the wikipedia. Just an attention thingy. and have a list on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/ and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkSearch/ respectively. This is also an attention thing. If we see them going up quickly, we might look through the pages and decide to clean (especially when they are not used appropriately, or if they are spammed).
The two last messages on your talkpage are more official good-faith warnings. You got these to draw your attention to the policies and guidelines. These links also provide the alternatives (ranging from reaching consensus on talkpages to being blocked from editing and blacklisting of the sites in question). They wear of in time (order of days to weeks), nothing to worry about if you read and follow the policies and guidelines.
Just general, Wikipedia is in the first place an encyclopedia, written by many people. Its purpose is to incorporate information, not to add external links to tunnel people away from the site (however appropriate the link may be). When adding content for which one has used a reliable source one can add references (see WP:CITE); again, the target should not be to tunnel people away, it should be to give people the opportunity to verify the information). For the few things that cannot be incorporated an external link can be added (but still, it is not really necessary; the information may just not be necessary for the article to become better). So instead of saying "London is a busy city. More information can be found here: link", consider "London is a busy city, at the beginning of 2007 the city had a population of xx million.(appropriate ref with link)"
It is in no way the purpose of the list of external links to be complete, it can show some useful information. If information is available from several external sources, either name only one or two (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; indeed, that may be unfair), or link to an independent linkfarm (e.g. a {{dmoz}}). All these things are described in the guidelines.
Now there are already many external links sections which contain many external links. When you think that these links are not really appropriate, consider drawing attention to that (see WP:WPSPAM for methods of doing that), or help cleaning them (e.g. by replacing them with a 6 Beetstra/Archive 6 at DMOZ-entry, or by converting them to references; please note that WP:COI applies to you). It is better to consider these alternatives before someone removes a whole series of spammed links because someone is spamming (or even worse, blacklists). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes in Chembox

hi Dirk, the notes to the MolarMass in the iron(III) chloride articles come out clogged together to the mol-1 with its left bracket. Can you make it:

  • with an extra normal whitespace between them?
  • without the brackets (if one needs brackets, put it in the notes)

Met vriendelijke groeten, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Yes check.svg Done, met vriendelijke groet, --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Looks much cleaner, especially if you really remove the brackets alltogether. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 00:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
Graag gedaan! You think the brackets from other note fields should also be removed, so that people have a choice, there? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

link reversion

I don't agree with your link reversion on The happiest days of our lives. This link is not spam or advertizing. Because the meaning of the song is abstract, there is not necessarliy a right or wrong answer. The link is only one analysis of the song. Seldon1 15:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The way you were adding it was spam, and when it gives an analysis it should be perfect as a reference. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh. All right. Sorry. Am I going to get blocked? Seldon1 15:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, you're not going to get blocked. No reason for that, I understand you were adding in good faith. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks :) Seldon1 15:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Assault rifle

r u advising me there is a policy that cannot be used as a reference at Wikipedia, even if the information on the website is correct ? If so, please provide me with your reference or put the link back, thank you. EnviroGranny 23:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are advising you. Just as a reminder, please read WP:A, WP:EL. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Neither of WP:A and WP:EL mention angelfire. Could you please explain why all angelfire sites meet the criteria listed? --JStripes 02:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Sites on angelfire do not meet the requirements named in WP:A and WP:EL, I did not say they were named in there. Why not link to, what is the magazine called again, Janes weapons weekly? Who tells us that the information on an angelfire site is true? Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Correspondence chess

I see in the edit history of Correspondence chess that you have accused me of using pop-ups. Your accusation is patently false. Can you remove it?

I'm assuming that you placed this comment in reference to an external link I was providing as a reference. The link in question is to some reviews of correspondence chess servers. It is an angelfire page, and wiki-bots seem to dislike it. I've posted at another user talk page this query:

I have repeatedly inserted a link to an angelfire page, had it removed, and inserted it again. It is not vandalism (though I understand why angelfire might have that reputation). The site in question offers reviews of server-based correspondence chess sites. There is nothing else like it on the web for its objective assessments of the merits of the leading chess servers.

Is angelfire inappropriate as a link? JStripes 02:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing you of using popups, it means that I am using popups, I am sorry that gets misunderstood.
If we (shadowbot, I) revert a site that means that these sites do not meat the criteria in WP:EL, WP:A. Specifically, the site contains objectable amounts of advertisement (see sites to avoid), the information can be incorporated (see top paragraph of WP:EL). When using it as a reference, pages on angelfire do not meet WP:A. That explains why it is on the revert list of shadowbot. When I see this specific case, you are linking to a personal linkpage, containing original research, an opinion of the maintainer of the website. And the reference does not attribute the statement that it attributes to:
Casual servers also tend to have a wide range of facilities, such as online games databases, etc.[3]
How does this:
These sites mark one of the most recent and exciting developments in how chess is played. Whereas traditional correspondence chess required transmission of each move through some form of notation on postcards, email, or similar medium, server based correspondence chess employs a JavaScript-enabled board upon which players make their moves. Usually there is also a space for leaving short messages for your opponent. In traditional correspondence chess players must laboriously verify their records and move notation to avoid error; server based chess eliminates this need for record keeping. Of course, many players maintain separate records for off-line analysis, and to store a record of previous analysis.
The links below take you to in-depth reviews of the best sites. I also have a chart for comparing which sites offer key features.
prove that? It shows an example, but that is not proof that they have a wide range of facilities, it does not even talk about the facilities. I think you need to link an official document on a chess union site that tells that casual servers have a wide range of facilities.
In short, link additions don't get reverted because they get named in the policies or guidelines, but they get reverted because the do not comply with the policies or guidelines. Sites on angelfire do not comply with WP:A, and WP:EL, so can not be a good external link, nor a good reference. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. You seriously need to examine the syntax of "JStripes using pop-ups." It gets misunderstood because the plain sense understanding of the phrase is exactly what you call a misunderstanding. Creative misreading is needed to perceive the author of the phrase as the one using pop-ups.
I've expanded the sentence to which I was providing the reference, but without restoring the note. I agree with you that the opening paragraph of the referenced site does not adequately support the statement. I was thinking of the comparison chart (a subsequent link from the main page) and the content of several of the reviews (also subsequent links).
You are throwing the baby out with the bathwater, as the saying goes, when you offer the general statement that "[s]ites on angelfire do not comply with WP:A, and WP:EL." Some may. You really have no idea whether this particular site has been vetted or not. Not all professional publications, especially those on the web, are refereed to the same extent as Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds. I would cite a better source if I could find one, but there is nothing else close. The site in question may reflect the opinions of one person, but he or she clearly has devoted considerable time and energy to the development of unbiased opinions. Chess is not an academic discipline; the standards for reliability of sources differ from those in chemistry and history.
One of the most highly regarded venues for the discussion of correspondence chess is TCCMB (The Correspondence Chess Message Board) at If you are blacklisting angelfire, but not blacklisting bravenet, your priorities are severely skewed.
In any case, it is water under the bridge, as I won't be adding the angelfire link back in. It's not worth the effort.
JStripes 14:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I will answer later, I am busy at work and this needs some more elaborate explanation, I think. Just as a quick answer, there is a team at WP:WPSPAM, and as a team we decide what is blacklisted and what not. With the very large majority of sites under angelfire being not suitable for inclusion under WP:A/WP:EL it is better to block. And even for those last couple of pages I expect that they have only data for which better sources are available.
I changed the autosummary for popups, I want to tweak it a bit further. Thanks for notifying me on that ambiguity. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I said I was going to expand, but technically, most has been said in my short reply (also, this discussion is better on WT:EL).
But some epxansion. The information available on Angelfire was written by someone, but we have no way of knowing who that person is. The information that that person has added is probably correct (though does not need to be). And the information does not get independently checked, hence we have to believe that the author is providing correct information. When the site is citing references, these references are better sources than the site itself (the unreferenced information the person is adding is original research; and even with references information does not have te be correct). So for the information to be attributable, there needs to be an official source that states that that site is the official site .. which in most cases makes the attributing site a better link. When there is only an angelfire site, one can already ask whether the page on wikipedia would pass the notability criteria. And indeed, after all this, there will be some sites left over, and for these exceptions can be made. I did not see that in this reference.
A similar reasoning holds for forums. Anyone can post there. It is a source for information, but hardly ever a reliable source.
I have redlisted (alert list) bravenet, it seems that the site does not have a large number of links on wikipedia (33 in mainspace at the moment). And we don't blacklist everything we encounter, that would be unworkable, we only blacklist when a site becomes a problem.
See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:42, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the time to clarify your point of view. I'll continue looking for better sources to support the information in that article, as well as the others that interest me. As a historian with an interest in Ronald Reagan, I'm well aware of the problems faced by Wikipedia concerning POV, spam, vandalism, and unattributed opinions from questionable sources. Bots seem an unfortunate necessity in combating these problems, making bot management another issue. Keep up the fine work. JStripes 00:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

VP-removed link on MSF page

Gosh, not quite sure what the reason was to remove my link to the Intelligent Giving profile page of Medecins sans Frontieres. The page it links to falls under this central stricture:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons."

Furthermore, it is the only site of its type in the world, ranking charities by their transparency, and doing so from a completely independent point of view (it is itself a non-profit organisation).

I would entreat you to visit the site before making a judgement, and I look forward to your response. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Laagerfeld (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

I did indeed not visit the site, but I did see that you were only adding links to pages, which is, under the wikipedia definition, spamming (see WP:SPAM: "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."). The link would be OK on the wikipedia page on the organisaion, and you could consider including content into the articles, where this site might be a good reference. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, I know your intentions are the best, but you are wrong here. The reason the content cannot be added to the article is that it contains the graphical representation of the charities' performance and this year's financial details. As I said: please visit the website and you will understand what I mean, viz: "amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons". It would be a promotional exercise if money were involved but it is not. The website in question does not make money (and is already financed and does not request money from the public).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laagerfeld (talkcontribs)

I did not remove the link because it did not comply with WP:EL, I removed it because you were spamming the link. Moreover, I am not sure if the link is appropriate, is the link on-topic? As I see it is is just there to tunnel people away from wikipedia, it is not telling more about the page you added the link to (the contents of this page does not tell thát much about Médecins Sans Frontières. Moreover, I think it contains objectable amounts of advertising. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk - The page is *very* on-topic indeed and it reveals a *lot* about MSF. In fact to donors it is arguably more useful than the wikipedia entry. Nowhere else can you find the combined information of: how transparent MSF in its dealings, what reserves it is sitting on, what its CEO salary is, which other charities work in the same space, what its fundraising ratio is, what its admin costs are, and what its estimated statutory funding is (among other things). Now, if I explain the link in more detail, do you feel it would warrant an entry?

The specific page you were linking to was not symmetrically/directly linked to the subject you were linking from (see WP:EL). And of course you can add content, and provide the sources. I will whitelist the link shortly, but please add content that complies with WP:MOS, WP:A, and the other policies and guidelines (not just add a sentence like 'more information can be found here', links are not meant to tunnel people away from wikipedia, they are there to provide a source for information added). I will replace the welcome message on your talkpage with a more elaborate one shortly, please read what the policies and guidelines say. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello Dirk - thank you, and thanks for your diligence. I have taken your comments on board. Laagerveld—Preceding unsigned comment added by Laagerfeld (talkcontribs)

You are welcome, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Dear Beetstra, I would like to insert the link of a database that was created for non-profit use and destined to the scientific community ( While entering it on several websites that all had in common the peroxidase subject, I have been considered as a spammer and have received a final warning that would prevent me from entering any further information if I continue.

I understand that publicising a database is not tolerated by Wikipedia. I would however like to add the PeroxiBase link at least in the Wikipedia page "Peroxidase" (and the "PeroxiBase" Wikipedia page as well). If you prefer me not entering the website address on other peroxidase-related sites (myeloperoxidase, gluthathione peroxidase, etc...), please just tell me, and I will not do it.

I would really like to be able to put this database as a Wikipedia entry. It is scientifically recognised (I can give you a list of publications) and I think it should exist, as do other databases such as GenBank and UniProt (to which we are affiliated).

Thank you for your help, and best regards. --LABPV 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Please understand that your edits were a bit disruptive, your edits broke a template, and you are forcing links against consensus. Also, your edits were mainly changing links, and adding links to pages where they do not directly have a relation to the subject. I will leave you a welcome-message shortly, and I hope that you will take some time to read the pages that are linked there. It may be that your site contains valuable information, but links are NOT meant to tunnel people away from wikipedia, and we try to write an encyclopedia here, which means that we follow consensus, not what one editor thinks is the best link.
By the way, the link has not been removed from the PeroxiBase page, I have moved it to the appropriate place. Please read the manual of style.
The link is removed from the blacklist now, please read the policies and guidelines before adding the link again. Thank you, and happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dirk, thank you for your answer. I am really sorry I provoked a little trouble in Wikipedia. I am quite new in entering edits (actually, my first one was yesterday), and I know I should read the rules more carefully. I am just still worried that any change I perform will be deleted. I guess adding links to other wikipedia pages is now allowed (so, can I add a link to the Wiki PeroxiBase page from the Wiki peroxidase page?). I would also like to modify an external link in the Peroxidase Wikipedia page, because I am certain it is incorrect (the general EC number of peroxidases is 1.11.1.x, and not this will make me removing an internet link, and adding a new one (which is not the one of the Peroxibase homepage, of course). Am I allowed to modify external links?--LABPV 08:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Good morning! Don't worry, we were all new once. A bit unfortunate you started spamming, but that will be quick forgotten. If you read the basic things you will notice, that when you save, you release data into the public domain, and it may be mercilessly altered. But well, that will (hopefully) only improve the content in the end.
I would take care with altering weblinks, people have added them there for a specific reason. The only reasons to change a url would be that a link has gone dead (and then, consider removing the external link, links are better as references in the text, and should not be meant to tunnel people away from wikipedia, however appropriate) or to correct a link (in all cases, be sure to provide a clear edit-summary then, it makes it possible for us to judge the action more to its value). In template space, discuss, and wait for answers, even if it takes weeks, and try to reach consensus.
All link-additions/alterations will show up in our linkfeed on IRC, and may be judged (users adding more than 2 links show up in red, until we put them on the 'trusted' list, the linkadditions still show up in the feed, even for trusted users). Continuous addition of a certain link may result in blacklisting, even for good links and trusted users. Such additions are spam (wikipedia definition), and suggest a conflict of interest, we want that cleared out before further additions can be made.
About the specific change you propose, I would suggest discussing that on the talkpage of the article. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Dirk,

thank you for this information. I have had a look at the linkfeed on IRC, and I see that Wikipedia is litterally bombarded by users that add the same link on several Wikipedia pages. I understand now how important it is to be strict on the Wikipedia rules. I will be careful in future edits to clearly explain why I changed links/text on Wikipedia pages, and I will use the discussion option if I am not sure. I wish you all the best in your Wikipedia curation activity!—Preceding unsigned comment added by LABPV (talkcontribs)

I don't know if I blacklisted your link, I will look into that shortly. See you around, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


Dirk, I am bringing this from the wine discussion. The general format of the scientific journal list articles is in List of scientific journals in chemistry and is well established there and in all the others. I believe that list can be complete and it certainly helps me in writing articles about chemistry journals. Others have stated how useful that format is, with link to the WP article and the home page. Categories are OK. We need them, but lists are useful too. I hope you are not going to try to alter the scientific journal lists. I do not think you would find consensus to do so. --Bduke 23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid the discussion may already be at a higher level (developers of mediawiki), though I do not know the fine details of that. But about the specific list, I can find the JACS quicker in Category:Scientific journals, than on that page, they are all together, a bit similar to the list that we had in Groningen on the university library website. And, I am sorry, but they don't comply with the policies and guidelines. We'll see how the discussion will evolve in time. See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerial view links

Hi Dirk...

I'm new to Wikipedia, and after looking at your references and articles I assume your a wikipedia-god! heh Recently I added some external links to a page that showed aerial views of some wikipedia articles. You removed them saying they were not appropriate. In all fairness though I did believe it was something readers might like to see, and it was something that was not listed on the articles. In fact I started adding the links after I saw the same reference on other articles which did the same thing, of course theirs are still there. For example: Edward_Jones_Dome

anyways... sorry for the confusion, thought I was helping like the stadium articles...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 0deuce0 (talkcontribs)

Hi. That has been some time ago. Well, a god .. I am just a simple user enjoying editing and keeping the wikipedia clean. I removed your links-additions, since the way you were adding them is, in wikipedia, considered spam. If you read WP:SPAM, you will see that it is defined as "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." It does not matter what the intentions are (which are hard to check), or what the target of the link is, it is the way they are added. Also, the existence of similar links on wikipedia does not mean that more can be added, it may even be that the others should go as well (but not necessarily!). The relevant pages are WP:EL, WP:NOT (especially the WP:NOT#REPOSITORY-part), WP:A, and maybe more.
I will leave you a welcome message on your talkpage. That contains a whole set of links with all the policies and guidelines and more information. Hope to see you around soon when you are editing pages! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Zambales, Philippines - link


I am a retired Brit, and I live in Zambales, Philippines. I was stopped from putting a link from some of the Philippines articles to my website. My website is not commercial. It is used to try to sell (privately) a house and/or some of the land I own in Zambales. We are trying to encourage ex-pats to live in the central Zambales area. I know that lots of people outside the Philippines use Wikipedia to help them identify areas of interest when they are looking for property. You allow beach resorts, wildlife parks, restaurants, small-ads promotions, etc., etc., to link to their websites, so why not allow a link to a private property website?

My e-mail address is


Bob Stewart—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your question. The way you were adding the link is considered, under the wikipedia definition, spam, and hence the link was blacklisted. Moreover, the link does not comply with wikipedia's external link guidelines. Now I see your e-mail address I should also notify you that you have a conflict of interest. For more information, please read the header of this talkpage, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

300 Edits

Thanks for the assist; I was out of reverts for the day fighting off the POV pushing, and concensus had already been reached regarding the petition thing. Thanks again! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arcayne (talk • contribs) 22:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Always glad I can help. Petitiononline is always reverted, no consensus needed. The site does not comply with WP:A, WP:EL etc. and is hence coded into user:shadowbot. Shadowbot threw an error on this one, so I reverted for shadowbot. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Second Opinion Needed

Hi Dirk, I would like to have an opinion on an editing dispute. Yesterday I put a passage in the Transcendental Meditation article, in which I provided a list of mantras that I got from a book . It was a criticism of TM insofar as the list of mantras is alegedly based on age-groups, whereas TM has always said that the mantras are given out on an individual basis. I provided the appropriate reference.

Today I find that the passage has been deleted from the article, and there are two messages from two people, saying that it was a copyright problem etc.

The two people involved were User:TimidGuy and User:Michaelbusch. At this stage I'm not sure who was responsible for the deletion; I'm still trying to find out.

My complaints are, firstly, that they had no grounds for deleting the passage, because there was no copyright issue involved; secondly, that they deleted the passage without discussing it with me first. Can you give me an opinion on this issue? This is the sort of thing that puts people off Wiki. Neilrobertpaton 08:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Have just looked at discussion page for TM and have found that MichaelBusch works for TM, at Maharishi Uni. of management. We're entitled to question his impartiality. I got the impression that contributors to the TM article were a little biased towards TM, and I thought it would be interesting to see how long my passage lasted. Looks like my impressions were justified. Neilrobertpaton 08:27, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Good morning. Hmm, this is a subject where I don't know a lot about. I see the section got deleted, and I see a discussion on your talkpage about it. Deletion seems a bit drastic if the main concern is 'it is in the wrong place in the document'.. they could have moved it to the appropriate part. The layout of the deleted part is not according to the WP:MOS, but that is besides the point, that is a matter of refactoring it a bit. And I indeed do not understaind their claim that the part is not appropriately referenced, let alone that it is WP:COPYVIO .. I think you could now add the text to the talkpage, and counter their claims and ask where is an appropriate place in the document would be. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

Spamstar1.jpg The Spamstar of Glory
To Beetstra for diligence in the tireless battle against Spam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping article clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 08:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I will try and keep up with the spammers (current average: 5.37217985408912 links per minute added .. pff)! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with Shadowbot

Wow Thanks! Perhaps someone should edit their bot to just remove what it thinks is wrong and leave all other edits. I honestly thought that was the name of some Perl script that the bot ran. Thanks for the help. -- Henriok 15:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. No, 'republica\.pl' is the regex that shadowbot reverts on. I think Shadow1 is working on a rewrite of the mechanism, but I don't think it is in the bots primary target to repair things, basically that is the task of the editor that adds the link. But I hope all is solved now. Oh, about the article, there is a long list of external links on that page, could you have a look whether they all comply with WP:EL/WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, thanks. Have a nice day, happy editing, and hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:47, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Spaceport Sheboygan

I understand not wanting to not use blogs as a source. The blog that your AWB deleted linked to a cut and paste job that someone did for a Chicago newspaper article. I think that it should be reverted, but I would like you to look at it and decide. I started the article and the citation, so I want a second opinion. Please respond here on your talk page (if necessary) to keep all commments together. Cheers! Royalbroil T : C 03:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your question. Proboards is blacklisted, it is not a reliable source, and mediawiki wants to move to more reliable sources. You say the link was to a cut-and-paste job that someone did for a chicago newspaper article? That suggests to me that the reliable source is the chicago newspaper, not proboards and I think that that should then be the reference, not proboards. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:51, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I changed the article to point to an archive of the article that only lists the executive summary. That should suffice. Royalbroil T : C 12:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


When you are removing Proboards links from articles when they aren't being used as sources, I don't object. But I am very uncomfortable about removing links that are being used as sources without replacing them. I feel that if you want to get rid of the link, you should find a replacement source. The consequence of what you are doing is that you are turning referenced material into unreferenced material. Proboards references are bad, yes, but they are something. What if, instead of removing them in these cases, you left a note saying that the reference needs to be replaced? Everyking 03:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I started doing that later, that is indeed more fair. In the majority of cases I have seen proboards as a reference I would say, they are nothing. Proboards is a forum, and people are retrieving numerical data from that. I am sorry, but it is going to be impossible to find a replacement reference for unreliable information. But indeed, a {{cn}} is better, and that is now what I put there as a replacement in later replacements. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


In any case, before you remove a link being used as a source (as you did in this edit), please be aware that in some cases (see WP:SPS exceptions) they can be acceptable. Moreover, the link that you removed was actually an exact copy of a biography in a published source, and was ackowledged as such by the original writer of that published source. Esn 05:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. In principle, self-published sources are allowed. But proboards is a forum, and, as everywhere on the internet, people can pretend to be anyone. Before the proboards link would be a WP:RS, it should be backed-up by other, reliable, sources telling it is the forum of this person. Now you say that the link was an exact copy of a biography in a published source, being it exact would indeed show that the proboards forum contains reliable information. But what is then the problem with citing the original source, instead of the copy? That precludes all problems. Hope this helps, and I hope you have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I have changed the document accordingly. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Would the fact the this forum is linked on the official website be proof enough? I'm sorry, but I do not understand your reasoning at all in this case. It is as clear as it can be that he is who he says he is on the board - if he were an impostor, do you not think that his account name (which uses the real name of the person) would be quickly deleted? How likely is it that this person would link to a forum which is the "official forum" on his website and yet never visit it in years and find out that someone is impersonating him? The reason that I did not just cite the book is because the book is far harder to find. On the other hand, he says right in the forum that this is a direct quotation for a book. If you say that proboards is blacklisted on principle, please give me the link where this discussion took place. WP:SPS seems to disagree. In any case, this is just silly and unreasonable. I'm trying to make things easier for users - I could just cite the book, but then I'd know that a very simple and reasonable way of improving the article was denied me because of a literal reading or rules that ignores their actual intended purpose. Esn 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Most forums do not delete imposters, they do not have a policy for that. Forums are just generally bad because of that reason (and most get blacklisted on user:shadowbot on sight). Now this seems indeed to be one of the few examples where the proboards-forum would be similarly funtional as the original source (the book may be harder to find, but with an ISBN it can be found), though in my opinion, I would just cite to the book (that source can be easily checked for its verifyability), and then maybe consider adding the proboards forum (which is indeed a service).
References are not meant to be checked, they are meant to attribute statements, so that they can be checked (and for that a book is a better and an easier to check reliable source than the proboards forum that first needs to be checked for its reliability before one can use it to check the statement it attributes). Hope this helps, and I hope you have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


Thanks for your answer. Nice to know someone agrees with me. As I said to Michaelbusch, I can see I'm beating my head against a brick wall with the TM article. Apparently it's run by some sort of TM mafia who don't like people like me. Thanks again, Neilrobertpaton 09:09, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have seen such articles before. Best is to discuss them away from the direct page, e.g. on a project page. And when consensus is reached about a change, apply and hope that others will back you up. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fluorine (MAC value)

Hi. On 19 August 2006, it appears that you added the following into the article on fluorine: "Its MAC-value is 1 1 µL/L." Two questions. First, did you mean "11", or maybe "1.1", instead of the meaningless "1 1"? And second, when you said "MAC-value", were you referring to minimum alveolar concentration (a concept in anesthesiology), or something else? Richwales 16:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Diff - I appear to have changed it from 1 µL/L to 1 1 µL/L (the same data was available in the old text, I just rewrote) .. a plain typo. I must have meant 1. About the MAC-value, I meant that as the concept 'maximum allowable concentration', it is the concentration that is considered safe to work in for 8 hours a day for a whole working life (mainly used as a relative measure). The original sentence was "It is recommended that the maximum allowable concentration for a daily 8-hour time-weighted exposure is 1 µL/L (part per million by volume) (lower than, for example, hydrogen cyanide)."
But now for a wikipage for that. That is what I can not find, is the abbreviation maybe something 'local', but not known in a wider public? I'll have a look around. Strange that this has not been repaired since, but well. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:02, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Proboards 3

I know that a lot of ProBoards sites are considered spam, but removing the link to The Marion Times on the Marion, Ohio entry was in err. Our board is a community board where citizens may post facts and opinions on area issues. In that regard, our site is no different than the link for Marion Online, which you did not remove. We would appreciate it if you could put it back and exempt it from future removal.

Thank you—Preceding unsigned comment added by Madlogic (talkcontribs)

Besides reading WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:A, may I also suggest WP:COI as 'recommended reading'. I will leave you a welcome message shortly. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm not a moderator, but I found out the hard way that external links are not particularly wanted at Wiki. Most of mine were removed in record time. They are accepted if they are official sites or similar, but the folk at Wiki don't especially want people being led away from Wiki by external links, and don't want Wiki being drowned by fan pages etc. Hope this helps. Neilrobertpaton 07:41, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


Dirk, a general question. I've found that certain articles are "supervised" by self-appointed guardians who delete anything they don't like, no matter how legit it might be. This means deleting a contribution without discussing it first, when any problems could be cleared up with a bit of civilised discussion. My question is, if someone keeps doing this, would it be grounds for barring them from editing? There's so much of it going on, the only way to put a stop to it would be to bar repeat offenders from editing. Does this happen? Neilrobertpaton 07:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

There are some mechanisms. If you have tried to convince people on the talkpage, and you feel like they are more protecting the document than they are letting in information where you feel thy don't tell you why (using good reasons), you can ask for a request for comment. That should attract uninvolved, impartial editors to the subject. If an RfC does not help, a next step would be to go to e.g. WP:AN (spec. WP:ANI), but I would not do that before you have tried resolving the dispute by talking on the respective talkpages.
I know that these things are quite frustrating sometimes, but all you can do in the beginning is try to reach consensus, and get an edit history on other pages so people can see your edits. That helps you in gaining trust when editing controversial or disputed subjects. Such subjects are sometimes 'protected' (sometimes even using the mediawikis built-in protection mechanism) against new and unregistered users because of the controversial nature of a document. But still, the least that the protecting editors can do is assume good faith and at least move the more genuine contributions to the talkpage to discuss. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of a link at Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (film)

Hello Beetstra, I understand your intentions of removing this link to PetitionOnline, but I think in this case it was not a violation of the three policies you mentioned, especially WP:A. The policy, under the subsection "Using questionable or self-published sources," says:

There are two exceptions:

1. Self-published and questionable sources in articles about themselves
Material from self-published or questionable sources may be used in articles about those sources, so long as:
  • it is relevant to their notability;
  • it is not contentious;
  • it is not unduly self-serving;
  • it does not involve claims about third parties, or about events not directly related to the subject;
  • there is no reasonable doubt as to who wrote it;
  • the article is not based primarily on such sources.

I feel that the link is in violation of none of these stipulations, as it is merely trying to prove the existence of a widespread petition, not cite any valuable information from it. It was also an effective petition; it moved the Australian release date of the film two months earlier. I won't put the link back now, but I just wanted to know what you thought after seeing the context. Thanks. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 00:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. Petitiononline is a blacklisted link (on user:shadowbot), per the policies I have mentioned in my edit summery. In general, when the petition is still running, WP:SOAPBOX (part of WP:NOT) applies, and in some cases wikipedia is not a crystal ball (same policy). Also, petitions can be started by anyone, so whenever I want something done, I just start a petition, and put it into the wikipedia (they have a high WP:COI-nature). Sorry, but they are just not encyclopaedic. When the petition is finished, there are two options, either an official organisation/company/club has reacted on the petition (in which case the reference to the official reaction is a good reference, the petition gets named there, there is no need to refer to that), or the petition is just closed because the organisators decide it is of no use. In the latter case the information is hardly or not notable.
In the context you provide, I would put in a reference to the statement on the official homepage of the Australian film in there ("after an online petition the release date for the film was moved two months forward<ref>official document of the australian film</ref>"). Hope this explains, and I hope you have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
All right, I understand that. I might as well just go track down a news posting that mentions it anyway. Thanks for your help. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 23:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

6.5 Grendel Page Reference

You have reverted the reference to which supports the statement that the 6.5 Grendel is starting to win in competitions although not in common use. The 6.5 Grendel placed 3rd in the Diggle Shoot ahead of all other AR15 based platforms. Only AR10 based platforms beat the Grendel achieving 1st & 2nd place.

Is this revert because freewebs is used by many different people who don't want to pay for posting articles on the internet - some of which may be unreliable? The folks from the UK who run the "Precision Rifle" online magazine site at freewebs do not have any complaints of inaccuracy that I am aware of. Reginhild 15:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello, thank you for your question. As you say, the site is run by people who don't want to pay for posting articles on the internet. Are you sure the site passes WP:A? The majority of free sites does not pass that, even if the information is correct. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Should all groups who use freewebs be blacklisted or should select accounts be blacklisted? Remember that a hosting service is not the same as the account users. Every hosting service on the internet has good and bad information - should all references to internet sources be blacklisted? Reginhild 15:13, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

References should be to attributable sources, which in general means that free hosting services should not be used. The information that they provide is often not unique anyway, they probably have their information from official leaflets/manuals/websites &c., which are better sources. The rest can, in most cases, be described as original research. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The online magazine "Precision Shooting" is run and edited by Vince Bottomley who also writes for "Target Sports" magazine in the UK. Unfortunately, Diggle Ranges in England (since 1861) does not publish competition results that can be linked to non-members ( Vince is the editor for a source/diggle range member who is quoting the results published in the members only area. It would be unfortunate to see Vince Bottomley, one of the top authors in the UK with respect to competition shooting, 1000 yard benchrest British record holder, and team member representing the UK in the World Benchrest Championships as not a valid source.Reginhild 15:32, 21 March 2007 (UTC)...and the UK representative to the World Benchrest Shooting Federation.

Reference: Reginhild 15:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the place the documents are hosted. You can add the reference to the document, but I cannot reassure you that the link in the future will have to be replaced by a reference on a more reliable medium (or that other people who monitor external links will not take the link down again). I mean, freewebs is a free hosting site, and anyone can put a site on there, even proclaiming to be someone else. And that is where the problem with the reliability starts (it is probably the site, but when reading the document, how can we know for sure). Is the information not available from the third reference you gave me here (world-benchrest?), that surely would be a better source. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only other source for the information is through Diggle Range's members only area (it is not a world benchrest competiton that was being referenced). I find it interesting that because an individual (expert in the field) decided to start an online magazine using hosting service X rather than Y his magazine is not counted as reliable - even though it is probably more accurate than the majority of published newspapers. So much material in print these days is based on non-expert opinion but his site is one of the few exceptions with simple factual accounts of happenings in the target shooting community. The reference link in question is supporting through the result of a competition rather than opinion. The result which is also available in the private members only section of the website run by the range which hosted the competition. The pages of his site (hosted by freewebs) also provide two email addresses to contact Vince concerning the his site. Reginhild 16:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


It appears that you (using WP:VPRF) somehow caused this disambiguation page to be replaced by the content of another page on 3/18, in this edit. Possible VandalProof bug? JavaTenor 23:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

That indeed seems to be the case, I actually wrote three times the history of the previous version of "Ratchet & something" pages (Special:Contributions/ over "Ratchet". I have reported the error to WP:VPRF. Sorry for the inconvenience, but hope that this gets resolved (one does not even notice it goes wrong, only the names have changed). Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

{{BeerAdvocate-brewery}} link removal

Please stop removing the Beer Advocate links from brewery articles. Your edit summary does not point to any blacklist, and there is none shown on User:Shadow despite your claim. The links are useful external links - they point to information regarding each brewery which includes some non-encyclopedic information, and some copyright information which can not be added to Wikipedia. Αργυριου (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for your question. First of all, the brewery site is blacklisted on user:shadowbot (not on user:shadow), indeed, there is no list there, but after one of the owners of the site added the link to a large number of pages today, the site was blacklisted.
Furthermore, which information does this link give me, that should be linked, but what cannot be included? As far as I see it is an address, and a list of beers they sell, a banner, and a whole set of extra links. Furthermore, the site is not the official brewery site (who undoubtedly has the same data on its site), but is a commercial external link. I don't see how this is meaningful, relevant content.
Now we are talking about it. In which way is this site dissimilar from Hope to hear more, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
I see no confirmation in the history of User:Shadowbot/Blacklist requests to indicate addition of Beer Advocate to the blacklist, and it's not on, or even discussed on, the meta blacklist. Can you point to a contributions page where this alleged spamming is occurring?
The list at the Beer Advocate page you linked includes trivia like the alcohol content of the beers, street address for the brewery, and links to copyrighted reviews. The collection of the data in the table possibly falls under a compilation copyright, and thus recopying the table without links is not permissible.
There is no policy against commercial links being used in Wikipedia, so long as the content is freely accessible. (Pay sites are strongly discouraged, but the links are not for a pay site.) WP:EL suggests linking to directories like DMOZ; for beers, Beer Advocate is the best directory link available. Αργυριου (talk) 23:15, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Not all blacklisting goes through the blacklist request. When the spamming is ongoing, operators can add the link at the moment the spamming is occuring. For the person adding the links, see Special:Contributions/ Apparently the site has commercial interests enough to let one of the owners of the site trying to make sure all the pages were 'consistent' (I am trying to get a link for the unblock request, I will post that here if and when I get that).
I am sure that the official brewery site also lists the alcohol content of the beers, as well as the address. So the only information that is left is links to copyrighted reviews. If I click on one of the beers I don't get professional reviews, but maybe I don't see the copyrighted reviews. And I am not sure if they can have a compilation copyright about the list of beers they sell, that is freely available from the company website, there is no way beeradvocate can claim that as copyrighted. Moreover, WP:EL states, under links normally to be avoided: "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services. For example, instead of linking to a commercial bookstore site, use the "ISBN" linking format, giving readers an opportunity to search a wide variety of free and non-free book sources." If I see the banners correctly, beeradvocate is primarily to sell the magazine, and for what it matters is similar to that, which would make that site also not appropriate. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't access the unblock-en-l myself, so I cannot provide you with that link. I have for now stopped with removing the link, though I believe that they should be removed, per WP:NOT/WP:EL. But I will await further discussion (but will also do some further research). --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Beer. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Butly Acetate

Is Butyl Acetate toxic? Isn't this commonly used as a solvent within nail polish production? Do you know what might be a "green" or environmentally safe alternative to this? I am doing research on nail polish and the use of toxic solvents, how we can replace them, what big manufacturers are using, etc. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.

Signed, Blaire in Cincinnati —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi. I don't think butyl acetate is particularly toxic, though as with every organic solvent, it probably is less save than water (which is in large volumes also toxic ..). But I think these solvents are relatively OK, hydrolysis gives acetic acid (which is a compound that e.g. the human body also makes/uses, see vinager), and butyl alcohol. The latter can be oxidised to butyric acid, which is a natural component of e.g. butter and cheese (it has a nasty smell, which is prominent when the butter goes off). I think it is important to realise that solvents are not always bad, and that the main alternatives have similar chemical properties (e.g. ethyl acetate, propyl acetate etc.) but have slightly different physical properties (e.g. lower boiling point) which may make them less suitable. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chem Review

Hi Dirk

Per our previous conversation [[2]]:

I'm so sorry that I took so long. I tried it the last time but couldn't get it to work, and just chucked it aside. Suddenly found inspiration, and it seems to work now. Do take a look at Talk:Distillation. I'm in the process of moving over from {{chempeerreview}} but the code still needs to be added to the elements banner.

On a related topic, it seems our project is getting rather quiet. I am rather busy too, so I guess I can understand why. But perhaps we can find a way to screen those top importance/near to GA/FA class articles to promote them quickly? We need not dwell on making them perfect, just "good enough" for GA? What do you think? --Rifleman 82 14:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I am at work now, I'll have a better look this evening. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
err .. oops .. forgot. Sorry. I'll put it on my user:Beetstra/ToDo-list. Again sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I rebuild {{chemistry}} and adapted {{chemicals}}. Still need to play a bit with them. {{Chemical Element}} is for later (though that is technically merely copying the template from {{chemicals}} and apapting the text and the pictures. Hope to have time for that later! See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, rebuild all three, adapted the pages where necessery (someone should have a look at talk:uranium and its peer-reviewing, its not under review anymore I think). There is a next step that still has to be done (old-peer-review), but that is for later. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external links with AWB

Hello, I'm letting you know that you recently removed a link from Sophos to the official web site (diff). Links to the official web site about a subject are encouraged per WP:EL. Please be more attentive when making automated edits with AWB in the future. -- intgr 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Sorry about that. Indeed, that is a mistake, I generally look carefully if I don't cause collateral damage, but this one must have slipped through. Again, sorry, I'll try to look better next time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Question about the best approach to contribute.

Hello Dirk. Your bot zapped some well-intended but apparently suspect external links that were recently added by edit. You can get a brief background at - Am I in Trouble?

I think what triggered your bot was the addition of an external link to a website with which I'm associated (for brevity of expression previously referred to as: my site) to a few thoughtfully selected Wikipedia articles.

The nature, purpose, detail, professional expertise and sincerity of the zapped site hardly fits what I generally understand to be spam. People refer themselves to the zapped site by search or links from sites that have independently chosen to link. The site promotes nothing but helpfulness through information, tools, and references. However, I do see where Wikipedia's coming from.

I can assure you that I've read lots of Wikipedia guidance pages, including the ones you recommended. Nevertheless, I'd welcome your advice before I proceed further. I gather that merely citing a source with which I'm associated gives Wikipedia and your bot indigestion.

So, since it seems to me that I can't directly edit pertinent articles and add a link to material on the zapped site, my best move to make a contribution might be to talk with the authors of a few existing Wikipedia articles and let them decide to do so or not. So far, does this sound good?

If so, and others decide to refer to and/or link to material on the site:

  • Would an external link negate copyright policy of the site to be linked?
  • Will your bot zap such a link again, anyway? If so, how to avoid it?

Thanks! CCS 23:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops .. forgot to answer. Was busy with another task yesterday, so I only had a quick glance, sorry.
Thank you for the inquiry, but I don't run a bot, though I have access to a couple (a.o. shadowbot). I indeed saw that you added a link to several articles. Per the wikipedia definition, it does not matter if the link may have been of interest to the pages, if they are added en masse, they are regarded spam, and removed. As I say in my talkheader (I hope you read that), external links are by no means meant to tunnel people away from this encyclopedia. Moreover, indeed, you seem to have a conflict of interest, also something wikipedia is not happy with.
You can of course add content to the articles, and, in principle, are allowed to cite to information on your own site (wikipedia states in WP:A: "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page."), when you think your site complies with the regulations, it should be possible to use that as a reference.
If you remind me again of the link you were adding, I will remove it from the blacklist. I hope you understand that the link is being monitored (as all link additions on mediawiki projects). I will leave you a full welcome message shortly, with maybe more reading regarding guidelines and policies. Hope to hear more, and to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Dirk, thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, read the material at your talkheader. I also appreciate what you sent to me and posted on my talk page. It's precisely what I could not find and would have loved to have had instead of going here, there, and everywhere trying to learn the ropes. I'd suggest that it be an automatic offering to any newly registered Wikipedia contributor before they do themselves in like I did.
In response to your request, The zapped link is
About the copyright issue. Does a Wikipedia reference or an external link - as opposed to contributed text - negate existing copyright provisions that otherwise apply to the cited source? My guess is no. Thanks! CCS 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, and you are very welcome. The welcome message is not automatic, it has to be added by other users. In general that happens when an account starts making notable contributions. In your case it did not get added, because the the people from WP:WPSPAM picked up your link-additions and reverted and warned. In those cases welcome messages are often not given.
Wow .. copyright issues. Never got a case of that. I think that when a text is copyrighted, one can not incorporate it into wikipedia. But I am not sure how that exactly is. I guess you should be able to find that in WP:A, WP:C (I am going to have a look at this site now ..) and WP:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. Thanks for all you did for me. Today, on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on informed consent, I explained the possible utility of augmenting the article with self-help information and proposed a possible link to the previously zapped website for feedback.
By the way I think I found the answer to my question about copyright protection of cited external links at WP:C under: Contributors' rights and obligations. It seems to say that copyright-holders retain copyright to their own materials. In other words, I think, anything contributed to Wikipedia text is fair game but, when only an external link, no protection of copyrighted material is lost because no related Wikipedia text is involved.
I appreciate your assistance in having lifted whatever barriers may have been placed to any future legitimate citation of the website. Couldn't have gotten this far without you! CCS 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I posted a proposed external link to the Wikipedia article on informed consent - To my surprise there's been no reaction after about a week. What's the applicable Wiki etiquette in this situation? Should I assume no reaction is passive concurrence and add the link or remain passive myself? Thanks! CCS 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I see there is another editor having concerns on your talkpage (user:Hu12), you might want to address these s well. It could be that when you add the link yourself it will be removed again, several alarms will start ringing due to bots that are listening to the feeds (that shadowbot is not listening does not mean other bots do not, but it might not get autoreverted). The best thing is to wait and let an uninvolved editor make the addition. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I have responded at --Hu12 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


While on the subject of link removals, I'm curious to know why you removed the link to Obsessed With Wrestling on the Greg Bownds article and added a "fact" template. OWW is a pretty good source. Rick Doodle 04:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oww has been on the meta blacklist for some time after a (still ongoing) attack. When a site is on the meta blacklist, the page cannot be saved, and the site cannot be used as a reference. Therefore all references and links to oww have been replaced with a {{cn}} or removed. That was in the time that I implemented remarks with an explanation, the original reference is still there, but not visible or clickable anymore. If it is not on the blacklist anymore you can put it back. We know how to recognise the spammer/vandal/attacker, and will revert that by hand (I hope we don't miss it). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello there Beetstra, you did not like my contribution?

Hello Beetstra,

I am just wondering what made you revert my contribution to this page:

I have added a link to a particular Ethernet crossover cable pin layout that was not covered on the page before. Did you not like the actual data or you just did not want me to leave a link?

Let me know, I just wanted to add some worthwhile information but ended up getting all my contributions reversed by the bot because I'm now labeled a spammer. BTW, do you know how to fix that?


Dmitriy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cabling guy (talk • contribs) 21:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

The way you were adding the links are considered spamming (you have used the account mainly for addition of external links). Moreover, the page you were adding does not comply with WP:EL (a.o. objectable amounts of advertising, information can be incorporated, etc.). That is the reason it got added to the blacklist of user:shadowbot. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:56, 27 March 2007(UTC)

OK, thanks for blacklisting me! Now what do I do, stop my participation as one of the higher placed users did not like my judgments? I guess it matters none that my contributions are based on 15 years of experience in the field even though I have just started contributing recently.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabling guy (talkcontribs)

As wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a repository of external links, you could consider actually adding content to articles. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Beware the 26

Are you an employee of Wikipedia? I only ask because I'm wondering who gives you the authority to determine what is considered to be relevant or not? -UNFJoel (You recently deleted deleted a page about Beware the 26.) After reading the policy on speedy deletion as well as normal deletion, you have deleted a page without cause for the following reasons: 1. Reasons for deletion include, but are not limited to, the following:

  • Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)
Beware the 26 is a page about an advertising related subject, just at The Lost Experience is a page about the same kind of advertising.

2. None of the General Criteria for Speedy Deletion applied to the page.

3. From the policy for speedy deletion: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether an article could be improved or reduced to a stub; speedy deletion is for cases where an article does not contain useful content. Note that some Wikipedians create articles in multiple saves, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its initial creation. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets; it would also be considerate to notify the original author." - This page was being created over several saves, and was even requested that the delete be abstained.

Please advise then, how you justified the deletion of the page. thank you—Preceding unsigned comment added by UNFJoel (talkcontribs)

I did not delete, but I did tag it. I tagged it because I did not see the notability of the subject. Deletion was done by someone else, and I am afraid you will have to see in the deletion log why the administrator who deleted the page agreed with my tagging. I am sorry, I do not recall anymore the contents of the page, who the main (or only) authors were, or why I noted the edits on the page. Probably I noticed the page because of linkadditions to that page. Maybe you can tell me more? Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dirk - I wonder if you can help me out; I need a 2nd opinion. User:Williesnow has been adding links to the Library of America to a spate of author pages recently, typically under a new heading such as "Published as" at the bottom of the article. This looks spammy to me as it points to a specific book edition, put out by that publishing house. What do you think? Thanks in advance for your help, Figma 22:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the addition is certainly spammy, though the information is appropriate. I have fed his name to my coi-recognition bot, and am currently changing the external links to internal links using AWB. I will try and keep an eye on it. I will leave it to you to see if the edits are appropriate, if you feel they are not, consider reverting all the edits. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your work! I think I'll do a bit of reverting.... Figma 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?


I'm currently adding biographies, lists of recordings & list of works of electroacoustic composers. This information has been taken (by permission) from, a resource on electroacoustic music, which is graciously licensing part of its data under GFDL.

I noticed you have removed the link to their page, citing (if I understand correctly) "conflict of interest". If this is the case, I can understand the motive but I don't find this very helpful to wikipedia readers. For many composers, this is the only page on the web containing thorough information about them.

Also, you have removed the reference which indicates where the text comes from. This surprises me all the more as we are told numerous times on wikipedia to indicate our sources. By removing this line you are making it seem like this text was stolen from, which it clearly wasn't.

Please let me know what you think, and maybe write me before you make these kinds of changes?

Thanks, Electrocdwiki 23:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for you question. Indeed an apology from my side is on its place here, I should have left you a message concerning your edits, apparently I forgot in a busy revert period (although that is not a good excuse). I am sorry.
I removed the links because you seem to have a conflict of interest with the data you are adding. The links you were adding resulted in some alarms going off on linkfeeds. Just as a warning, you have been adding the links cross-wiki (on more wikis), which could be regarded as cross-wiki-spam, and that would be enough to get the link meta-blacklisted (which means the link cannot be used at all in any mediawiki project).
It is for me hard to believe that for notable persons they only have information on your site.
May I ask you to read WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:CITE and consider WP:COI. I am sorry, but maybe you should not be adding the information, even if you release it into wikipedia; you are involved with the site you are linking to, and it is hard to believe that you do not have any interest in people being tunneled to your site or that you have a neutral point of view (and other editors may blacklist because of these edits). Could you try to adapt the documents so that you use the site as an inline reference (using wikipedia's <ref> and <references/> tags), and, where available, consider including information from other sites/places as well (references do not need to go to an online source, it is perfectly fine to refer to printed media, the aim is to be able to check the info, not that it needs to be checked). Sites that are used as references don't need to go into the external links sections. And for other cases, maybe discuss on the talkpage of the articles, or on an appropriate wikiproject.
Again, thanks for your remarks, and I hope this explains, happy editing, and have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe the point of view in these articles is as neutral and objective as it can be. At any rate, by releasing them into Wikipedia we of course expect visitors to correct any inaccuracies, that's the whole point. That said, the biographies we have are pretty thorough, and for every composer we even include a full (as far as our knowledge goes) discography as well as a near complete list of works, all of which is correct to the best of our knowledge. I estimate that at least half of the CDs we include in these discographies are NOT available for sale through our website; in other words, we are not limiting the information so that it advantages us over another supplier of electroacoustic music (which as you know is a pretty small field to begin with).
As for the external links, for some lesser known (or less web-savvy) composers, sometimes the only thorough resource on the web is indeed In many cases however, you are correct, the artist has their own web site, which we are also including in our contribution. If you think that might make it look less like conflict of interest, then we can remove the link to electrocd when there is already an official site for the artist? Please let me know if that would be good, or if you think we need to scrap the link no matter what.
As for adding "cross-wiki", you are right, we are adding the same articles on the French Wikipedia, and even including the fr: and en: links for cross-referencing. I can understand your previous point about conflict of interest but in this case I can't fathom what we are doing wrong.
Please let me know when you have the time.
Thanks for your help, Electrocdwiki 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Still, it is your link in the article, and you are writing articles from your own POV, which is not neutral (even if you do your best to do so). The field may be small, but there may be more sources, and you are not adding them. So I am asking you to adapt your style, to remove or stop adding the external link, and maybe add a reference (see WP:CITE for the howto). Please read the policies and guidelines. What you are doing 'wrong' is that you only provide a link to your website across different wikis. It may be that I am not going to block the link on wikipedia (I did put it on shadowbots revert-list earlier, but decided to remove and give you a second chance), but I am certainly not the only editor watching the linkfeed and the output of the different bots, others may do that, and it is in your case then better to adapt your style: use the link as proper references as I describe in the above message, use also other references, consider writing a minor stub (without references, the article will grow in time), or consider not adding the articles, but put them on a request list (ask an appropriate wikiproject), and let independent people write the article. If the subjects are notable enough that will happen soon enough. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind reply. I will modify my future contributions so that they include references and generally make them more Wikipedia-friendly. I will also remove the external links to since they duplicate what's already in the references.
Thanks for trusting our good faith, I understand the POV issue but electroacoustic music is not a very big field and there are few specialists, which means that often we have to wear many hats: composer or record distributor on one side, enthusiast on the other. We hope that if there are any inaccuracies in our contributions they will be corrected. Thanks again, Electrocdwiki 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for bothering once again, I have just added Philippe Le Goff as a stub as you have suggested. Is that correct? I just want to make sure this looks good to you before I continue. Thanks, Electrocdwiki 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Close, but it still contains an external link, which is probably better used as a reference. You still have a COI with that link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'll remove the link which you consider COI then, and all should be good? Please see below for the rest of the response. Electrocdwiki 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Music Center reference

Here's another question. Please have a look at the Micheline Coulombe Saint-Marcoux biography, which was written by the Canadian Music Center. They simply added the phrase "This article incorporates material from Canadian Music Centre." with a link to their web site, and that didn't seem to be a problem to any of the editors. Would it be a good way for us to submit our texts? (By adding, e.g. a phrase like "This article incorporates material from"?) Thanks, Electrocdwiki 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm .. I am not happy with that link. It is not pointing to the topic, but to the homepage, and I don't see the info on the site (but maybe I have to look better). In a way, that link looks spammy too. But at least I can't proof a coi on the person who added that link. In your case, no, I don't think it is appropriate that you add that link.
I am sorry, but all I can see is that you have an interest in having links to your page on wikipedia, and that is the only reason you edit. That is considered spam. Please be aware of that, and again reconsider the linkaddition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up because I have been basing myself on the Canadian Music Centre example when I started adding my contributions, thinking that was the proper way to go. Again, I want to work in Wikipedia's spirit, not against it, but you'll have to agree with me that it's not always easy to understand what is acceptable and what isn't. I also understand the spam problem, I hate spam and that's certainly not what I'm trying to do here.
At the risk of repeating myself, in my contributions I try to only include links that are informational and useful. If some of them appear to you to be COI then frankly I don't have a problem removing them, I just need to understand if it's more important for a link to be useful (for your information, doesn't just sell CDs, it's also an important informational resource on electroacoustic music, often used by music teachers and journalists), or if what's more important is that it shows no appearance of COI whatsoever. I hope you understand that the answer to that question isn't self-evident. From now on I will use the "stub" model (like Philippe Le Goff) but excluding any link to Thanks for your time and assistance. Electrocdwiki 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


Good idea! >Radiant< 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Cleans out the category! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

I see people are still having trouble with their links being deleted. I found out the hard way that Mr Wiki doesn't like external links, unless they're official-type sites.

Neilrobertpaton 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Great - Keep up the good work Dirk! -- Quantockgoblin 11:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Chem Stubs - 'Stub of the day'


This message is regarding the topic about merging chem stubs mentioned elsewhere (LINK). You mention that the chemistry project have has a collaboration of the month. I'm wondering if along side this we could also have a stub-busting list of the month (e.g. about 10 chem-stubs listed each month), or perhaps better "Stub of the Day".

The task is not to write a definite article on the stub but just to put a little flesh on the bones. Please feel free to move this message to the chemistry project message board if you feel it could be discussed further -- Quantockgoblin 14:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be more useful to make lists of related stubs, rather than list them singly. On eproblem is that much of the information is not available on the web, and so editors have to go to textbooks or even original sources. One visit to the library can improve a good number of stubs, if the ditor knows they're out there! Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The biggest problem is the articles that carry the {{importance}}. These really need some work since they keep on coming up for AFD's, prods, or other things which are not helpfull. I am really feeling like retagging them into {{chemical-importance}} and put them in our own category (which would not be a good solution, but I have had enough of the discussion 'they have been tagged for importance long enough, lets delete/merge them'). They need work, but I don't want to be forced to work on them because someone decides that they should go up for deletion (I am working here as a volunteer, leave those articles alone until a person who knows the subject does the job). Stubs are fine, those are not a big problem, they will grow in time, just as many other stubs. No need to hurry things, except when deletionists or mergists start 'working' on them. But a stub-of-the-week would be nice, though I think it would not really help. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and created the template and categories. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I suppose someone out there would be able to write a small program to select a stub randomly from the chemistry stubs each day. I like the 'stub of the day' idea as it has a very low commitment threshold, people can dip in and out as they see fit, and more importantly if the article appeals to them. Some articles I know I'm not too keen to write things for. I then have to wait a whole month before seeing a new prompt (I know I can search for stubs myself, but that's not the really the point I'm making). The trick is once a person bites the bait they are likely to continue to adds material to the article for sometime! Anyway luck with the re-tagging thing!!! -- Quantockgoblin 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, you can even think about Qxz's banner (see header of this talkpage) to point people to the stub of the day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey that's great idea!
Also thinking about it, the 'stub of the day' could have general application as a box on a user page, i.e. if you could enter a term into a "category selection field" to select the category you are interested in i.e. "chemistry stubs" or "films of the 50's stubs" (<-- if that even exists!) and so on! People could have a custom box on their user page if they want. The only limit I would impose/suggest, is not to make the stub update on simple fresh. It would loose its impact. That is have the same stub for the day. I guess this could be done by fixing the random number which selects the stub for the day (i.e. generated a midnight, and fixed for 24 hours). <-- I hope that made sense!
... and on another point, just to get you curious .... say Hello to Nancy for me ... she's an old Lab-buddy of mine from my/her Bristol days, she might guess who I am from my interest in stable carbenes!!!! -- Quantockgoblin 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, ever since the first edit I noticed of you I thought you were (or are) in the group of Roger Alder. So that part is true. Curious how wikipedia brings people together ...
I don't know if the mediawiki-software has a trick for that. It does not even have to be the same article for a whole day, it can also be just a random article from a category behind a click. No clue about that. You could try and dump it in the wikiproject and see what they say. Hope this helps, have a nice evening! --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Dirk - please see
These guys seem to be working on the 'stub of the day' bot. I think they want a list of categories for it to search. I don't want to waste there time ... what do you think a the best categories to include? [[Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance from June 2006]] and the stubs mentioned on [[Category:Chem-stubs]] - I'm not sure if we should be more slective to start with? Thanks, and yes, I'm an ex-Alder Boy, finished Ph.D 1999 - stable carbene article based on my Ph.D introduction (little out of date now!) -- Quantockgoblin 07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I know user:Betacommand, I chat with him on the spam IRC channel (we are both bot-programmers, though I do not have a bot-account on wikipedia, and my bot would have another task). I should still poke him about tagging chemicals talkpages. So it is a nice thing that it is possible. I think a good place to start is the importance catagories, though all of these articles may be tagged as stub as well. But these in importance need our first attention. But I guess a couple more people discussing this would be good. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
As suggested, I've posted a message relating to the above on the Chem-project page. -- Quantockgoblin 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC) - external link

Dirk, I do not intend wasting your time nor mine with this delete / add external link and if you or anyone can help in the matter of the external link continuous deletion - and the website really is usefull information for the non expert webmaster - then I would be very grateful if you could look into this. Or at least clarify the situatrion for me on why that link keeps getting deleted. thanks for your time - Pete --Captcha 19:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

As you correctly noticed, your link keeps getting deleted. First of all, I would advice you to read WP:EL (I don't think the link is a particularly appropriate link), WP:NOT (wikipedia is not a linkfarm, you are adding the link to a page which already has cleanup-template in the external links section, there are really way too many there), WP:COI (you are involved in, which makes you not impartial), WP:SOCK (you create several accounts only to add the link), and more

guidelines and policies may apply. I hope you will take some time reading these guidelines and policies. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Having already read all your suggested advice, and that of your other bot happy deleting colleagues you have made some assumptions which are not completely encyclopedic.

Whether you or some bot which follows your delete list ' don't think ' that a link is not appropriate - is of no real value here unless you have read the content on the website in this case - and then decide that the content there is useless to people in need of simple to implement captcha solutions.

I'd like to know if you have browsed minimally both through and some of the other sites that are still in the external links section and whether you know anything about captcha yourself.

If you have checked the other external links which have not been deleted then you may understand why it seems obvious that not much impartiality was used in deciding which stay and which got deleted.

As you say there are too many external links there already, really ? What number is considered as being too many and who decides this ?

And too many may be not because some of them might be of interest to those reading about CAPTCHA but due to wikipedia's policies about not wanting outbound links. Understandable enough if everyone got to know who deleted what for which exact reason.

Sending deleted editors on a treasure hunt through wikipedias clauses and burocracy articles is too easy and a bit totalitarian .

This is why yesterday I created a new article 'Captcha for beginners' which was promptly deleted. But that because I used the user 'Captcha'

Can I set that up again under my present user name ?

Of course I am involved with and created it after not finding any simple explanations for someone like me who is not a programmer on how to add captcha to my website. And also - how can someone be partial or impartial about captcha solutions that just work, do what they are supposed to do and help others to actually use captcha ?

The point here is not about selling iPods, or viagra, this is about free captcha which helps combat spam. And assists non programmer webmasters to do just that.

Concerning the other 1 account created:

Yesterday I created another account under the name Captcha. This because it sounded more appropriate than my first user account Captchap. As soon as I created the second account I posted this change on both of them in the user section and I am not that daft to think that the wiki gods would not notice. The external link was placed back simply because you kept deleting it and not because I had created a second account and thought I'd get the link in again on the sly as you are implying.

After 1 week of slogging around with this issue of the external link, being informed that is spam and has poor quality by people who themselves have not had the courtesy to offer their qualifications in rating content quality concerning a particular subject - and by this I mean Captcha and not just the simple follow the guidelines bot and do a delete - I have concluded sadly that wikipedia is in the hands of the selected few.

The selected few editing gods on wikipedia do not have time nor desire to examine sincere websites, and just adhere to guidelines which are themselves ambiguous, burocratic, and a real encyclopedia to wade through.

For every guideline you or your colleagues have brought up that one should read about what is spam, what is considered a blatant link, what is considered a sponsored site, a not appropriate article, a wrong edit, impartiality to a website or article from the user side etc. One could find 2 arguments in your clauses which easily contradict these same pro deletion guidelines

Here is one example:

"Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit. All text is available under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) and may be distributed or linked accordingly. Recognize that articles can be changed by anyone and no individual controls any specific article; .............."

Ok I can live with that - so the external link was not deleted by one single individiual - right Dirk ?

Then I presume some sort of consensus was taken by more than one person, to delete the external link. If so - based on what ?

My slant on this is that it is based on the rules and policies which contradict themseves and at the end of the day it actually was one person who took it onto himself to read the policies how he understands them - and deleted the link.

So after all - one person does have control over specific articles.

In the case of - wikipedia clauses and deletion guidelines have failed as did the editor who applied them according to some algorithm - as they did with other useful external links.

We are not talking about an article that one shares with others concerning a hiliday trip - we are dealing with captcha.

someone needed a captcha solution easy to handle from a non programmer point of view

they found no such solution especially not on wikipedia

they created their own with some help from a programmer tailored to be used by the webmaster dummie like myself

that captcha solution worked to solve form spam and it did this on 40+ web sites

they then created a website to share their solution with others who are webmaster dummies like that person and need easy captcha implementation instructions with downloadable captcha scripts that work

and inserted the link on an encyclopedia which up to then has deatl with Captcha from the historical, mathematical, how to beat captcha point of view.

Nothing for the thousands of webmasters who just need to get on with it and add captcha to their website.

According to wikipedia this is spam and not quality content to be included in the external links section.

These same editors have probably never implemented captcha in their entire life ( and I am still holding my breath to get news if this is not so ) they don't need to as wikipedia does that for them.

They are pure academians - like war theoreticians who will disregard the opinion of a sodlier who has actually been to war.

Mr. Wales - do yourself a favour and read your own statutes, rules, clauses and regulations - if you can make sense of them - and whilst at it go through all the links, abbreviations of frightful terms which sound worse than a doctor's form for a terminal patient, with all the various editors hiding behind their nicknames, and casting their unverifiable consensus of subjects they know zilch about.... and then change the wikipedia credo:

"My encyclopedia which only my aparatchiks can edit."

Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ?

You must be joking.

If policies are needed to run an encyclopedia -

Agreed if we are talking about real wikispamdexing, vandalism, and insincere intent. Not agreed about verifiable and useful information especially if it simplifies the application of a pretty complex subject for many. Which the wikipedia captcha section does not even attempt to do but is impartial about the links that are still there and those not.

Dirk, don't disturb yourself by replying with a bunch of links to wiki burocracy, but if you would care to shed some light as to which consensus, vote or human eyeball evaluation if any is used to delete the external link - or the others that used to be there - that would be appreciated.

That's it and I am done.

Pete --Captchap 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you summed it up quite well. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


I did not ask your opinion on how well I am able to sum up an argument and what I submitted was not a literary essay for your critique.

You were asked several straight-forward questions which you have wikiplomatically skived.

See article in wikipedia about ' question(s)':

" A question may be either a linguistic expression used to make a request for information, or else the request itself made by such an expression. This information is provided with an answer."

You have failed to offer an answer ( see the Oxford dictionary under what 'answer' means.)

Failing to answer the questions I posed shows that my assumptions - assumptions ? sheesh - the whole internet is rapidly coming to the same assumption as I did above that wikipidea is run by the chosen few.

In my opinion all those others here who pay you compliments for your trigger happy deleting must be part of the same chosen few as I can't imagine any impartial person here complimenting wikipedia editors for deleting articles and external links. Logic should say that anyone who supports any deletions is not on the 'outside' but on the 'inside'. otherwise he must be an expert on the deleted article subject - which in this case I presume you are not- and neither are those complimenting you - if the subject is CAPTCHA.

Please consider this matter closed as you have many other grovellers here who appease your ego much more than having to deal with one person who has dared doubt your competence - no longer concerning the website and whether you or your wiki mates think it is valid ( how would you - they know ?)-but just your credibility as a wiki admin who can't answer a few questions in which you have failed miserably.

Pete--Captchap 01:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You are giving your own answers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you read the notes below (I will cite them for you): "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, you know that others will mercilessly edit things you add. And you say you have read the policies, so you know that:
  • advertising is not welcome here (WP:EL),
  • wikipedia is not a linkfarm (WP:NOT),
  • multiple additions of links only are considered spam (WP:SPAM)
  • one has to take care with a conflict of interest (WP:COI),
  • we have the right to ignore all rules to make this place a better place, (WP:IAR),
  • we try to keep a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV),
  • material should be attributed to reliable sources (WP:CITE, WP:ATT, WP:RS)
  • we respect each other and don't attack people (WP:NPA),
  • we have a manual of style (WP:MOS),
  • sockpuppets are not allowed (WP:SOCK),
  • that people are doing things wrong does not allow others to do the same (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)
Do I need to interpret more guidelines and policies for you? Oh yes, of course we have policies and guidelines, because we are trying to write an encyclopedia, and we all have to follow some policies and guidelines to end up in something that might in the end be similar in value to an Encyclopaedia Brittanica i.s.o the yellow pages, a dictionary, or a novel. I gave you a welcoming message and a friendly warning before you started your diatribe against me, and you know that your link and your page have been deleted by several other people (some of them with thousands of edits). I am sure these and the other thousands and thousands of wikipedians are all just against only you. You say you have read some of the other posts on my talkpage, you can see better examples than your reaction (as I say in my talkheader, "I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header"; you already got more than that). Your reaction only shows me that you are only here to advertise your site, which is exactly why it got blacklisted (blacklisting actually means that a human being looks at the page, sees that it does not comply with WP:EL, that it gets added over and over, and hence puts it on a blacklist; if you would have taken the time to discuss the link on the talkpage of the page, again see WP:EL, then it might not have come this far). You say that certain information is not available in the wikipedia, then read the guidelines and policies, become a wikipedian, and add content according to these guidelines and policies. When you would have taken a bit friendlier approach, you might even have succeeded in that.
I hope this explains, and I hope you have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Nyboma link


Ik zag dat je mijn Nyboma link hebt verwijderd, mag ik ook vragen waarom, ik heb deze discographie gemaakt en op dat forum geplaatst en het is dus geen spam.

Groeten Ronald

Hallo Dirk

Ik ben nieuw wat betreft Wikipedia, ik heb gisteren een account aangemaakt en links geplaatst naar pagina's van Franco en Nyboma met informatie die ik relevant en interessant vind maar ik zie dat jij dat niet accepteerd. Kun je me ook uitleggen warom wat jij schrijft wel geaccepteerd moet worden maar wat ik schrijf niet? Ik ben een verzamelaar van Congolese muziek sinds 1981 en denk dus wel degelijke iets te kunnen toevoegen.

Groeten Ronald Zee—Preceding unsigned comment added by Yospan (talkcontribs)

I will answer in English, since this is the English wikipedia. The links you were adding do not comply with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When adding external links or references, they should be used to attribute the information, not to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Links to forums are mostly not reliable sources, and in this case, you seem to have a conflict of interest. Instead of adding the external links, consider adding the information to the pages, and you are more than welcome!
I will leave you a welcome-message shortly with some policies and guidelines. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Data compression

Hello. It is not a spam and there is no ads on this page. I think that the data are interesting (please, see the table with results) but I understand that you don't agree with this. Because I am the author of this page, the content can be integrated into the Wikipedia article if you prefer. Rlwpx 11:36, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That may indeed be a great plan! I indeed removed the link since I suspected you had a conflict of interest, and I saw that one of the pages already had a large linkfarm. But incorporating the info is completely in wikipedias state of mind, great! I will leave you a welcome message shortly for some guidelines and policies, and I hope you have a great time here on wikipedia. Happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Is it good for you now? Sorry for my english. Rlwpx 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes. Could use some wikification still (transform table to wikitable, some colours), and some explanation and some references (see WP:CITE, WP:RS). Don't worry about spelling, I am sure others will correct that. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but Wikitables are not useful for me. I have added the link in the reference (don't hurt me! ;) and some colors to make the reading easier. If something is wrong, please change it. Bye from France. Rlwpx 12:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
That's fine, we'll see what others do with the data now. You can use own material as a reference, but don't overdo it. If other references to the same or similar material comes up, others will add/change/whatever. Hope this explains, thanks for your friendly reaction. Hope to see you around, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

External links section in "Regression analysis"

You go, Dirk Beetstra! I hope that you consider Regression analysis before you are finished in your meticulous efforts to maintain article quality. Remarkable. --Thomasmeeks 12:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I just hope that there is no regression in the contributions of user: Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Nyboma - Franco

Hi Dirk

I understand now about your policy but how do I become reliable?, if I post on a forum and then give a link to that topic it is not reliable but when I add to the page directly I am.

Now I understand as you have written the Franco page you must know about him so I assume you will find a list of his lp covers relevant, so people who visit the page can see what has been released by him, I can tell you not many know,so how do I add all the pictures of the Franco lp covers to the Franco page?

Ronald —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yospan (talk • contribs) 13:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi Ronald. Thanks for the question. Links to forums are almost always not reliable, which simply means that you can not use the link to attribute information. It is of course possible to write about the subject on wikipedia, using the text from the forum, but one will have to attribute the information to the original sources (people who post on the forum have heard/read the information somewhere, and that source is already a better source than the forum). And some information may not need attribution. Or, when the information in not controversial, it may not need attribution. When the information can not be attributed, the information would not be reliable, and may very well be untrue.
Pictures are another question. In the toolbox (bottom box on the leftmost column of the screen) there is a link 'upload file', if you click that, you get to a screen where you can select a file and upload it to the wikipedia. You can then insert it in the document. A tutorial can be found in WP:PIC.
I hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Egyptian gods

Need these links in List of Egyptian gods.

The fucking bot, User:Shadowbot, keeps removing them. J. D. Redding 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Angelfire is a forum, which are named in WP:EL, it is on the revert list of shadowbot for a reason. Simple alternative, see the links on, I am sure there are links there that are good sources for the information (as is disclaimed on the pages you want to insert). It might even be possible to create reliable references for each of the seperate gods. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove ?

It seems like a perfectly valid link to me. The author actually had the decency to contact me and pay me a modest fee for permission to use an excerpt from "Goodbye Surfing, Hello God!" on his site. Jules Siegel 13:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. The link was removed because it was spammed around a couple of pages (see Special:Contributions/, and it does not comply with WP:EL on the pages it was added to. Therefore it was blacklisted on user:shadowbot and removed from the pages it was spammed to. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it doesn't help at all. The site it refers to is Beach Boys-related and its links belong on all the sites that I see listed in your reference. I am one of the world's recognized experts on the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson and I think this is an absurd deletion. --Jules Siegel 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:SPAM clearly states 'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.' That is why the links were removed, and that is why it is blacklisted. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I still don't get it. It's not like he selling Viagra. He has a constantly updated site on all things Beach Boys. The information is useful and factual. He is a chronicler. How about if we get some kind of outside thinking on this? Just because an external link appears on several pages does not -- in my estimation -- automatically qualify it as spam. The content must be taken into account as well.
The presence of ads or products for sale should not disqualify the site; otherwise links to the New York Times would be bannable. I have nothing to do with this guy commercially except the one transaction I mentioned, the circumstances of which cause me to recommend him as an honorable guy. He respected my copyright. Do you hear about a lot of that on the Internet?
So if you remain satisfied with your current position, I'd like to take this to the next level of review. I understand and appreciate what you are doing, but I feel that it is important for Wikipedia to either add or highlight content and appropriateness as overriding factors in the spam definition. I'll also look at WP:SPAM myself meanwhile. --Jules Siegel 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I had a second look at the site. and yes, I still remain with my point. The link does not comply with WP:EL and was spammed across wikipedia. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I looked at the specifications you offer, and I really don't see anything that would disqualify it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I also don't see how adding one link to each of three pages about the Beach Boys equals "spammed across wikipedia." I think we better take this up the line. --Jules Siegel 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
You are of course free to take it to a higher level. But let me first cite WP:SPAM:

Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.

The link in question was added repeatedly to several pages. Now we look at the page the link links to. I see on the right a large add-block, the page contains hardly any info, it is actually a message board, or a forum. Now we read WP:EL. This link does not meet one of the criteria of 'what should be linked' (just as a note, it reads 'should', not 'must'). Moreover, links to avoid points 1, 5, 10, 11 and 13 apply either in full or partially. I hope this explains the situation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Three is not several. Even several does not define spamming if the links are appropriate to the articles. Your other observations are really matters of opinion with which I don't happen to agree. You have the advantage of me in that you can quote various internal references and are more familiar with the review system. It's a lot easier for you to remove links than it is for me to challenge you. Nonetheless, I will put in the necessary time to get this looked at by someone neutral. Jules Siegel 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
The links are not appropriate per WP:EL, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. But you are free to ask at e.g. WT:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why did you remove my links?

Instead of busying yourself at removing "Commercial Links" and thereby discrediting the actual authors, you might do something good.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I added interview links to a few stories and they are legitimate interviews. I didn't promote my outlet just the interview.

Why were those links removed by you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SportsInt (talk • contribs) 23:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your question. Could you please read our guidelines on spam, external links and conflict of interest, and the other guidelines and policies, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Why didn't you remove my links?

Dirk, just to give you a change of diet ... why haven't you removed my links? -- Quantockgoblin

That's right! I checked through all 22795 chemistry pages myself, and found spam on 21323 of them. In addition, 3214 of them cite the dangers of higher oxides of the actinides. Can you clean these up? :) (Thanks for all your great work, Walkerma 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC))
I'll let shadowbot digest it all .. and I am now really wondering, are there any clean chemistry pages in wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, what my message really said was - step back, relax, and smile! I think the chemistry pages are actually in pretty good shape - partly due to your efforts. Your work has really made a difference! But you do need a break some time! Thanks, Walkerma 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
I know. And I am actually waiting until they fix an error in AWB to do a run on those 4500 chemicals. As you may have noticed I have not been too active in chemistry lately. I have found the fun of bot-programming. But I have a long weekend ahead (4 days out of the lab). I will take some time to relax. See you all around, have a good weekend! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

From Save OU Sports - Regarding our edits on pages dealing with Ohio Sports

Dear Dirk,

I believe that you may not be aware of the intense controversy in the United States surrounding a federal law - the Civil Rights Act, of which "Title Nine" or "Title IX" as it is often called, is a major section. Title IX has been used contrary to its original intent by university athletic directors to cut "minor" sports programs so they can use the money they save to fund their favorite "revenue" sports - sports that bring in revenue through ticket sales - sports like football and basketball.

Our issue with Ohio University is that it used Title IX as political cover to cut sports so it could have more money for its football and basketball programs.

This is not as much a point of view as it is a major trend affecting all United States universities - Olympic sports like track and field and also swimming and diving are being cut just so uniquely American sports like American football can have more money.

This unhealthy trend is contrary to the law. If you want independent confirmation that this is a major legal controversy in the US, then check out Title IX on Wikpedia and also on Google.

Wikpedia is used by high school seniors and their families during the process by which they choose a university to attend. Wikpedia's Ohio University web page was undoubtedly used by freshmen now attending Ohio University to select the school. Those same graduating high school seniors also had other university options. If the kind of information we have attempted to make available on Ohio University had been available to them, they would not have chosen that school and would now be attending a university where they could continue their athletic careers uninterrupted.

To give you some more perspective on how important this information is, unlike most European public universities where tuition is free, students at US universities must pay full tuition in addition to their living expenses. (I know as I lived in Europe for many years.) Selecting a university to attend is a MAJOR financial decision for any middle-class family since attendance is expensive. Keeping our information off this site deprives prospective students from learning information that may be decisive in their choice of a school. Indeed, in deleting our information and preventing them from knowing this you are cooperating with those people who wish to conceal this major controversy from prospective students and is a disservice to them.

The section on Ohio University Athletics dominates the page on the school. This is disproportionate to what the school has to offer. It appears that the page is managed mostly by Ohio University's Athletic Department, which, like most athletic departments at US universities, is more concerned with athletic honors than about helping student athletes graduate. Graduation success rates among the "revenue" sports at US universities are far below those of the minor sports or of the student bodies in general. The page promotes athletics, apparently at the expense of other information about the school. Shouldn't it be reduced to be proportionate to its importance to the school?

We are new to Wikpedia and will do our best to comply with its rules. We do not wish to abuse this privilege. However, in the interests of fairness, equal time, proportionality, and perspective, if we must limit our contributions to this particular page, shouldn't the athletic section be reduced to something proportionate to its own importance at Ohio University?

If you go to Ohio University's official website, you will see that Ohio University athletics is a relatively minor part of the university and does not deserve the prominence you allow it on the Wikpedia web page. Indeed, what you allow is essentially propaganda and the Athletic Department's POV on its own importance (very inflated) in the whole of the university.

If we are to be prevented from providing what we consider is very important information on Ohio University, then we ask you to reduce the size of the section on Ohio Athletics to something proportionate to its importance and stop allowing the Ohio University Athletic Department -- and its most active supporters - usually prominent business people who benefit financially from their association with university athletics (see the OU athletic web page section on Bobcat Boosters for independent confirmation - car dealers and other businesses) from using your service as a recruiting and propaganda tool for its own interests.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Save OU Sports—Preceding unsigned comment added by Save OU Sports (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your explanation. I saw you are a new editor, welcome to the wikipedia! As you may understand, it is allowed for everybody to edit everything, but still we have some rules, which are linked from the welcome message I put on your talkpage.
Although I fully understand your cause, wikipedia is not a soapbox. It may be that the pages as they stand are not conform the current status, but in that case I would suggest to describe clearly the changes you propose on the talkpage of the pages. An editor which is not involved can then perform the edits on the pages (as you have a conflict of interest, and it is probably difficult for you to keep a neutral point of view).
I hope this explains, happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from Save OU Sports

Dear Dirk, Thank you for your explanation.

First, we would like to be removed from the list of spammers. In fact, if you do, we will submit to you any proposed contributions before we post them so you can tell us if this is compliant with Wikipedis policy. We will do that until you are satisfied that we are complying with your rules.

Secondly, we would like to point you to another university with an identical issue, James Madison University, a school featured on Wikpedia.

The information on James Madison University's Wikpedia site on Title IX Compliance is identical to our position, yet it appears that this information has not been deleted. Here is what appears on that site:

"Title IX compliance On September 29, 2006, the James Madison University Board of Visitors announced that ten sports teams would be eliminated effective July 1, 2007.[26] The affected teams were men's archery, cross country, gymnastics, indoor track, outdoor track, swimming, and wrestling, as well as women's archery, fencing, and gymnastics. The stated reason for the cuts was to comply with Title IX requirements, specifically that the ratio of male-to-female student athletes match the whole student population. Many students were angered by the cuts, complaining that only less-popular sports were affected, and not sports such as football. Numerous editorials have appeared in newspapers across the country, both in support of and against the decision. On October 12, the United States Olympic Committee sent a letter to President Rose and Athletic Director Jeff Bourne, asking them to reconsider the decision to eliminate all ten teams.[27]

This action, however, was not without precedent. In March 2001, JMU's Board of Visitors was presented with four options for bringing the athletic program into compliance with Title IX. At that time, the options as presented to the board were to maintain the status quo, eliminate eight teams as recommended by JMU's Centennial Sports Committee, create a two-tiered system consisting of scholarship and non-scholarship teams as recommended by the administration, or raise student fees to fund an endowment for athletic scholarships as recommended by athletic coaches. Board of Visitors Athletic Committee chair Pablo Cuevas was paraphrased in The Breeze as stating that the option of maintaining the status quo was not viable due to concerns regarding Title IX. At that time, the teams under consideration for elimination were men's wrestling, swimming, archery, gymnastics, and tennis, and women's gymnastics, archery, and fencing.[28] The Board of Visitors, in a unanimous vote, ultimately decided to adopt the administration's recommendation of a two-tiered system of scholarship and non-scholarship teams. The non-scholarship teams were men's swimming, indoor and outdoor track and field, cross country, golf, wrestling, tennis, gymnastics, and women's swimming, golf, tennis and gymnastics. Athletic director Jeff Bourne stated that the plan to eliminate scholarship funding would implemented gradually over four to five years, as all then-active scholarships would be honored, and that verbal commitments to scholarships made by coaches to potential recruits would also be honored.[29]"

If we insert a similar contribution to Ohio University's web page, will it be allowed to remain?

We are in contact with the people at JMU who are also contesting this decision by that university and their position is identical to our own. They have launched a law suit against the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights contesting this action by JMU. We have also launched a complaint against the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights on the same issue.

We will return with a proposed edit to Ohio University's web page for your approval.

Again, we ask that our domain, be removed from your spam bot program so if we do insert that link in a page you say is appropriate, it will not be deleted.

Thank you, Save OU Sports—Preceding unsigned comment added by Save OU Sports (talkcontribs)

First, could you please sign your posts (you can do that easily by typing for tildes ("~~~~") before you save), and second, could you please use the edit button next to a header if you want to reply to the same section, that keeps the information nicely together. Thank you!
I am sorry, you are clearly trying to push your point of view, you have a conflict of interest, and the link you are adding does not comply with WP:EL, WP:V, and the way/reason of adding can be considered WP:SPAM. As I explained, wikipedia is not a soapbox. That other, similar pieces of text exist on the wikipedia does not mean that you can also add that (it might even be that those other pieces should be discussed and maybe removed). As I explained, I would suggest to discuss the edits on the talkpage (i.e. ask for approval, and wait until there are reactions, and then ask an uninvolved editor to make the edits), if that approval is there, removal from the spam blacklist can be considered. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Response from Save OU Sports

Thank you for your response. There seems to be a very fine line between pushing a point of view and providing relevant information on topics covered by Wikipedia. We will try to stay on the side of providing relevant information. Also, we will start signing our contributions. We thought that our name was recorded on each insertion thereby telling readers the source of the contribution.

We would like to offer our observation that topics covered by Wikipedia seem have several sides to them. Our side is just one of those dealing with Title IX and its effects on U.S. university sports in the larger context of U.S. Civil Rights Law.

We ask you to have U.S. Wikipedia administrators familiar with Title IX and its controversial effects examine our contributions and to go to the website we have tried to link,, to determine if we are just pushing our POV or if we are, in fact, providing information necessary to understand all sides of this very current and topical issue in the U.S. We are but one of many groups dealing with this. This issue currently affects many major and smaller U.S. universities including Rutgers University, Brown University, Harvard University, James Madison University, and others.

We believe that you will see that our information touches on the larger issue of the integrity of Wikipedia since most of our website is a factual collection of news reports, legal rulings, and information from other websites reporting on legal activity, legal opinions, and other information pertinent to the issue.

Our website is non-commercial, provides a wealth of factual reporting from scores of other sources, but we also do present our point of view. We will keep that point of view off Wikipedia but does the fact that our site does provide a POV mean that links to it cannot be posted on Wikpedia? We are unclear on that point. Please advise.

We will send our proposed contributions in for approval and will await your response.

Thank you again for your time in helping us deal with this, Save OU Sports 13:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports (did I sign this correctly?)


It is politely suggested that PRIOR to making ballpark, ill considered, childish, misinformed statements about people adding to this database that you actually get off your backside and look at what people are actually adding. You are a disgusting disgracefull person who should not be in charge of sweeping floors let alone websites.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

First of all, please remark on edits, and do not make personal attacks. I assume you are the same editor as user:socceraust. You were left a warning early on by another user pointing to our policies and guidelines considering link additions. At that point you had all the chance to read the policies and guidelines, and to consider your edits. After that you continued to add links to pages, still without explanation and without reason (did you engage somewhere in discussion that this link should be on these pages?). After both shadowbot and I left you a warning, with the suggestion to a) stop and b) explain, you still went on, resulting in your block.
Your current edits are a violation of WP:POINT. We are more than reasonable here, if you start discussing your points, we could come to a solution. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of "linkspam"

Hi. A question about your reversion here - what exactly is wrong with this external link? It is an official Government of Canada website, I'm not sure how this is "linkspam". Thank you. --SigPig |SEND - OVER 15:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was the way of adding, the involved account has mainly been adding external links only. The link as such is fine, when e.g. used as a reference, as they were now, I would argue that they should be deleted per WP:SPAM and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: external link on Land Force Command (Canada)

Hi, Beetstra. Thanks for your guidance about external links. I'll take your advice about adding the link as an external reference source -- I appreciate all and any help as I go forward with my contributions! Smobri 15:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your remark. I noticed you linkadditions on the linkfeed. The pages you seemed to link to are nice references for information in the wikipedia, but not as external links (please have a look at WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:NOT. Maybe you can help wikipedia with content and some good references (see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT for it! Hope to see you around, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Dirk. I'm just learning (not spamming!) as I go... Smobri 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
That's nice. Don't hesitate to ask when you have questions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Golden Lane Estate

As you might have noticed from his talk page, I've made a few editing suggestions at User talk:Goldenlane in the past. On this one, though, I don't really think that there is a conflict of interest. The Golden Lane Estate is an iconic piece of architecture from a particular era and is the subject of study on many architecture courses. It was heavily influential on design of the (failed) Lakes Estate in Bletchley, Milton Keynes and later on the early districts of Milton Keynes itself. He could cite more, though! --Concrete Cowboy 11:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I left a note and a strike-through on the message (also on WP:COIN). This indeed looks more like a 'fan'. I thought at first that it was the builder editing on a building they were building/had build (but did already have a bit of a strange feeling on it). Hope this settles it. Thanks for the note, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(Sub)(sub) vs. (sub)

Hiya Beetstra! Regarding your AWB edit to Radius of curvature, the double "sub"ing is deliberate——compare:

  • Single "sub": x1;
  • Double "sub": x1;

Unless it is my browser, the single "sub" barely subscripts, while the double "sub" looks like a normal subscript. Wouldn't you concur? P=)
Either way, the way you have it now is messy, code-wise. P=/  ~Kaimbridge~13:49, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

OOPS, I should not have saved thát one, I know double subbing/supping is something that should be handled otherwise, because my script can not handle that, it is meant to catch <sup>..<sup>, which should be <sup>..</sup>, it can't handle <sup><sup>..</sup></sup>.
It must be a browser thingy, by the way, because in Opera, the subscript thing is nearly a line lower. But many have to be handled by hand. Sorry for the inconvenience, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Nail polish

What's in nail polish? Anouhnomous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not sure what you mean. Could you please explain your question? (or maybe you can find the information in the article Nail polish? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


I have done a complete rewrite of azeotrope, which was badly in need of it. My aim was to make this difficult subject accessible to someone who has mastered high school chemistry. But I can't know if I was successful unless knowledgeable people review it and provide feedback. If you have the time, please have a look at the new version of this article. Thanks. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 14:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I have it open in a new window. First impression: a lot of text, but I will have a read later when I have more time. Thanks already, I am sure it has improved! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

John Tory/Facebook

Why was this link removed? It's one of his official campaigning tools to connect with Ontario students and listen to the issues with young voters and non-voters alike. It also helps these voters to see what his views are on issues important to Ontarians. --Nat.tang 18:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. I am sorry, but facebook does not comply with WP:EL (not reliable, anyone can create an account there; moreover, it requires, in this case registration). I presume his views are also available from his official site? Hope this helps, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Beetstra,

I would like to know why you removed the external link I added ( I am currenlty doing my PhD in patternrecognition and can assure you that there are very vew (if any) such sites on the web. All the information is based on peer reviewed papers and the source code is invaluable.

As I see it, you should stick to your area of expertise (Chemistry) and leave the editing to the experts in the field. My IP address have now been blocked.

The sad thing is that I have made various contributions to many pages which will now no longer happen.

What is you opinion on this matter? Can you give me any advise?

Regards, cvdwalt—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvdwalt (talkcontribs)

I assume you otherwise operate under the account (contribs). These additions got reverted because they came up in the spam-feed, a large number of links in a short time, which wikipedia defines as WP:SPAM.
The additions were all of the same kind ('more information can be found here'), and all to the domain, not to specific documents. External links should not be used to tunnel people away from the wikipedia, but they could be used to attribute information in the wikipedia. That is, you incorporate information in the wikipedia; that is, write a piece of text with content. For things that are not obvious, you then add a reference to documents that backup the content you add to wikipedia (references; see also footnotes for referencing styles). Hope this explains, I'll leave you a welcome message (if noone has beaten me to it) with some guidelines and policies. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:13, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "External links should not be used to tunnel people away from the wikipedia, "

Shouldn't external links be used for multimedia content when it is appropriate and useful, and technically can NOT be displayed within Wikipedia?

Why is there such concern with "tunneling people away from Wikipedia"? What does this have to do with serving users?

Aren't users smart enough to decide for themselves whether they can be best served on or off Wikipedia?

Pub4you 01:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Beetstra,

I agree that people should try to incorporate the information into the site when possible. I have however written a lot of source code that is very usefull as well as an applet. There is unfortunately now other way to direct users to this information except through external links..

I had the same discussion with another user (Robotman), eventually we agreed that as long as the links are in the external link section this is okay. When users get to the external links, they have probably read all the info on wikipedia and will probably bennefit from good external links to pursue their search. Thus they are not tunneled away from wikipedia inappropriately.

I thus have to concur with Pub4You.

What is your opinion? Are there any better ways to add links to this "usefull" information?

cvdwalt—Preceding unsigned comment added by cvdwalt (talkcontribs)

Both thank you for discussing, but I am sorry, I disagree with all of you, the links do not comply with the policies and guidelines. E.g. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY explains wikipedia is not a linkfarm (we are trying to write an encyclopeadia here); WP:COI explains that you should not add links you are affiliated with; in both cases the links do not comply with WP:EL; and both of you were spamming. Please read wikipedia's policies and guidelines (also others may apply). I am sorry, but I am not the person to complain to when your edits do not comply with some of our policies or guidelines, these policies and guidelines have been written with consensus of many wikipedia readers, and when you believe that one of them is wrong, please discuss that on the talkpage of that policy or guideline. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I have to correct myself, I do concur with Robotman1974, the links should indeed be in the external links section, if they comply with WP:EL (and from my side, with other policies and guidelines as well). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, you seem like a good guy, and I bear you no ill will.

But if you are going to ignore the issues of content that technically can not be provided through the Wikipedia interface, and just chant policy, policy, policy then it will be more credible if you actually consistently follow the policy you claim to be supporting.

If external links to multimedia are not wanted by the group consensus, ok, fair enough. So let's delete them all.

You're going around deleting external links to multimedia, and then complaining to me when I do EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Logic, my friend, logic, let it be your friend.

Anyway, it's not your fault or mine, but the Wikipedia model. It really doesn't matter if we agree or disagree cause ten minutes from now somebody else is going to jump in to the page and do whatever the hell they want to do.

It seems the desires of users has been lost in the process of editor power struggles.

The next generation doesn't read, it watches. Something to keep in mind if you care about the future of Wikipedia.

Pub4you 23:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick followup:

Can somebody tell me why we care about "funneling users away from Wikipedia"?

Pub4you 00:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You were spamming the link to wikipedia, that other links are there are for you not a reason to add more, we are a linkfarm. The other links may have ended there after consensus, but you were trying to make a point in removing them, which is disruptive editing. WP:EL is clear enough, if you think your links are of interest on the pages, discuss them on the talkpages, and when consensus is reached, they can be added, but not by you. You appear to have a conflict of interest.
I am not ignoring the issue, I have explained you the policies and guidelines we are working here under, and I have given you the pages where you can request technical implementations.
Re your addition, we are trying to write an encyclopeadia here, not a linkfarm. External links exist to attribute information, and some external links can be informative (again, see WP:NOT). But the focus is on content, not on links. We don't put all interviews of madonna on her page, but one or two representative ones may be appropriate. And which ones can be discussed on the talkpage. But mass-addition of links (and that starts in my view already at 3), or addition of links only is spam, however appropriate the link may be. I hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Quick addition from my side. It is not me who has written the policies, that is done in consensus by many editors. That all those editors agree that that is the policy, means that we all have to live by that, or we suggest changes there. As the policy and guidelines are formulated now, external links are limited, and we do not allow spam, and yes, I am one of the people helping to enforce the policies as they stand. If they change, then I will adapt the things to the new guidelines. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:24, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Vitruvian Barnstar.png The da Vinci Barnstar
For creating COIBot, an amazing tool for identifying conflicts of interest on Wikipedia. Awesome work! RJASE1 Talk 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I hope it will behave and do its task well! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Glacsy on Wikipedia?


As I'm completly new to Wikipedia - Is Wikipedia on a request/acceptance/decline basis, is it truely on a free post-it-yourself basis, or both? I recently started working on an article for a fashion company called Glacsy and found that the article wasn't "fit" for Wikipedia. Though not being a writer/journalist, I didn't or haven't understood the reason per reading the "how-to's" and many of the notabilities. My plan was to start an article and build onto it by adding content, referrences, and more periodically while abiding by the Wikipedia policies (or just common sense). As a personal note: Wikipedia is a great place for articles, but a bit confusing and hard to post one. I truely hope we can contribute to Wikipedia with knowledge of a different perspective for fashion began from a simple company.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Glacsy (talkcontribs)

Hi, thanks for your question. I left a message on your talkpage, the main problem with you editing the article glacsy is that you appear to have a conflict of interest. That guideline strongly discourages editing articles that one is affiliated with, please put it on a requested articles list. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:51, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Fire protection

Please explain why you believe a website comparing different types of smoke and heat detectors is not relevant to Fire protection. --Pascal666 09:27, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not start the subject on your talkpage yet. I saw you additions in the link-addition feed, you were adding that link to several articles (see WP:SPAM a.o. the section WP:SPAM#How_not_to_be_a_spammer. I decided to start removing them, and another editor also removed a couple. In my opinion there is no direct, symmetrical relationship between the two subjects (see WP:EL, links to avoid, #13). Moreover, the page linked to seems a personal webspace, not an official reliable source and a large advertising banner is on top. The link may provide a reference in some articles (though I am afraid it will not pass WP:RS), but not as an external link. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I see now how adding the same link to multiple pages could trip your spam detector. Reading WP:EL I would have to say this website falls under What should be linked #3: "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to amount of detail", however I believe you would be correct in that I did make an error in adding it to this article. Though smoke and heat detectors are used for Fire protection, the article itself only references detectors in relation to other articles. However, the very first link on Fire protection links to a personal Geocities website with an entire frame dedicated to ads, and the third link on Smoke detector links to a site with four large flash banners and three areas of text ads. I would agree it should not be used as a reference, but as an external link it would appear to be germane to selected Wikipedia articles. --Pascal666 10:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I did not look at the other links in the article, it is often the case that some of these are questionable as well (but that is not a reason to add more). I would argue that when there are links in the article, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY also plays a role (not a linkfarm, wikipedia does not have to link to all articles that do contain useful and necessary information). As what you say to amount of detail, indeed, it might be suitable as such as a link in the external links section (I presume the information is correct, reliable and verifyable). For those articles where it is germane, you could discuss it on the talkpage first, and when consensus is reached, add them with a edit summary pointing to the discussion on the talkpage. It might set off our spam-alarm, but we will not kill the link additions when we see that in the edit summary). Hope this helps! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Question on Procedure

Hi Dirk,

Hope things are going well for you. I've noticed that material on contributor Talk pages winds up being included by Google and maybe others in search findings. It seems out of place to be included amongst more substantive references. I've tried to figure out the proper etiquette to discourage this, for example, by editing one's own Talk page (or Vanishing, for that matter). But, unfortunately, I can't find a how-to explanation. Since I've been prone to make every mistake in the book, I'm eager not to make more - if at all possible. Can you help me out? Thanks! CCS 14:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I see you changed your username. I am not sure what you mean, you mean that when you search for your company name, your talkpage is high in the results? Hope to hear more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Ironic since, to the best of my knowledge, no search and find association with W is deserved on merit of W topic content. In addition to the questions I had posed, I'd like to know the best way for me to add an editorial correction, if possible, concerning the retired ID. Can that be inserted at the appropriate point within my own existing text on my Talk page? Am I correct to understand that other references to the retired ID (like in the Welcome text) remain unalterable? Sorry about the misplacement of my inital question. I noticed too late the "start here" guidance. Thanks! CCS 15:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it is correct to keep the old ID as such, redirecting to your current ID (because the old edits were performed with that ID, otherwise tracking the editor of those edits would become difficult). A click on a google-result will now tunnel to your current talkpage (which will probably stay in the google-results, I don't know if it is possible to remove that from google). You are allowed to do what you want with your user and talkpage. Delete (or better, archive) the contents is OK (although immediate removal of warnings is frowned upon, one is allowed to do it, for older warnings there is no problem). If you want things really to be removed from the database you need to contact someone with oversight capabilities (some special editors), but that is not done very often. Hope this is what you meant... --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, thanks for your assistance. I made the desired edits consistent with your guidance. Just to know, how does one "vanish", if desired? I still haven't a clue. I can find discussion of the concept but not the mechanics. Hope you got to rest up some. CCS 20:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you need an administrator and ask if s/he can delete your old account, but I am not sure how policies and guidelines are for that. Maybe the administrator that helped you with the account rename can tell you more? Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)



the link to the leinster supporters site has been removed from all Leinster Rugby related pages. I did not check the guidelines before posting the link, for which I take full blame, but I think that removing the link from the main Leinster Rugby page is an unfair removal. I think that removing the link from the other pages that it was linked on was completely fair, bearing in mind the guidelines. The reason that I think that this is an unfair removal of a valid link is that the site contains lots of information that is very useful both to supporters of Leinster and to visiting fans. This information is generally very useful on a once-off basis (BOSI - Wasps Travel Guide) and also allows the supporters club to keep the supporters up to date (supporters club report). The forum allows supporters to arrange meetings places for away matches while the site also provides up-to-date fixture lists, league tables, match previews and reviews.

Pique 13:09, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, you may be right. I guess I just cleaned all the occurances of the links you added (per WP:SPAM). If you think this is the official page of the fans (and it is reliably the official fanpage), I think you can put it back on this page (it may be blacklisted on shadowbot, in which case I would use 'undo' when shadowbot reverts). Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Criterion collection essays

Hi. I don't know who added links to Criterion collection essays in the external link section of film articles, but many of these essays are previously published, reliable secondary sources and are excellent, encyclopedic sources for film articles. It is my preference to see external link sections trimmed and often eliminated entirely, in favor of inline footnotes, but deleting good information merely because it has the false appaearance of spam is no different than deleting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes links only because an editor added them to multiple articles. —Viriditas | Talk 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter case is also spam, and hence should also be reverted. The links do not comply with WP:EL - they are essays, they may indeed be suitable as references, but not as external links or as advertisements (I have removed at least two occurances which stated 'Criterion found this a good movie, so we sell this on DVDs), Considering the linkfeed I strongly suspect that some people with a conflict of interest are working hard to promote their own links. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

:Moreover, I don't know with others, but I do get a 404 when I try to load the pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)forget that, seems to work now. I'll have a read. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Your participation in an important discussion regarding this topic is requested here. Thanks. —Viriditas | Talk 22:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have answered there, thanks for the note --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

His First Crush

  1. I run that website, it's stable. I am not going to delete it any time soon.
  2. WP:ALBUM says it's ok.

Violask81976 18:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC) :# You were spamming

  1. You have a conflict of interest
  2. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.
Thank you, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I have reviewed WP:ALBUM, and I believe they are wrong. Lyrics fall under a copyright, and WP:COPYRIGHT (a policy) prohibits linking to sites that violate copyright information. Hope this explains. Oh, I put a strikethrough on spamming, sorry, that was wrong. Have anice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Robert Joseph (wine expert)

Thank you for your note regarding my recent posting. In fact I simply corrected errors and added a photograph after being told of confusion with the other Robert Joseph's image. But I do take the need for neutrality/accuracy of Wikipedia's information very seriously. Thank you again Robert Joseph—Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertejoseph (talkcontribs)

I left you a welcome message, I hope you can share your expertise on wine with wikipedia. Again, welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC) is a reliable source. We have Colin Ferguson and Grant Rosenberg feeding us with info all the time, and they can be trusted surely?

As for the COI - that's just a stupid rule. I don't have a conflict of interest - I am trying to provide WikiPedia with the information about the show, while appropriately citing the references. If you idiots are too stubborn to understand that - then fine. Your loss - because trust me, when Season 2 begins - you will all see that was in fact correct - and I will be expecting full appologies from every idiot who removed any links OR references. I can't wait for July 10th - it'll shut a hell of a lot of people up, and might actually cement my site as being a reliable source of information for Eureka.

If you are not willing to accept me as a reliable source - then why are you fighting so hard to keep information I provided? That makes no sense. I either want referencing as the source, or remove my info - otherwise you're breaching your own copyright.

The site may be a reliable site, but you have a conflict of interest, read WP:COI and the warnings I have left you. Discuss your edits on the talkpage, but do not edit the articles yourself. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Well please remove my information... Because I posted it. I'm sorry, but if you're going to moan at me about the rules, I shall expect you to follow those rules as well.

As for the Season 2 premiere date - Sci Fi DID release a press release yesterday. If you don't want to have that information because you dislike my methods, then fine. Again - it is your loss not mine. I didn't even cite a reference for that so its not as if I am trying to

As for talking about the edits first - that is completely pointless. Everybody seems to ignore that page anyway as nobody responded to what I posted last time I had somebody moaning at me. So the information will end up never getting posted.

What I don't get here mate, is that your COI rule stops webmasters from actually helping this site... If I can't edit that page because I run, then that page won't get EXCLUSIVE information that I have kindly posted.

You just left a message about reverting - I never reverted. I simply re-added the Season 2 premiere date after you had removed the returned the Season 2 Sky One info (which you still have posted, against your own Copyright rules). So I did not revert - I just added more info. So don't block me from editing - I enjoy helping this site out. It's just absolute bull**** when I've got three or four idiots throwing stupid rules that just RUIN this site. I'm not spamming the articles - I'm not writing "BUSH IS A MORON" on any articles... I'm doing nothing wrong. Throw me a god damn bone!

The 3RR was just a warning, the edits you were performing were not based on consensus, and you were reverted earlier on the edits. 3RR is also there for readding the same or very similar information.
Concerning the COI, no, the COI rule does not prevent people from contributing information, but they have to take great care. They are very strongly encouraged to discuss the edits on the talkpage, and let an uninvolved editor make the changes. You are still free to edit all other pages, but do take care not to edit pages where you are, as webmaster, by work, in personal life, or in any other way, strongy involved in. I edit many pages within the chemistry subjects on this wikipedia, but I am staying away from the subjects that I am, at work, researching. I may make some spelling or style corrections, but I do not add data or information to these articles. Simple.
Information is never so important that it has to be added NOW, that can be done tomorrow as well, and therefore we ask you to discuss the edits on the talkpage, or contact an appropriate wikiproject to perform these edits for you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, but we still have some guidelines and policies (I will leave you a welcome message soon, if there is none on your talkpage, with the links to them), and I would suggest that you read them. Your talkpage is more a concatenation of warnings (and a block) than of discussions, and you are setting of quite a number of alarms now. I hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah thanks so much. You've actually helped me - first person to do so!

I have a little honesty problem - I'm too honest. I'm not the sort of person to stand down, and I'm not the sort of person to let somebody piss me off. If they do - I'll sure as hell tell them, and although I know this can lead to trouble I still do it!

But you've actually explained stuff to me, made it personal by talking about your work so I appreciate and understand it better. So yeah - I appreciate that, and I appreciate what you've said. I'm sure you can appreciate that as a webmaster I want my site noticed. When I can provide information that no other site can, I want to show it to the world and say "Hey look - I've got this really cool info! My site has it for the world to see!" I'm sure you can understand that. Having Colin and Grant on the forums is just unbelievable and it's great! They're answering questions for fans, and letting us in on whats going on on set as well.

As for the unreliable source thing - that was something Matthew threw at me, which I was really offended by. That's why I commented on it here.

Thanks for actually helping me. I would love to run the Eureka page - but I guess me owning VE prohibits that. I'm a perfectionist - it's done right, or its not done at all in my eyes. That's why I want to control the Eureka page ;-)

Thanks again.

You're welcome. I am sorry if things sounded a bit harsh in the beginning, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, because otherwise this site quickly turns into something wikipedia is not. You already say that you are interested in having sites linking to your site, and that is exactly what our bots try to catch (additions of links, edits of certain pages, etc). Links should never be to promote a site, they should be used to attribute information. I am glad you understand that, hope to see you around, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


Hello Beetstra,
please send your real-name, your wikiname, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to Zedler-admins.png. We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Why Remove an article about Expertantivirus?

I wrote an article about Expertantivirus and it appears that you deleted the article in its entirety. This was done despite the fact that a nearly identical established article on another spyware infection, SpyLocked, was used as a template to guide my submission.

This is a breaking news situation, and admitedly there was one link that was clearly labeled an external link that told users how to remove the infection. Considering I have been on the leading edge of numberous infections such as Moviepass and, I believe I can reliably be considered an authority on this subject.

I am at a loss as to why you would delete this entire article, and there is not a doubt in my mind it will be rewritten by someone else at some point because this is a REAL infection that steals money from REAL people.

I believe this is a case of over agressive editing, and that type of behaviour is very discouraging to someone who wrote an article that had NO immediate self interest and followed a nearly EXACT previously approved artiucle on a similar infection.

Please be consistent or spend your time doing something else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tschrock (talk • contribs) 18:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

Thank you for your remark. No, I did not delete the page, but I did tag it as spam. An admin deleted the page (so that makes at least two people who evaluated the page), as has been done to other pages that you have created (which were apparently advertising or non-notable, although I have not seen those). I noticed that you added a link to the page which pointed to a page that you are affiliated with. I therefore also left you a conflict of interest-warning ({{uw-coi1}}). Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Thank you, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:22, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


One for COIbot: BoschRexroth-us (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). (By the way, is there a COIbot noticeboard where I should actually post this?) Nposs 14:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nposs. Thanks, but the autodetection found those already (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/UserReports/BoschRexroth-us). I am watching both WT:COIN and WT:WPSPAM and of course the talkpage of COIBot, but maybe it is time for a Wikipedia:WikiProject COI (or something similar). And here is fine as well. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


Dirk I think the economic bubble link was highly relavent. But as said I have added a discussion about external links, and will wait a few days before re-adding to see if anyone else is even working on this page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You were spamming the link, and we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy Beetstra....did you remove the link

on the BDSM article intentionally, or did it get dusted by accident while reverting for popup issue? I put that link up because not everone can play an OGG format file. (please reply on my talk page. Thank you.) DollieLlama 20:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Via - Thank You

Dirk, Thank you for your editing and comments on the Via Foundation and the Via Bona Award wiki entries I've been working on. These are the definitions of "works in progress," so any advice you may offer is appreciated. My inexperience at writing entries shows!

Thank you again and sorry to trouble you with so many corrections.

--Nadacevia 09:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. I saw your additions on our warning-channels on IRC, you seem to have a conflict of interest (you are setting of quite some alarms there).
It may be better if you leave others to edit that article more (however hard one tries, it is always difficult to keep a NPOV when editing articles close to you (I also stay away from some chemistry articles where I research the subject myself).
Don't worry about me changing things, thats what we try, work together to improve the encyclopedia. Hope to see you around, happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I have one question - I'm writing this wikipedia because the info about Via precisely because there is not a lot of info in English on the web about the organization - there is a lot of information in Czech, but I am trying to make it more accessible in English. I could source much of this in Czech, but that is not especially helpful for readers of the English Wikipedia, right? Or should I go ahead and put the links to Czech language 3rd party sources? --Nadacevia 10:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If the information can not be found in English, you can reference to the Czech document, but then you should, with the link, say that the referenced document is in Czech (if I am correct, there is a template for that, but I don't know which, you might have to look around a bit). Trouble is mainly that it is difficult for other editors to check. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:14, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk - The only reason I did so on both this page and on the Via Bona Awards page is that the person who initially tagged these pages recommended that I remove that tag myself. Please see Haemo's user talk. If this is no good for me to do, then what is the next step to having these tags removed? --Nadacevia 22:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do believe you have a conflict of interest, and I think you should not do that yourself. I would leave the tag there and wait for an uninvolved, unbiased editor (but one that knows something about the subject) to see if the article is neutral enough to their liking, and let them remove the tag (which may take some time). Seen the article, I think it will not be much of a problem. Under the wording of WP:COI and the warning {{uw-coi1}} that I left you I think you should not be editing the document at all. It is just better not give a wrong impression. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for taking the time to explain your opinion. As you can see with the history of the edits, I have only been adding external links to justify and source the material on the page (as I thought I was required to do in order to remove that tag without question). Is there a way that I may request an editor to review this page so that the coi tag may be removed? --Nadacevia 23:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

You could try and see if there is an appropriate wikiproject where your article would fall under. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: bot question

Sorry. I'm not on IRC. Have always meant to set it up but never succeeded :) If it's quick I can try now. Is there a pointer to a page that tells me how? -- Siobhan Hansa 18:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi. Thanks. I was about to start on them myself. What about her article, Agent-Based Computational Economics? I have tagged it for speedy deletion (a bit late really, may have to go AfD instead, but no-one else seems to have noticed the huge slant in it). Perhaps you could give me your opinion on that, as it relates to the user? Ref (chew)(do) 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

New chemistry COTM

Hi Dirk, we made Category:Chemistry articles with topics of unclear importance our new Chemistry COTM. Can you help with the work? Thanks, Walkerma 06:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll have a look to see where I can be of help. Thanks for the notice! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


I do not take kindly to having my edits labelled as "spamming". I am also somewhat disgusted to discover that my username has been placed on some kind of stalking list. Please remove my name and your accusations of spamming from these lists and do not put it back. You may also want to go and review the definition of "conflict of interest". If a user called "Gurch" edits a page called "March 1", that is not a conflict of interest, and any kind of automated program that makes such accusations needs a serious rethinking – Gurch 15:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the remark. You could also have asked friendly for whitelisting, or suggest a better way of detection. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, my comment was a little unfriendly, sorry about that. Just that the use of both the word "spam" and "conflict of interest" is a little strong – you are effectively accusing me of violating two guidelines by having me on that list, and though the bot has a sort of "it might not be a COI after all" disclaimer notice, it doesn't do the same thing for spam.
Looking at how this bot actually works, it seems that all you're doing is looking for a string of letters in common in the page title and user name. Thus it picked up on this because of the fact that "Gurch" and "March 1" both contain the string "rch". If this is in fact how it works, I think you're going to have to look for a closer match than just three letters in common. It's a novel idea, but unless one's username is some improbable string of characters like "qxz", with the current definition of a "match" you're going to match the page title all the time. There are all kinds of unrelated words that contain "rch". A quick search of your other reports confirms this – apparently my edit to the "Birch" article is also a COI.
Ignoring my own indignance at being labelled a spammer, I don't see how such a report is going to be useful to whoever it is being produced for, either – it's going to be full of users who edit a lot of different articles and don't have particularly obscure combinations of letters in their name. Perhaps it would be better to only look for names that match exactly, or very nearly (to within one character)?
Anyway, enough of that. Sorry for being incivil. If you need me, I'll be over at Category:Churches, racking up a few COIs. That's after I've cleaned up Larch, Urchin and Starch – Gurch 19:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Its fine, I realise that my mechanism is not perfect, though I think it is doing a pretty good job. If you do a rough scan of the cases where COIBot is using its match mechanism (so not the monitored links) you see that the large majority is really questionable, and that of the rest only a few are really strange (and I must confess, 'Gurch' <-> 'March 1' is indeed a very strange one).
The mechanism as you describe is quite correct (though it is more complex). It calculates the overlap as the percentage (overlapping characters per total length of a name). In your case the overlap is 'only' 30%, which is already in my personal 'this could be right, this could be wrong level' (overlap between 25 and 40 seems often questionable, though many are correctly reported, above 40% is a clear overlap, though there are still some that are not proper, and even sometimes a 100% overlap is a complete miss (COIBot caught an admin earlier on 100%). So all cases have to be, and are judged case by case, and we whitelist anything that is wrong. So whatever mechanism chosen, COIBot will miss some and COIBot will have some wrong hits, and I will try to improve it. I will have to study some more pattern-recognition; I already noticed that short usernames or short pagenames (or both) give a relatively high rate of wrong hits. Maybe I should put some weighing into that.
Now I must confess, maybe the name of the pages are not chosen properly. It implies that the people have a COI or are spamming, which will often not be true. Maybe I should put a disclaimer on top of the page.
Until now the logs seem quite usefull. For people who are monitoring the live feeds (which also show these records) we quite often react on what the bots say, and add links to shadowbot while they are happening, start conversations on the talkpages of the editor, or speedy tag the documents created. Though we can't handle all (and all help in the live-feeds is appreciated), we do at least handle a couple of them. There are also admins there which can even directly delete the page etc. Of course we can't handle all, but for severe cases (which we see by the number of records on the page), we do make posts on WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
I hope this explains a bit.
By the way, you can edit whatever article you like, COIBot should now completely ignore you, you are now whitelisted for "*". Happy editing, and have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I got in touch with Gracenotes and had him expand Grace Notes. No doubt that drove it crazy – Gurch 06:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. I think all regular, good editors should do that hen I am watching the feed, so that I can whitelist them all. That would quickly improve COIBots efficiency (less processor use, less MySQL queries). I might need some help with all the whitelisting though (care to join? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Hi Dirk. Could you please proofread, if the English in this newly created article is correct? Many thanks. --Leyo 17:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That looks all OK to me. It could use a scheme; you can draw it yourself, or e.g. use {{chemical drawing needed}} for that, it will categorise the article in a category that is watched by some of our drawing wikipedians (see also Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemistry/Image_Request). You could also include some more wikilinks.
Thanks for the article. Hope to see you around, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your prompt reply and your suggestions. I have also thought about a scheme, but as Benzisothiazolinone looks different to the rest (i.e. in having two rings), I was not sure on how that could be done. I will therefore use the template you suggested. --Leyo 19:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Why removal

Hi Dirk,

Do you mind explaining in what you way you though a 3D-animaion of a ball bearing was "link spam"? It really added a value on explaining how a ball bearing work. Please don't take this as critisism. At this stage I'm just trying to understand you :-) 18:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW: I read your discussion regarding this and totally agree on that "External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.". Having the possibility to add 3D-animation to wikipedia would be really helpful. But that is not possible. Hence offering the readers a possibility to view an external link with a 3D-animation is really adding value to the article. 18:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Hi. No, it is fine that you ask. The link was added by the editor just before me, and that editor was adding links to webpages with animations to several pages, in external links sections. When looking at the link, it lead to a page with a java-script where my firewall first choked upon. Setting that aside, the pictures are indeed quite nice.
But as I said, the editor was adding the link to several pages, which, under the wikipedia definition, is defined as spam (see WP:SPAM). External links added in a spammy way are removed, even if they might have been appropriate (other policies and guidelines applicable are WP:EL and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY). An extra factor in the situation was, that the name of the user who added the links was also the person who made the pictures. In such cases link-additions or edits to pages are strongly discouraged (see WP:COI). All in all I decided to revert all additions.
If you think the picture really add to the page, I would suggest you discuss its addition on the talkpage of the page the picture should be added to, wait for some positive answers, and an established editor can add the picture. Another option is to use the link as a reference (see e.g. WP:RS, WP:CITE and WP:FOOT).
Added: Yes, animation built into the mediawiki software might be nice (and there are some possibilities, but they are not enabled on wikipedia). Trouble is a bit, that the pages should be accesible for all people, also people who still run e.g. windows 3.11 (without JAVA), or whatever. Wikipedia is IMHO not only an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, it should also be an encyclopedia that anyone can use (so e.g. in printed format, on a CD, local on a laptop in the middle of a forest in Brazil, or by someone with a slow internet connection in a far corner of Borneo).
Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


Dirk, is there anything that can be done about editors who are always deleting other people's contributions? I know of someone who does this and it deters others from contributing.

Sardaka 09:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Deleting pages can only be done by administrators. Pages have to comply with WP:N, if they do not they can either speedily deleted, or go through an Articles for deletion process. You can see the reason for deletion in the deletion log, as well as the admin that deleted the article, guess it is best to ask that admin. Also, there is somewhere a posibility to request a deletion review, and articles can then be undeleted when the article was wrongly deleted. Hope this helps, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:53, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

changes to Ranchor Dasa / Ranchor Prime

Dear Dirk,

I see that my entry for Ranchor Prime has been speedily removed because it does not 'assert the importance or significance of the subject'. But Wikipedia already has an entry for me under 'Ranchor Dasa' so presumably somebody there considers me significant. I only discovered this recently and assumed I was permitted to make corrections. The best way to do this seemed to be to make a new entry under my proper name, Ranchor Prime. Having read your guidelines I see this is problematic. However so is the fact that my current entry is misleading in several ways:

a. It identifies me as Ranchor Dasa, when I am now universally know as Ranchor Prime, under which name all my books for the last 15 years are published.

b. It creates the impression that I am a full-time active member of ISKCON, which I ceased to be 20 years ago.

c. It makes no mention of my principal work as a Hindu environmentalist, and as an author.

Therefore I want to make the following additions/corrections:

1. Add that my usual name, under which my books are published, is Ranchor Prime.

2. Add that I now work as an author and Hindu environmentalist.

3. Add the weblink to the environmental charity 'Friends of Vrindavan' and correct the spelling of Vrindavan.

4. Delete the inference that I am prejudiced against the Catholic religion (which is based on a misquotation from one of my own articles).

Best wishes,

Ranchor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ranchorprime (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Thanks for your remark. Sorry, I missed it earlier. First of all, if you are the subject of the article then I would advice you to read WP:COI, and not to edit the articles yourself but to discuss on the talkpage, or ask help in an appropriate wikiproject. I think I saw your case coming up on WP:COIN not too long ago (and I recall user:COIBot picking up the edits). There are a couple of things that have to be resolved and which are quite major changes (changes of one or two spelling mistakes would not be a problem, but if it becomes more, or more edits, WP:COI would probably apply): The page Ranchor Dasa should be moved to Ranchor Prime, and then some text has to be changed. I think the best place to start that is on the talkpage of Ranchor Dasa; If you write a section there with a consise but complete story of what, in your eyes, should be done (I guess the best way to move forward is to give suggestions, but not try and write textual changes yourself). Then leave messages on an appropriate wikiproject (or two; Wikipedia:WikiProject Authors or Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography might be suitable starting points, but there may be others that are even more suitable; try not to leave messages everywhere, that tends to annoy editors more than to attract help) that you have left that discussion there and that you would like to see it changed. Hope this helps, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion again

No, I didn't mean articles being deleted. I meant that one editor keeps deleting the contributions of other editors, deleting sentences, paragraphs, bits of text, references etc. Someone I know does it all the time, even deleting references, when we're expected to provide references.

Sardaka 10:20, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, missed this addition. Ah, that is what you mean. Well, first I would try and discuss on the users talkpage (ask for a reason and try to work it out) and on the talkpage of the page itself. If that does not work, you could go up, and asks for a comment, or go to the administrators noticeboard. Or, if it is a new editor that does this, warn that what the person does is vandalism. Hope this helps, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Kreis Bromberg external link

(sigh) the wikiPedia article is a mostly a donateed copy from The difference between the two articles is that the article contains links to about a thousand articles on that don't and never will exist on wikipedia, but are extremely useful to amatuer reasearchers who have a personal interest in the material. This was explained in a previous version of the link, but that version was deleted as "adverstising". Please consider the needs of those users. It would take several paragraphs to explain to someone who isn't involved in this area of knowledge why a deviation from the normal wikipedia practices is the better decision. If I thought you'ld care, I'd outline them. The material in this subject area at has grown about 100% every year for the last 3 years. The same subject area has grown less than 5% on wikipedia ever, and 90% of that has been work on infoboxes by the Historical States Project. For the audience likely to read this article, the additional material at contains the meat of what they are after. In the next decade, only about 10 or so researchers would find valued in the some 10,000 (so far) village articles, and a few hundred in the various parish, civil registration, & synagogue articles (about 2000 or so articles). For example, go the Kr. Bromberg example on and scroll down to the Potulitz entry in the Communities table. Open the town link. This is an average sample. Some articles contain a lot more (e.g. Margonin, Kr. Kolmar). A lot contain only the database generated data, but even this bare minimum is much more material than 98% of these villages would have in a WikiPedia article. (If these extra 15,000 articles could be magically transferred over to WikiPedia, it would it at one person's full time job to protect them from non-audience editors who ignorantly would try to redirect them to general articles, and the Polish nationalist/revisionalists who try to eradicate any non-negative material about the Prussian occupation of Polish lands. So do what you have to do, but there are people whose lives won't be as rich if you make it harder for them to find the information. I really don't know how many would find the skeleton material on wikipedia and then not think to Google it and then be led towards A certain percentage certainly. It is these few non-savvy people that I fight for, and the rest of them that I complile this information. is not comercial, I pay it's tiny expenses out of my pocket as a hobby, but it's a life's work that has made a big difference in the lives of lots of people. You can hide it from some people if you want, but if you do, I hope it's *your* aunt/brother/nephew whose affected. Bwood 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

My first question now is, is your website? Could you then please read WP:COI? And secondly, if the information is so good, then it should not be used as a reference on quite a number of the pages you are talking about. Wikipedia should have pages on the different areas, and maybe (probably?) even on the different villages, tell about things to be found in there, why the place is interesting. And they may contain different data then your wiki, but I think that is exactly the point. For now the data is merely a copy, so the external link does not add in such a way (and people will use google anyway, even if your link is there).
If I look at the article (Kreis Bromberg) as it stands now, I would advise you to read WP:NOT to see what wikipedia is not, because I would not call this article encyclopedic in this way. It does not tell about the Kreis, it is more a category of places that are in this Kreis. The article is more table then information on why the Kreis is interesting, it contains empty section headers (which probably are a work in progress, but then for now the section headers are not necessary). As a page it looks quite different from e.g. Ammerland (to take a random German Landkreis) on the English wikipedia, and the article on the German wikipedia actually is a lot more interesting than what is now on the English counterpart. So no, I don't think your link belongs on this article (as Hu12 and Betacommand both also judged), but I would be grateful if you could turn the wikipedia article into a proper article.
And could you please explain how I am supposed to read the last sentence of your comment (I hope you had a different meaning than what I just read of it)? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm obviously too close to the audience to be objective, it's taken me a while to come to grips with how much wikipedia has changed in the last few years and how much more limited it is being directed. If I had known back then how things would progress, I'd have never invested so much time on my contributions. I'm getting closer and closer to letting go emotionally, as well as in fact. Bwood 04:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
The policies and guidelines on external links may indeed have hardened, or at least people are working harder to keep them up. As I see it wikipedia and your wiki are serving different targets, and as such may be complementary. That may result in your work on wikipedia being changed completely, and plain external links being removed, but I am sure your site would serve well as a reference to documents on wikipedia. And I am sure that if you would write an article about a village somewhere in the former Kreis Bromberg which would contain information that would need a reference to your wiki, that would be fine. Hope this explains, and hope to see you around. Have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey, I noticed you seemed 0.5% unsure about going straight to a final warning with the above user. If it helps at all I think you did fine, the above user was inserting 5 or 6 spam links per edit, so straight to a high level warning was appropriate :) SGGH speak! 20:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I have had a situation with this link before. The link is good, though not in external links sections, and certainly not when spammed. I was hoping for discussion, but when addition went on after that warning I decided to go to a spam4im (there was already a spam1 issued earlier). Thanks for the thumbs up! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Myrmidon3 who are you refering too? "the above user was inserting 5 or 6 spam links per edit" If you are referring to "Boat" your statment is untrue. Truth is that it was only one link that was re-posted a few times because it did not show up. I was unaware of the spam bot system and how Wiki worked at the time. I'm not a Wiki guru like you guys. I also noticed Wiki guru's like to use the word spam a lot even for items that are not spam. The official definition of spam is: To indiscriminately send unsolicited, unwanted, irrelevant, or inappropriate messages in mass quantities.

One suggestion I’d like to put into the suggestion box is to make people aware of external link rules when editing. I've looked over the talk pages and there's so many valuable related links that get automatically removed because people are unaware of the system. If I knew of the "one link per topic rule" when editing I would of never reposted the link in other related sections.

Anyway if you we're not referring to boat just remove this comment :-)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

SGGH and I were not referring to boat but to Myrmidon3's edits. His actions would also have resulted in blacklisting (even for a short time), but we all can see where the link leads to, and therefore we can judge that link by its value. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit to Talk:The Passion of Joan of Arc

This may have been automaic — the comment said you were using AWB — but I wish you/it hadn't changed the first link in my comment. I was commenting on an anonymous user having made the same edit in the text of the article, and noting that neither version of the link works. I've changed it back.  â€” AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 15:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)"

Well, semi-automatic. The site has changed from to, so the former will certainly not work. But no probs, when I was halfway I realised that maybe I should have left it to only main-space links, though this is also more correct. It is all fine with me. Thanks for the remark, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Link on Forensic Entomology

Vifsm 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)On the Forensic Entomology page, you removed the link to Virginia Institute of Forensic Science and Medicine. VIFSM is a nonprofit forensic training institution that has courses in forensic entomology. The link is valid according to wikipedia's rules for external links. In addition to VIFSM offering training in forensic entomology, it has a plethora of forensic resources for individuals interested in learning about forensic entomology. Please do not remove the link. Thank you.

Please read our policies and guidelines on WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Smith

Fixed it already, thanks. NawlinWiki 21:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw when I made the last edit to your talkpage that it was a blue link .. thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Many thanks for the prompt and valuable assistance after my first interaction with Wikipedia contribution. It's a valuable resource which I hope to be able to make a meaningful contribution to. Regards, Tony —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Timesnap (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC).

I answered on the users talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Nanjin Massacre

Hi, Sorry because these materials /extarnal Links are written by Japanese & translated by google translation system. Thats why the inserted links are quite complexed one, do you have any trouble to read it? Any way the affair is very famous in Japan. But the affir are not written in Chinese Textbook —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC).

No, google is not the problem. It is that the term '' is in the url you added, that should not be in the url. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Hey, it says you're fluent in Frisian - where can I find materials on the language? Myrkkyhammas 04:10, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi! Well, a good start is the page here on this wikipedia, Frisian (a disambiguation page where you can find some links to topics relating to that, such as Frisian language. And of course, on the frisian wikipedy [ here]. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


Mocht je het zelf niet door hebben - je bent aan het stalken. Zou fijn zijn om te weten wat je nu eigenlijk van me wilt. Fleurstigter 12:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Ik weet wat Wikipedia:wikistalking is. FYI, daar hebben we watchlists en zo verder voor. Bovendien is het een van de taken van User:COIBot.
Ik zal mijn case nog eens uitwerken op jouw talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dank voor je reactie. Fijne avond nog, Fleurstigter 20:53, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Dank je, jij ook. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Good summary of a COI issue

Hello Dirk. Your comment was very well said. You've explained why COI matters and how to resolve it as well. EdJohnston 14:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope this can be resolved. I do believe having a contact with some of the libraries can be very useful (e.g. for arranging better disclosure of information). I hope this can be resolved. Thanks again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)



The reason you have a 403 is because your IP rang is filtered out because of a recent Viagra spam attack from your region.

It appears the information on Wikipedia is not determined by users but by moderators. That's really takes the "Free" out of Free Encyclopedia. Also FYI when a link is present for a year on Wikipedia with thousands of people viewing that means it's accepted by the audience. Removing a truly relevant link only limits users chances of improving their knowledge on a topic and that’s what happened again here.

As I see it, if you want to ban a website from Wikipedia just repost it 3 times in a short period of time. It doesn’t matter if the information is valid or invalid it's banned forever. That's a terrible system.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

First, you are only adding external links, and you keep repeating doing so. That is defined as spam on wikipedia. Moreover, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. Thirdly, if I understand correctly, you have a conflict of interest. So please stop adding these links. The links do not comply with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL, sorry. Also, I do believe wikipedia is not improving someones knowledge because of the external links, it is content that does that. And indeed, the principle you does work, but then, again, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm.
It is funny that I have a 403 on your system, it would mean that you are blocking a part, if not all, of British Telecom IP-addresses. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with you on the link farm however, adding 1 link to a page is not a link farm building effort. Plus the no-follow doesn't help rank as a link farm does. My addition was to educate people on information that Wiki does not provide. We provide videos, interact flash movies that you cannot embed in a wiki page. At any rate the link was on Wiki for a long time and helped many people learn about boats and boating, there are around 30 similar external url boat sites still on wiki which is part of the reason why I am upset.

Also there is no "conflict of interest" since all the information on the site is contributed by other people and boating manufactures.

Thank you—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your response. First please understand that I do not write policy and guideline (though I do contribute in the discussions about them). I do contribute in keeping them up (and I do realise I do miss a lot of it). Secondly, as I said above, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. It may be that adding one link is not creating a linkfarm, it does give more links. And wikipedia's nofollow tag indeed does not give your site a higher ranking on search engines (though also that is not strictly true, wikipedia pages get copied, and those external sites may not have nofollow tags, so that will increase pageranking, though not on wikipedia's account), it will/could increase traffic to your site. All in all, you are involved in the site, and therefor I think WP:COI does apply.
Re the blocking of Ripe; wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not America-focussed. At least I can not get to your site, and per WP:EL, sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of people should be avoided.
About other links that are also on wikipedia. I do realise that other links may be there. But I do not believe that is a reason to add yet another link. we do a good effort in getting rid of links, and keeping links out. Also, WP:EL states that links should be kept to a minimum, and one or two may be OK, but not more. And some links may have gained consensus on talkpages and are therefore on the pages. I see now that you removed a handfull of links, may I also ask you to read WP:POINT. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Dirk I removed 6 links that lead to commercial sites where you have to pay for information. I know all of them very well. Some give teaser content but to really get the info you want they make you pay or sign up for a service. Also promoting a company that sells boats should not be included and many currently are. The few removed links are in violation of Wiki TOS. Since they are added back now I question your policy. Anyway this is a dead issue since you guys have already made up your mind.

Quote: "I do not believe that is a reason to add yet another link" I’m not adding another link, I had an established link that I added to other relevant locations and that triggered the spam bot. If I didn’t we wouldn't be here today.

Last issue: "sites that are inaccessible to a substantial number of people should be avoided." Please define: "substantial number of people" According to my statistics the network we have blocked for security reasons makes up 3% of the internet. To me 3% is not substantial. If you would like to view the site content I am contributing post your IP and I will white list it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

As you may have seen, I have done some even more rigorous cleaning than you did, though I did indeed readd one link back where the specific link did add something to the page (and again). Linking to commercial sites is not by definition wrong, it would be better if the information would be available somewhere else, on a non-commercial site, but some information (or the most correct information) is sometimes available only from commercial sites.
You indeed triggered the spam alarms. Adding a link to many pages is (under the wikipedia definition) spam. It by the way does not even matter if a link is good or not in that case. The link may have been good on the page where it was (boat), but user:shadowbot has it now on its blacklist.
You define 3% of the total internet, can you also make that calculation for the countries that have English as a main language (I guess we are then talking about USA, Canada, India, UK, Australia). Would you then run up to say .. 10%? But if with me a significant part of the UK can not see what you have to offer, then I think the link should not be in wikipedia. The information is surely available somewhere else.
All in all, maybe you can contribute content? Have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
Just some additional questions, a) would your site contain specific information which would be suitable to be used as a reference on e.g. boat? Why include it as an external link, as I see it in the older versions of boat, it is not boat-specific, not directly linked. b) How did your site get spammed, is it a forum? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


It's a weird coincidence that you’re on the range of IP's we had to ban. I do apologize for that. I wish we didn’t have ban networks but we don’t have the resources to stop attacks and there were a ton of them from the Ripe network. Denial of service attacks and SQL injection attacks were an everyday thing until we setup the filter. Out of the 52 thousand visitors we had last month only 287 IP were blocked out. I’m sure the network guys at Wiki would agree on the solution we took.

We're a boating and fishing TV show so we have a lot of boating related videos and other interactive information that doesn’t embed into Wiki but is very valuable since you can only find it through our system.

I see what you did and I’m satisfied. I wish I never posted my link in the other boat sections. My intent was never to spam just spread out into a few other related topics such as: Powerboats, Yachts and Sailboats. Those are the only three I posted a link on because I felt they were related.

Thanks for your feedback, I’m not happy with the outcome, but I do give you a thumbs up for what you do and your professional attitude.

Keep up the good work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

First, please don't delete information from my talkpage, and you should probably also not remove information from other people's talkpages, that is regarded vandalism. A bot will back-up this discussion when needed, and the information will anyway be in the wikipedia database. In this way it is easier to see what has been said.
Secondly, no, wikipedia does not block ranges of that size (biggest block is a /16), and no, wikipedia does not block IP-numbers for long times (and ranges even shorter; they are also used by good users, and IP-numbers are sometimes volatile, wikipedia assumes good faith in that). Open proxies are blocked, but that is a different story, and is certainly not a range that would be deemed appropriate by the network guys at Wiki.
I am sure that if you could tweak your blocks so that it would be accessible to a larger part of the English speaking community, it could be valued for its content, and probably be enabled again. But if we would do that now, the next person behind the block would come along and delete the link again because it results in a 403, resulting in an endless edit-war. I hope you can reconsider the blocking method, and come up with a better solution. Please leave me a note when that happens. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for your supportive words to Alex. The site has been removed from the bots blacklist. We are going to work on a better solution to stop spam so we can remove the IP filter. Thanks again for your support.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I was discussing the situation with user:Shadow1, I think this is a good solution. I (or better User:COIBot) will keep an eye on the additions for now, I will check when the block is lifted. Hope to see you around, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


Was there any reason that you removed several links to album reviews?

I thoroughly read your "ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL" and what I don't get is why then have you not removed every link to every review on all of Wikipedia? They are all external links. They all "tunnel people away from the wikipedia." So why then are you singling out a single website and removing all of the links to their reviews? If you would have actually bothered to visit all the links (which I somehow doubt, as all your reverts were popups-assisted.. whatever that means) you would find actual album reviews that IMO are much better than some of the crap that Pitchfork spits out.

I'd also like to add that it is people like you who make me not want to contribute to Wikipedia, and the reason I've never joined. Instead of editing pages for the sake of contributing, you've designated yourself as the be-all end-all "link remover" -- where "link remover" means "person who removes others' valid contributions to bolster his own self-importance."

And if you even bother using "promotion" as a reason that VacantLips' contributions to the reviews lists were "spam," then I'll have to ask you to remove all of the external links from the "Reviews" sections on all album pages... Unless you have detailed accounts proving that the users who posted the external links weren't simply promoting their own websites.

I'll expect that you revert your changes, once you realize you had no basis for removing the links in the first place. 15:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Yours Truly

WP:SPAM defines spam as "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.". This was under that definition external link spamming, and hence the links were removed. WP:NOT#REPOSITORY states "here is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.", and last, WP:EL states: "Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.". But if the links are appropriate, feel free to discuss them on the talkpage of the separate pages and let an established editor add the links. Thanks and have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain to me how anything in WP:SPAM applies. There was no "promotion" and no "repeatedly adding links". In that case, shouldn't you be removing Pitchfork reviews from hundreds of album pages?? I won't have a nice day, and I hope you don't either. Revert the pages or I'll go to the ends of the earth to have you removed from Wikipedia. :) Byebye. 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Your Secret Admirer
Pardon me, no massive addition of links? Special:Contributions/Vacantlips shows 17 edits which were only linkadditions. And I reverted these 17 edits, if I see a user adding Pitchfork links in the same way, I will revert them as well. I will file this case at WT:WPSPAM, you can extend your case there. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The case: --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
You're from the Netherlands, right? Maybe an understanding of English would help you out here. "REPEATEDLY ADDING LINKS" means what to you??? Adding more than ONE external link to a website? I sure hope not. I can't imagine how many people you've pissed off because they've added TWO links to the billions of Wikipedia pages.

"REPEATEDLY ADDING LINKS" means a never-ending addition of links. It doesn't mean adding 17 applicable, relevant, valid links in one day and then never contributing again. A good example of "REPEATEDLY ADDING LINKS" would be user John Doe adding "" to every single Wiki page they come across. If you would look at the timestamps @ Special:Contributions/Vacantlips the user spent a total of a half hour CONTRIBUTING reviews to the relevant album pages. Learn the fucking difference between SPAM and CONTRIBUTIONS you pompous, Dutch asshole. I'm so sick of the people that think they "run" this website. You should stick to your chemistry day job. Hugs and kisses!! 18:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Dirk Beetstra's biggest fan and English tutor

P.S. And please quit acting so chipper with your "Thanks!" and "Have a nice day!" when you have nothing better to do than revert people's valid contributions because you're a hateful, sorry bastard. <3 XOXO

Siege of Leningrad

Hi Dirk,

Let me not agree with your opinion that external link I've added to Siege of Leningrad| is a spam. We have a mediacontent which is realy good illustration for different articles not only article about Leningrad. I use external link just to show the all material at this theme. If there is another way to illustrate the article please let me know about it. TVDATAOX 13:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your remark. Please understand that we have several guidelines and policies that are applicable here. The more important in this case are WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Also, wikipedia defines spam as 'mass addition of links', it there does not matter if the link is good or bad. The link you propose may be giving good information, but you should not be adding it, and it probably should not be in the external links sections (but may be a good reference). Thank you, and have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


Thank you for answer. I've read all guidelines and policies and still don't understand what the difference to add external link (which is more correct in my opinion)or to use reference. I do want to add a very good, relevant and sometimes unique video-illustrations here. And I want to do it in correct way. Would you please to explain me how video could be in references section. Could you show a correct similar example for me? Thanks again) TVDATAOX 15:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, first of all I would obey WP:COI, since I strongly suspect you are the maintainer of the sites. That means, please discuss the addition on the talkpage, and let an uninvolved editor make the additions to the pages.
The trouble with the external links is, there are probably many of those links for which one could argue that they are appropriate, and that would result in linkfarms, which is not the meaning of a wikipedia page. But if your video shows something that you could write about, the video might be a good reference. Or if the video really enhances the page, it might be a good external link. Otherwise I think it is best to try and find a bit of an equilibrium (and a talkpage discussion is the best for that .. though it might take some time). I hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'am very sorry but all of it just as in Kafka's Castle. Anyway thank you for advice) TVDATAOX 16:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wisdom publications on Lama Yeshe page

Hi, I took the liberty to revert your deletion of this link. The reason is that as far as I know, Wisdom publications is the only publisher that publishes materials by Lama Yeshe, so it's not just an 'Amazon'-kind of link if you know what I mean. If you want to read just about anything about lama Yeshe, you end up with them. rudy 22:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

In basis, I have no objections against people reverting my removals (when an established editor thinks a link is really adding to the page). The primary things was that the link got spammed by what I assume is the owner of the site (see WP:COI and WP:SPAM). The links added are to the mainpage of the site, not to a specific document (WP:EL; also for the link you reverted). I therefore think that also that link should be removed (WP:NOT, wikipedia is not a directory), or maybe changed. I hope you could have a second look at that edit, and resolve the situation. Hope to hear more, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I tried that, but it's a frame-based website, and I've no idea how I could send it to the proper section. rudy 12:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, just found a way to link directly. rudy 12:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Good to hear, thanks for solving that! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Link detection question

I've gained a strong impression from your posts on noticeboards that you know your way around the linkspam-battling scene, so I'm bringing my question to you.

When I tried to add the second Connolley section to COI/N archive 6, to store it with the first Connolley section which has been there since last month, the "save page" function was blocked with a "Spam protection filter" notice.

"The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink… You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.
"The following text is what triggered our spam filter: ["race to the right dot com" = edited version of url.]

To solve the immediate problem, I retrieved the section again from the prior version of the noticeboard page, searched to no avail for the link, and put the section in COI/N archive 10 where the page saved normally.

If the link is actually present, the implication is that it's in archive 6, but I couldn't find it. Maybe it's just a glitch (that archive is 121 kb without the Connolley-2 section and in the page preview went to 145 kb with it). Any ideas about how to find it? — Athaenara ✉ 02:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

racetotheright is indeed on that page (it may be in another section than the section you are editing, though it looks like it is in the William M. Connolley section). If you want to change something in the archive, that has to be removed or disabled (you can put <nowiki> tags around it). When you get the spam filter warning, you can generally just hit your back-button in the browser, you should get your edit window back, and then you can remove the link in the text you tried to save. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Linksearch shows it's there, alright. I guess I naively hoped you could point a bot at it which would detect its location and extract it. I'll just spend my morning in the edit box for the page (no section editing there with {{talkarchive}} in place). Thanks for replying. — Athaenara ✉ 10:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Heh, no, sorry. I don't have a maintenance bot running .. that subject is controversial anyway, people don't like meta-blacklisted links to be removed en masse. There have been several disputes about such actions, and at least two big ones were reverted, one because the blacklisting was a result of a Joe Job, one after several editors complaining it was actually a 'good link' that was spammed.
But if all else fails, you could try and copy the whole page into a plain-text editor, and do a find-and-replace on the link (replace with the same link encapsulated in nowiki-tags), and then paste it back. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Found it in a 02:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC) post and nowiki'd it out. — Athaenara ✉ 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


WikiThanks.png Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my userpage today. Chriswiki 15:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

COIBOT suggestion: DNS lookup of IP numbers

I would like to suggest a new feature for COIBOT. When an anonymous user adds an external link to an article, I suggest doing a DNS lookup on the user's IP number. If the new external link and the user IP number share the same domain name then there is a potential conflict of interest. If you examine my own short edit history you will find an example of this kind of conflict of interest detection. I had to find this potential conflict of interest by hand. Automating the process would be preferable.

Alternatively (and I don't know where to propose this), edits which attempt to add such external links to wikipedia should not be allowed. 02:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. That should indeed not be too difficult to perform, I will have a look whether there is a suitable module in POE to do that (there probably is). It brings a second problem, the IPs do not have to be the same, but they should be in the same CIDR range (and I can not mass query the WHOIS database I think). But I will have a look into it! Thanks for the suggestion.
WP:COIN strongly discourages that type of edits, they are not strictly forbidden. The problem starts, as with spammers. One link is fine, and 2-3 may also be OK, but if an account is adding a number of links, in a row, then it is considered spamming, and I think the same goes for COI. But there is where the noticeboards (WP:COIN and WT:WPSPAM) and user:Shadowbot are of help. Again, thanks for the suggestions, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. If domain names instead of IP addresses are used as the basis of the comparison then a mass query of the WHOIS database can be avoided.
Given WP:COI a better alternative to forbidding edits would be to alert an anon user who is adding what looks like a link to their own domain that WP:EL, WP:N, and WP:COI might apply. Cheers! 13:44, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, if you look through the logs, COIBot makes still a significant number of mistakes (5%?). People will just have to learn there is a bot watching them, that should already help quite a lot. But I will certainly look into the DNS lookup, that would, most probably, catch quite a big number as well. Cheers! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
Thinking about it .. this would also give a report when a user using a certain provider adds a link to a userpage of another user that uses the same provider. Though the links may not be appropriate .. it is not a COI. I have to think this through a bit more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

What about being an admin?


Good day! I've been adding external links to my articles about Philippine provinces to give more information on them. I'd like to ask why they are being deleted especially since the links left behind aren't of any use to readers such as Philippine Standard Geographic Code and 2000 Philippine Census Information. Thank you! Ivanhenares 10:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good morning! Thanks for the question. I removed the link because you were linking to a personal site ( You may have a conflict of interest there. Moreover, links to blogspots are generally not allowed, per WP:EL, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. If you believe that the other links are not appropriate, I would suggest that you start a discussion on the talkpage about that (or on an appropriate wikiproject). I hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I am going to revert the other link additions as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
That's sad. Most of the articles on Philippine towns and cities have nothing much in it. And I was hoping the links could give people a better grasp of those towns. Anyway, thanks! Ivanhenares 12:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
No reason to be too sad!! I am sure you can improve the articles with your knowledge, and you can still suggest the links on the talkpages, or, with caution, use them as references (if you are sure they are reliable sources). Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The COI2 Template

I have the COI2 template on the page that I have been working on. To get that off of the page, do I just need to reference from more sources? The page that I'm talking about it Across Five Aprils (band). Thanks.

--Themoonisdown09 17:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I added the {{coi2}} to that page (per these four edits to Addhoc's talkpage, you have a conflict of interest). What WP:COI then suggests is that you do not edit the page yourself (but you can add information to the talkpage of the page; maybe you could suggest some independent references there) but let independent editors edit the page. When independent (established) editors think the page is OK, they will remove the tags. I hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:28, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

CMC of deoxycholate

Dear Dirk:

I just updated the CMC of deoxycholate to the correct value (0.2%). You had it listed as 2%. I checked mulitple sources before performing the edit.


N David—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Thanks! Must have been a typo. I hope you tossed in a reference, makes it easier to check next time! Thanks again, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:59, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The edits you made on the Simon Miller page

Hello Beetstra. I just wanted to leave you a note letting you know that User:Adventuresofbaby has put back in the external links that you removed on the Simon Miller page. This editor looks to be Simon himself or someone involved with him as the only edits that they have made are to do with him and his film. It may not be important in the grand scheme of things but I thought that I would let you know just in case. Take care and happy editing. MarnetteD | Talk 22:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed them again, the two that are added lead to the same page as the link that is already there. One is enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Koestler article

I am bemused as to why the link to the Arthur Koestler article on the Fortean Times page keeps on being deleted as "spam". Thousands on pages on wikipedia link to newspapers, magazines etc, and this is hardly different to any of these. The article was an interesting review of the man's life, and was hardly advertising. --MacRusgail 16:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the question. The answer: wikipedia defines spam as "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.". The link on that page was added because of that, a user spammed the links, with a COI, to a large number of articles (amongst which, this article). That is why it was removed/cleaned (that is, all additions by that user have been cleaned). If you believe that the link as such is OK, feel free to discuss on the articles talkpage, but my suggestion would be, if the link really adds to the page, consider using it as a reference, not as an external link (there are already quite a number of links there, per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, a few external links are OK, but we don't need to link to all interviews). Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply on the article talk page. I'll reply to the future stuff over there. I believe it is alright, but some kind of straw poll might be in order. --MacRusgail 17:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/PageReports/

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/PageReports/, by Beetstra (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/PageReports/ fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

error in COIBot, output not correct, page not necessary

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/PageReports/, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist request

Sabine's Sunbird (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Good-faith editor on Bird and related articles.RJASE1 Talk 14:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mmm... how is this spam?

Mind explaining why you removed links to interviews on my site with Daniel Pinchbeck, Charles Tart, Richard Barle, Nick Redfern, Michael Shermer, Matt Mullenweg and Robert Bruce, and marked them as spam?

--Marcfiszman 13:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. You were, unexplained, first inserting links to a site, later repairing, and now redirecting. In the lates action you redirect the links to your site (see conflict of interest). Wikipedia defines spam as the addition of links to multiple pages (see WP:SPAM), and such additions can result in all of them being removed. If you think the links do add to the page, I'd suggest you discuss the addition on the talkpages, or on an appropriate wikiproject. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for the links not to be there and I will be re-introducing them. A shame that your overzealous edits have been denying people access to some rather interesting audio material. Marcfiszman 11:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And I have again reverted your edits. I will be opening a case at WP:COIN shortly. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination

I wrote quite a bit in the nomination - more than I expected to - so please let me know if I have made any mistakes in the details. I'm confident that this will go smoothly, but sometimes RFAs seem to derail for trivial and unexpected reasons, so it's best to have the details accurate. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL problem with another editor

Hello ... I know that you have been involved with WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum, but I don't know how closely you've been following "The Project" to bring VAwebteam (talk · contribs) up to speed (even though you're listed as one of the participants on their User page, you can remove it if you'd rather MOVE ON) … anywho, I'm having a Civility problem with another editor at User talk:VAwebteam#To do list.

I try Very Hard not to feed trolls, but I've recently wasted another block of pre-scheduled time responding to Johnbod (talk · contribs) about their anal retentive insistence on following the letter, rather than the spirit, of the policies and guidelines in this situation, and I would really appreciate an intervention before it escalates to the level of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

I'm sorry, but if the time that I had set aside to work on a specific Wikipedia page is instead consumed by responding to their WikiLawyering, then I consider their posts "disruptive behavior" ... I had neglected to remember that Johnbod was the one who inserted that "entire history" vs. "entire art history" distraction into VAwebteam's COI discussion, otherwise I would have simply ignored them when they showed up on VAwebteam's Talk page, so I guess I only have myself to blame for taking their bait a second time. :-)

Anywho, thnx fer any assistance that you are willing to render on this Talk page ... and please mark this plea for assistance as another disruption of my time, as well as (possibly) yours. :-)

Good Luck on your RfA! — 02:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I left a post on the talkpage of user:VAwebteam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

From Tony Mobily


[apologies. This email is about:

I should have added the link in the first place...


My name is Tony Mobily. I am the owner of Free Software Magazine (

I was hoping I could clarify our stance; I think there was a bit of a misunderstanding...!

You wrote:

"It should be mentioned that a whois on and both report "Marcello Di Clemente" of Applicom srl ( in Italy as the owner."

That's because a dear friend of mine, Andrea Di Clemente, registers domains for me.

"I have no idea how Applicom connects to the mysterious "The Open Company Partners, Inc." that is mentioned on the Free Software Magazine article page."

My best friend in Italy registers domain for me. The Open Company Partners is a US corporation registered in Delaware.

"I've added a couple more domains that are also owned by Applicom."

I am not sure why you did this...

"The wiki page also mentions that FSM was started by Australian Tony Mobily"

That's me...

"which explains the domain."

Actually, a guy in Kuwait is gonna use the domain to sell some ringtones in te middle east... that's another long story.

"The linksearchs for the above domains are all empty expect for which has about 50 hits."

The other domains didn't have any links... and still got blacklisted?

"FSM also has a number of cross-wiki hits. (Requestion 01:15, 3 May 2007"

I am not sure what this means...

Look, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia. However, in general, I basically agree with everything you do - even if it goes against me. Why? Because if Wikipedia is what it is, well, it's the result of what you are doing, and you _must_ be doing something very right. I might not like the fact that I don't look very good, and that one of my best friend's domain is blacklisted because of me, but I consider myself a "false positive" in a situation where testing is necessary.

So, basically, I am happy with whatever you decided. However, I would like to make my case and ask you, if possible, to please remove these as spammers:


They really are caught in the cross-fire.

Also, I want to tell you tha we are a genuine magazine (Free Software Magazine, that is). We don't spam Wikipedia. There are links here and there to us - and yet again, if they don't fit the policy, that's absolutely fine to remove them - as I said before, to me Wikipedia is just too important.

However, if there's _anything_ I can do to unmark us as spammers, please let me know. Once more, I realise that you can't really trust me (I could be anyone!). So, I am actually happy with any decision you make.


Merc.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Mobily (talkcontribs)

The majority of the post was by user:Requestion. I only mentioned the monitoring of the links on user:COIBot and the blacklisting of the IP numbers for the linkadditions. That only means that we are monitoring actions regarding these links on wikipedia in order to assess the use of the links (and we will be alerted of its use). I just generated some reports, and I don't see any mass addition of the links.
The first two links were added in a spammy way by the two IPs (see also WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer), wikipedias definition is more defining the way of adding, then the quality of the link in that definition. The other three were just mentioned as related links (cross fire as you said), what indeed resulted in them being monitored, but nothing to worry about.
In conclusion, the discussion is in the archives and the links are not being added, so I think that all is OK (and will the situation will soon be forgotten). I hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, and thank you for spending your time fighting spammers and taking care of wikipedia...! I must be honest: I didn't quite understand some of the things you wrote. Yes, I am not a wikipedia expert :-D I just want to make sure nobody thinks that we at Free Software Magazine spam wikipedia... In fact, we didn't write the entry for Free Software Magazine! Now... I don't want to waste any more of your time. My very last question (but feel free not to answer it if you're busy) is: are the other sites being monitored? If so, how long for? I am asking because I feel a little bad about Free Software Magazine - as well as other unrelated domain - being in any "watchlist"... but I guess it doesn't matter!
Thank you again. I really look up to you guys.
Tony Mobily (Or "Merc" :-D )—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Mobily (talkcontribs)
Don't worry! You are not wasting my time, we are here to help each other.
I do not know wheter other sites of you are monitored. There is a list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports, but that is only a list of sites that we have generated reports for, it is not a complete list.
There is not a function in User:COIBot that can generate the whole blacklist/monitorlist/whitelist. But that should be easy, and should be functional, I'll do that later. For now I have removed the three sites '' (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/, '' (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ and '' (Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ from the monitor and blacklists of COIBot. I leave the other two because they were spammed once, we'll reassess those later. Hope this helps, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Changing the archive


I was just wondering... This page:

Makes me, personally, look bad. It wasn't me adding the links, I had no idea it was happening, and had no warning. Now... is it possible to change the archived stuff to eliminate:

"I have no idea how Applicom connects to the mysterious "The Open Company Partners, Inc." that is mentioned on the Free Software Magazine article page. I've added a couple more domains that are also owned by Applicom. The wiki page also mentions that FSM was started by Australian Tony Mobily which explains the domain."

As I told you, The Open Company Partners is anything but mysterious, and Applicom is my best friend's company...

Please let me know.

Even if I can add a bit there, explaining what I explained to you a couple of days ago, well, that would be great. I wouldn't bother you if Wikipedia didn't rank so high in Google and...


Hmm .. generally it is 'not done' to edit Archives .. but here it is a bit difficult .. I think it would be OK if you would edit that item, add your explanation to it. But deleting the part may be explained as 'vandalism'. Maybe you could explain how the 5 domains fall under Applicom and why yours are different from the first 2? Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Hummmm I guess it's OK, it will be forgotten at some point. I am not gonna bother changing the archives. Thanks a lot and sorry again for wasting your time! -- Tony Mobily 13:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

COI Templates.

Hi, I'm sending you a message because of your involvement with the Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_May_18#Template:COI_and_Template:COI2 discussion. The result of the TfD was no-consensus, but there was a significant expressed consensus for editing the templates to bring them into line with good practice. Unfortunately this has not happened, and the templates have been left pretty much in the state they were before the TfD. Would you like to assist in bringing these templates in line with good practice? --Barberio 16:45, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look. I think that it should be a neutrality tag with as a second line that the neutrality is related to a COI. And it would be nice if the article would be categorised somewhere recognisable for the WP:COIN team. So I think that is exactly the other way around as to what it was. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Added an item to Template_talk:COI#Quick_suggestion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of my added external link


I posted a revision by adding an external link to the search term "FE exam". The revision was deleted per the following reason:

Current revision (16:26, 5 June 2007) (edit) (undo) Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (Popups-assisted revert to revision 133529262 (2007-05-25 23:41:32, by - rv link addition)

I do not understand why it was deleted. We do not have any popup advertisements on our site. What can I do to recreate this link? I see you allowed two external links by the same company (PPI) for this search term, so why not mine? Should I link just to the page that offers direct FE Exam information, and not my home page?


Mick (user name: EITexam)—Preceding unsigned comment added by EITexam (talkcontribs)

Thank you for your question. Firstly, your link (as maybe the other two links as well) do not comply with WP:EL. Secondly, in this specific case you were adding a link to your own website, and hence, you may have a conflict of interest. To avoid such conflicts, I would suggest you discuss the links on the talkpages of these pages. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick reply. I disagree with you that this is a conflict of interest. Our site ( which is solely dedicated to the FE exam offers loads of info. I would say Wikipedia and our site would have a symbiotic relationship, not a conflict. I believe posting the external link allows for the proper visibility and linkage between the two sites. But if it is Wikipedia's policy to disallow external links to "for-profit" sites, or external links to sites provided by site owners, then delete the links provided by PPI. This would be the only fair approach since we are both competitors for the same FE exam audience.
However, I would hope that you would reconsider and allow for the links. I believe it will benefit your users as well. Please let me know.

Mick (EITexam)—Preceding unsigned comment added by EITexam (talkcontribs)

Yes, it is a conflict of interest, it is your own site; you don't have a neutral point of view about the link. If the link is OK, then it should be added by people without that conflict of interest (and if it is deemed good, they will do that). Moreover, it is just a disservice to the link to use it in the external links sections, only. Maybe it is a good reference for some data, or you can actually add content to articles where your site could provide a reference (still, observe WP:COI, point 4 "Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam;" the guideline does state to discuss on talkpages in such cases, and only to perform such edits with great care). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


OK, so the links entered by PPI will be deleted?? If not, then I will inform my users, that if any think that EITexam has valuable or usefull information, that they have the capability to add a link to that information in Wikipedia. Thanks for the idea about cross referencing for articles, I will let my users know that as well, since it would be a conflict of interest for me to do it. Sorry to be such a pest, but I did not know that all linked information referenced in Wikipedia is not by the original source.

Mick—Preceding unsigned comment added by EITexam (talkcontribs)

Dear Mick, first of all I would like to ask you to sign your posts.
I am sorry that I appear to be such a pest as well. Just as a friendly warning, your link is now being monitored, and additions which may appear spammy may get reverted (and links which are pushed in such a way may get blacklisted). We are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Hope this explains, thanks for your time, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, So it sounds like you are going to permit or accept my external link since you will be monitoring it? Thank you! I assume you will add it back in? It is not my intention to spam. My site deals 100% with your search term "FE Exam", not a vague reference like those that are shown on some of the present external links, especially those that are used to promote and sell other study materials that are unrelated to the FE Exam. So I for the life of me do not see the problem in adding a link to my site. I'll admit I do not understand the reasoning behind some of Wikipedia's rules, but I want to adhere to them, and in return I'd expect if there are rules that they be applied equally without prejudice or discrimination to everyone. Correct me if I am wrong, but if the user name of the person that added an external link matches that of the owner of the the linked site, I can then expect that that external link should be deleted? Correct? :EITexam 23:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No, monitoring means that we will notice every addition, and revert when we think it is not appropriate. Overlap between username and domain, or overlap between username and page edited is not the only reason to remove links. I would really suggest you do take some time to read wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Happy reading, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

double WT:WPSPAM June archives

Hello Beetstra. There are two WT:WPSPAM archives for June (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_June). It looks like Shadowbot3 created the second June archive. Could you please look into this? Thanks. (Requestion 14:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Hehe .. I just merged them :-). I am actually not too happy with shadowbot3 archiving that, there were quite some active cases that have been archived by Shadowbot3 .. we may need to reconsider using shadowbot3 for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
Looks like you were in the process of fixing it as I typed this message. Sorry about that. I've noticed a couple Shadowbot3 archiving problems too. Several months have many duplicate entries. I think Shadowbot3 has a problem dealing with blacklist save page conflicts. April is a mess but I've mapped it all out and what went wrong. I plan to fix April when I get some time. I think May has a couple dups too. (Requestion 15:09, 7 June 2007 (UTC))
No worries! I'll have a discussion about the archiving in the talk-channel with the users, maybe we should switch to a {{done}} / {{not done}} system. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Being stalked

Hi Dirk. Is there a way for someone to put a particular editor on a watch list and thus follow them whenever they submit an article. Have had problems with someone who turns up every time I write an article, and starts chopping it up. She seems to be stalking me. How can I shake someone off in a situation like this?

Sardaka 10:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a good idea would be to check if all (or the majority) of the editors edits are after you start an article, and, if so, ask the editor to explain that. If the editor persists you should provide a list of diffs into a WP:ANI post. In such a case administrators can have a look and maybe take appropriate action. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're an Admin!

It is my pleasure to inform you that you are now an admin. Congratulations. You can feel free to do everything you're supposed to do and nothing you're not supposed to do. If you haven't already, now is the time look through the Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide and Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me, or at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Best wishes and good luck, -- Cecropia 17:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I noticed the new buttons. I'll use them with care. Best wishes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations. Here are what pass for words of wisdom from the puppy:
  1. Remember you will always protect the wrong version.
  2. Remember you must always follow the rules, except for when you ignore them. You will always pick the wrong one to do. (See #5)
  3. Remember to assume good faith and not bite. Remember that when you are applying these principles most diligently, you are probably dealing with a troll.
  4. Use the block ability sparingly. Enjoy the insults you receive when you do block.
  5. Remember when you make these errors, someone will be more than happy to point them out to you in dazzling clarity and descriptive terminology.
  6. and finally, Remember to contact me if you ever need assistance, and I will do what I am able.
DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales. All rights released under GFDL.


It looks like your RfA was unanimously successful and you've been given the mop ([3]). Congratulations. Now go block some vandals or something ... --Ed (Edgar181) 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And mine! Congratulations Dirk, you've certainly earned it. I've no doubt you'll be a great admin. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! But you don't know how much I would like to see that I would not even need those blocking tools! But I will make good use of the tools. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Aw, I don't closely watch these things and missed everything. Femto 15:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, congrats. I would of voted for you too if I would of known about the RfA. (Requestion 20:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC))
Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:28, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Another orange bar :) Congratulations, and good luck with it! Riana ⁂ 10:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
I wish I could've voted too! My vote would've made it unanimous! Congratulations Walkerma 04:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
And again, thanks! Hope to see you around, and happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Database thing

There was a discussion while ago about having our own database and you said that you were working on something similar. How is it going? You haven't made any changes since January. Do you still think we need one? -- Boris 14:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I have since rewritten {{chembox new}}, and I start to be convinced that that is a better solution than a built-in page (though the extension is available for mediawiki). I have argued (somewhere, sometime) that when we have a significant number of pages with the chembox new, that we can then get rid of the wikipedia:chemical sources, for the wikipedia that is probably a better solution. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Link removal on Chemical reaction

Could you please explain your comment on your edit of the topic "chemical reaction"

10:35, 29 May 2007 Beetstra (Talk | contribs) (15,059 bytes) (remove all external links .. this is chemical compound .. not about reactions, rates, safety, gas-phase reactions etc.)

I really do not undestand, why "chemical reaction" is not "about reactions, rates...".

Ilia—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

You are right, I made a mistake there, it was chemical reaction that I removed all the links from, and indeed, that is about reactions. Still, I don't think the external links were appropriate, arguably only the chemical reaction balancer. My mistake. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of potassium/sodium ratio

How do you know the following information:

The ideal proportion of potassium to sodium in the diet and/or body is 1.857143. Knowledge of the proportions of the composition the eutectic alloy of potassium and sodium surely reveals the ideal proportions of potassium and sodium of the human body. The absolute value of the average 65 percent potassium divided by the absolute value of 35 percent sodium yields the formula 1.85714, with the 85714 repeating. Thus, 1.857143 is the best approximation. Since the eutectic mixture should be merciful, the number of sevenths, which is the number of parts of completion, should be 13.00000, which is the number of mercy. 1.857143 times 7 is 13.000001, which is surely accurate enough. As of 10 June 2007, the current proportion of potassium to sodium in the human body is supposedly only about 75% of what it should be.

The above true information is not unwanted.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Well, I did not know this. But I would interpret it as follows: The figures are way too absolute. The average 65 and 35 both should have a standard deviation, and the ratio then also has a standard deviation. I have no clue what you mean with 'merciful', and the information is totally unreferenced (who provided you with the figures 65%, 35%, and 75%, who claims that eutectic mixtures should be merciful, etc.). May I suggest you read our guideline on reliable sources? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Please comment on proposed article:link list for V&A Museum

Hello ... With my assistance, VAwebteam (talk · contribs) has completed their first assignment on User:VAwebteam/To do list for the 50+ proposed article:link pairs following the reverts and the discussion at WP:COI/N#Victoria and Albert Museum (2) ... I have been in contact with VAwebteam by email, and this turns out to be rather low on their list of priorities, so they'll only be working on it once or twice a week.

The first assignment was to recover the links and create a subsection for each proposed article:link pair, to make it easier to evaluate and comment on each one ... I have archived the version of the project page as of yesterday on the talk page for the project, so that the second assignment has a clean slate without the clutter of previous comments.

The second assignment is to examine both the article and the V&A page to make a decision, as described in the introduction to the list ... with the help of other experienced editors, 14 of them have already been dealt with, either as rejected, or as acceptable and integrated into the article, either as a citation or in the External link(s) section of the article.

While VAwebteam works from the top down, I have been working from the bottom up, and suggest that you do the same ... the project page User:VAwebteam/To do list now has two sections:

  • Second assignment for VAwebteam - these 45 are the the ones that need to be evaluated ... the ones that have the article linked in the section header still contain the "raw" link, i.e, the {{cite web}} boilerplate has not been applied yet, and that is part of VAwebteam's second assignment ... when you have time, please work from the bottom up in this section and add your comments.
  • Reviewed article:link proposals - these 14 have been dealt with already, with a "†" to indicate "integrated", and "‡" to indicate rejected ... you may review them, but I don't think that you'll need to make any comments ... when consensus is reached on an article:link proposal from the previous section, I will move it to this section with the appropriate dagger to flag it.

Thanks in advance for your help ... Happy Editing! — (talk · contribs) 09:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

changes to I.B. Tauris

Dear Dirk

Thanks for your note about possible conflict of interest on my edits. I'm re-reading the guidelines but I'm certainly aware of them and have limited myself to minor corections and upgrading links to existing wikipedia author pages. I certainly won't be adding any promotional copy!

But I appreciate the 'heads up'.

Jonathan—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I noticed your edits and decided to leave a message. I saw in the edit history that someone from your IP added a couple of wikilinks to I.B. Taurus, I would also take caution with that. But all is fine if you edit with caution. Hope to see you around, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not spam! It has been discussed

What is your problem!

I have had this in the discussion, no one objects except for the bully polinator who gives a biased reason. There are tons of links to sites that advertise or even charge money. Nightlife is an important culture in Columbia. who are you to say someone interested in Columbia does not want to be able to LEARN and RESEARCH the nightlife??—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The link is not symmetrically linked to the subject, see WP:EL. About other links, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY; and hence, I have cut down the linkfarm on that page. There is no consensus that the link should be added, hence, it should not be added. Please consider writing content if you want to tell something about the nightlife of Columbia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:09, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dirk...I need your help...

Hey Dirk, I'm having some problem with a user who claims I and some other user vandalized his page, when we have clearly not. His edits follow the same pattern as a recently banned user and he rejects all edits that do not conform to his POV. Someone has filed a CU against him, but it's taking forever for the CU to come back with a response. And I really don't want to file a RFArbCom because those take even longer and meanwhile, he could do more damage. Since your one of the first editors I interacted with when I first started to edit, and you're really well conversed in Wikipedia's policies, I thought maybe you could help me out with this situation. I hope to hear from you, Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 03:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I will have a look later, or poke a checkuser when I see one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks...I just checked the CU page and the response was "likely" for the user I was having problems with. :D Nat Tang talk to me! | Check on my contributions!|Email Me! 16:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting my edits

Beefstra, Thank you for reverting my edits to maintain a neutral point of view. I'll work on the additions for the library. Regards, LL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by LibraryServices (talkcontribs)

OK. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:53, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Your deletion of my added external links #2


Well, I'm new to wikipedia contribution, and I read your point of view to external linking, thou I accept that link I've added to all videos from main Gwen Stefani page was not right. But, have you seen other "External Links" for all other pages before reverting those pages? They do compile to article and do bring usefulness to readers of Wikipedia.

I know from your point of view that adding links that point to your own website is not allowed, but I 100% sure that those links added by me, do not misguide people, they give them what they want to know, for example:

ON The page:[WP:4_in_the_Morning] I added link to the music video like that:

Was is it a spam? My answer is No. Please take a closer look at the pages where I contributed and I'm sure you will make a right decision.

Best regards, Pavel Sukhachev CEO -

P.S. Please excuse, if I'm writing to the wrong place, still learning to Wiki ;)—Preceding unsigned comment added by watchpasha (talkcontribs)

I am sorry, first of all, addition of links to multiple pages is considered spamming on wikipedia, see our spam guideline, and since you are owner of the site, also our conflict of interest guideline applies. For links that are there, please see this part of the policy WP:NOT (wikipedia is not a linkfarm, a few may be OK, but we don't have to link to all available information), and for our guideline on external links see this guideline. All of these guidelines and policies suggest strongly to discuss link additions on talkpages, and that is exactly what I would suggest you to do. Thanks for your remark, hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, thx for a deep explaining of the situation, I'm on my way to talkpages for discussions. Well let's give a community to choose if they are interested in this kind of information. Have a great day, and thx for explaining. --Watchpasha 11:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Library Links

Per the debate here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Unusual university spam I noticed you've been involved in a few similar situations with institutions in the past. Is it possible you could provide me with links to those discussions so if the above discussion is moved we will be able to easily reference them? Thanks bunches! Latr, Katr 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

SF6 on google

why are you removing my links

i understand it was not very helpful in external lnks

but adding it as a refernce should make some sense

that is what i have done does not remain constant hence i have a snapshot of that in the blog

also it just goes on to show the genuinity of the post

i hope you understand my point—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I have answered on the talkpage of SF6. In short, blogs are generally not allowed per WP:EL and WP:RS (anyone can write a blog, and also blogs are volatile). In this case, would already make a better reference, but if that changes, than also the page SF6 should change accordingly. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

i get your point but you do not seem to get my point imagine how are you going to give that rference which changes every hour

this is the area of my research and finally i have penned a blog on it.

i do research on google keywords appreciation/ reason/ timing/ demography whole day long

wht else do you want and it is not like that the post is giving any wrong information it supports the facts with the screenshot of that. i know bloggers whose citations have been taken without any doubts but even they were ridiculed in their beginning and so am i so, plz allow this citation, you will note i do only 1/2 posts per day and research what causes the rise for eg. come 26 july simpsons the movie keyword would be skyrocketing come the presidential elections hillary clinton and obama will be the most searched people on planet.

i request you you to understand that this is important to me as this shows that my research does have some meaning.

thanking you in advance

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

Get your point but you do not seem to get my point imagine how are you going to give that rference which changes every hour
this is the area of my research and finally i have penned a blog on it.
i do research on google keywords appreciation/ reason/ timing/ demography whole day long
wht else do you want and it is not like that the post is giving any wrong information it supports the facts with the screenshot of that. i know bloggers whose citations have been taken without any doubts but even they were ridiculed in their beginning and so am i so, plz allow this citation, you will note i do only 1/2 posts per day and research what causes the rise for eg. come 26 july simpsons the movie keyword would be skyrocketing come the presidential elections hillary clinton and obama will be the most searched people on planet.
i request you you to understand that this is important to me as this shows that my research does have some meaning.
thanking you in advance—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).
Err, if it is your research, then I would also request you read our conflict of interest guideline. Wikipedia is not for promoting your own research, and not for prove that one's research means something (also see WP:NOR).
If the only sources you have are a volatile site and a blog, then I think that the information is not notable enough for Wikipedia. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Black Entertainment Television

Hi. I appreciate your review of the videos. However, I read the spam rules, and along with the music editor on the discussion page of WikiProject Music, still insist that this isn't spam. There are no banner or advertisements on the site. The site is nonprofit. The copyrights are owned by the site. The material is open to everyone - there is no registration required and it's free. Here is the page with info. on the site: I realize that I have a conflict of interest, which is why I was discussing and gaining approval from neutral parties. May I request you discuss this with user Parzival418? They are a music article editor. Seeing as you are both neutral parties, I'd appreciate a discussion between you two. Ammosh11 15:11, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll answer on your talkpage, you can keep the discussion there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Idaho State Historical Society

I don't want to be blacklisted and I don't want to break the rules. There seem to be a lot of rules, here, and I'm BRAND NEW to wikipedia. I thought that one of the rules was not to bite the newbies? I'm not being sarcastic. I'm trying to add content, I'm trying to read the rules, and trying to add real information. I do not believe myself to be a spammer and would like to know why this is so unjust? We're attempting to add real content to wikipedia. This is authority ridden research. What can I do in order to stop this from happening?

Avecchione 21:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Amy Vecchione

I will answer on Amy's talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)


to the ranks of admins--I see your comment above--I have almost never found it necessary to block anyone--just once or twice to get the attention of a spammer.

and I've joined the discussion at WP:spam. DGG 03:00, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Iranica is considered the most authoritative source on any Iran related articles. The same way as Brittanica is for the general topics or IMDB for the films. It is not something the authors need to promote but rather a useful reference. Iranian users fume about removing the links. I understand your concerns but please go to Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board and get some consensus which links are remove which to left. At any rate please do not remove inline references to the material like [4] or [5]. It is very disruptive and borders with vandalism Alex Bakharev 08:27, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

If the link does not need promotion, then it does not need to be spammed, either. Similar cases have been removed as well, there is a topic at WT:WPSPAM at the moment about mobygames, and, although I have not encountered that, if I see the same for imdb or a museum or library, I will argue the same. Consensus has been reached about policies and guidelines, and WP:SPAM does define that spam can result in all the added links being removed. Whether or not a commercial site, and I know I am assuming bad faith here, but organisations still need the money, and for some it may be (even if they perform the edits in good faith), a way of promoting their organisation (more people know about a museum, more visitors, e.g.). I am sorry about the references, I will have a second look through the articles. I presumed (apparently wrongly) that Hu12 had only removed links in external links sections. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I have readded the references, but removed the link in these cases from the external links sections. I also added two cases of {{linkfarm}}, may need some investigation, there are more than a few links in these sections. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

this has nothing to do with "linkfarm". The EI is a perfectly academic publication which should be cited to reference material per WP:RS. It simply happens to be hosted online, so that a weblink may be provided to spare people a walk to the nearest university library. Can you please whitelist as a respectable source citation of which is actually welcome? dab (𒁳) 09:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

We are only monitoring to see if the spamming of the link has stopped, I have never said that the link was not welcome, except if it is being spammed. There is no blocking of the link whatsoever. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Also, there is a distint difference between adding content, adding references only, and addition of links to external links sections. Per all the policies and guidelines, if links need to be added to more articles, then discuss that first (see WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer).
I also want to answer to something earlier in this discussion. If a link gets spammed (wikipedia definition), then it is not sensical to first find a wikiproject to ask if the link additions by that user should be removed. I think that is the wrong way, the editor primary adding the link should have done that, and therefore I believe that edits of such single purpose accounts should be cleaned, after which established editors, on a case by case basis, can decide of certain links should be there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Another addition. I notice quite some links are to the main domain of I just re-reverted on Golestān Province, the link there is to the domain, not to a specific document (see WP:EL, 'directly linked'). When I search on, I don't see a specific document on Golestān Province. A linksearch shows many links to the domain, not to a specific document. Can someone please also look into that problem? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Well deserved! Congratulations! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

hey...I need a favour...

Hey Beetstra, can you review this and this? (they're both connected to one another). Nat Tang ta | co | em 09:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Voted for a delete, article (and link-additions!) were already noted on --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thanks. Nat Tang ta | co | em 20:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/R

Please see my reply to your oppose here. R ParlateContribs@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 21:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-free image on a user talk page.

Are Non-free image allowed to be used on a user talk page? Nat Tang ta | co | em 22:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, just got an answer on the policy talk page. Nat Tang ta | co | em 22:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Moby Dick link

Hi Dirk-

Sorry, I'm a relatively new user. I didn't mean to advertise Studio 360, but the American Icons segments are basically the equivalent of NPR stories or the like. I know I found it really helpful when the Wikipedia page on To Kill A Mockingbird linked to an NPR series of people talking about the book. I think my wording was probably a bit too much like an advertisement; if I just wrote the link, would that suffice? Thanks and sorry to bug you!

Kim—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotham30 (talkcontribs)

I noticed you were new, so I left you a welcome-message. I removed that link, and all the others you added per our external links and spam guidelines. Please understand that wikipedia is not a linkfarm, consider contributing content. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Dirk: According to this policy (# Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:External links for some guidelines.) it doesn't appear that I'm adding anything unnecessary, especially in the case of "Kind of Blue" which didn't even have any external links! While I understand that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is also a research tool for students like myself, and the entries are not accepted for school credit; the links I find on the pages are. Please consider your users as well as your guidelines, and consider allowing me to continue adding.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gotham30 (talkcontribs)

I am sorry, no. Per WP:EL, consider using the link as a reference first. Also, you are, under the wikipedia definition, spamming the link, and such additions can per that guideline all be reverted, even if the link is useful. If you believe a link is useful, consider, per all the guidelines, to discuss the additions first. Just as a reminder, user:COIBot has your link on the monitorlist now:
Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Gotham30, Your contributions to wikipedia under Gotham30 and IP, consist soley of adding external links to and is considered WP:Spam. Looking through your contributions as a whole, All seem to be related only. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about commercial sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not. Hope that helps clears up the policy issues. See the welcome page to learn more. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to funnel readers off Wikipedia and onto, right?--Hu12 16:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

something to add to COIbot's blacklist

hi dirk. just was wondering if you could add Shangrilaista (talk · contribs) to COIbot's blacklist. here is a bit more info. much appreciated. JoeSmack Talk 18:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Already done. I really need help with the monitorlisting/blacklisting and the report generation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of external link on Bitches Brew

Hi Beetstra, I noticed you removed the external link to [6] from the Bitches Brew article. I thought the link was relevant in explaining some of the post-production techniques mentioned in the article. The linked page didn't appear to be a spam site. Could you provide some more info on how the link violated WP:SPAM? Thanks. --Ultra Megatron 03:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Err, OOPS. The link is on monitor, since it did get spammed, but this was not such an occasion. Sorry, I have reverted myself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem. Cheers. :) --Ultra Megatron 12:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


Take a look at my shiny new bot: User:Chem-awb. After clicking through a hundred or so, I started a bot account and so far, it's been approved for trial. Once it's approved for good, I'll take care of the remaining 2500 or so. And, I'll be able to help with any mass tagging/untagging you need in future. --Rifleman 82 16:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! Good. I will let the bot do the work! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I've orphaned the template. No more articles transclude this template. Time for tfd? --Rifleman 82 07:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And probably a MfD for Wikipedia:Chemical sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)



Hello Dirk. I am rather new to the Wikipedia community. Although I frequent Wikiepeida often, this is my first time becoming actively involved with the Wikipedia community. As an employee for an online business news media company, we have a rather extensive news archival that could be beneficial as well as informative to Wiki readers.

I made a contribution earlier today for the 3Com Corporation page, yet I noticed it has been deleted. I was trying to add a resource to an article about 3Com, but when I went back to take a look, I noticed it was gone. I'm not sure why it was deleted. Perhaps you can help me with this.


Walt—Preceding unsigned comment added by bizjournals (talkcontribs)

I left two (good faith) warnings on your talkpage. Could you please read WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. In short, wikipedia needs content, not external links. If you have access to an extensive news-archive, that archive may be very suitable to pull interesting facts from, which may be incorporated in the text of articles, and where a link to the document would make a good reference (still obey WP:COI). Please do not just add external links (there are many links that would fit, and wikipedia is not a linkfarm). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response Dirk (that was fast!) I will be sure to review what you have sent. My intentions are not to plug away with links here and there nor dilute the quality of what Wikipedia has to offer. I may rely on you as a guide while I'm learning the ropes with the Wikipedia community. Thanks again.

Walt—Preceding unsigned comment added by bizjournals (talkcontribs)

That is fine, just drop me a question, and I will answer asap (may not always be as quick as today). And, again, welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


do me a favor and delete my name from wiki. thanks! 20:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

a) How do I know who you are, and b) it will be in the history of the documents anyway, so it will never be deleted. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i do know that it is violation of my privacy. according to chapter 7 of the BBB you cannot share this information. therefore, please remove it from the history documents. 20:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, who are we talking about, and now also, who posted the information on the wikipedia in the first place (all that information you want deleted was given to the public domain by who?)? Have you seen the 'please note' below this edit box, stating "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it." Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

this does help. now, i hope this helps: i do know that it is violation of my privacy. according to chapter 7 of the BBB you cannot share this information. therefore, please remove it from the history documents. i dont even want to write my name b/c of wiki's "history" page. i tried to delete my name from your history, and you added it back. so im asking you again to please remove it. 20:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ps i dont know who posted it, but we share the same name, and i want it removed.

In that case, you need to contact WP:RFO (though I do not give you much chance). Otherwise the information is only removed from a current version, it is not removed from the history, it will always be visible to users of the wikipedia. I just can't help you with this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

thank you for your help, but how does this work? 20:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

ps arent you an admin?

Oversight can delete stuff from the database. As an admin I do not have that possibility, I can delete pages, but that means they are still in the database, and other admins can view and restore them (so the information is still there). When people from oversight delete information from the database, it is really gone, noone can see it anymore. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:07, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Palazzo Hercolani

Hi, I'm adding the link to the video in palazzo hercolani since it offers a chance to see the live setting of the palace courtyard. Forli TV is a non profit run streaming TV, videos' copyright is owned by Forli TV and it is a project run within the University of Bologna partly by students as an educational project. Please let me know how I can improve the integration of the link in the article. 07:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Still, you have a conflict of interest there. It is really better to discuss it on the talkpage first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry case

A suspected sockpuppetry case pertaining to the users named at WP:ANI has been opened at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodopie. You have been notified as you may have further information to contribute to the case. Angus Lepper(T, C, D) 13:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Already added. Thanks for the notification, though! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Border Collie

Border Collie edit:

I added the following line to the Border Collie page:

"There has been success in using signed commands rather than verbal ones to train deaf dogs."

You took exception to this and I don't know why. Could you please clarify as I am new to Wikipedia and would like to participate in a constructive way.

Thank you,

Bobt250—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

I took Border collie as the example, in the section header I added an 'a.o.'. The warning was for all your linkadditions. The information you are adding is not necessary on all the pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your speedy reply. I was trying to add that line to any article that mentioned deafness as a characteristic of that breed. That hand signals are effective with deaf dogs seems important information to me. What started me on this mission was the request for a citation in the Dalmatian article. Perhaps I misunderstood and/or overstepped my bounds. On another related subject, my posts here are unsigned because I'm having trouble logging in. When I log in it accepts me but anything I do after that it tells me I'm not signed in thus I appear as anonymous and that's not my intention. I will have to figure it out because my intention is to contribute in a constructive and responsible way. Given my intentions do you still think it inappropriate to post that comment on pages mentioning deafness in that dog breed?

I'm a big fan of Wikipedia and thank you for your hard work making it a useful place.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs).

The fact that deafness is a characteristic of the breed may be of interest, I am more concerned about the link, which does not proof the statement, but, to me, the addition of that link seems more promotional. If I may suggest: can you write a general section in the page about the breed, or even an own article, backed up with some scientific references. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure that there have been any scientific experiments on training deaf dogs just that I know there are literally thousands of people living the experience successfully communicating with their deaf dogs with hand signals. The link was to that community of people as "proof" that it can be done. I will give thought to your suggestion though. Thank you for your time.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

If there is nothing 'proven' about this, then it is difficult to write something in wikipedia, may I ask you to have a look at WP:RS and WP:CITE? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Retail Electric Provider

I am still editing the article..if you can keep the article and take out the reference to any particular company..i will finish it and leave that part out—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenmadden (talkcontribs)

I'd rather see you put it on WP:RA, and only comment on talkpages. I am having a look in the other cases of conflict of interest. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenmadden (talkcontribs)

COuld you please sign your post, you can do that by typing 4 tildes at the end of your contribution on talkpages (not on content pages), or by clicking the signature button above this edit box. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Irish Veterans

Hi there. I have read your talk page. However, I'm still wondering about your removal of Irish Veterans - The Organisation of National Ex-Servicemen & Women (ONE) from all of the Irish Military pages. (i.e. Irish Army‎; Irish Defence Forces‎; Reserve Defence Forces‎;Naval Service Reserve‎; Irish Air Corps; Irish Army Reserve‎; Irish Naval Service)‎
I can see how you might argue that it could be spam, but on the other hand, one could justifiably argue that the Veterans were, and to some degree still are, an important part of the Military, and whether it is spam or not seems to me to be more a matter of opinion than a matter of fact.
However, I'm willing to be enlightened, so please, enlighten me as to why a link to the Veterans is spam.
(Is it simply a case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans would be OK, but an external link isn't?)
Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You were adding the same link to a number of articles, which wikipedia defines as spam. Moreover, the link is appropriate on a page about Irish Veterans (and it is there, now only once, not a link for every occasion it could possibly be linked), but it is not directly linked to e.g. Irish Army (that should have a link to the official page of the Irish Army, which is there, the page Irish Army can have a section about its veterans, which wikilinks to the Irish Army Veterans page, where the link would be appropriate. As you were adding the linkThe way the link was added, and the way it was linked, was more promotional, and aimed at tunneling people away from Wikipedia, than to improve the wikipedia. That also gives me the feeling you havethe person adding the link has a conflict of interest, are you involved in the link.
In all cases, per all the guidelines and policies I have linked in this answer, discuss sSuch edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I have amended my answer, the user I am answering to is not the one adding the link, my mistake, sorry. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

but it is not directly linked to - Yeah, I see your point. I agree. (It's only indirectly related; the link should only be from where it is directly related.)
adding the same link to a number of articles ... - Presumably there are cases where adding the same link to a number of articles is quite valid? (I agree that the cases where it's not valid are pretty obvious!) For example, having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each album's page. Is that valid?
Such edits should be discussed on the talkpages, i.s.o. keep on adding the links, even after a warning is issued. - Sorry, I don't understand this sentence. Which edits? Theirs or yours? On all six talk pages? What does "i.s.o." mean? (in stead of ??)
Hope this explains. - Yes, it does, thank you. It explains it quite well. (Somehow I didn't pick up on the "directly related" criteria from reading your talk page.) Cheers, Pdfpdf 14:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By-the-way: Please consider the alternatives before readding the link - It took me about four goes at reading that sentence before realising you didn't mean "reading" or "redding". Perhaps the easily confused would find "re-adding" less confusing? Cheers, Pdfpdf 15:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I meant that they should discuss their edits, especially if someone has expressed his/her concerns if it is valid (as I did in this case with the good-faith {{uw-spam1}}-warning) on their talkpage. With i.s.o. I indeed meant in stead of.
There are hardly cases where adding links to a number of articles is appropriate. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, hence, there is often no reason to add external links, only when they really add to an article. It is very difficult for one single link to be directly linked to a 'large' number of articles, then there are bound to be more specific documents on the server that gets linked to, and then they often better used as a reference (The question I would ask then is: 'is there really nothing to tell in the wikipedia document where you can use the information in the document you want to link to?'). Also see here WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer, such link-additions are sure to set of the alarms we have on IRC.
I will insert a dash, thanks for the hint. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. Would having a link to the Rolling Stones official web site on each Rolling Stones album's wiki page be valid? Pdfpdf 15:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I now realise that the following is rather simplistic, but given your linkfarm comments, (Is it the case that a link to a Wiki page on Veterans [or Rolling Stones] would be OK, but an external link isn't?) Pdfpdf 15:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The page Rolling Stones has a link to the homepage of the Rolling Stones. All album pages should have a wikilink back to Rolling Stones (I would guess that all these pages start with 'xxx is the n-th album of the Rolling Stones', so there we are), and could have an external link to .. that is again a direct link between the subject of the article and the subject of the page linked to.
Linking the page for 'The organisation of Veterans of the Irish army' from veterans is a bit far-fetched I think. It should be linked on 'Irish army', of course. Having the link to 'The organisation of Veterans of the Irish army' on 'Veteran' would probably mean that there is a list on that page with all organisations of veterans, which would again not comply with WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. But is is all in using common sense, I mainly reacted here because an account was adding external links only, which, in my humble opinion, is not improving the encyclopedia. Kind regards, --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Pdfpdf 15:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk,

I obviuosly did something wrong again!!! I removed the offedning line that you pointed out to me and added in some new text. Should I post this text here now before it goes on the site? There are no new links in the posting that should conflict with the poilicies of wikipedia (I think). Please let me know as soon as possible. Thanks. joeleire Joeleire 08:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please Joeleire, read the policies and guidelines. We are writing an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Therefore, please discuss with other users on the talkpage of Veterans in Ireland first. The text in a whole is just promoting your site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:27, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please help comment on the proposed links


I was wondering if you might have time to comment on the list of article links I’ve been making on my Sandbox page User:VAwebteam/Sandbox (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/Sandbox|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Also, if you can bear it my To Do List page User:VAwebteam/To_do_list (edit | [[Talk:User:VAwebteam/To_do_list|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been completed now. I'd really welcome all your comments/advice and hope I've gone about this the right way this time. Thanks for your help. VAwebteam 09:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Spreading some Wikilove :D