User talk:Stesmo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Otter (3323933464).jpg


Stevie Ray Vaughan edit revert[edit]

Hi there -

Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! It's appreciated.

In regards to my commit, I went in to fix a formatting error, but I have the Chrome 'Cloud to Butt' extension installed (normally humorous) and it unintentionally changed the instance of cloud in the text box. I'll have to watch out for that in the future. Thanks for catching that! :)

Sam Cawthorn[edit]

Hey there,

Not sure if this is a wiki issue, but the link on the Sam Cawthorn page for points to someone's online Nike shop. I think everything else is fine, otherwise. Thanks for all your great work. (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Darrell220.244.174.112 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for letting me know about the bemotivated site. It looks like most of the links in the external links section were dead or unnecessary, as well. Thanks again, Stesmo (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Liliane Bettencourt[edit]

Can you please look at what you're reverting to? It's the same site, just an older page. If the site is not a WP:RS the entire sentence should be removed. --NeilN talk to me 21:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, NeilN. I did look at what I was reverting. I reverted a ton of spam this morning from that user and reviewed each before doing so. While the link may be useful as a reference, it is an external link, which shouldn't be placed in the body of an article. This page was different than a lot of the spam, in that it actually replaced existing text and wasn't just slapped in the lead paragraph without consideration of appropriateness. I've reverted my 2nd revert and converted the external link to a reference. Sound good? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. Your last edit summary got cut off and I wasn't looking as carefully as I should have been so I missed the ref suggestion. --NeilN talk to me 21:43, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Drastic Edit to Edexcel article[edit]

Your recent edit to the Pearson Edexcel article removed lots of valuable information. I'm quite tempted to revert it as the page used to be an in-depth article on the exam board but now consists of a couple of paragraphs. Why did you make these changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnxsmith (talkcontribs) 21:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Johnxsmith. Thanks for stopping by my talk page. The edits you're referring to are these, correct? The short answer is: the overwhelming majority of page didn't meet Wikipedia's Core Content Policies.
The long answer: The first edit removed external links in the body of the article, which runs afoul of WP:EL. The second edit's edit summary is: Removed unsourced promotional content. Removed duplicate info. Tightened language. Requested reliable sources (not from Pearson, Edexcel or press releases) to keep claims in article. I feel that I explained my edits well in that summary. I removed the promotional content (see Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion), the promotional external links (WP:EL), the unsourced claims WP:Verifiability, and various tightening (removing duplicate info, padding, etc.). And, I requested reliable, third-party published source (not from Pearson, Edexcel or press releases) for the remaining claims. If those Citation Needed requests go unanswered, they'll be removed, as well.
There is exactly one reference in that article that doesn't point to (points to a Maltese domain, which may still be under Edexcel's control/input). That reference isn't a reliable, third-party published source. In fact, due to the lack of reliable sources in the current article, I'm not even sure the subject of this article meets WP:Notability standards, either.
Please feel free to add back Edexcel content as long as it isn't promotional, doesn't contain external links in the body of the article, aren't trivial and are reliable sourced (not from Edexcel, related company or press release). This article could use some help, especially in showing it's Notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Thanks again for stopping by. Stesmo (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Okay, many thanks for your feedback. :)

Johnxsmith (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Beepi article[edit]

Hello. Thanks for reviewing the Beepi article. I am a tech journalist and have become very fascinated by this company's innovations. It's one of those hyper-growth companies that went from nowhere to $200 million valuation in less than a year. So I spent some time giving them a reworked page with much more information.

Anyway, perhaps I went too far in explaining the background of the company. That said, the key innovation being reported by the tech and business press is how the marketplace works and why it is different than online classified listings. So I restored that language, but in a more neutral tone. I left references and a longer explanation on the Talk page for the article.

I also restored the reference to the company accepting BitCoin to pay for cars. That's not a frivilous detail. Many stories about this decision have appeared in the tech press because it is perhaps the largest consumer transaction now possible with the digital currency. I included references and more discussion on the Talk page of the article.

New stories are appearing about this company very frequently. I have just noticed a story in Wired magazine that I have yet to cite. Indications are that it will become an important company.

Thanks BC1278 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hi, BC1278. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page.
Thanks for restoring some of the services information to Beepi. I was just typing out in the Talk page about how my edit removed too much and didn't include enough about the products/services when I saw you added back some of that. I've tightened the language up some more and made sure Bitcoin info was included. While I don't believe most folks outside of the bitcoin world would find it that interesting or notable, it is an interesting detail for now. At some point, if Bitcoin continues to be accepted by businesses (up to ~50,000 via Bitpay) it may be as trivial as saying "Beepi accepts credit cards".
Do note that Wikipedia is more about what has already happened than about how awesome a company might be in the future. I look forward to the reliable sources that will talk about how many cars they've sold, how profitable they are/aren't, about when they've gone public, etc.
As to the 'marketplace'. Are you talking about the peer-to-peer marketplace? If so, that info seems more like a separate article and doesn't have a place in Beepi other than in the See Also or a "Beepi is a peer-to-peer marketplace" sentence.
I'd like to mention something to you about editing Wikipedia. If you're going to use the same reference more than once, please use Ref Name= as seen in Help:Citations_quick_reference. You can define the name for the first use (<ref Name="blah"></ref>) and then just use <ref name="blah" /> for the other footnotes. This will keep the references section from filling up with dozens of the same link, as it did in Beepi. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Beepi change[edit]

Thanks for your additional edits. I made one change, which I explained on the Beepi Talk page also. I changed the word "middleman" to "peer-to-peer marketplace" because it is much more technically accurate. Middleman suggests an entity that possibly takes possession of the goods, as some middlemen do. Beep is a marketplace because it provides the venue or platform for the sale, via its software, but is never an actual party to the sale. This is a really important economic, legal and practical difference.

As per your suggestion, I may go back and find info on their current sales, growth etc. I think I read it somewhere but will have to go back and find it.

Thanks for the style note. I was wondering how to do that. BC1278 (talk) 20:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Hey, BC1278... Yes, but the reader may know what a middleman is, but "peer-to-peer marketplace" seems more like marketing talk / buzzword. What does that mean? How does a Wikipedia reader figure out what that means? It's not notable enough to be a Wikipedia article...
Middle man, in the sense of Intermediary, does have a known meaning here. I'm open to another word, like intermediary , but "peer-to-peer marketplace" doesn't seem like an accessible phrase that defines what Beepi does. Beepi definitely is an intermediary, though, as it "is a third party that offers intermediation services between two trading parties. The intermediary acts as a conduit for goods or services offered by a supplier to a consumer. Typically the intermediary offers some added value to the transaction that may not be possible by direct trading." Stesmo (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Peer to Peer Marketplace in Beepi[edit]

Hi. I've changed it to just marketplace for the time being. A marketplace is means there is a large volume of good and services available for sale in one place, often without a range of intermediaries between the buyer and seller. An intermediary or middleman means there are layers between the buyer and the seller, when in fact the specific business model of Beepi and similar companies like Uber Technologies, Airbnb, LendingTree, and many other newcomers is disintermediation. In other words, to quote from the Disintermediation entry "the removal of intermediaries in a supply chain, or "cutting out the middlemen". Instead of going through traditional distribution channels, which had some type of intermediate (such as a distributor, wholesaler, broker, or agent), companies may now deal with every customer directly, for example via the Internet. One important factor is a drop in the cost of servicing customers directly.""

Peer-to-peer is actually a technical term from computer science that is now being widely applied to a whole series of hugely disruptive new business models that furthers disintermediation by cutting out even more layers. Peer-to-peer renting exploded because of Airbnb. As Peer-to-peer renting explains "Peer-to-peer renting services and Platforms are usually online marketplaces connecting individuals and enabling rental transactions between them. Peer-to-peer marketplaces are an evolution from the traditional Business-to-business marketplaces (also referred as B2B), and Business-to-consumer marketplaces (also referred as B2C)."

We also have huge new marketplaces in Peer-to-peer lending, Peer to peer investing, peer-to-peer banking, [[ and Peer-to-peer carsharing in the form of Uber. Tech entrepreneurs have been going market to market (hotels, taxis, car sales, banking) and figuring out how to apply Disintermediation. In aggregate, some refer to all the explosions of peer-to-peer activity as the sharing economy.

So I hope you'll see I've chosen my words carefully to represent a specific and highly notable kind of economic and technology activity. BC1278 (talk) 15:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278

Thanks, BC1278. I understand both the terms peer-to-peer and marketplace, as well as the general trend of "disruption". My point is that 1) it's a marketing term / buzzword and 2) readers may not know what it is. And, notice what your "marketplaces" list of articles in the third paragraph is lacking... "peer-to-peer marketplace".
Specifically, Beepi is an intermediary and not a marketplace. It's not replacing some distribution channel, as used cars don't really have one. The model it's trying to shove its way into is between the posting of cars on craigslist (requiring no distribution channel and no third party being involved in the transaction other than for posting the ad) and used-car dealerships (where the original car owner has sold the car to a third party (dealership) and the third party is now trying to clear its inventory and sell it, perhaps having to offer guarantees and warranties). Beepi does not just accept an ad, it also guarantees the quality of the goods (inspection), arranges for delivery, accepts payment, offers a guarantee of sale, etc. In fact, if the car doesn't sell, Beepi buys the car that's for sale and is now the used-car dealer trying to clear its inventory. Yay for disruption?
Unlike any of the examples used (car-sharing and lending/investing/banking), the used-car selling already had a peer-to-peer element for decades via classifieds/Craigslist, local physical bulletin boards, online bulletin boards / forums / message boards and even a sign in the window of the car. For that market, Beepi is actually introducing layers between the buyer and the seller. Layers I'm sure folks are willing to pay for, but it's not removing them.
I understand it's very exciting and cool, especially if you're in Silicon Valley and/or have a piece of that pie, but Wikipedia doesn't really do exciting. And, the risk being run here of trying to breathlessly brand this with a marketing buzzword is that it makes it harder for the non-techie/non-Silicon Valley readers to understand what the subject is. If there isn't an article there for a reader who isn't sure what a peer-to-peer marketplace is, then a less cool term or phrase should be used so people interested in learning about Beepi can learn about Beepi. Stesmo (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Stesmo: A Marketplace is simply, to quote Wikipedia, "A place where buying and selling occurs." Beepi is a marketplace, in both standard language and formal economic terms. Except in unusual circumstances, it does not take possession of the cars. It provides a place where buyers and sellers can exchange goods for capital and provides them with services to assure that the transaction is transparent and honest, just like a stockmarket. As the Market maker, it sets the rules for the transaction and attempts to make it as smooth or friction-less as possible. Just like the New York Stock Exchange, in unusual circumstances, where there isn't a match between a buyer and seller, it will step in on one side of a transaction as a Market maker to assure market liquidity.

Here is a partial list of news publications that have described Beepi as a "market" or "marketplace":

-the Wall Street Journal -Wired -MIT Technology Review Spanish Edition -Techcrunch -Re/code (created by WSJ senior business reporters Kara Swisher and Walt Mossberger)

That should suffice. Wikipedia favors the evidence provided by independent, verifiable sources WP:Verifiability All these sources refer to Beepi as a marketplace or market. I can find no source that refer to it as an intermediary - and I looked carefully. So in the end, my analysis and yours are less important than what the verifiable sources say.

When I get a chance, I will write an entry for peer-to-peer marketplaces or redirect that entry to Social peer-to-peer processes because as the peer-to-peer renting listing states, all these other new categories are forms of peer-to-peer marketplaces. Rent-a-room and share-a-ride were and are also both popular electronic and physical bulletin board entries, (just like buy a car), and yet Airbnb and Uber are considered among the most significant disintermediaries of the last decade because they removed middlemen from the housing and taxi industries, respectively. As with Beepi, these services provide a platform for buyers and sellers to conduct a transaction - they do not actually buy or sell the good and service, themselves (except rarely, to make the market.) Beepi is disintermediating used car dealers (actually, it's a complex eco-system of wholesalers and retailers, but I don't have the citations at hand, so I won't try to document that here. Suffice to say there are several mark ups, resulting in cars being sold substantially more expensively than peer-to-peer.)

Its model is identical to all these other disintermediation plays in the peer-to-peer economy. FYI, as you raised it, I'm in New York, not Silicon Valley. I've been writing about economics and markets for 25 years, although I am not claiming my expertise matters. I'm just citing the sources. BC1278 (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2015 (UTC)BC1278


STiki Barnstar of Merit Silver.png
The Silver STiki Barnstar of Merit
Congratulations, Stesmo! You're receiving this barnstar of merit because you recently crossed the 10,000 classification threshold using STiki.

We thank you both for your contributions to Wikipedia at-large and your use of the tool.

We hope you continue your ascent up the leaderboard and stay in touch at the talk page. Thank you and keep up the good work! West.andrew.g (developer) and Widr (talk) 05:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about the improper link[edit]

Hi, Stesmo, I had fixed a bad external link for Cape Gazette on another page and thought this was the same situation. It won't happen again. If I can persuade our management into creating a valid Wikipedia page for our newspaper, may I use that internal link in List of Delaware Newspapers? Thanks, Teresa :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teresar WV (talkcontribs) 18:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Welcome, Teresar WV! Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I have good news and bad news. Good news: You absolutely can use the internal link (aka Wikilink) to the article about your newspaper in that list and elsewhere in Wikipedia where ever the paper is referenced. The bad news: You and your paper shouldn't be doing much other than simple edits (like linking to an existing article) if your edit concerns your newspaper. Please take a look at the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. All is not lost, though... You can still request an article be written about your paper... See I think my organization deserves an article on Wikipedia but none exists. What can I do?. Please don't take this as a "don't edit Wikipedia", though. Please continue to edit, just with caution around areas you may have WP:COI. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

John Kunich[edit]

Please advise what sources are considered not reliable. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aew2145 (talkcontribs) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Aew2145, thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You can check out the Biographies of Living People sources WP:BLPSOURCES and at WP:SOURCE. A rule of thumb is: except for really basic information (where someone is born, company headquarters, etc.), sources should be reliable, third-party and published. A press release, blog post, author bio, etc. aren't going to work for most claims. If there's a problem with finding reliable, secondary sources, Kunich may not be a "Notable" enough subject for a Wikipedia article.
"A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Notability_(people)
Thanks for stopping by... Stesmo (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Marian Anderson Edits[edit]

Hi. This IP is the Free Library Of Philadelphia. There is little I can do to control edits. I'm sorry if someone was messing with one of your pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for letting me know. It happens... If it gets pretty bad, an administrator might place a temporary editing block for folks on the IP for those who aren't using an account if it gets out of hand. Stesmo (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)


I have edit the link because it is broken and it is relevant to the content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyushj2005 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit request for Sophie Hunter page[edit]

Hunter has notable family members and should be included in her infobox. Please do help me in adding the family parameter. :) You can just copy-paste the one I made. Just replace the parentheses with brackets for linking. All references are in the family section of her page already. THANK YOU VERY MUCH!!!

|family= ((Michael Gow (British Army officer)|Michael James Gow GCB))(maternal grandfather)
((J. E. B. Seely, 1st Baron Mottistone)) (maternal great-great-grandfather)
((Timothy Carlton)) (father-in-law)
((Wanda Ventham)) (mother-in-law) (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I see someone else took care of this for you. Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit to[edit]

Hi, Stesmo, the reason I deleted those entries from page was because I noticed that of the 1560+ words in that page, 960+, or approximately 62%, was negative. Some sentences are also repeated. Is "trafficated" even a word? Yet it is mentioned twice. On the whole, that page is sloppy.

The page is also outdated. May the following sentence be added after "in January 2013, ranks third behind and a close second to": "As of February 2015, the most popular job websites are Indeed, and Glassdoor."

I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and would not want to think that it is in the pay of some competitors of Monster, out to launch a smear campaign on the poor company. Does Wikipedia have a policy against malicious attack on entities? Lizzydarcy2008 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lizzydarcy2008. Do you work for, an affiliated company, a PR/Promotional company or are otherwise affiliated with Your edits and comments here give the impression that you have a conflict of interest and that you should not be making edits in respect to on Wikipedia except in the Talk pages. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion.
If you are not affiliated with Wikipedia strives for a neutral point of view, but that doesn't mean that positive or negative claims, if backed with reliable sources, can't be included. While I agree that article needs work, removing anything that isn't glowing about the company is not the way to go about it. The issue I had was with the PR whitewashing and not fixing grammatical errors or updating stats. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Hi Stesmo, Thanks for the pointer about external links. I did check whether the entry I inserted had an internal link, but it didn't. So I wasn't sure if I should leave it without any links or go ahead and add the external link. Thanks for correcting my mistake. I'll keep this in mind the next time.--Naray81 (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Naray81. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. In general, if there isn't a Wikipedia article about a subject, it shouldn't be added to a list. If you think that something really should be in that list, there isn't an article on it *and* the subject is WP:Notable, then you may want to create an article (or make a request for the article to be written). Then, you can add a link to that article on that list. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Links to non-English Wikipedia entries[edit]

Some of the companies listed in Fabrice Grinda have Wikipedia entries in other languages. French, Portuguese, etc. These include very notable (and large) companies in Brazil, France, etc. that warrant a Wikipedia entry only in their home market. But I think they pass the notability requirement for inclusion on a list of investments. Is there a way [[]] to link to entries on foreign language versions of Wikipedia? Am I correct that if they are notable in a foreign language version of Wikipedia they should be included? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BC1278 (talkcontribs) 20:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, BC1278. Yes, use [[:lang:Article]] or [[:lang:Article|Other Text]] , an example for pointing to the Spanish Mont Blanc article: es:Mont Blanc or Mont Blanc. Oh, and to sign your talk comments, use four tildes (~~~~), like this: Stesmo (talk) 20:37, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Why Did You Remove the Links form That article[edit]

Hey i just check the article "Amit Agarwal" now and find out that you have removed many links. I think that those links are necessary .please add those again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar Basak (talkcontribs) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Sagar Basak. I removed those links because they did not meet WP:EL. Please read through that link for more information. Also, please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and WP:SPAMLINKS for more information on why you should not be adding links to your own websites as you did in WhatsApp. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
For your edits to Byron Udell and Accuquote that no-one else could be bothered to do. —George8211 / T 18:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Resume Edit[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

I edited the resume page today and don't understand why you removed the citation. Please explain.

Chefnewman (talk) 19:34, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Chefnewman. It was less of a reliable, third-party published source and more like Spam. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Navigation box to nowhere[edit]

As I have stated, red links are good. It you believe that some of those are not notable, then they can be removed with that comment. Or, redirects can be crated to another article that talks about them. However there is not justification for simply deleting a red link because it is a red link! Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Vegaswikian. Thanks for stopping by. You'll notice that I hadn't removed the redlinks from the Pinnacle article for this reason. From that very guideline you linked to:
"Red links generally are not included in either See also sections or in navigational boxes, nor linked to through templates such as {{Main}} or {{Further}}, since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons, and the like."
As a casinos belonging to one company don't meet the "successive" criteria above, I'm sure you can agree now that the navbox redlinks should be removed while retaining the redlinks in the Pinnacle article to help folks understand those articles need to be created (if they meet WP:NOTABLE). Thanks for stopping by my Talk page and continuing the discussion. Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Your own quote supports the inclusion of the redlinks. This navbox is an example of a "whole set", comparable to a list of presidents. Red links are obviously problematic in a navbox with an ill-defined set of topics such as {{philosophy topics}}, but they are perfectly sensible for a navbox that circumscribes a finite set of notable topics (and all the Pinnacle properties, with the possible exception of the Horseshu, are indeed notable). Toohool (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Toohool. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. The quote absolutely does not show that 8 redlinks for casinos belonging to Pinnacle should be included. It clearly references successive sets. You'd not want to have a navbox of all pingpong championships in the 1960s and leave out a redlink'd 1961, as an example. Adding redlinks for 8 casinos out of 24 for Pinnacle doesn't fit the criteria. Mayhaps if they were named Pinnacle First, Pinnacle Second, Pinnacle Third, etc. and the 2nd one was a redlink...
Now, if these casinos are notable, I'm sure someone will create pages for them any day now and *then* they can be added to the navbox and the navbox template added to those articles. And at that point we can all be happy with that navbox template. But, until then that navbox should not include 8 redlinks. Stesmo (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You are reading the word "successive" as applying to the whole list of "elections, referenda, presidents, sports league seasons", where I believe it only applies to "elections". Otherwise, the words "or a whole set" have no meaning in this sentence. I don't think your view is unreasonable, but you have made your change, it has been reverted by 3 different editors, and you should not keep re-applying it without gaining some consensus. You may want to brush up on WP:BRD. And if you have doubts about the notability of these casinos, you can say so, and I can explain in great detail how I know that they are all notable. Toohool (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Toohool. This isn't a matter of "well, I think that the contributions of General Smith should be emphasized more than those of General Jones in the article". This is a matter "this doesn't meet Wikipedia guidelines". Removing redlinks from a navbox is more mild, than bold in this case. On the matter of their notability, if the casinos have notability, an article will be written about them. I have zero problem with articles being written about these casinos if they meet WP:NOTABILITY or not written about them. I really don't have a dog in this fight... I am neither against or for Pinnacle or their properties. I have no idea if the casinos are notable or not. However, a template whose sole purpose is to guide readers to articles (in this case about Pinnacle's properties) should link to actual articles and not redlinks. That's where I'm coming from on this. It would work out perfectly if someone wrote up 8 great articles and added those no-longer-redlinks back to the Pinnacle navbox. Everyone wins, including the readers. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
You have your interpretation of the guideline and others have a different interpretation. If you want to make your changes, get consensus. Toohool (talk) 08:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fullpower Technologies[edit]

Do we need to do anything about the large number of SPAs on this article? —George8211 / T 18:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, George8211. They appear to be sockpuppets of a PR firm / in-house marketing of Fullpower. I've been thinking about submitting them to SPI for their edits on Philippe Kahn, Fullpower Technologies and Manufacture Modules Technologies (MMT). I just need to get up the energy to grab all the diffs and submit. Current SPA is at least improving the article by removing press releases cites and replacing with published articles.Stesmo (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Diffs: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], and Noahjohn's nine (as of now) edits: [21].
Just to overload you, here's a diff of Philippe Kahn, and also Noahjohn's contribs. —George8211 / T 19:24, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
FYI, in the history of the Fullpower Technologies article, everything from Noahjohn's edit (at 19:11 UTC today, removing 1 byte) upwards hasn't been included in my list. —George8211 / T 19:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, George8211. I've opened a SPI at

Folding editor[edit]

I see that you removed the link (on 23 Feb 20015 at 18:02) which I re-added (it had been there for a couple of years already), pointing potential Winf32 users to my download site. There is no other download site for winf32. Your rationale for this was that "Reverting promotional external link masquerading as a cite". If this were so then wouldn't any url to any possible free download site fall into this category, like emacs (if it's that free) or whatever? I have nothing else to promote here than winf32, it's free, there's no hidden expensenses after downloading, and in my blog I take no AD-words or any ads from it. I have zero income from it and so it will be. Finally I have no wish to promote my own blog in the Wikipedia context. On the contrary:

  • If you can suggest a site where winf32 could be placed that you could accept on behalf ow Wikipedia, please tell me and I would copy them over.

If not, Wikipedia users are left with the odd search engines to try to find the download site.

But there was no "masquarding" going on here. If you still say that there is a masquerading in the strictest sense, then I'd say it wasn't meant to.

I apologise if the url has caused any trouble to Wikipedia's users or principles. Please advice! Øyvind Teig (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Aclassifier. The reference wasn't to a reliable, third-party published source in an attempt to allow for verification of claims or statements. Which puts it more in the External Links category and less in the citation/reference category. In addition, it appears to be promoting a product (even if that product is free). Other companies may have met the WP:Notability guidelines and have a Wikipedia article and a link to their website. I'd also remove any of those company's links that point to their download site or blog instead of their regular, official website unless it was used as a valid citation.
I'd like to assure you that I am sure you have placed that link in an attempt to do the right thing, but I don't think Wikipedia is the place for promoting Winf32. I wish you good luck on finding the right place to promote your product. Stesmo (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Stesmo. I remember I was uncertain when I first put the url there and might have commented on my doubts (but I can't find when I did that the first time, it might have been in the Code folding page). As long as my intentention isn't doubted I am fine too! (The "masquerading" word kicked me on my leg! Maybe another reason text would have saved us this thread). I do agree that Wikipedia isn't the place to promote anything, really.Øyvind Teig (talk) 11:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove my LAMAR HS LCT post?[edit]

Why did you do that? Your argument is invalid if you read the original post. I will make it neutral, but what you told me is total BS. why didn't you take down the post currently up that DOWNtalks it?

Decaffe6996 (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)decaffe6996 3-4-15

Hello, Decaffe6996. I removed your edit because it was promotional. I wasn't editing that page, I was reviewing edits made recently. While your edit was promotional, you are absolutely right that the paragraph there has unsourced content that should be removed. I recommend you remove the contentious content that doesn't have a reliable, third-party published source and enter an Edit Summary stating why you are removing that content. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Eleanor Clitheroe[edit]


Thanks for correcting my mistakes - it was from my ipad, and the editing was not going well.

I was trying to change that Eleanor "is" the Executive Director to "was" the Executive Director. She left that position in 2013.

The organization is trying to contact all sites that have her listed as ED to clean up that information, so that they are current and correct.

Mrscplus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrscplus (talkcontribs) 16:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

No problem, Mrscplus. I reverted your edit not for changing "is" to "was", but because you seemed to have accidentally removed part of other text, breaking a link to a Wikipedia article. Stesmo (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You removed scholarly sources?[edit]

Hey Stesmo,

I am quite confused about why you thought the content you removed was promotional. It was informative.

I did my due diligence to look up scholarly sources and less well-known sources when editing information on subjects with which I'm familiar and I'm assuming that Wikipedia appreciates reliable but informative content. That is all I was attempting to provide. My purpose was to bring reliable and informative content to Wikipedia, though I do appreciate that you mediate rubbish content off Wiki.

Thanks and I'm curious how in the future I can write posts where they won't be considered promotional, since that is not my goal.

All the best, kgadams93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgadams93 (talkcontribs) 20:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kgadams93. Which edit? I reverted edits that contained promotional links / references for a beekeeping site from a couple articles and the promotional paragraph about content writing that seemed to be to promote the refspam in the center of that paragraph. None of the edits were reverted for your use of "Crane, E. E. (2013). The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. Routledge, 341." references or the like. For information on using reliable, third-party published references, you can refer to WP:SOURCES. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo,

I read the WP:SOURCES link and it states "Questionable sources are those that have a poor reputation for checking the facts, lack meaningful editorial oversight, or have an apparent conflict of interest." None of my sources should have been considered questionable sources, therefore, since the content on the sites is accurate and reliable. In the future, I am not allowed to reference to less well-known sources? I don't think the book "Crane, E. E. (2013). The world history of beekeeping and honey hunting. Routledge, 341" is very popular if that's the case... Thanks for the clarification :)

All the best, kgadams93 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kgadams93 (talkcontribs) 13:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Alsatian cuisine. Your recent edit appears to constitute Self-righteousness and has been reverted. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK
) 22:13, March 10, 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahrecht (talkcontribs)

Thanks but you jumped the gun[edit]

Thanks for your concern regarding my post on the JOBS Act. Finding a reference for the source is fairly trivial and calling my edits vandalism is somewhat insulting. Obviously, you are just doing what you think is good work. However, I have a username and will add the reference later. If you want to add it, be my guest, but please don't subtract from human knowledge. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Add your edit back with your source from your IP or your account, either is fine. If you can't be bothered with sourcing it, then it shouldn't be added. No one has called your edits vandalism, just unsourced. Stesmo (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Added. I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't hurt the site with your behavior in the future. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)


A gummi bear holding a sign that says "Thank you"
Thank you for using VisualEditor and sharing your ideas with the developers.

Hello, Stesmo,

The Editing team is asking very experienced editors like you for your help with VisualEditor. The team has a list of top-priority problems, but they also want to hear about small problems. These problems may make editing less fun, take too much of your time, or be as annoying as a paper cut. The Editing team wants to hear about and fix these small things, too. 

You can share your thoughts by clicking this link. You may respond to this quick, simple, anonymous survey in your own language. If you take the survey, then you agree your responses may be used in accordance with these terms. This survey is powered by Qualtrics and their use of your information is governed by their privacy policy.

More information (including a translateable list of the questions) is posted on wiki at mw:VisualEditor/Survey 2015. If you have questions, or prefer to respond on-wiki, then please leave a message on the survey's talk page.

Unsubscribe from this listSign up for VisualEditor's multilingual newsletter Translate the user guide

Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Five Branches University[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

Thank you for your recent activity on the Five Branches University page.

I am an independent researcher who hoped to update the page. As I updated the page, I ensured to the best of my ability that I maintained a neutral tone. Furthermore, when I updated the page, I tried my best to base all content on facts derived from news articles. Only when I wrote descriptions of the programs did I reference the University's website. Previously, the page lacked description of the University's programs and background. Recently, I noticed that you reverted the changes I made on the page. From your page, I understand that you have a dedication to accuracy and Wikipedia's standards. Therefore, I be so appreciative if you could please let me know the specific reasons why you reversed the changes (perhaps the specific sections/words/implications) and kindly advise on how I can improve the page.

Thank you again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amethyst.sapphire (talkcontribs) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by my talk page, Amethyst.sapphire. Also, thank you for using third-party, published sources for part of the article. When I reverted the changes, the things that stood out and made me revert the edits were 1) the copy-pasted content from the school's website (which was enough to revert the changes) and 2) unsourced promotional claims like "widely recognized as one of the leading..." If the article had not included the copy-pasted content, I would have just removed the promotional line here or there or included a Citation Needed request in the text. I probably would not have reverted the edits.
For the first issue, please use your own words in the future. Also, do remember that this is an encyclopedia and isn't an advertisement or the school's website: we don't need to include trivial information about the classes or school.
For the second item, such promotional claims (like "widely recognized", first in the nation, etc.), these appear to be promotional, especially as they lack reliable, third-party published sources. If the school is "widely recognized", there should be an abundance of third-party coverage for this as fits the concept of widely recognized :) (though you wouldn't need to include all of them, of course).
Removal or sourcing for the promotional claims and the removal or reduction of the Degree Programs to non-trivial content in your own words (not copy-pasted from their site) and that would be a great improvement for the article.
As a technical point, I saw you were including the same reference three times (not a problem), but were listing the reference in full each time. You can define the first use with a name and then use the name for subsequent usage, like this: 1st time: <ref name="Grows100"></ref> 2nd time: <ref name="Grows100" /> . If you're using the Visual Editor, enter the first reference as usual and then click Cite | Reuse and select the citation from that list. Stesmo (talk) 05:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Southern Dewberry blackberry mishap.[edit]

Thank you for catching my mistake. I meant to create a new page for Rubus trivialis, not to rewrite the page for Rubus argutus. I'm still new to editing things. I want to become better at it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sshannon7 (talkcontribs) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sshannon7. Not a problem. Good luck on your journey to become a better Wikipedia editor... I'm still working on that goal myself. Stesmo (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Scarlet Monahan[edit]

starting to write up artist, scarlet Monahan. she is well known artist, globally exhibited and known for her cutting satire against the British gov and support of the disabled poor and vulnerable through satirical imagery. please advise I have info about her, exhibitions, publications etc. many believe her to be a true surrealist and the artist of modern society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iconicartlover (talkcontribs) 14:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Iconicartlover. The good news is that since she is a well known artist, it will be easy to find reliable, third-party sources to use as citations for the article! If she fits Wikipedia's definition of "notable", particularly the Wikipedia:Artist's criteria, you're ready to go. I haven't created an article before, but Wikipedia:Your first article seems to be a good place to start. After you've created the article, then add a link to her page at Satirists / artists articles as appropriate. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Stesmo, I will check out that link its a big help and add all back links to the page, and satire page. Iconicartlover (talk) 20:11, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

question on list of Pharma companies[edit]

Stemo I see you removed the link to the free database biodirecta with more than 2700 Pharma companies. Why do you think that it is not useful for that to be in the list of Pharma companies page? I am aware of hundreds of students and professors who are in need of such database for free to know what companies are in their countries. Shall I distill content from biodirecta into Wikipedia to make it acceptable for you? I hope this message reaches you. I am still learning how to post and comment. But I am willing to learn. Just let me know how we can make people benefit from this free source of Pharma companies list... Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmartinelli (talkcontribs)

Hi, Fgmartinelli. First, that is a list of Pharma companies that meet Wikipedia's notability standards (which means most of them have a Wikipedia article) and isn't a linkfarm to other websites that have lists of Pharma companies. Secondly, if you wish to promote your site or "make people benefit from this free source of Pharma companies" this is not the place for it. Here are a couple links on Wikipedia's policies: External Links, plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Stesmo.sorry for the late reply but I was not notified of your reply. Thanks for your time anyway. I think I understand better what you mean now. Would it be interesting to report on what medicine or disease most of the companies work? We can provide for example X companies research disease a, y companies research disease b and provide link to the related disease page on Wikipedi, having biodirecta only as reference. I still think it would be a big loss of information for people who visit a page called list of Pharma companies not be allowed to know about the existence of other online lists outside Wikipedia. That is what most of the reader expect: or get a list inside wiki or get part of list (notable as you say) and reference to offline source to complement that. It would be a missed service by Wikipedia to make it look like such list do not exist. Because that is what most of students and professors in the sector look for when the actually visit this Wikipedia page... Do you see my point? Can you suggest me a way in which such useful (and free) reference could be provided? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fgmartinelli (talkcontribs) 07:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Fgmartinelli. I'd recommend you read through External Links, plain and simple conflict of interest guide and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. I don't believe Wikipedia will be the best place for you to promote your website. Stesmo (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)


Hi! Why adding link 'DJ Java Decompiler new download site' - (wich is a link to a commercial project) - is NOT spam, while online tool is spam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebmasterMiller (talkcontribs) 19:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, WebmasterMiller. That is some serious boldness. I remove a bunch of spammy links (including yours and the one you refer to), which you then put back and then ask me why one of the links you put back is allowed. I removed the "new download site" link as well as yours because they don't meet WP:EL. Stesmo (talk) 19:56, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Horological Smartwatch[edit]

You removed paragraph about Horological Smartwatch. Instead of removing, if you feel it is not neutral, please rewrite:

2015, Frederique Constant introduces the Horological Smartwatch, characterised by the fact that it is based around a dial rather than a screen. Powered by MotionX of Fullpower Technologies, the watches connect to an app on Android or iOS phone, allowing to track activity, measure sleep cycles, and get reminders to be more active if sitting too long. Activity and sleep quality can be seen on a secondary analog dial on the watch face itself.

Please check relevance Horological Smartwatch, there have been numerous articles written about this new product category.

Please reinstate on relevant pages. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Pcstas. The edits you refer to are the edits added by the Swiss IP User with very obvious COI. This will look familiar to other edits like the ones here as well as the other or any of the other edits involving MMT / FullPower (see I've become far more informed as to Fullpower/MMT/MotionX and the Horological Smartwatch than I had really wanted to be thanks to these PR accounts and edits. Rest assured, they'll be back in a couple days to add another paragraph about MotionX and FullPower to each of these articles (and probably a couple more articles). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Wow... I just read your page and realized that you are the founder of Frédérique Constant and owners of Alpina. I had no idea. Then, while I've got your attention: Please tell your PR folks to stop it. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 21:21, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, we do not have PR folks writing to Wikipedia pages. I wrote about the Horological Smartwatch, and frankly don't you think there is enough notoriety on this new product category I have been working on for two years? If 15+ TV stations found it interesting to interview me in Basel, don't you think that a short entry on Wikipedia is appropriate? If you are reasonable, please reinstate on Frederique Constant, Peter Stas and MMT. Re-write if you feel necessary, I am always looking for best solution. Pcstas (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, you should be aware that original text has been published on reputable sources like Bloomberg, Forbes, etc etc. Please do not question the notoriety nor that we want to inform Wikipedia readers on a new product category and what it means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcstas (talkcontribs) 07:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Pcstas. I'm sure that when you added this to articles about yourself and your comapny, you just forgot to log in with your account. I'd recommend making any further edits from your account and not from an IP so other editors are not thinking you're actively sock puppeting. Again, I'm sure it was an oversight. Also, please review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion before editing articles about your companies or yourself. I'd recommend posting your paragraph to the Talk pages of the Frédérique Constant article asking for an uninvolved editor to add it. I don't feel that paragraph needs to be added to MMT (duplicate info) or your personal article (it was created by your companies, not Peter Stas, correct?).
I have made no claims to the notability or lack of notability of the information. My issue was the information was cut-and-pasted between articles, without much regard to existing material, much as previous PR/COI editors have done previously on MMT/Fullpower. An edit to an article doesn't need to meet WP:Notable to be added to existing, appropriate articles (see WP:NNC). On the positive, your paragraph is nicely sourced and not over-the-top in promotional language. If it hadn't been cut-and-pasted into MMT (where most of the information already existed, including the reference), it might have gone unnoticed. Good luck with your new watch. Stesmo (talk) 17:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, I did not login initially. After 10 days at Baselworld, tired and I did not make updates on Wikipedia for some time, needed to find back password also. When I write something on Wikipedia, I always try to avoid COI as much as possible and take only prior published texts. You can see from my IP (same for pcstas) that I have nothing to do with this 'Sock Pupating' you refer to, I don't even know what it is. So, where from here now? You already wrote that paragraph was nicely sourced. I would like to ask that you UNDO it on Frédérique Constant and Peter Stas. Yes, I initiated the project, created with R&D team prototypes, and found Fullpower as partner for firmware, apps and cloud. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 20:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, Pcstas. I'd recommend posting your paragraph to the Talk pages of the Frédérique Constant article asking for an uninvolved editor to add it, as per WP:BFAQ#EDIT. After reviewing Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion, of course. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, you have removed, why don't you undo your removal? We have discussed and you agreed it was decently written. (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I save you the trouble and have undone my entry on Frederique_Constant. Please do not remove again. Thank you, Pcstas (talk) 08:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Skrill - External Links[edit]

Hi! Care to elaborate why do you believe that WP:EL applies to iTunes and Google Play app links you have removed from EL of Skrill? Those are official apps and, in my opinion, those links offer a lot of value to visitors. The same as such links do for PayPal and IMDB. Enivid (talk) 20:36, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Enivid. The links do not advance the encyclopedic understanding of Skrill (WP:ELYES #3). Add in WP:ELPOINTS ELPoints #3 and the spirit of #4 (The official website (already linked) directs you to the download sites). Thanks for stopping by my Talk page, Enivid. Stesmo (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and I've also removed the app download links from PayPal and IMDB, Enivid. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
OK, sounds fair. Thanks for explaining! Enivid (talk) 07:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove notable article about ShixxNOTE program which is on Wikipedia for more than 5 years[edit]

Yesterday you removed almost everything in article about ShixxNOTE program. Can you please put it back. You are third person who tried to delete article about great ShixxNOTE program which is sticky notes program and LAN messenger in one. Why did you do that ? I proove that article is notable, second article is there for more than 6 years. 2 times I have troubles like this one with other Wikipedia admins and I always proove that article is not PR. Not just me, also other Wikipedia admins agreed that article should be there. I am an author of ShixxNOTE program and I put article on Wikipedia which is now crippled by you. I saw your reasons but did you try program did you see how it works ?! It is not about program it is about messaging with desktop sticky notes program. So be polite and put text back or I will write to several Wiki admins who are I think admins more than you and know what is notable and what is PR.

Kind regards,

Ozren Sirola ShixxNOTE program author Sirola (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Sirola. WP:Notability applies to if the article should be on Wikipedia. As I did not nominate this article for deletion, it has no bearing here. You're referring to [this edit], where I left the edit summary of "Removed trivial and promotional content. Removed unsourced content. Add unsourced, encyclopedic claims back only if written without puffery and with reliable, third-party published sources (not from shixxnote, PR, etc.))". On a second edit, I added the edit summary "Previous edit also removed external links in body of article and pruned EL section to meet WP:EL".
So, let's start with the uncontroversial edits: I removed external links from the body of the article and pruned links from the EL section. Links in the body of the article are not permitted and most of the links in the EL section didn't meet WP:EL. Additionally, I removed the known problems/solution section, as Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal. WP:HOWTO also is the reason for the removal of a good chunk of the Features section. "Program takes note-taking to a new level by adding powerful sharing capabilities to the process and allows you to turn...", as an example, was removed because it is WP:Puffery or promotional language. After removing the external links, the promotional/puffery and the HowTo, that left a paragraph in Features that was essentially a duplicate of the Lead paragraph.
Please review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick question for Stesmo[edit]

Hey Stesmo, Thanks for the clean-ups and message on the Alex Skolnick page. I have a question - can you tell me what is the best way to link Skolnick's official book website and new album website which are ELs within the main body? Isn't it necessary to show that some information is from there? That's why I thought they should be placed as references. Let me know. Also, I had to update the addition of his latest album, which you reverted back, so I'll have to go ahead once more and at least re-add that. i.e. add his 2014 release of Planetary Coalition after the 2012 Dark Roots under discography.

Thanks. Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

P.S...Just thought about it when I read your msg. again after sending you the above msg. True - his official page does have the ELs to his book and new project, so it's not necessary here perhaps - however for authenticity - is it still needed to add them as references? Don't know.

Thanks in advance. - Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

P.P.S. But then again, on reviewing Wikipedia's external links guidelines in detail, it states: "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject,[4] one should generally avoid providing external links ...." So since those links are to the Geek to Guitar Hero book's Official page and Planetary Coalition's Official page, shouldn't they be included? The links were there for a long time without any issues earlier. He seems to have separate official pages for the projects - his site, his bands, his book and his world music project.Adam Zimberg (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo, I'm very sorry my "quick question" is becoming a long winded one now! I think since his main official website already has a link to the book and world music project, there is no need for other ELs as you'd said in your msg, even though I noticed that many musicians pages have their separate websites under the External Links heading placed at the very bottom. Anyway, don't think it's necessary, and I can't afford to spend more time on this. Had just wanted to be thorough and not leave out any refs etc. So thanks for cleaning up - I'm keeping it the way you have in your last edit since you know best - except for the addition to the updated discography. I'm off to sleep now and just wanted it resolved. I'm happy with the way it is. Thanks again. Cheers, Adam.Adam Zimberg (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

your "cleanup" on NSF: an elephant in the porcelain shop?[edit]

what you surely thought was great clean up was about the laziest edit I ve ever seen: You didnt add a SINGLE ref. Instead, you threw away all inline NSF links which are illegit fair enough, but you COULD have transformed them into refs. I suggest you re-add them as refs, to undo the damage. Please, never do that again.--Wuerzele (talk) 23:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Wuerzele. Thanks for including a link to the edit! Most weren't added as cites because they weren't references for anything (you know, backing up a claim made in the sentence). If I converted most of those to refs, that would be hiding an external link inside of a footnote, and there's no reason for that. And, sadly for your argument here, I actually *did* convert a single external link into a cite, where it was appropriate. [[WP:LINKFARM|Wikipedia is not a link farm}} and WP:EL are great places to learn about External links in articles. Additionally, please review Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, it was a very lazy edit. this is not uncivil. clearly you are not interested in discussion. --Wuerzele (talk) 19:20, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Notable (?) hospitality networks[edit]

I had added to the list of HospEx a total of 16 networks. After that i saw that the title had been changed to "Notable hospitality networks", some notable networks had been deleted (because they had external links) and the rest was kept. I re-added the deleted networks, without the external link. Again some networks got deleted because they are not "notable". The weirdest part, is that the network of cyclists (60.000 members) got deleted and the network of esperanto speakers (1450 members) was kept in the list. 1) How is "notable" defined? 2) Why only "notable" networks can be added? it's easy to have a list of all available networks, they're only 16... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Notability, in this case, is actually Wikipedia:Notability. Which sometimes makes absolutely no sense, such as in the case you mention above. Most of the time, if you're adding an entry to a list on Wikipedia, it should have a link to an existing Wikipedia article about that list entry. If it is truly Wikipedia notable and and an article has not been written about the subject yet, it must have footnotes/citations of reliable, third-party published sources showing the subject meets Wikipedia Notability standards (in this case for (organizations and companies)). Though, an existing Wikipedia article makes the Notability argument a bit more loudly. Once these networks have articles, please add them back. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Symbid content[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

It came to my attention that you removed all my changes from the Symbid article. I made these changes in an attempt to update the content and lessen the promotional bias of the article as it currently stands.

I appreciate your reasons for doing so, however I believe it was an improvement from the current articles which is not factual and is written in the style of an advertisement.

Did you have a problem with the number of links, or the content in general?

Thanks. Louisjpe (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Louisjpe. Before I answer, I have a question as well: Are you affiliated in any way with Symbid or a PR company performing work on the article? If so, you should review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
The primary red flags for your edits were the overwhelming number of external links in the body of the article and Trademark symbols. A link in the infobox for the stock symbol and an official link are usually more than enough for an article about a company (see WP:EL for more info). Additionally, MOS:TMRULES will have more info on Trademark symbols. This is all before reading the text, where there are some blatantly promotional content like: "As one of the first platforms of its kind, during 2012 Symbid quickly established itself as one of the leading platforms in the rapidly expanding European equity crowdfunding industry" with a source that only mentions Symbid in passing with: "And in the Netherlands, crowdfunding is ramping up with Symbid." These, along with the removal of the Advert tag while making it more blatantly promotional, are the reasons I [reverted your edit]. I see you've made very similar edits and will be reverting your latest edit. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo. Thanks for your links regarding COI. I am an infrequent user of Symbid but that is the extent of my current affiliation - does this qualify as COI? I couldn't find an answer in the articles. Thanks for your input. To be honest I had copied most information from online sources to save time, which is probably why my edits were blatantly promotional. I have since removed many of the adjectives and have reworded sentences in a neutral manner. Also, thanks for your input regarding Trademark symbols, I have edited the article accordingly. Likewise the Advert tag. As for the links, as a new(ish) user of Wikipedia I am definitely too eager to link. I have edited the article so that there is only one link to the company website in the infobox. Thanks for you help so far and let me know if I can improve my edits further. Louisjpe (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Louisjpe. Thanks for responding. That would explain why it sounds like you're working for them if you copied their promotional content. Being a customer of Symbid would not run afoul of COI issues. As a new editor, you should also use your own words (to avoid WP:COPYVIO, with reliable, third-party sources as citations to allow for other editors and readers to verify the info. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 16:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Texas A&M University School of Law[edit]

Please refrain from making constructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Texas A&M University School of Law. Your edits appear to constitute Self-righteousness and have been reverted. (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

How was that edit trivial promotional content?[edit]

The edit I added about PrestaShop wasn't really trivial or promotional content. It marks a company changing their focus, which the page being about a company is pretty important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aritali (talkcontribs) 05:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Aritali. Do you have a reliable, third-party published sources (not from the company or a press release) for this changing of their focus? Your paragraph seemed more like a product announcement. Oh, and if you don't mind my asking, are you involved with PrestaShop as an employee or paid to promote them? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

PayPoint page[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

Thanks for helping me out with the PayPoint Wiki page - perhaps could you advise me as to which elements of the page edit were unacceptable and which were okay. I didnt believe that the article was coming from a promotional tact but then I am new on here.

If you could offer me advise ahead of my having another attempt, I would be most appreciative.

Thanks, James — Preceding unsigned comment added by James dawson (talkcontribs) 17:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, James dawson. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. The edit that you're refering to is here. The left side are areas changed/removed and the right side are your edits. When I reverted your edits, I said "Reverting promotional edits without sources that replaced sourced content and categories."
The very first sentence in the lead paragraph is promotional. Additionally, nothing you added included any footnotes/citations/sources, much less reliable, third-party published sources for verification of what you're writing. And, it replaced existing, sourced content and categories. Additionally, making claims like "companyX is an international leader" is an extraordinary claim and needs extraordinary, unassailable sources to back it up (press releases, blog posts, etc. just won't cut it).
You may want to review Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion (and the Plain and simple conflict of interest guide in case you're employed by PayPoint or paid to promote them). I'd also recommend Wikipedia:Your first article, as it seems to have some really good advice. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 17:34, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Talking Tom & Friends[edit]

Hi, I don't understand why you've reverted most of the changes as all of them were correctons of factual inaccuracies. I provided relevant links to external websites (mostly media outlets) for the changes.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miharejc (talkcontribs) 17:20, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Miharejc. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. If you don't mind my asking, are you involved with Outfit7 or their affiliates as an employee or are you paid to promote them or the Talking Tom & Friends properties? I reverted your edits as they seemed promotional in nature. You're right that not all of the information you added was promotional and you did provide third-party sources. I would recommend you take a look at those and add just those back. Additionally, you may note that your edit also duplicated Angela's "stylish kitty" line in your edit. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I have reviewed the Wikipedia policies you've suggested. I have a relation to Outfit7, but would not like to disclose any more detail than this. I see there might be a potential conflict of interest in play here. What would you suggest would be the best way to handle this?

Thanks. Miharejc (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Miharejc/ScubaBled. Thanks for replying. I would recommend you review Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Thanks for being honest and good luck. Stesmo (talk) 16:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Oord Updates[edit]

The links to the Facebook pages were not being used as evidence to support the fact that he has been dismissed from Northwest Nazarene University. Rather, those sentences with links were simply a statement of fact. The pages in Facebook are as real as the author's own website or other sites that are linked.

Also, in your last revision some days, you wanted a source: I provided one (the Idaho Press Tribune story). But now you've dismissed it because Oord is only mentioned "in passing." He IS mentioned, however, and it's in a legitimate source! How do suggest that the link that story appear on the Wikipedia page?

So, rather than allowing Wikipedia to be a current source of information with two links to real pages, and by eliminating the reference to the IPT story, the page is stagnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apodeski (talkcontribs) 21:59, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Apodeski. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Most of my issues were with edits made by other editors. The newspaper ref is good and appreciated. Things that appear in the cited newspaper article should be able to appear in the Wikipedia article. I don't believe all of the edits were yours, though, and neither the "Due to conflicting, secular views and teachings in 2015, he was let go" nor the "these declines were largely brought about by..." claims were in the article you referenced. While your commentary paragraph exhorting scholarship is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article, it was obviously done with the best intentions. Most of my issues with lacking/poor citations were with other editors.
My issues with your edits were links to the facebook pages (which aren't necessary and aren't reliable, third-party published sources) and the commentary. I reverted back to a last-known-good edit to allow for a fresh start. Please feel free to add back your paragraph with the newspaper cite (but, without the facebook/google docs cites) and that he is no longer faculty at NNU. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:EL and Fraternity chapter lists...[edit]

Since you evidently have a tool allowing for EL stripping relatively quickly, you may want to work your way through the remainder of Category:Lists of chapters of United States student societies by society. Thank You. Naraht (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't have a tool for stripping ELs quickly, Naraht. :D Stesmo (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, you at least have experience. :) Naraht (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015[edit]

19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Username Change Confusion[edit]

In November I received a request that I change my username from CityofVanWA. I already created a new account with the username JilayneJ some time ago. Does that cover it? Thank you. JilayneJ (talk) 21:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure, JilayneJ. As long as it doesn't represent the name of a company, group, organization, etc. Since your username implied you may be with the City of Vancouver, WA, please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)



I thought it was not needed but thanks for helping me revert back if that is the case.

Actually can I also ask how does the Orphan problem come about in articles, I read up on Orphans and to my knowledge, doesn't this article have some links from other articles already? Scissors Paper Stone (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Scissors Paper Stone. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You removed three tags... Conflict of Interest ( COI), refImprove for not enough references and Orphan (no links back to that page). You didn't comment on how these were fixed when you removed them and added trademark symbols (which aren't to be included in Wikipedia articles (see MOS:TMRULES)). While the issues may have been fixed (for example, there is one article linking back to the Red Dot Payments article now), without discussing it on the article's Talk page or in the Edit summary it appears suspect. Orphan and RefImprove may be easier to show resolution on than the COI tag. Please feel free to make your same edits (without the trademark symbols). Except this time with an explanation on how these maintenance tags no longer apply in Talk or the Edit Summary. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stesmo. Thank you for explaining it to me in detail! I understand better now! While it seems I have a lot more to learn on Wikipedia's guidelines, at least I now know a bit more. Thanks for your help! :) Scissors Paper Stone (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The Welding Institute[edit]

Hi Stesmo

Many thanks for your message. I am associated with The Welding Institute, however, I am in the process of neutralising promotional text which I myself added in 2012. I am a professional editor and would be most grateful if you would once again compare the two versions to see the work I have attempted to carry out to bring this page back in line with Wiki rules. Is this possible please?

Best regards Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinecondie (talkcontribs) 08:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Catherinecondie. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
To address [the changes made]: Your edits now and then made claims that were not verifiable via third-party, reliable published sources. So, Citations Needed tags were added to request these. Your current edit removed some of the claims and all of those CNs while keeping in claims like "Friction stir welding was invented by TWI in 1991" remain. In fact, there are zero sources for any of the information in your recent edit; reliable or unreliable. No newspaper articles about TWI, nothing. Add to that, you've added a external link in the body of the article. In summation, your edits had improvements (removed some of the unsourced claims), but added other issues (external link, unsourced claims, COI). Stesmo (talk) 01:44, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi there

OK thank you, I am clearer now about the need for citations. I have newspaper/magazine articles, third party sources, which I can reference. I wasn't sure once I had edited and the text had changed whether I should remove or keep the citations needed tags - but I am clear now. I will in the next few days do my best to meet your points above, resolve any issues and resubmit.

Best regards Catherine — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catherinecondie (talkcontribs) 08:13, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

About Zello "see also"[edit]

Hello, Stesmo

Zello community mannager asked to remove that part because it has nothing with Them and it even is not equal type of aplication. So, i deleted it. As You made it back again, as it was, please explain what can i say to Zello C.M. Thank You! Kviki~hrwiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kviki~hrwiki (talkcontribs) 01:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Kviki~hrwiki. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You can let the Zello CM know they don't get to decide what is in the Zello Wikipedia article. :) If you don't mind my asking, are you employed by Zello or otherwise compensated by them to promote them and/or edit Wikipedia? If so, please take a look at Am I allowed to edit articles about myself or my organization? and Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest before editing entries where you might have a Conflict of Interest (COI).
To the statement that the See Also entries aren't an equal type of app or anything to do with Zello... As it says in WP:ALSO "The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics." I'd note that the Freecast article links to Zello in its See Also section... Stesmo (talk) 01:31, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again, Stesmo. You asked about my status with Zello, well, i am just an ordinary user, but i use it since the "Loudtalks Lite" times almost 8 years ago. As no one in my family dont speak English, i gave myself an effort to translate those app to Croatian language. Only way to get it in my phone was to do it again "on line" sentence by sentence. So why not? if they gave me (or all of us, users) the app like these free of charge, i will return it to them by translating it on line and let all other user to have it too (not only my family). I asked them about my way of thinking, and they agreed. As people there were talking, they asked about other OSes. So, i made translation for all 10 projects. As time passed by , i made Serbian translations too. If i help You, and You help to some one else, sometime, someone, will help me or someone mine. I think it is worthwhile. A lot of other people agreed with it, so people are helping each other...In the flood, last year, it worked perfectly when nothing else was not. So, if we want to say other about it, what is bad in that? There are a lot of people around the world who think so, and i am sure that no one got any money for translations or editing wiki page about Zello. There are small group of people who live of these company, but they were not jealously guarded their intellectual property on its own, they shared it with everyone who need. i think it is the only way to survive in these days. Dont You agree? Did You got any money for Your Wiki works :) . As an old HAM use to say, 73, --Kviki~hrwiki (talk) 01:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Kviki~hrwiki. Thanks for stopping by again. I don't actually get paid in any way for my wikipedia work, either. I do avoid editing articles about my employer, regardless. Though if you look around Wikipedia you'll find quite a few people who do get paid to promote their company or other companies. Sounds like your translating is a lot like editing wikipedia... No financial reward, but rewarding nonetheless. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 01:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. It was nice to talk with You, i wish You Have a nice day... You are always welcome to our channel "9A" or so.. 73, Kviki~hrwiki (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

List Of Virtual Schools[edit]

Hello Stesmo, It was really a big mistake. I wanted to give link to the wiki page but unknowingly I gave it to a external page. I genuinely apologize from my side and assure you than in future it won't happen again. I will work under the guidelines of wiki. Thanks for informing me. I really appreciate the effort form your side on article List of virtual schools.

Sculpture parks[edit]

Hi Setsmo,

I recognise that I didn't take the necessary notice here we were placing the links. We are working on a wikipedia site for the sculpture park and another for the artist. Until then I believe the internal links will remain red! Or do you have any sugestions? jjdeavJjdeav (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Jjdeav. The edit you're referring to is here. Redlinks are sometimes allowed, but you should take a look at the stand-alone lists page to see the requirements are for that page. Regardless if redlinks are appropriate, an external link is not. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Explanation Regarding My Article[edit]

Hello Stesmo. I appreciate your concern. But there is no such thing thing I have a personal connection with Forest Trail Academy. I am new to Wikipedia and I have shown many concerns about other articles also. The fact is that I like educational site. So I thought of writing an article for an Educational site. Might be I have committed some mistakes or not followed the guidelines but I assure you that in future it will not repeated again. I am really disappointed with my efforts. Give me some time and I will make that article perfect in terms of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfta (talkcontribs) 05:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyfta. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I'm sure you can understand how someone whose name includes the initials FTA (Forest Trail Academy) and created a page about FTA might be assumed to be associated with FTA. As to the mistakes; I make a ton of them everyday. It's pretty easy to do so on Wikipedia, with all the policies, guidelines and the Manuals of Style. I'm also still striving to improve as well. Good luck, Stesmo (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

BuzzFeed Edits[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

For a class I am taking an assignment was to edit a wikipedia page you are interested and write about the changes you see over time. I made edits to BuzzFeed including further descriptions on the tabs and where jobs are. I was wondering why you deleted my edits. This is for a class and I would really appreciate you telling me what information was trivial/promotional. Do you think there is a way that I could edit my inputs and put them back on the page? Honest feedback would be greatly appreciated!

Best, Laneydeck — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laneydeck (talkcontribs) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Laneydeck. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. This is the edit you're referring to. The edits about the jobs seemed as if they were trying to promote hiring at Buzzfeed. The Content section edits included essentially what are definitions for News, Animals, etc. I felt they weren't really essential to the article. These seemed to me as if they were written by a Buzzfeed / public relations employee trying to promote Buzzfeed. Glad to hear it wasn't.
You absolutely can continue editing this article and any other here. In fact, you don't even have to agree with my edits and can take it to the Talk page for Buzzfeed to see what others think and possibly end up (eventually) gaining WP:CONSENSUS that they should be added back exactly as you originally typed them. You can tweak what you've already added to make it seem less promotional, with reliable, third-party published sources (not Buzzfeed, press releases, blogs, etc.). Or, you can find another way to add to the Buzzfeed article that adds to the encyclopedic knowledge of the company, complete with reliable, third-party published sources. Good luck! Stesmo (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks (TED speakers)[edit]

Just saying thanks for your work to clean up List of TED speakers! — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhododendrites. I appreciate that! Stesmo (talk) 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ELN discussion of use of external links for Webby award lists[edit]

In case you haven't noticed yet, I started a discussion about the links at Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard#Links_in_Webby_award_lists. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Ronz. Stesmo (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Coliving edit[edit]


Thanks for your note earlier on Coliving. I was really just trying to rephrase the first paragraph which was already there, but was vaguely written. I will pay more attention next time. ;) UnluckyClover77 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Tanda (association)[edit]

Hi Stesmo, this is Danny. I am new to editing on wikipedia, but I am wondering why was my changes to the tanda (association) page reverted? All various culture names of the system are well documents and claiming Hui as the Asian name for Tanda is inaccurate. Please refer to here ( and let me know if I can get my edits to the page back. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybin (talkcontribs) 21:31, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Dannybin. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. As per the edit summary for that edit, it was because you added an external link (a non-Wikipedia link) in the body of the article. This runs afoul of WP:EL. Feel free to add back the language info, but without the spam link to monkapp that you added there and on two other articles. Stesmo (talk) 21:38, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Got it! Thank you very much clarifying! I will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dannybin (talkcontribs) 21:45, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the citations in the article.[edit]

Hello Stesmo, I have done the citations in text in the Forest Trail Academy before but it is being edited and removed. That was the reason of putting the text without the citations but with the wiki page links. Can you please suggest me how to proceed further or can i include the text with citations again. Thank You.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashleyfta (talkcontribs) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Ashleyfta. Thanks for stopping by again. I've added a Welcome message to your Talk page that has some links that can give some great info on editing Wikipedia.
One of the issues I'm currently having with the FTA article is the Original Research / lack of Verifiability. Wikipedia has three core content policies and No Original Research and Verifiability are two (the third being Neutral Point of View WP:NPOV). The information you add, unless they are really minor (what city the headquarters is in, date of incorporation, etc.), should be backed up with reliable, third-party published sources (not from the company/person/organization, blogs, press releases, etc.) to allow for verification by readers and editors. In the case of the FTA article, there aren't *any* which makes it appear like FTA might not be Wikipedia Notable enough for an article on Wikipedia and may need to be deleted. Granted, there were references that I removed in previous edits, like the accreditation refs which were just links to the homepages of the accrediting companies/orgs.
The FTA article really, really, really needs some cite/footnote love right now with citations from reliable, third-party published sources that are about FTA (and not just passing mentions). If I were you (and I'm not) I'd concentrate on finding those third-party published, reliable articles/books/coverage for the details already included before adding more text. Stesmo (talk) 21:33, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

RE: Grooveshark Clone[edit]

Hello, thank you for contacting me after you removed the image from the page. I added the image so it could be displayed next to the section it's talking about. If anything it's helping the article. Please expand on how you think having it would be a bad idea. Thanks, Anarchyte (talk) 02:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

With regards to spam links by Argo-e[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

Posting spam messages was never within our intentions. is an information center for geotechnical engineers and its website content is freely accessible by everyone. In case you have any suggestions on how to add unique content to wikipedia pages and contribute to the free online dissemination of related information, please let us know. That way we can avoid similar misconceptions in the future.

Kind regards, Argo-e (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Argo-e. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You've added links to to over a dozen articles, which seems like an intentional thing to do. In fact, it appears to be an editor doing promotion for that website, aka WP:SPAM. If you'd like to add content to Wikipedia, find reliable, third-party published sources that you're not affiliated with as sources for your content. Perhaps finding sources that aren't from If you're affiliated with GeoEngineer, please read up on Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion and WP:COI. Stesmo (talk) 17:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)


sorry hope you removed, guess i am not understanding, so i have read guidelines, ty so much I am still noit understanding apparently I am just tired, anyway, if you see anything else I wasn't suppose to do can you remove it too and let me know what I am doing wrong if there is more smh Ediekeel (talk) 17:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)edie

Hi, Ediekeel. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Essentially there are very few places or reasons to add a link to a website unless you're using it as a reference. I've removed the external links already. I've added a Welcome message to your Talk page that includes links to more info on editing Wikipedia, including the Wikipedia Adventure. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

list of copyright collection societies[edit]

Hi Stesmo. I rolled-back your edit, and was posting on the talk page to the list article when I got your note. Let's keep discussion there. --Lquilter (talk) 23:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding a Wikipedia article[edit]

Hello Stesmo,

I have found that you have recently made changes on Forest Trail Academy and didn't mention any reason. May I know what was the issue in the article. Whatever the changes I had done recently is under the guidelines of Wikipedia. What's wrong with my article? At least, you could mention the reason. If you still think that Forest Trail Academy is not perfect then I request you to create a article for me. I think you are senior editor in Wikipedia team so why don't you help me creating a perfect article?

-- User:Ashleyfta 2015-05-19T00:24:37‎

Hi, Ashleyfta. The edit you're referring to is this one. I've included an edit summary with the edit that states: "(Removed WP:PUFFERY. Removed basic explanations about what things are (accreditation, online school, etc.); link to wikipedia article suffices there. Consolidated Courses.)". There is no reason to go on at length about what accreditation is, as there is a Wikipedia article on the topic. Provide a wikilink for the readers that aren't aware of what it is. If this was a stand-alone article written for another website, this may be a good article. However, since this is on Wikipedia, we don't have to write paragraphs explaining what common terms mean when we have Wikipedia articles that will do a more detailed job just a wikilink away. This article is about FTA and needs to focus on FTA. It felt as if the content being added was done to puff up the size of the article without adding much substance specifically about FTA. I think the problem here is that there isn't much to be said about FTA that would be backed up by reliable, third-party published sources. Which means perhaps FTA doesn't meet the Wikipedia notaiblity standards. I'm not sure there is an perfect article and I don't know if FTA has enough material to work with to add much more than has already been added. Stesmo (talk) 17:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

external links on copyright articles[edit]

Hi Stesmo -- So I went through some of the external links sections that you've been pruning from the copyright society articles. Many of the links appear to actually be press coverage of the entity. A lot of editors don't really understand the difference between "external links" and "references" sections, and just plop references and related reading into "external links" when it would be more properly incorporated into the text and/or referenced. It seems to me that it would be more helpful to go article by article and actually do the substantive work involved in incorporating the "external links" rather than simply removing them wholesale.

Wholesale removal of EL is completely proper when they are spam. But I'm not convinced that's what we're dealing with here. --Lquilter (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Lquilter. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. You're right. A lot of editors don't understand WP:EL vs. References. And, none of those links were useful references to reliable, third-party published sources. They are solely links to the official websites of those orgs. And, bulk removal of ALL external links is totally proper and necessary when they are spotted in the body of the website, with the exceptions granted in WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a link farm or a directory of external links. And, there is no need to incorporate dozens of external links going to the official websites of various copyright societies. That would be fixed by a) creating articles for them and adding their official website links there or b) creating an off-site collection of links at DMOZ or another similar site and linking to that in the EL section of the stand-alone list. There is nothing in WP:EL, the EL noticeboards or elsewhere. that would see the copyright society page as staying with all of those external links.
Because of your statements here, I felt perhaps I had made a mistake in removing an external link that was actually a reference to a newspaper, magazine, book, etc. (which also would help shows notability to be included as a list entry) and not just links to the official website. I've double-checked each entry and removed them again as not a single one was to a reliable, third-party published source. Thanks for stopping by... Stesmo (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Stesmo, if you read my note carefully, you would see that I was talking not about the List of copyright collective organizations but about the individual pages for the copyright societies from which you also removed many links in the "external links" section. This was a separate issue, and because we are still in the middle of discussion on List of copyright collection societies, you are now edit-warring on that page, which is not helpful. I'm going to revert those edits again, because you are not just deleting the links, you are deleting the actual organizations themselves. The criteria you need to familiarize yourself with is available at WP:LISTS for that page, but I am not going to discuss that page with you here, because it is a single page and the discussion should be maintained in one place at that page.
Instead, the issue I am raising with you here is your removal of links from the links section of numerous individual entries about copyright collection societies. For instance, this edit on Phonographic Performance Limited; it appears to be a reference that could / should have been incorporated into the text and into the references section. This is the sort of edit that you're making rather quickly that I'm concerned about. --Lquilter (talk) 11:55, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Lquilter Thanks for clarifying what you're referring to. Regarding the external link could have been used as a reference... For what? The editor who added it couldn't be bothered to use it as a reference nor apply it as a footnote to show what claims it is being used as a reference for. Which could mean that it actually wasn't used as a reference for the article, rather just placed there because it is about the same subject. Oh, and for edits to hang your hat on... That's a press release. It's not even a good reference.Stesmo (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
So I'm going through all the EL edits you've recently on a wide variety of articles, and finding many problematic edits. Here's one example: diff for Ad Council. You removed:
  • an internal link -- fine if redundant;
  • three official organs of the entity (twitter & facebook & youtube). These are grey areas. They are official links, but redundant and linked from the main website, so permissible but not mandatory to remove under WP:EL.
    • Twitter seems completely unnecessary; I would take the link out.
    • Facebook -- I would probably remove here, but for many smaller organizations their facebook page is their de facto primary website these days. Depressing but true.
    • The YouTube channel is also linked from the main front page, but may be worth highlighting in external links because it provides a readily accessible connection to the most notable campaigns from the Ad Council. Judgment call. But I don't see you exercising judgment so much as mass removal.
  • 2 archives links, which are exactly the kind of external links to archives & libraries that Wikipedia is presently encouraging. These should not have been removed. One of them is to the University of Illinois which is where the Ad Council's archives are kept. What could possibly be more appropriate for research?
  • A link to exhibit Advertising Council Retrospective on which is a bit more "research-y" but since it's sponsored by a related organization is not unbiased, neutral, etc.; fine to delete as spam.
  • a link to a different advertising-related organization. No apparent connection to AdCouncil so spam & should be deleted. -- Outdoor Advertising Association of America homepage
So when I look at what you've done, I don't see you exercising careful judgment; just going through and taking out wide swaths of links. External links, I agree, are quite subject to abuse, but you still have to exercise some judgment. I am worried that you aren't exercising sufficient judgment. This makes me question much of your work, and I'm currently assembling a list of pages you've edited to scrutinize more closely. Which is tedious and time-consuming, and would ultimately lead to me filing some kind of request for fellow admins to intervene / scrutinize. It would be easier if you would check your behavior and modify as appropriate. --Lquilter (talk) 13:56, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Please read WP:EL. I know it's long, but a lot of the issues you seem to have are with it and not me or my editing here. Since the Ad Council has an official website, Twitter/Facebook/etc. run afoul of WP:ELNO. Only one of the two archive links actually go somewhere, as the other is a dead link WP:ELDEAD. When I visited the Illinois link before removing it, it seemed mostly to be a resource for people visiting the archive and not actually making archival information available online. It was the link I was most unsure of removing, but have no problem with it being put back in. Your accusations of not exercising any judgement are rude and unfounded. As you have obviously agreed with all but two of my removals for Ad Council *and one of them is a deadlink*. Either we're both not exercising 'some' judgement or I have since we're 68% in agreement on what links needed to be removed. Absolutely feel free to follow behind me and find external links that fit WP:EL and should be put back. I make mistakes all the time and could use the help. In fact, you could also find articles that don't follow WP:EL and help the Wikipedia:WikiProject External links.
As to your threats to get your fellow admins to ban me for removing external links that run afoul of WP:EL on your article. I'd hope you'd at least use the processes in place before outright banning me. This is my first interaction with an admin who has threatened me, so this is new for me. I don't intend to stop removing spam or ELs that run afoul of WP:EL, however. Stesmo (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not threatening anything. I'm pointing out that your current approach to removing WP:ELs raises some concerns, and it would be easier if you would take the advice of another editor to re-examine some of your approaches, rather than have us go through one of those tedious Wikipedia bureaucratic procedures that waste all of our time and energy and generate bad feelings. I am happy you're removing unnecessary ELs; that's an important project, and I'm sorry that I didn't make that point more clearly at the outset. You are doing valuable work, and I appreciate it, and I have no doubt that there are many millions of spam links that absolutely need to be removed. What I'm doing is pointing out, however, is that your approach can use some tweaking, and that you may have to slow down to allow yourself to consider the links more carefully.
On archive links: For the most part, research archives put finding aids online, but do not have full-text of the materials online. That's completely normal for research. In fact, since it is unlikely that all information will ever be digitized, it is especially important that links to the offline content be included to assist people in further research. --Lquilter (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Lquilter. Thanks for stopping by again. Having worked with other editors on EL issues, including on the EL Noticeboard, as well as thousands of edits adding, fixing, removing and pruning external links, I feel my approach is working somewhat OK. Obviously, any process can be improved. Sometimes my edits result in discussions that require consensus to move forward (results: sometimes my edits are untouched, sometimes a discussion occurs and consensus is reached on which links stay and which are removed). Sometimes my EL edits result in another editor clicking the Thanks link. If you discount spammers and vandals, I expect my EL edits are accepted or appreciated more than they are disputed or hated. You can see from my Talk page & archives the unappreciative folks are a bit more vocal, though. :D I appreciate your feedback, though. Stesmo (talk) 21:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes we older editors can be a bit curmudgeonly or gruff in our tone, so I appreciate your continued efforts to stay positive and work on solutions. It's all too rare. --Lquilter (talk) 22:22, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Law School Transparency is not a reliable source[edit] E-commerce sources While the content guidelines for External links prohibits linking to "Individual web pages that primarily exist to sell products or services," inline citations may be allowed to e-commerce pages such as that of a book on a bookseller's page or an album on its streaming-music page, in order to verify such things as titles and running times. Journalistic and academic sources are preferable, however, and e-commerce links should be replaced with non-commercial reliable sources if available. Biased or opinionated sources See also: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view § Bias in sources and Wikipedia:Neutrality of Sources Shortcut: WP:BIASED Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "Feminist Betty Friedan wrote that...", "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff...," or "Conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that...". Questionable and self-published sources Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Reliable sources Questionable sources Shortcuts: WP:QUESTIONABLE WP:QUESTIONED

Reliable sources must be strong enough to support the claim. A lightweight source may sometimes be acceptable for a lightweight claim, but never for an extraordinary claim. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited. Beware of sources which sound reliable but don't have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. The Journal of 100% Reliable Factual Information might have a reputation for "predatory" behavior, which includes questionable business practices and/or peer-review processes that raise concerns about the reliability of their journal articles.[10][11] Self-published sources (online and paper) Shortcuts: WP:USERGENERATED WP:USERG WP:UGC Main page: Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB),, content farms, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users. "Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources; see WP:NEWSBLOG. Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 19:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Unemployed Northeastern. I assume this copy-paste is in reply to my request at your Talk page for a link to a discussion or Wikipedia determination that the site is unreliable. 1) That isn't a determination that this link is not a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. 2) The text you quoted includes this very line: "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective.. You should cease your removal of this source and take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard to get consensus on if this is or is not a reliable source for law school articles. Stesmo (talk) 19:49, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
It's not just the lack of neutrality. They are a commercial website attempting to monetize information that the American Bar Association makes available for free, and they've introduced errors into the data. They are unreliable because their version of the data is so full of errors and they are clearly biased based on their founder's statements. They also lack any relevant qualifications or expertise. The underlying data should be cited instead of LST. For law school data, there are much better sources available. I've posted on the noticeboard, but I don't see any process for resolution, so pending resolution will continue to remove LST sourced material. It can be replaced with ABA or NALP sourced material by others. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for stopping by again, Unemployed Northeastern. I'm glad you've started the process at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, but it doesn't seem like you've followed any of the instructions there... You've not even linked to the website address You may want to go back and read the "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available:" The process may take a little time as other editors weigh in. Until its fate has been decided, please stop your unilateral declaration of reliable-ness and war on this source. Additionally, even after the Noticeboard says "Goodness, this source is horribly unreliable!", please be more careful and cut with a scalpel and not with the sledgehammer you're currently using. I'm going to be reverting some of your edits where you've been less than precise. When the Noticeboard gains consensus, please revisit the law school articles and make your edits then (if they don't already have a process in place for unreliable sources). I'm also going to place a notice about Edit Warring on your Talk page for you to look over so you don't get your account blocked unknowingly after reverting reverts. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I suggest not reverting any of my edits pending resolution of the discussion. The LST information was only recently inserted (apparently by someone at LST) over the last month or two, without any prior discussion about whether they are appropriate or not. They are presumptively not a reliable source since LST is a commercial website, is biased, lacks any relevant expertise, and more reliable sources of information such as the American Bar Association and National Association for Law Placement are available. The edits I am making are restoring these websites to the condition they were in 2 months ago before massive broad based editing by LST staffers (DC IP addresses). If LST is found to be a reliable source, we can discuss reverting edits then, or replacing them with citations to underlying ABA data and more comprehensive data on overall employment numbers. Pending resolution, the presumption should be in favor of restoring the websites to the condition they were in before the controversial edits by LST.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello again Unemployed Northeastern. I'm going to continue reverting edits where you've tried to remove unflattering, yet sourced by other-than-LST, content. You've now been advised to stop your LST removal by two editors, myself and WikiDan61. Your cause maybe just (I make no judgement on it), but it may take more than a day to accomplish your apparent goal of ridding Wikipedia of LST. Let the process occur and see what happens and make your edits then. Stesmo (talk) 20:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. Revert surgically, please. I.e., restore information sourced to someone other than LST who is reliable (not a blog like "The Law School Tuition Bubble"), but leave out the LST sourced material pending resolution. It can always be restored if LST is found to be a reliable source, or can more easily be replaced with ABA data or NALP data, which is uncontroversial and non-commercial in nature. I will endeavor to be more surgical in my edits and only remove LST sourced material or LSTB sourced material.Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
@Unemployed Northeastern: No, you should not be more surgical in your edits. You should stop the process altogether until the discussion has run its course. The material is not libelous or otherwise dangerous in any way, so there is no deadline to remove it. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 21:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Law School Transparency criticism[edit]

The criticisms were deleted without explanation by yourself and another user. I provided information on the talk page. You did not engage and simply deleted the criticism. This is not appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 23:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Law school transparency non-reliable source discussion[edit]

We should include the full ABA data from this website, without any editing or commentary, which will always be the most up-to-date data available, and will always be available to everyone free of charge. The deleted text presented the ABA data in a misleading light by excluding certain categories of employment and only reporting the categories that LST says count as real jobs. That's not the position of the ABA or of the U.S. Department of Labor. Check out the definition of "Employment." U.S. News is behind a paywall, and if we can provide the information for free from an equally reliable or more reliable source, like the ABA, we should do that so that everyone can see the data for themselves without having to pay U.S. News for a subscription. I thought Wikipedia was all about open access for all? I'm trying to find a sensible solution. Let's discuss what makes the most sense going forward and focus on the substance. My proposal is that we replace all references to employment citing to LST with the following text: "The latest employment data for recent graduates 9 months after graduation is available for all ABA approved law schools from the American Bar Association.[3] The data includes both overall employment--which includes jobs other than practicing law--and a breakdown by specific categories that may be of interest. Information on tuition, fees, living expenses and scholarships is also available from the American Bar Association, free of charge.[4] Information about debt levels at graduation is available from U.S. News, but is behind a paywal." Unless trusted Wikipedia editors can confirm that the reported U.S. News data is what U.S. News actually says, we should not rely on it, since someone from LST may have inserted data that is different from what U.S. News actually says. They've made many mistakes in the past with ABA data. And with the paywall, we and other Wikipedia editors won't be able to spot the mistakes. As between LST and US News, US News is clearly the more reliable source, but it is a paid source that is basically just repackaging ABA data, so ABA is preferable. Can we get consensus behind something close to this proposal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs) 00:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

You deleted all, not online what you thought it was promotion[edit]

hi stesmo, Actually, I just updated the information of our company with current numbers, current formats and new sponsors. You deleted all what I updated and not only one part as you said. I would like to know what do you consider promotion, so I can review. I follow the rules of Wikipedia so far. Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKMP (talkcontribs) 06:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, RKMP. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Thanks for asking about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on promotion and advertising. You may want to read Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion as well as the plain and simple guide to conflict of interest (COI). Stesmo (talk) 07:44, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I read that before and I was careful not to sound as promotion. It is just actual information about the company. I think you refer to the external link I added to Icecat live. I will reedit it again. Tx — Preceding unsigned comment added by RKMP (talkcontribs) 08:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Your retaliation edits are a violation of wikipedia policy[edit]

Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Unemployed Northeastern (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern (talkcontribs)

Hi, Unemployed Northeastern. As amusing as you may think you are, my edits are purely in line with Wikipedia policies. My primary editing is with External Links, spam and vandalism. I can assure you that I do not have the depth of feeling you've displayed over this issue. Rather, like with most of my thousands of edits, these edits have nothing to do with my feelings towards your cause. It is because when I followed wikilinks, I saw the articles did not meet the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. Please stop trying to disrupt Wikipedia. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 20:48, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh, and my having removed external links from some of the articles you're following does not constitute edit warring, as pointed out on the edit war noticeboard. Please take a step back and let the process slowly grind on at the Reliable Sources noticeboard. Oh, and do note that notifying the editor you are reporting to a noticeboard is usually required or suggested (depending on the noticeboard - Edit Warring requires it). Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 21:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with what Stesmo says above. Furthermore, I have concerns about Unemployed's ethics and/or gross negligence, which I have indicated on a couple of the indicated talkpages, in response to Unemployed's multiple false statements -- both as to the conclusion of the noticeboard discussion, and as to his assertions that I had edited certain articles in retaliation ... when in fact I had not even edited those articles any time recently (if ever) at all. Epeefleche (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Epeefleche, you've edited Brian Leiter's Wikipedia page 22 times in the last 3 days. Northeastern (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
You've falsely, unethically, in trolling fashion accused me of editing other pages. More than one. That I had not edited -- as recent "retaliation" Have you not read what you wrote? How can you be so devoid of ethics that you would make patently false accusations? And how would you be so brazen as to do it where everyone can see that that is the case? Epeefleche (talk) 19:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Same editor?[edit]

Do you think the two editors who revert our edits at the same article, most recently of me here, are the same editor? They both claim "retaliatory edits" -- with perfectly appropriate edits, and think it cause to revert. And one appeared just for the first time during his Memorial Weekend vacation, while the other has now appeared upon his disappearing.

Similarly, both refuse to answer if they are editing under different names. More than that -- both answer the question by asking the same in reverse (though not answering). More -- both claim COI in the editors they are reverting, with zero basis. Thoughts? --Epeefleche (talk) 02:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At most, it would seem there's a campaign from UN to rally editors to his cause. But, based on Philosophy Junkie's brevity in Talk (compared to UN), I believe he is not a sock of UN. Just a friend / fellow fan of Leiter that got pulled in to help. Using the duck test, I'm not seeing a Quack here. Stesmo (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Sharp Corporation[edit]

What is the point of Wikipedia if every time someone contributes some information it constantly gets taken down by editors who clearly know nothing about the subject???

I recently added some useful information to the SHARP page in the form of their PC3000 computer that I own(!) helped develop the use of Windows for it in allegiance with DIP and SHARP!

I give up... Wiki is too heavily censored to waste time on any further... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59bassman (talkcontribs) 17:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello, 59bassman. As most people reading that article don't know the subject either, we need to have reliable, third-party published sources for verification that what you've added is correct and matches what the source says. Another page to read would be No Original Research policy (one of the three core content policies at Wikipedia). Additionally, please don't add external links to your article. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 18:37, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Humble Bundle Page edits[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

I saw that paragraph as yet another attempt by HIB folks, or whoever put that paragraph there to make me look like a bad guy in the situation HIB created. Not only they quoted my interview, despite lack of quotes in other paragraph relating to other cases of criticism, but also referred to me simply as "Zubov" instead of either referring to me as Mr. Zubov or by a full name as it was done with other persons mentioned on the page. I find it quite offensive on top of what was already inflicted on me by the Humble Bundle Inc.

Therefore I deleted the paragraph. I didn't know how to add comment explaining reasons motivating me to remove that content. Another person restored it immediately, which was outrageous as that person could have cross reference my name and nickname and left it as-is.

The paragraph brings absolutely no solution to how HIB and other big corporate entities run their agenda (which is as they please) without any regards from small people, and it only does more harm to me and my reputation.

Please keep that paragraph removed.


Motorsep (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Motorsep. You can add the reason why you've made the edit to the Edit Summary (below the edit window you're typing in and above the Save Page button). That reason will show up in the Edit History page of the article and people won't have to guess as to what happened (vandalism, etc.). As to someone cross-referencing your account name and the information, they shouldn't have to guess as to who is editing, cross-reference or guess as to what is going on with that edit; and won't need to if you include Edit Summaries or take it to the Talk page of that article. Which is why I reverted your edit; You were removing sourced content and you appeared to be a vandal engaged in an Edit War. My suggestion to you here is 1) Don't edit that page for 24 hours to help keep your account from being blocked for edit warring. 2) Add your rationale why the material should be removed to that article's Talk page so other editors can help remove it during the 24-hours, let you they agree with you or offer information on why it should stay.
Additionally, note that people should be referred to only once by full name in an article after the lead paragraph, then by surname/last name from then one. And, never by Mr. Name, etc. as per the Manual of Style. If you aren't referred to by full name at least once, that should be fixed. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 23:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

List of websites before 1995[edit]


I have mixed feelings about your edits to this page. I agree to some degree that a page full of offsite links is problematic. However, in the context of this article, these links are also part of the content. In many cases, websites are known by their domain name as much as by the regular name. URLs to current locations of these sites is part of this content that I think is important to document. I do see that having them purely as links doesn't necessarily serve the content aspect, but people could at least hover and see the link. Ideally, the text could be altered to make the links part of the explicit content. But the changes you've made serve to simply remove content. Battling McGook (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Battling McGook. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. My decision to remove the external links came from three thoughts 1) As you said a page of offsite links is problematic WP:EL. 2) Most of the list entries had their own Wikipedia articles (where an external link probably exists) 3) The links weren't to an 'historical', archive copy of the site of how it looked back in 1995 (one was to an archive, but the entry has a cite to a Medium article on the historical site). You may find a recent discussion on the Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard titled "Links in Webby award lists" interesting. It discusses 'historical' archive external links vs. modern links in lists about old websites. Stesmo (talk) 16:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)


Thank Stesmo for the guidance. Greatly appreciated Ronnie Findlay (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Albany Law School Citation Needed[edit]

You added a citation needed tag to the proposition that Justices Jackson and Brewer graduated from Albany Law School. I've added citation for each proposition (A piece by a Jackson scholar working at St. John's for the former and a link to the Supreme Court Historical Society for the latter). If these are acceptable sources to you please remove the tag. If not, please explain why they are not so that I can find something else that will work. Sneekypat (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Sneekypat. Thanks for adding those cites in Albany Law School. I kinda figured there were a couple cites out there for those and that those two did not meet the usual 'non-notable list entries that should be removed' category. I've removed the CN. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Happy to do so. On the subject of tags, do you think that the List of Albany Law School Alumni page still needs the additional citations tag? At this point all of the entries on the list have their own free-standing Wikipedia entries except for one which has a citation. I'm not sure what other sources might be needed. Sneekypat (talk) 18:08, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Seems like the issue has been resolved, Sneekypat. Please remove it. Stesmo (talk) 18:16, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Page stalker -- Sneeky, just so you know for the future, if there is in the future a cn tag, and you supply the appropriate RS citations, you should feel free to remove the tag yourself. Best. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for cleaning up my article! For what it's worth, I agree with all the changes you made to Greg Brockman, except for gutting a lot of the context/accomplishments in the cryptocurrencies and capture the flag sections. Would you mind please adding some of that back? It helped contextualize. (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Factschreiber/ Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. When I read those sections, it seemed mostly content that was 1) over promotional, 2) trivial, 3) more like a resume and less like a biography/encyclopedia entry, 3) sourced only by Brookman himself (blog posts while at Stripe, him talking, etc.) and/or 4) duplicated on/more suited for the articles about Stripe / Stellar (board of directors, raising money). I might see more being added to cryptocurrency if it was more than just "a company he was with did bitcoin while he was there" and was backed by reliable, third-party published sources (and not from his previous company, blog posts, a video of him talking, etc.). But what was there was very promotional/resume-like and I can't see bringing most of that back. Thanks again for stopping by. Stesmo (talk) 00:25, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Before After
Brockman co-created Stripe's "Capture the Flag" (CTF) IT events, which are coding and security skill-based competitions that the company uses for brand awareness and recruitment purposes within the tech industry. They are widely known within the software engineering community for their technical complexity and novelty.[1][2] These programming challenges provide developers with the opportunity to solve complex, enterprise-level engineering problems that they may otherwise not be able to get exposure to.[3] Stripe's first CTF ran in February 2012.[4] Its second CTF, in August of that same year, challenged participants to leverage cross-site request forgery-based exploits in web application security to win the competition.[5] Over 16,000 developers from around the world participated in the second competition.[6] The third CTF, which took place in January 2014, focused on distributed systems.[7] Brockman co-created Stripe's "Capture the Flag" (CTF) IT events, which are coding and security skill-based competitions that the company uses for brand awareness and recruitment purposes within the tech industry.[8][9]
Under the guidance of Brockman, Stripe invested ($3 million) into and helped launch Stellar, a non-profit open source currency-exchange network with the potential to overhaul the financial systems of developing countries.[10][11] The Stellar network can be used to send and receive payments across international currencies with quick processing times and minimal fees.[12] Stellar’s board of directors includes Khosla VenturesKeith Rabois and Stripe's Patrick Collison. Its advisors include notable Silicon Valley venture capitalists and entrepreneurs, including Sam Altman, Naval Ravikant, and Matt Mullenweg.[13] In December of 2014, Brockman presented an overview of Stellar at The Future of Money and Technology summit.[14]

In February 2015, Stripe began supporting bitcoin as a payment method on its platform.[15][16] On the integration, Brockman remarked, "Bitcoin has huge potential as a way to transport value. It’s surprisingly difficult to move money today, and the experience of paying for something online is just about the only part of the internet that hasn’t changed dramatically in the past twenty years."[17] He outlined his vision for bitcoin's role as a protocol rather than a currency at the CoinSummit conference in July 2014.[18][19]

Under the guidance of Brockman, Stripe invested ($3 million) into and helped launch Stellar, a non-profit open source currency-exchange network.[20][21] The Stellar network can be used to send and receive payments across international currencies.[22]


VisualEditor News #3—2015[edit]

10:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at ), it's time to fix your code!

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Revert OpenOLAT edit 28.04.15[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I'm KScherer. You edited my OpenOLAT page at the end of April. I don't quite understand why you completely removed the paragraph about the assessment mode, as it was correct, along with the link to the OpenOLAT manual, which should have been placed correctly as a citation. Well, at least I thought I placed it correctly. Do you think you could tell me what I did wrong there? I strongly disagree with your correction of the version number and the release date though, as yours is incorrect - you should check on the OpenOLAT jira.

I'm going to update it to the newest version though now. 

But thank you though for your work. KScherer (talk) 07:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, KScherer. I removed your edit as it contained an external link in the body of the article to safeexambrowser. I left the reason for the reverted edit on your Talk page at the time. The guidelines for external links is at WP:EL if you'd like to learn more. Additionally, I would have also removed your external link in the EL section to the manual/wiki as there is already a link to the official website (where this is kept and linked to, no?) and Wikipedia rarely links to other Wikis (with a few exceptions listed in WP:EL). I had no issue with the version number or release date, they were just innocent bystanders after you added the external link to the article. Please note that looking over the article, it really needs more reliable, third-party published sources (not from OpenOLAT, press releases, manuals, blogs, wikis, etc.) for the information already in the article. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. Stesmo (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stesmo, thank you for your answer. That clarifies it. Your're right, of course. I'll see to it that I'll soon add more reliable sources. The manual isn't kept on the main site though, that's why I added it. It used to be incorporated in the system, and only got separated with one of the last releases. Again, thank you for pointing those issues out to me, though. KScherer (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Help with Uber?[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I'm looking for help with an article, and I noticed that you had recently made edits to several articles for apps, including Soundcloud, Lyft, Viber and Instacart. Since you're interested in mobile applications, I thought I'd ask you to take a look at my suggestions for Uber's article. If you have a moment to share feedback, I'd really appreciate it! Thanks, Craig at Uber (talk) 23:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Re: your comments on Voat[edit]

It would be counterproductive to relitigate the editor's topic ban on every article talk page. The ban exists and the article has been explicitly identified by the enforcing administrator as within the scope of the ban. (talk) 06:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC), Take it to the Admins. Please stop edit warring. I'm unfamiliar with this topic ban. Can you link to me the list of articles that editor is banned from? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I assumed you were familiar with the topic ban; I apologize for not assuming good faith. I will provide you with the relevant diffs. (talk) 06:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
TheRedPenOfDoom's topic ban is the standard Gamergate topic ban, found here-
Any editor subject to a topic-ban in this decision is indefinitely prohibited from making any edit about, and from editing any page relating to, (a) Gamergate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed.
Voat is not related to Gamergate, any gender-related dispute or controversy, nor is it a person associated with a or b. Therefore, TRPoD editing this page does not violate his topic ban. He is unpopular with some angry idiots, and is thus unfortunately often the target of vandals and time wasters. PeterTheFourth has made few or no other edits outside this topic. 06:45, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Ahhh... Gotcha. Thanks, PeterTheFourth. Stesmo (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Voat has been explicitly identified by the enforcing administrator as within the scope of the topic ban, which the above editor knows well. Please be patient while I search for the diff. (talk) 06:49, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
While I haven't found the diff I'd hoped, this request by an editor under the same topic ban to narrow the scope of the ban so that he may edit the Voat article among others has so far been denied; implicit in that request is that Voat is within the scope of the topic ban. I do find it amusing the editor above, a self-professed Gamergate SPA, edited Voat previous to tonight's unfortunateness yet now disputes any relation. The connection's clearly identified on this well-curated "Timeline of Gamergate" page; quoting "June 11: Reddit competitor/clone Voat begins to buckle under the increased server strain as a result of the exodus from Reddit, with the new user base trying to rally for Bitcoin payment to help. Voat is now favored by Gamergaters, (Redacted), and neo-Nazis for some reason." (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
But that doesn't mean Voat is associated with Gamergate. Being associated with and just having an encounter are 2 different things. --TL22 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Revered edit on Quirky article[edit]

Hi! I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Quirky article. Can you please tell me why so I can change what is necessary? The current Quirky article is full of outdated information because their business model has completely changed.

Daylen (talk) 01:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Daylenca. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. I removed your edits not because you added more information, but because your new lead paragraph was overly promotional in tone. If you don't mind my asking, are you employed by Quirky or otherwise compensated to promote Quirky? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 02:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I have a Quirky account but have never earned any money from the company and in no way am I associated with them. I will try my best to try to explain it in a non promotional way. Daylen (talk) 02:36, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Daylenca. Generally, if it sounds like something that would appear in the company's brochure or sales pitch, it might be too promotional. Additionally, please avoid talking straight to the reader with "You" (see WP:YOU). Stesmo (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

App download links in external links[edit]

Hi Stesmo! I noticed that you removed the iOS and Android app download links from the ecobee article. I was wondering if app download links are okay in articles because when I started on Wikipedia most of the home automation products had the download links and support webpage as external links. Also, if the official website is the only external link and it's already in the infobox, should I get rid of the external links heading?

Thanks, Daylen (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey, Daylenca. Thanks for stopping by again. It's OK by WP:ELOFFICIAL to have the Official website in both the infobox and in the EL section. It is also OK to not include it if it isn't already there. Personally, I tend to leave it there when pruning EL sections. I wouldn't revert someone removing it if it exists in the Infobox, however.
As to App download links, these are most likely linked to inside the Official website if the company thinks they are important. Additionally, the spirit of WP:EL seems to be keeping the EL section pretty sparse by keeping the links to a minimum and making each one count. As a link to each of the various app stores, product purchase pages on Amazon, download sites, etc. doesn't expand the reader's knowledge of the subject of the article or "contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and 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", it doesn't seem like these are good links to add to an article. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 19:26, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the tips! Daylen (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Quirky partnership with Harman and Mattel[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I noticed that you took out the information about the Powered by Quirky partnerships with Harman and Mattel. I was wondering why? If it was because of company statements, the third reference I provided on each of the articles were written by newspapers. GE is a Powered by Quirky partner and has information about it on their Wikipedia page, why is it different for some of their other partners. Also, these partnerships are a big deal, for example, Harman announced it to their investors and their whole executive team was at a Quirky Eval.

Daylen (talk) 23:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Daylen. I did not remove your edits about Quirky from Mattel or GE. I made other edits on those pages that removed external links in the body of the article, etc., but I don't think I removed Quirky info unless it was an external link or unsourced. And, no. I am absolutely sure these partnerships with Quirky are a big deal *to Quirky*. GE, Mattel and Harman all are much bigger players and these deals are for a couple products in really deep histories and vast product lines. While it may be worth noting for on their Wikipedia articles, I'm sure 1) if it was notable, it would be covered by reliable, third-party, published sources (not press releases, company websites, blogs, etc.) and not just tiny tech/music websites, etc. 2) If it is interesting, it doesn't quite belong in the WP:LEAD, especially backed only by a passing mention and press releases.
While you've previously said you're not being paid to promote Quirky, it does seem like some of these edits are clearly trying to promote Quirky and not just documenting Quirky. Out of curiosity, I searched for news about Quirky and GE/Harman to see if it maybe that there aren't any reliable sources that talk about their partnerships. And, there was a couple, including from WSJ, Fortune and The Verge, but I noticed each also includes not-so-positive information. It's OK to include not-positive-information and sources that include information that aren't flattering to the company. We're not looking to puff up Quirky or GE or the Yankees or the random celeb. It's OK to include when a business lays off a third of the company or eliminates most of its product categories and product development.
Sample news stories mentioning Quirky and partners:
Stesmo (talk) 17:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi Stesmo,
I have noted all of the information you have given me for my future edits on Wikipedia, I am still getting used to what should and shouldn't be in a Wikipedia article, I have been editing Wikipedia for less than six months. Also, I am not associated in any way with Quirky. If you saw my edits when I started, you would think that I worked for LIFX or IFTTT because I was editing those pages so often. When I see an article that needs work, I like to see it to the end; when I started work on those pages, they had multiple messages at the top of the article, now they are all gone. I enjoy editing pages about Home automation products and companies! However, I am in the progress of writing four new Wikipedia articles (Curbside (app), an app to order groceries and pick them up at the store's curb, Ring, a Wi-Fi connected video doorbell, August Smart Lock, a Bluetooth door lock and the Drop Kitchen Scale, a Bluetooth scale that works with an iOS companion app). None of those products are related to Quirky!
Daylen (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sir, why were the content of our pages removed ? Without seeking right permission or even notifying[edit]

Our page about oracle nosql db was editied and the entire content was removed with the message "Your recent edit to OrientDB appears to have added the name of a non-notable entity to a list that normally includes only notable entries. In general, a person or organization added to a list should have a pre-existing article before being added to most lists"

I am sorry sir, but i don't fully understand what do you mean by non-notable entity ? Can you please elaborate on what is notable and non-notable? The article described the key features of our product and underlying computing principles behind the technology, which would be extremly helpful to those in industry, academia and overall developer community. I am also not sure what do you mean by "pre-existing article" there's a very detailed article about oracle nosql db, and I invite to please read that, it would be certainly very educational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anandchandak15 (talkcontribs) 04:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello Anandchandak15. You mention "content of *our* pages" and seeing permission. Whose pages are they? Who should I get permission from? Who do you represent? Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ABN Newswire Wiki Page[edit]

Hello Stesmo, firstly thank you for your close attention to the Wiki page. It is encouraging to know that pages on Wiki are well maintained and monitored in its credibility and neutrality. I'm sure the same efforts are applied to all pages, and as I use Wikipedia a fair amount on a casual basis, to know the information is well maintained is comforting.

I would like to seek some advice from you with regards to the edits being made to ABN Newswire. I'm attempting to be as neutral as possible, providing as much information as possible regarding the company itself but without drawing on any promotional angles. Unfortunately most of the structure I had written up in my last edit has been removed. I have been referencing similar company pages on Wikipedia such as, PR Newswire, Business Wire, MarketWired - who all have similar structure and information.

Is there any of the information added in my previous edit that might still be usable on the ABN Newswire page?

Many thanks for your time and consideration.

PR Newswire:

Business Wire:


webmechanic (talk) 23:20, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]

First, you are unillaterally removing content from pages. You are not removing just links, you are removing content and information. If you feel you need to make any changes to the articles, do them, not just remove entire sourced opinion polls just because the link format seems wrong to you. In any case, as you may know, WP:EL and WP:LINK can be subject to exceptions such as WP:IGNORE. For the case of opinion polling, external links are much prefered and much widely used over citations/references due to the amount of links and the simplicity ELs give to readers to reach the source of information in a more quick and clear way. It has been also a custom practice for most election opinion polling articles in Wikipedia for a long time due to this. Furthermore, external links here are used in tables, not "in the body of the article". As WP:EL is not forcibly required, we can make use of the exception for opinion polling so as to avoid creating unneeded issues.

So, to put you some examples, the Spanish, Italian or UK opinion polling articles may get up to hundreds or even thousands of opinion polls, which would be a nightmare to check out if links were to be put as average references/citations. External links do the work here and help simplify matters by a great deal. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 00:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Impru20. Thanks for stopping by my Talk page. There are two kinds of links here at Wikipedia. We have those contained inside of citations/footnotes that help show other editors where we got the information we're adding to an article and there are External Links, which are placed at the end of the article in the EL section and in the infobox, as appropriate. We obviously want the citation/footnotes inside the body of the article and not in the External Links section.
The problem with the Opinion articles are that editors are mistakenly putting their citations as External Links, which isn't how we handle those. You can take a look at the WP:CITE for more information and WP:EL for more information on External Links. You can also post on the EL Noticeboard if you have any more questions on appropriateness of External Links in the body of the article.
This is why the external links are being reverted from the edits on the Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 article. Not for the content being provided, but for the external links. This is usually done because editors are not aware of the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, which is why I've let the editor who posted the external links in the body of the article know on his talk page, in the edit summary and on the article's Talk page in this case so he/she could revert my edit and make the changes. And, I've linked to the WP:EL page so they can for themselves. This is akin to Teaching someone to fish... Once editors realize, they tend to convert those ELs into cites.
To your points about 'being in tables', those are in the body of the article (instead of in the footer, for example, where EL section lives). We don't need to make exceptions for a group of articles because they didn't know how to create Cites instead of just bare linking external links. Perhaps you should visit the EL Noticeboard to discuss this change to WP:EL instead of unilaterally deciding opinion poll articles don't have to follow Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
Thanks again for stopping by. I would much rather discuss this and make some changes in behavior instead of reverting edits. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you in a wider audience (Noticeboards, article talk pages, your talk page, etc.) if you'd rather. Just ping me and let me know, please. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you don't understand my point; in opinion polling articles the external links are added in purpose. Check again my argument about some opinion articles having hundreds to thousands of links which would make it really nightmarish for someone to look for a specific link in the reference section of the article, specially those in which opinion polls are mixed with other information (such as an election background, electoral system, etc which bring into place links different than opinion polls that are shown as citations). So no mistake here, this is done to help readers. This way of acting has been a custom practice for opinion polling articles for many years now by many people because of the simplicity it provides. Again, there is an exception to WP:EL, provided in the policy page itself, which is WP:IGNORE: that is, that if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. In this case, it is clearly like this as explained above, specially when considering the WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO requisites do may allow for this way of acting (not forbidden in the WP:ELNO section, and justified on the WP:ELYES 3rd condition under the "other reasons" justification (that is, the one I explained you above regarding clarity and simplicity in the case of opinion polls)).
In any case, in Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 I reverted your edit because it was just an entirely unjustified removal of content. You removed the entire opinion poll just because of the links' format, with no issue with the poll data itself whatsover. That would be justified if the link was wrong or the data was invented, but the data is correct. And sourced. Removing the entire opinion polls just because of the link formatting seems a bit too much. Sorry if it seemed too harsh on my part to revert your edit twice, but I believe it was entirely out of place to just remove data. Impru20 (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Impru20. I'm sorry, I don't believe that External Links instead of citations are an improvement on those pages or elsewhere in Wikipedia. Now I may be completely wrong here, so this should probably be brought to the EL Noticeboard so your point of view can be explained and other editors can back you up on making all of the Opinion Poll articles exempt from following WP:EL.
You did read what I posted on the article's Talk page and in edit summaries, correct? And, what I've mentioned here? For that revert, I've pointed out repeatedly that the easiest path to adding that content is to revert my change and *then convert the ELs to cites* to keep the data and cite their sources. I'll also point out recently, other editors on that article are actually using the Wikipedia standard of putting their sources in citations/footnotes instead of ELs. Reverting an edit with a note on how to improve it to meet Wikipedia's standards, policies and guidelines is not a new practice, and I believe it's one of the ways that's how we all grow as editors. Thanks again for stopping by and discussing your thoughts on the matter. Stesmo (talk) 01:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

C-SPAN interview program edits[edit]

Hello - I just wanted to mention that I just realized that there were several edits you did to some articles on lists of C-SPAN interviews (such as this one) that removed the links to the interviews themselves. I see that you do quite a bit of work with policing External Links, so I can see where perhaps an analysis of pages with a high number of links might come to your attention, and that such pages might seem fishy. However, each of the links on the C-SPAN pages have been specifically added so as to give viewers a quick and easy route to jump to interviews that they might be interested in. I realize that there are some users in some parts of the world (or perhaps using certain devices) where the links are not as effective as they might be for other users, but it is my feeling that on the whole, they have strong potential to be of use to WP users. I just wanted to give you that heads up before I did the reverts, and ask that if you still feel that the links should not be present, that we have some sort of public discussion on it first. Thanks for all the important contributions you make to WP, and please let me know if I can comment further. KConWiki (talk) 04:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Please watch List of Human[edit]

Hello Stesmo, Thanks for your message about the page - List of human rights organisations. I had added a website link of 'Sahyog Trust' which is an registered trust working for human rights in Maharashtra, India. You may visit the site for information. This trust is run by Mr. Asim Sarode(you can find his name mentioned on Yerwada page of Wikipedia.) (Advocate/B.A. LL.B.) and Mrs. Rama Sarode (Advocate/M.A. LL.M.). Both are social activists. Now coming to inserting link on list of human rights page; earlier there was no external links section on the page. So I thought like adding it under Indian list of organisations. But now I have created 'External links' section on the page and I have added the organization link 'Human rights and law defenders'. Human Rights and Law defenders is a legal wing of the Sahyog Trust, which was established in 2002. Thus I request you to look into this page (List of human rights organisations) again and retain the link of Sahyog Trust mentioned in External Links section. Please let me know if you want some more information about the organaisation. -Thanks & Regards Joytreejanata — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joytreejanata (talkcontribs) 06:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Web filtering in schools[edit]

Hello, Stesmo.

Just wanted to ask you something about an article you edited recently (we just got a notification). Checking the history of the article I see you undid some of our recent changes to "Web filtering in schools" because they "appeared to be promotional". Then you've cuted down it even more then you deleted an external link, then you've deleted ContentKeeper entry completely... So I don't get it.. you think that "ContentKeeper is a comprehensive content filter for K-12 environments (over 16 years of development) with SSL decryption for granular filtering of websites and reporting, BYOD & Mobile device including tamper proof controls, full user identification & Reporting for IOS,OSX, Chromebooks, Android coverage.", that is promotional content, while the following is not (and it's still there)?

"Opendium's Iceni systems provide granular controls with optional Active Directory integration, extensive auditing/reporting and use a multilayered approach to content categorisation, teaming an extensive database of URIs with intelligent on-the-fly content analysis."


"WebScreen 2.0 is a bespoke web filtering system specifically designed for use across the UK education system, produced by Atomwide Ltd. Currently used throughout the UK, it provides granular control down to user level based filtering through integration with the award winning Atomwide USO (Unified Sign On) authentication system. Time based filtering is another feature that aids flexibility so that filtering policies can be adjusted automatically for different users at different times of the day – for example, allowing access to social media during lunch times. All filtering is Internet Watch Foundation compliant and set for the highest level of e-safety. The largest user of WebScreen2.0 and USO is London Grid for Learning (LGfL) with in excess of 1 million end users."


"Sophos provides web content filtering products for endpoint, gateway and cloud. Filtering is granular and customizable providing the ability to filter URLs based on students, teachers, locations and devices. Additionally filtering can be performed against applications being used. SSL filtering is highly configurable allowing determination of what is decrypted and scanned and what is not based on URL and/or category. Sophos can provide Children's Internet Protection Act certified solutions."


"Smoothwall is the leading web filter in UK Education, protecting over 40% of the market. Content-Aware technology categorizes web content in real-time, without relying on outdated URL lists."

Not trying to start any wars here, but I just try to understand why do you think that our language was more "promotional language" than WebScreen or Sophos description? Or MANY others?

Thank you.

McFactor (talk) 06:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

A message re: your subscription to the VisualEditor multilingual newsletter[edit]

Hello there! I noticed your name on m:VisualEditor/Newsletter. I'm just making sure you're aware of what follows, but you're also free to disregard this message entirely :)

  • gets the newsletter earlier, because that's not translated into other languages. If you want to receive the newsletter on the English Wikipedia, please suscribe to Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter instead;
  • if you want to get the newsletter in a language which is not English (assuming a translation has been provided for that month), then please update your Meta subscription to your talk page on the wiki in that language.

That's all! Thanks a lot for your interest in VisualEditor, and please don't hesitate in requesting my support if you need me to do anything on your behalf. HTH, --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

touching base[edit]

Hi Stesmo

This is Bill

I think I made a change to Cognizant's pasge but I dont remember the context.

I am sure I provide a citation for you, if you help me remember the context of the change.

Many thanks

Bill — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"snap crackle and pop" by CARGILL and more...[edit]

How kind of you to remove by previous edit in this page. Monsanto, Associated British Foods, Coca-Cola Co, Danone, General Mills, Kellogg, Mars, Mondelez International, Nestle, Unilever, AND CARGILL sent their tyrannic government workers (like you, go on! wean off of them...) to round up any "negative statement" regarding processed foods. -"'murrika". The truth is, we want all the food corporations to get down on their knees to consumers just like the tobacco industry. All of these corporations are responsible for the food addiction crisis (which leads to several health issues) these days, marketing it everywhere as healthy, even genetically modified organisms. One day you will hopefully pay for the damage you've done, "'murrikans". "The former marketing banner led to increased rage and skepticism regarding "immunity" and "alertness" by doctors and parents. This marketing campaign was used during the H1N1 virus outbreak in 2009-2010 in order to boost sales for unhealthy processed foods. Several sources have proven those synthetic "vitamins" and "minerals" found in Kellogg's cereals to have no beneficial effect due to being artificial and processed. Better sources of vitamins can be naturally found in fruits, vegetables, organic meat, and non-processed foods instead of processed foods." Clear 'nuff? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HoHey22 (talkcontribs) 17:29, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Business Wire Wikipedia page[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I see you removed a line from the BW page with a note that you would add it back in with a valid media source. The source, Bloomberg, was listed in the initial update. Is Bloomberg not considered a valid source? Or was this update considered to be too trivial? Thanks!Mediawoman (talk) 18:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer![edit]

VisualEditor News #5—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 18:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 00:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I stand by my corrections to Ising[edit]

Ising got the Nobel prize for poor work...his approximate model of ferromagetism is easily written down in exact equations — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I have no opinion on the matter. Feel free to add it back, but with reliable, third-party published sources that back up your claims. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Why are the changes to David Wood not constructive? There are no citations for the claims made for him; all I did was make the claims more tentative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Power of Attorney Edits[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

I was citing a source as for the different terms being used in the world aside from USA.

What is the best way to do that?

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netgurusg (talkcontribs) 04:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Netgurusg. Thanks for stopping by. Use reliable, third-party published sources and not a business website. That looks like you're trying to use a spam link for the business. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Allowed links in body of article[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I saw that you had identified a link within the body of an article on a high school (St. Patrick's Higher Secondary School, Asansol) to its alumni association as spam. More than 90% of those interested in the school and looking up it's wiki article are alumni, and hence I felt that is highly relevant for them. Is there an acceptable format to do this?

Thank you for your time, Wikifan2001 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Wikifan2001. The edits promoting your group has been removed a few times now. No external links within the body of an article are permitted. The content of the link isn't an issue at that point. Also, Wikipedia does not permit advertising yourself, your products or your facebook groups. Additionally, there's almost no reason to link to a facebook group from Wikipedia. So, your link was removable for any of those three reasons. Please check out WP:EL for more info external links. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


.. And I could have added a better explanation without you changing what I did to fix those articles, because they were extremely incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by X-Ekitz (talkcontribs) 23:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

X-Ekitz, follow the rules and it won't get reverted/removed. You deleted sourced content while trying to pretend you were fixing sentence structure and punctuation. If you don't feel you know how to edit correctly, not a problem. Bring up your issues with the articles on the Talk page for those articles. Someone there might make the edits for you. Stesmo (talk) 04:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

changes on hastings school[edit]

It was true though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:787F:9B00:219:E3FF:FEDF:117A (talk) 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, what would you know about this school.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:787F:9B00:219:E3FF:FEDF:117A (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC) 

I can contribute as I want. You can change the colours and team so on but the writing is fact. What wikipedia doesn't need is vigilantes checking up on pages they know nothing about. I am disappointed in what I thought was a good helpful site. I do not plan on ever visiting wikipedia again. I will tell of my experiences.

Good bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:787F:9B00:219:E3FF:FEDF:117A (talk) 16:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, 2001:569:787F:9B00:219:E3FF:FEDF:117A. Specifically, it wasn't about school colors that made me suspect you weren't here to build an encyclopedia, but this "The hornet. HASTINGS HORNETS BUZZ BUZZ BUZZ ". Stesmo (talk) 03:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

hello stesmo[edit]

Truly I am beginner and apologize to you for external links. But I'm several years in business and business PTC sites in general. I think I can enrich this article if I get the chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Claualfa (talkcontribs) 05:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome, Claualfa! I'm sure you'll do well with your editing of Wikipedia, once you've familiarized yourself with some of the guidelines, including how to add references/sources for the content you're adding. I'll add some more links to your Talk page. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks friend, best I will study these points. Any doubt I will be communicating with you. Thank you!--Claualfa (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources for tori kelly page updateAmazajim (talk) 07:11, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[edit]

Here are some sources i found and concluded.

and i would like to make new changes. The sources are reliable and true. not fake. thanks.I edited and updated the page so people could know more about tori kelly and help understand her

Article doubts about paid to click[edit]

Hello Etesmo. Regarding article Paid to Click.

Truth wants you could help me in some doubt to do a good job on the article.

Usually reliable sources such as newspapers, magazines, reliable pages that talk about Paid to click, they know nothing about the world PTC. They are just people who hear about the world PTC and get to write on the walls.

But also, if I argue with fountains of people who usually work in the world PTC, the information is no longer neutral.

On the other hand, I know a lot about the Pay to Click and most online businesses in general, and I have real and fresh information to really be helpful to those who read it. (Assuming that he who reads the article on PTC, is because they want good and real information)

All this leads me to a dilemma. Or I put incomplete and inaccurate information from "reliable source" or give my real information, according to my experience from a neutral point of view. ???

I would like your opinion Etesmo.

A greeting!!!--Claualfa (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Claualfa. Great questions. As much as having the fresh information might be interesting, we need to stick with what has been published by reliable third-parties. Since anyone can add anything to this encyclopedia, other editors and readers need to be able to verify the information via the citations/references. Thanks for stopping by again. Stesmo (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverting of edits by user Michael Fjord[edit]

Hello, I wanted to explain the reason I removed information from Airbnb, Santander, IndusInd Bank, and Alibaba. I am affiliated with General Atlantic, and my goal on Wikipedia is to accurately list investment information concerning General Atlantic and General Atlantic’s portfolio companies. The investment information I removed was sourced from 3rd party news articles, but cannot be verified by General Atlantic or the companies who’s Wikipedia pages the information appears on as the details of those deals were not officially made public. I am able to verify the year of investment, so I kept that information available. If removal of the source is an issue, then I recommend keeping the source and date of investment, but removing other investment details (as my recent edits were intended to do). Thank you for your help! Michael Fjord (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Michael Fjord. As someone involved with General Atlantic, you have a Conflict of Interest (COI) and need to stop editing things involving General Atlantic. General Atlantic does not have veto results on what appears on Wikipedia. And, the fact that the information you tried to remove was sourced from third-party, published sources is exactly what a source is supposed to be. Please feel free to continue editing Wikipedia, but I'd suggest avoiding to do with General Atlantic. Perhaps you have hobbies or other pursuits that would make better subjects. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 05:29, 13 February 2016 (UTC).

If you are such a homophobe...[edit]

It is probably not apropos for you to continue as a Wikipedia editor. This site encourages tolerance, not bigotry. -- (talk) 23:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Spinal Tap[edit]

New to adding content, so I probably did something,wrong. But why did my contribution to "Musician's Reactions" get reverted? Thx JFK JFKamin (talk) 07:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello, JFKamin. The reason for the revert was left on the talk page of who made that edit (an IP address: Just need to add reliable, third-party published sources for the claims you made in the article and you can add it back. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Super Bowl 50 box score[edit]

Please stop filling in the references in the box score section of the Super Bowl 50 article. I am not adding spam to that section. I'm only trying to ensure that the formatting for the box score is visually similar and consistent with articles discussing previous Super Bowl games, such as Super Bowl XLIX. Thank you. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you adding external links to the body of the article, Charlesaaronthompson by removing the ref tags? There are no external links in the body of the article. If they're references, which I had assumed they were, they get put in ref/cite tags. If they are not, they do not belong in the body of the article. It doesn't matter if there is an old format or previous articles that have spam/external links. Otherwise, we'd never improve as an encyclopedia if "Yeah, but other articles get to have spam/external links on 'em!" was a valid excuse. Stesmo (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of external links in List of datasets for machine learning research[edit]

Hi Stesmo. You recently removed all external links from the article List of datasets for machine learning research. I see that you are a member of Wikipedia:WPEL and therefore probably know much more about this topic than I do, so I wanted to ask you for help. For now I've reverted your edit because I plan on adding to the article tomorrow, but if we end up deciding that external links aren't the way to go, I'll be glad to remove them. I've already inquired at the teahouse. Here is the dilemma I see for this article -

  • Without any external links, it loses it's utility. Users will have to follow citations, acquire the cited paper, and then track down the location of the dataset online.
  • With external links at the bottom, the "external links" section would be massive and unwieldy.

The article could grow to be several articles as more datasets are added, and I see it becoming a significant resource for the machine learning community. To maximize its usefulness, external links seem to be warranted. Datasets also often have pretty bland names that might make them difficult to locate by web search.

I see in Wikipedia:EL that "lists themselves should not be composed of external links." However, it also says "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." Perhaps this applies here. Looking forward to chatting with you further. DATAKEEPER 07:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Datakeeper. Thanks for stopping by! While you've obviously put a lot of work and thought into List of datasets for machine learning research, the links do run afoul of WP:EL.
You do raise good points about this list lacking utility when it is no longer a list of links leading out of Wikipedia. This doesn't make me want to see them added back in, rather that perhaps the list isn't a good candidate for inclusion in Wikipedia.
Additionally, I also agree that putting these external links at the bottom of the article isn't a solution; not only because it's unwieldly, but each link wouldn't be about the topic of the article: A list of datasets. A link to caesar0301's list or similar link might be appropriate in this instance, but not dozens of links to individual datasets.
The best way to get an external link from Wikipedia to the individual datasets would be at the bottom of an article directly about that dataset. However, the problem here would be 1) there are probably no articles written about individual datasets and 2) they probably don't meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements.
It seems like your Teahouse discussion has stalled. The next step would be to familiarize yourself with WP:EL and take your case to the Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard to make your case for an exemption and continue our discussion there.
Please revert your revert and remove the external links until you can gain an exemption to WP:EL.
Thanks for stopping by! Stesmo (talk) 09:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Stesmo. I appreciate the detailed response. I do think the list will serve as a good resource to Wikipedia and should be included. Machine learning, as a field, is growing quickly right now and the importance of good datasets can't be understated. I've read WP:EL, I'll start a discussion on the noticeboard. For now I'm going to keep developing the article with links. Perhaps a workaround would be to add the link to dataset to the reference for each dataset rather than in the list itself? DATAKEEPER 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Datakeeper. I'd recommend not continuing adding external links. Your efforts should not be wasted when it would be removed/reverted here. The external links should be removed; either you can remove them or the easiest route would be to revert back to my previous edit that removed them. Personally, I've had no problem finding links to datasets without having a link farm on Wikipedia and am quite sure others, once armed with the name of the dataset can use a search engine as well. Converting these external links, when they are not references, to avoid WP:EL would result in those being removed as well. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #1—2016[edit]

Elitre (WMF), 19:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


I updated the text and wanted to add citations. I made a 5 min break and the text + pictures disappeared. How do I restore the text to add citations? Or shall I write all of it from the scretch again? :(((( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gutnik (talkcontribs) 23:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alexander Gutnik. Luckily, Wikipedia keeps track of every edit made. If you go to the original article Bo Andersson (businessman) and click on the View History, you can click on the edits you made and see what you typed the first time. Please add the reliable, third-party, published citations at the same time as you add any claims/information. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Are citations not in English languare reliable in the English version of Wiki?[edit]

Are citations not in English languare reliable in the English version of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander Gutnik (talkcontribs) 23:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Alexander Gutnik. You may want to check out WP:RELIABLE for info about what's a reliable source. If you're not finding the answer there, you can always ask on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Stesmo (talk) 09:55, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Company registers list[edit]

Hi Stesmo, I'm SERutherford. Regarding your most recent edit to List of company registers, this would make the list essentially worthless. As it has been, the List of company registers has existed for years and is quite a useful tool for MANY people. At present, the list aims to keep as much within the Wikipedia ecosystem as possible, but there are many cases when external links are absolutely necessary for the functionality of the list. No external link is indiscriminate in nature. All external links are inherent notable for the purpose of the list as they refer to authoritative (typically governmental) sources of company incorporation. Furthermore, other examples of such lists exist such as List of financial regulatory authorities by country, which have also been well-established for years. For this reason, it makes sense to keep it as is while adding in new internal links (whenever they become available, as I active monitor this) instead of removing all of them wholesale. SERutherford (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SERutherford. Stand-alone lists should be navigation aids to help readers find Wikipedia articles and not a list of external links. WP:EL explicitly covers lists and that they are not to include external links in list entries. Additionally, Stand-alone Lists also states that these list must meet What Wikipedia Is Not, which includesWP:NOTLINK:
"Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files. Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of:
External links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia."
You may be right, in that the article may not have a place in Wikipedia. These external links need to be removed and the list needs to meet the standards of Wikipedia in order to be a part of it. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
You broke useful thing, dude. You are not a good man.·Carn !? 10:03, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanation. However, wouldn't the 'Links in lists' in WP:EL have a commonsense exception to this? That is, "This section does not apply if the external link is serving as a citation for a stand-alone list entry that otherwise meets that list's inclusion criteria." My sense is that this is one of those rare instances, given the nature of the list, where this would apply. SERutherford (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
No, that would not apply. Not to give you false hope, SERutherford, but do realize that Wikipedia has a Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard. You can definitely visit there and make your case for an exemption to WP:EL or clarification and continue our discussion there. Stesmo (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to chime in. What SERutherford does in the Wikipedia ecosystem is what governments and major technology companies are trying to invest millions into making happen. Open access to company registers is a crucial tool for good governance, anti-corruption, and law enforcement efforts to support journalists and democracy activists around the world. Nitpicking about where links go to ruin the functionality of that service would be a travesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anon212121 (talkcontribs) 00:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Anon212121. Having a spam/external link from Wikipedia to the company registers does not make them Open Access. If Google/DuckDuckGo/etc. didn't exist, perhaps keeping these links here might be more compelling. It's not nitpicking over the placement of a comma, rather it's one of those things that Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files. A giant set of links to these company registers could be hosted anywhere else on the internet. This is not the place for it. Stesmo (talk) 03:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Stesmo - I am honestly astounded at your answer. That you do not recognize the value of what you are destroying is beyond comprehension. And yes, I am sorry you can paint this pig any way you want but you have chosen style over substance. And that is the only way to view this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, This is something that Wikipedia has decided through consensus, as What Wikipedia is not... These articles don't belong to just one editor and they do need to meet Wikipedia's policies. There is nothing that precludes anyone from taking the same information and placing it elsewhere on the internet with all the external links intact. Stesmo (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Cursive edit revert[edit]

I understand that you removed my edit on the page for cursive. I said that it was unrelated to cursing. It is. What's the problem? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)


The source is knowledge. Am in teh industry but from our side of teh fence. Am slowly getting to grips with teh pages relating and they are way incorrect, eg. GardaWorld International Protective Services now owns Aegis...

Also an amendment... ADS Ltd. and ADS BVI...

If possible can I punt the stuff as able and try to follow up with citations, believe me I hate citations as some of te stuff is not spoken of or known of generally..

What i will do is work on a level 3 OSINT on teh companies, I know a few of them aswell; but trust me the use of FININT, SIGINT, HUMINT and All Int is day to day fodder....

On teh industry, I will do an overview but alot will be self citation given that I have 30 years in the industry.

I think I know the crew that founded Wiki - something a young Heiko Khoo mentioned to me in about 1993...

my best you and if you want to drop me an email pls do and pls bear with me - I can barely code and new systems take some getting used to, problem of being ancient and a ultra left...

Mwaah. J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Etikx (talkcontribs) 04:31, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Etikx. Just need to add reliable, third-party, published sources to back up each of the claims/info for that article. One of Wikipedia's three core content policies is WP:VERIFY. Welcome to Wikipedia! Stesmo (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Most recent contribution to 'Horsham'.[edit]

Hi Stesmo. Just wondering why my most recent contribution to the 'Horsham' wiki page was removed? I was simply trying to add detail to the cricket section of the page to provide a more engaging reading experience to the user. I feel as though the post allowed the user to gain more information regarding the Horsham Cricket Association. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


How do I add a photo on Wikipedia TheMunchieGamer (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, TheMunchieGamer. Wikipedia:Uploading_images talks about uploading. Wikipedia:Picture_tutorial talks about adding a picture that has already been uploaded. Stesmo (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

edit of the page[edit]

Dear Stesmo, Thank you for your review. I think page gives a list of regulatory authorities to the readers. Thus i have added the names of regulators of Nepal. So will it be good enough to add the names only without external links?


NepaliKiransathi (talk) 07:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC) kiran 21 march 2016

NepaliKiransathi, the only issue with your edit was the external links. Please continue to add to Wikipedia otherwise. Stesmo (talk) 07:57, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links in the CoreOS article[edit]

Hello! Regarding my edit on the CoreOS article, which reverted your earlier edit, please note that those external links have been carefully picked by hand over time (not just a random collection that grew out of control), are highly usable, and are actually beneficial to the overall usefulness of the article by pointing the readers to some good further reading that goes beyond what the article covers. With all that in mind, IMHO they should remain as part of the article. Hope you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 12:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Dsimic. Those links don't meet WP:EL. Add those to a DMOZ type collection site and point to that one instead. You can read through WP:EL and add how each link meets it in the Article Talk if you'd like. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 17:54, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Please, keep in mind that following the guidelines blindly and without deeper knowledge of the subject isn't beneficial in most cases. The external links are fine, even when going strictly by the WP:EL guideline (which I've read long time ago), so I've restored them again; I'd appreciate if you'd leave them as part of the article. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, Dsimic. Except most of those are actually just links to articles, etc. which, if they contain interesting/pertinent information, could be used as sources for that information when added to the article. I'll draw your attention to:
"Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it. Guidelines for sourcing, which include external links used as citations, are discussed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Citing sources."
I don't think these can be left behind in the article and I'm sure you can see why now. Please remove them so they other editors don't need to. If those links should be used as cites and you can't get to that now, please save them to the article's Talk page for yourself or other editors to use at a later date. Thank you, Stesmo (talk) 07:41, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
See, those external links go beyond what the article describes, and using them as sources isn't an option because that would require the article to grow far beyond what's useful to an average reader (that's the "amount of detail" in the quotation above). Thus, we have external links in place to point further the readers interested in more details about CoreOS; that's one of the essences of external links, if you agree. — Dsimic (talk | contribs) 07:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Just a heads-up that this edit constitutes vandalism. It's their third addition (first one was from an IP) to the IoT article, and is promotional, regardless of references. Thanks, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 10:55, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Thank you for leaving a notice. I understand your rationale and agree with most your removals. For example, mass linking to individual YouTube entries definitely qualify as spam in most cases. You are doing good job by removing them. Here is my general approach to including links in WP entries: if I used certain links to find certain information and found them helpful, I assume that the same links (on appropriate pages) would be helpful for others. This is assuming there are no copyright violations, which should be checked on a case to case basis. Speaking about links like that, yes, I realize they are "commercial" type links that should be best avoided if there are equivalent links to other sites. However, in the absence of such equivalent, and since I used some of such links to get familiar with the songs (this is an official site which is presumably copyright-compliant), I think using them would still be helpful for a reader. I understand of course that only few people are going to use these links - those who know Russian and are interested in poetry and songs like me. Perhaps the link should be modified like this. Then it is clear that the link is about the person since its provides her brief biography and links to her discs. So, I would like to re-include this link, even though, generally speaking, I have no very strong opinion about it and do not think this is such a big deal... My very best wishes (talk) 15:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Now, speaking about the rules, I think this link qualify at least as a site "that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" [22]. Maybe it even qualify as RS, but debating this would be waste of time. One could argue it falls under "Links normally to be avoided" #5, but I do not see a lot of advertisement out there. In any event, the guidelines should be "treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", as header tells. My very best wishes (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
  • More important, links like that qualify per Wikipedia:External_links#Official_links, even though they are links to "social sites" (note that "More than one official link should be provided only when the additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites", but this is usually the case with YouTube and Facebook sites of musical artists). This is very clearly written (even marked as bold) in the policy.My very best wishes (talk) 01:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, My very best wishes. Thanks for stopping by. A couple points to start with: There should never be a link to a store to buy products. That moves from 'external link' into the unabashedly spam realm. So, no iTunes, no Amazon, no Google Play, no DVDstore, etc. In addition, there shouldn't be an external link out from inside the article or from a list.
"Some external links are welcome (see § What can normally be linked), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link."
As a general rule, if there is an official site and they can't be bothered to link to their youtube videos, their fansites, social media sites, etc.., I can't see why Wikipedia should. So, if we link to their official site, they have a voice and do not need us to link to their social media accounts WP:ELNO. These sites have wonderful search functions to find the person, as does Google. Per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." Additionally, "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites," WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. If they lack an official link, having the most useful social media link would absolutely be acceptable (a link to their facebook *or* twitter *or* instagram, for example).
As to the non-english links, please feel free to link to the articles already on the various non-english Wikipedia sites [23] where people can read up in non-english languages and view links to non-english websites. WP:NONENGEL.
I hope you can see why most of those links were removed. Thank you for continuing to improve Wikipedia and stopping by for a discussion. My very best wishes to you, too. :D Stesmo (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Yes, it does frequently require multiple linking precisely because their websites are organized sub-optimally and sometimes do not even properly work. Yes, sure, "Wikipedia is neither a mirror nor a repository of links, images, or media files." That's why removing mass linking to individual YouTube entries is fine. I only disagree about one thing (see above): the links to "commercial" sites can actually be used if needed to source statements or provide information that would be important for readers, but not available through other sources. According to the guideline, those are "Links normally to be avoided". If needed, they can be used, but this does not happen very often. My very best wishes (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of Google easter eggs. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted or removed.

  • If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
  • If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. fredgandt 17:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Fred_Gandt. I'm well aware of our policies. Do be aware that Consensus has been reached already on if External Links can appear in the body of an article and it's defined in WP:EL and WP:NOT. Stesmo (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
If you're well aware of Wikipedia policies, there is no excuse for the disruption you caused. Per wp:MULTI I will discuss the article content on its talk page. I feel no need to discuss wp:EL or wp:NOT as I have no issue with either, but if I did, I'd discuss them on their respective talk pages.
I'm pleased that you have chosen to join the discussion on Talk:List of Google easter eggs (although I wish you'd do so earlier) and hope we can reach an agreement in the best interests of the article. fredgandt 14:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


Hi, on NYIT, please add the following under the Old Westbury subsection of the Campus section:

"Half of New York Institute of Technology’s 1,050 acres Old Westbury campus is located in the Village of Brookville.[1]"

Thank you very much and best regards.


Editing News #2—2016[edit]

17:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

17:48, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

New deal for page patrollers[edit]

Hi Stesmo,

In order to better control the quality of new pages, keep out the spam, and welcome the genuine newbies, the current system we introduced in 2011 is being updated and improved. The documentation and tutorials have also been revised and given a facelift. Most importantly a new user group New Page Reviewer has been created.

Under the new rule, you may find that you are temporarily unable to mark new pages as reviewed. However, this is nothing to worry about - most current experienced patrollers are being accorded the the new right without the need to apply, and if you have significant previous experience of patrolling new pages, we strongly encourage you to apply for the new right as soon as possible - we need all the help we can get, and we are now providing a dynamic, supportive environment for your work.

Find out more about this exiting new user right now at New Page Reviewers and be sure to read the new tutorial before applying. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stesmo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stesmo. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 December[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


you know damn well that the cardinals season is over after today's loss smh — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinalfan642 (talkcontribs) 07:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

ISO Master [Comparison of disc image software][edit]

Hi, Stesmo

You have removed ISO Master as non-notable entry from Comparison of disc image software Is presence of Wikipedia article for each entry in the list obligatory ? I didn't found such rule.

As of notability there is long discussion in talk Best regards Jean — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeanMolinier1 (talkcontribs) 21:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Revision of Obba Babatunde information[edit]

I have not finished including what is needed and you have changed it already. I have spent numerous hours working on this as this is my first foray into Wikipedia. I would appreciate it if you would kindly allow me to complete what I have started and has taken days to do before you destroying my efforts. I am using the tutorial and learning WikiCommons at the same time and imagine the horror at the discovery that now my work is deleted! PLEASE STOP!MillenaGay (talk) 03:44, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, MillenaGay. What you were writing at Obba Babatundé contained a lot of interesting information. However, a lot of it was in an un-encyclopedic and promotional tone. Additionally, while there were plenty of statements about something being award-winning, eagerly anticipated and other claims, almost nothing was backed with reliable, third-party published sources. Please take a look at WP:BLP for more info on the expectations for Biographies of Living People here at Wikipedia. Before continuing much further in adding content, I'd ask that you find citations for the existing information on the article.
Also, please look at the information I left on your Talk page about Conflicts of Interest (COI).
I'm sure you're going to do very well here at Wikipedia and I look forward to seeing how you improve with your future endeavors. Thanks, Stesmo (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Stesmo, My legal background dictates that I thoroughly read all information, which I have. Your contention is unfounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MillenaGay (talkcontribs) 04:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what contention you're referring to. Additionally, you can sign your comments by including four tildes, like this: Stesmo (talk) 04:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of External Links: Brand awareness[edit]

The WP:El policy does not include a maximum or minimum number of external links. Although it says that external links should be kept to a minimum, it qualifies this by noting "Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic". The links that were included included on this page were carefully selected for the purpose. In my view, 6 links is by no means excessive for an article of the size and complexity of Brand awareness.

For each of the following links that you chose to delete, would you kindly provide explanations as to why they should not be included on the page. If you are unable to do so, would you kindly reinstate them at your earliest convenience.

As I am sure you are aware, it is not enough to simply cite WP policy as the reason for reversion. It is expected that you show precisely how the policy applies in each specific case. Thank-you in anticipationBronHiggs (talk) 09:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

PS. I should have pointed out that links to four high ranking journals and two peak industry associations can hardly be seen as 'poor quality' external links. BronHiggs (talk) 10:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, BronHiggs. Thanks for stopping by! Before removing the links, I visited each to see if they improved the understanding of the article's subject. I found them to not be very helpful in that regard. Additionally, not all of the links were still pointing to valid websites. One of the links you've listed above is a Deadlink, which has no place in the EL section.
Per WP:EL: "Some external links are welcome..., but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link".
The article in question here is Brand Awareness. All links should address Brand Awareness, for sure. Those links address Associations and/or Journals about Brand Awareness for Brand Awareness professionals. I can see how most folks would think these are the same, of course. My suggestion would be: if these are Notable Journals and Associations, that a Wikipedia article is written for them and the external links to them placed on each of their articles. This would improve Wikipedia (allowing for readers to learn more about these Journals and Associations) and keep these external links (on their appropriate articles). If Wikipedia articles already exist, please add wikilinks to the body of the Article (if appropriate) or to the See Also (though, one or the other, please).
Thanks again for stopping by and chatting about this! And, thank you for improving Wikipedia! Stesmo (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stesmo: Thank-you for your response. You are right to draw my attention to one link, which while not "dead", directs to a non-existent page on a fully operational website. The link was working well enough at the time when it was added, several weeks ago. That it has become a misdirect in the interim suggests that the page in question is unstable and should be amended.

I regret that your other comments do nothing to persuade me that the 6 specific links are not useful to users of Wikipedia. Some of these links provide access to articles, case studies and other information that common sense would suggest is of great benefit to students of marketing. Nor am I persuaded that 6 links consistitute a "lengthy", "comprehensive" or "excessive" listing of external links in the context of this article. I am happy to add these links back to the article along with a brief explanation as to usefulness of each item - as had been my original intention before my attention was diverted by several articles that were misleading and much in need of attention and which, in my mind at the time, became a higher priority. At the time, I incorrectly formed the impression that external links were relatively innocuous - but as you and several other editors have seen fit to delete external links from articles in the marketing area, I have been forced to revise my view on this subject and I now view external links as much higher priority.

As far as journals are concerned, there are standard independent ranking schemes (See, for the Australian rankings of international and local journals- there are US and UK equivalents, but I just don't have the URLs handy), so it is no secret as to which journals are high ranking. As far as industry associations are concerned, I am wondering whether former links to U.S. associations doesn't constitute a form of inadvertent bias. I am now thinking that the list of external links should be expanded to include peak industry bodies in other English speaking countries including the UK, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, India, Singapore and Malaysia.

I have no intentions of writing new articles for Wikipedia. My mission for the past several months has been to improve the quality of marketing and advertising articles, many of which contain serious factual errors, fundamental conceptual flaws and in many cases internal contradictions, to the extent that these articles have become highly misleading, confusing or downright unitelligible. Sadly, some of the more serious errors, some of which have been in place for 8-10 years, are beginning to to find their way into text-books and journal articles - which is a great concern to me and to marketing academics/ professionals in general. Any work which takes time and attention away from my priority of improving articles is of little interest to me. I simply could not justify the time to develop a new article when older articles desperately require restructuring, reconceptualisation, the addition of reliable sources and the removal of internal contradictions.

If, after adding explanations for each of the links, you are still of a mind to delete, then perhaps we would be best advised to seek the opinion of a 3rd party in this regard. BronHiggs (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Stesmo: I am copying this discussion to the talk page of 'Brand Awareness' BronHiggs (talk) 03:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Your recent massive vandalism of the GMAT page[edit]

You were recently caught vandalizing the GMAT page removing extensive credibly sourced material added by Wikipedia editors. In your edit summary you wrote, "Removed trivial, HOWTO and unencyclopedic details." The credible sources that wrote about the many items you removed didn't think they were trivial and the editors who added them to the page didn't think they were trivial or unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is for everyone; if you want a website that only includes what you think is encyclopedic, then your only salvation will be to go out and start sesmoipedia. I'll be reverting your most recent vandalism, and if it continues, I'll request a page or topic ban.--TDJankins (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I will also forewarn you to avoid edit warring as it will only dig you in deeper.--TDJankins (talk) 03:19, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

List of computer algebra systems - misedition[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

could you explain why you had removed Magnus CAS from this page: ? This used to be one of more important CASs in group theory (beside GAP). It is a pity it was discontinued by the authors. Still it is not a reason for deleting it from Wikipedia. A general rule is that if you are not competent on a given subject, please ask somebody competent before introducing changes. And to make things clear - although I was the one who added Magnus to this wiki page, I am not an author of it. I'm just a mathematician who used it some time ago. I'm not advocating for my own product. Pkoprowski (talk) 16:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for a page[edit]

Dear Stesmo,

As previously you have contributed to Wikipedia in regards to financial articles, would you, please, consider writing an article on Creamfinance? It is a global financial services company that provides personal finance products in emerging markets. The company was ranked as the second fastest-growing company in Europe in 2016. Creamfinance is employing over 220 people and operating in 7 countries both within and outside of Europe – Latvia, Poland, Czech Republic, Georgia, Denmark and Mexico with an IT office in Austria.

I believe it corresponds to the Wikipedia notability rules as it has been talked about in legitimate third party sources: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

If you wish I have put together a first draft for the page and can send it you.

According to Wikipedia guidelines I want to underline that I am a Project Manager at Golin Riga and I have been approached by Creamfinance to help with their representation on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aozolins-golin-riga (talkcontribs) 07:54, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


Editing News #1—2017[edit]

17:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

List of Companies involved in Quantum Computing or Communication[edit]

Thank you for the notification about the entry of the company UQDevices being not notable. It is, by definition, a company involved in quantum communication, it was founded by one of the pioneers of quantum computing, and it exists (as of last week, when I visited Waterloo and discussed it with one of the founders). This seems sufficient to put it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ComradeVVA (talkcontribs) 15:46, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, for stopping by, ComradeVVA. I am sure it's company and they are working on Quantum Comm. However, what we need here is to see proof that it meets Wikipedia's definition of notable. One of the ways to show it meets the notability requirement for a list, is to link to a Wikipedia page for the company. If there isn't a Wikipedia page for it yet, you can include reliable, third-party, published sources that show 1) the company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article (it just hasn't been written yet) and 2) that it belongs on this list (in this case, the article discusses the company is involved in Quantum Computing or Communication). Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't allow for 'talked with the founder' as evidence for as proof, as that would be against one of the three Core Content Policies: No Original Research. Thanks for adding to Wikipedia and taking the time to Talk! Stesmo (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo, FYI, I mentioned this post on the talk page of the list.

Add The Technical Specifications for The Dell Inspiron[edit]

Dear Stesmo, The reason, I didn't had a chance to do The Whole Technical Specifications for The Dell Inspiron's, because I didn't had time, so maybe you might make a Technical Specifications for all of The Dell Inspiron's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchoolBusandComputersFanatic2004D (talkcontribs) 19:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

List of DCCGs[edit]

Well you clearly don't like working with people and couldn't hold off, nor even respond to my post on my talk page. So, I'm going to abandon converting the ELs into refs. My style of editing works best by not going into sandbox. So, yay, you get your way, but you also lose an editor for improving Wikipedia, which is really what this is all about isn't it? Not very bright on your end. Next time don't edit unilaterally and try to see other points of view, as well as no need for urgency. So my recommendation to you, if you want to save some of these listings, convert the ELs into citations, because I'm going to delete anything with an EL or a citation needed. Leitmotiv (talk) 03:13, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Leitmotiv, apparently you are demanding in edit summaries and your actions that I continue a conversation here before you'll stop putting external links in the body of an article. I'm not sure what you're looking for here, as the your above paragraph is mostly telling me you'll stop doing what you're already not supposed to be doing. Which, I approve of! So, thanks for not adding external links/spam to the body of Wikipedia articles.
What exactly are you looking to discuss here? Stesmo (talk) 18:44, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'm going to take this to to my talk page. I had questions for you that you never answered. So let's start there. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
I had not realized you had continued the thread there, Leitmotiv. If you wish to continue a conversation, please let the person/people know via Template:Reply_to or {{u|editorname}}. Stesmo (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Conversation continued with no resolution on Leitmotiv's Talk page, but I did get some new insults thrown at me. I'm apparently a retarded, autistic, not-too-bright arse. Diff up until I WP:DROPTHESTICK'd out of there. Stesmo (talk) 03:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: Stesmo refused to directly answer any questions of Leitmotiv's further increasing the stalemate. Unanswered questions: 1. What is the need for urgency? 2. Can you give Leitmotiv time to work on converting ELs? Recommendation, try working with people to avoid these outcomes in the future. Leitmotiv (talk) 04:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

External links in the "List of United States wireless communications service providers."[edit]

The links are official links. Sbsail (talk) 07:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Your suggestion to put them into an "External links" section lacks common sense and will only bloat the article for absolutely no reason. Sbsail (talk) 07:26, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Instead of removing the links please rearrange them. Thank you. Sbsail (talk) 07:32, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Sbsail. Thanks for starting a conversation on my Talk page. And, thanks for looking into WP:EL! Those external links in the body of the article on List of United States wireless communications service providers need to be removed, as Wikipedia does not want any external links in the body of the article. And, as you point out, they really shouldn't be put in the EL section, either. WP:ELLIST discusses Lists and ELs.
You mention that these are Official Links. And, you have a point that these aren't really citations, just links to brands/companies, which makes them akin to Official Links. Unfortunately, those are Official Links for different articles. And, there is (usually) only one Official Link per article. The only link that meets the standard for Official Link/Official Website for List of United States wireless communications service providers would be a link to something like and would have to be controlled/owned by the subject of the article. This makes it unlikely that any "List of..." would have an Official Website.
For example, is owned/controlled by Coke, so it could be the Official Website/Link for the article about Coca Cola, but not for the article on Pepsi or for "List_of_brand_name_soft_drink_products".
I didn't convert them to Cites instead of removing them, because they weren't links that were being used to provide a reference to a claim or why these list items were included in the list. If they had been reliable, third-party, published sources (similar to the cites/refs for the Top 5 Largest U.S. wireless providers in the article), I would have converted them to cites instead of removing them.
Thanks again for the conversation! Stesmo (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

There is a difference between a directory and a list. Directory exists just for the single purpose of redirecting a reader somewhere else. A list worthy an article contains more than just a list of internal or external links. The example listed in WP:ELLIST is a directory. List_of_countries_by_population_(United_Nations) is a list that contains more than just a directory of countries. Similarly List_of_United_States_wireless_communications_service_providers is not a directory. It contains a list of notable companies within the subject of the article and 5 other columns that list various attributes of those companies. There is no undue weight placed on first column. The links to the official websites do provide references to the coverage column, technologies used and ownership. It would be too burdensome to maintain them as references and confusing to the reader who expects references to be directly pointing to the evidence. There is not much difference between an internal and external link in a "List of ..." article. What you are suggesting is to make the article less useful and harder to comprehend in order to mindlessly follow the rule. I understand that Wikipedia wants to encourage creation of internal articles but in the case of a list of organizations in many cases it is simply not practical to create an article for every company. Sbsail (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It should be also noted WP:LISTCOMPANY calls for "a citation to an independent, reliable source" in order to include an organization without an internal article but in the case "List of United States wireless communications service providers" it is obvious that the official website of a company is that reliable source. WP:EL does not provide a justification why if a list of organizations is allowed then the links to official websites of included organizations that justify the inclusion should not exist or should be tackled into references. For a casual reader there is no difference between an internal and external link. In both cases the links act as "click here to see more" Sbsail (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Hey, Sbsail. This seems like you may want to swing by WP:EL. The ELs not being in the list (unless as a cite/ref) is part of WP:EL. But, this is due to consensus and this could change. Stop by and bring this up on their Talk page. You could be the agent of that change if you can get consensus there! If it's a particular link you think should be allowed, it's WP:ELN. Stesmo (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A lot of Wikipedians argue that primary sources can't be used, but that's just not the case. In fact, primary sources can be used to prove the existence of something (especially if no other secondary source exists) and work extremely well in list articles where no particular focus is paid to any single listing. Primary sources are often cited when they themselves are the authority for things such as authorship, copyrights, publication information, etc. As college teaches you, you should use pro and con sources for contrast because it shows you did your research and are remaining impartial/neutral. If you are blatantly ignoring a primary source, that too shows you haven't done your research and are perhaps biased. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:28, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree with Sbsail. The US is unique in that there are many smaller wireless companies that don't warrant their own articles (for the bigger companies their Wikipedia entries are linked rather than their websites). At same time, an article about the US wireless industry would be inadequate without discussing the "small guys". Also, the usual argument "Just google it!" does not help in this case because the smaller networks are hard to find (e.g. because of generic or ambiguous names such as "Choice Wireless"). The usefulness of the article would be greatly diminished without the links. Drahtlos (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome, Drahtlos. You've hit on a very interesting point that intersects with what Sbsail mentioned above. This is a list of Notable Wireless companies. If they don't warrant their own articles, they don't meet the notability bar to be included in the list. Now, they don't have to *have* a Wikipedia article to be included on the list. They can be redlinks/unlinked, but they should then have reliable, third-party, published sources as cites that show that they meet the notability requirements, they just haven't had their article created. However, a cite to the company's web presence isn't reliable, third-party or published and won't help there. And, any links to the cited text would be as cites/refs, not as an external link. Thanks for the discussion. Stesmo (talk) 22:29, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello Stesmo, Perhaps I did not express the point I was trying to make very clearly. While each of the companies in question by themselves may not be notable, in total they can't be neglected. The reliable, third-party information is available in the form of various FCC databases but those are rather hard to digest. It is much quicker to find e.g. coverage information from the operator's website. I am somewhat disappointed that you edited the article again without the discussion here having come to a conclusion. As it is, after your edit the article is much less useful. Is this how we want Wikipedia to be - form over function? In WP:EL I read the word "normally" in many places. I would argue that WP:IAR should apply in this specific case. Drahtlos (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Hey, Drahtlos, thanks for replying. The nobility requirement isn't something I'm not arguing for here. Also, note that I did not I remove non-notable list entries, choosing instead to just remove the external links. However, the argument can be made that they should be removed and might be removed by other editors if they lack WP:RS showing they are notable enough to be in the list.
I was pretty sure the discussion had come to a conclusion, as the discussion had stalled here and consensus on WP:EL is external links do not belong in the body of the article, especially dozens and dozens of them. To address IAR, I often find its use in Talk to be a boomarang: IAR also covers my actions as an editor. ;) Thanks for stopping by again! Stesmo (talk) 05:05, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, was that a Freudian slip? Leitmotiv (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Drahtlos It's just as I told you in comments that Stesmos deleted. He edits unilaterally and doesn't strive to work together for a compromise or on ways forward. I'm telling it how it is, but he calls it being uncivil. I'm very civil - I'm not calling him names, I'm calling into question his character and behavior. He just doesn't like to face the repercussions of his actions. My recommendation is that you keep the EL information, by converting them to references. Wikipedia is strongest when things are referenced anyway. And there's nothing wrong with citing a primary source if that is the authority on the subject matter, it's citation is kept minimal, and/or if it's the only one available. Just revert his edits per edit warring, start converting each EL into a ref, and Stesmo should leave you alone. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for being more civil, Leitmotiv. It is appreciated. I actually don't edit unilaterally. I edit within the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia, which have been arrived at by consensus. I've repeatedly suggested you visit WP:ELN or WT:EL so you can be part of that conversation about External Links on Wikipedia.
You are correct that primary sources can be appropriate (for example, could be used as a reference for when a company was started). But, they are WP:WPNOTRS. And, they are not cites showing notability. And, a reference for ExampleCompany that is just isn't really a reference for anything other than the fact that a website for that company exists. As always, I recommend taking the conversation to the folks who deal with that issue to help create, guide or explain. In this case, Reliable Sources Noticeboard.
While others may use these bare domain name links in cites/refs, I tend not to. Especially on a list. It seems too close to being spam/external links masquerading as cites. So, when I run across them as External Links, I will remove them without converting into a cite/ref. I do convert cites used to back up claims (the about page link example, above; a newspaper article that talks about the company, showing notability; a reference to a page in a book; etc.). Example of this in action: [45]. I absolutely appreciate that you are advising people to remove External Links from the body of the article on their own. Thank you! Stesmo (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Stesmo, I read up WP:ELN or WT:EL a while ago. Some of my comments reflect that. Some of your comments seem to suggest you don't understand their full content. Take for example your remark about primary sources citing WP:WPNOTRS. WP:WPNOTRS explicitly states primary sources "can be both reliable and useful in certain situations". Also note, that further down that page under WP:SELFSOURCE it too says "self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", which is exactly what I'm arguing for above. In fact, your remark about a primary source being used to show it "exists" is nearly what I wrote before you did, which seems to suggest you're either A. not fulling reading people's remarks or B. lacking comprehension skills. That's how I honestly feel about what I perceived as "canned" responses, because it reflects in our conversations where you don't respond or digest what people have written, or even in their edit notations. You can call my remarks uncivil, but it's how I honestly feel, and I think you have room to improve. Next time before you just start linking wiki rules in effort to puff up your feathers, I suggest you actually read them and understand their content. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Removal of citation in "LED strip light" article[edit]

Hi Stesmo - first of all, I want to emphasize that I appreciate the work you do to maintain the quality of Wikipedia.

I added a citation to the LED strip light article which you later removed. I added the link because there is an entire section of the article that is fairly technical but has no citations whatsoever. I am working on an LED project and came across this site which I thought would serve well for other readers of Wikipedia who might require additional information and verification.

I do not believe my addition to be "Spam" linking as there is no intention to promote or advertise the link destination website - it appears to simply be an informational website about LED strips.

Would you reconsider restoring the citation? Or, how would you recommend we improve the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1001:FD01:A15C:EEA2:AF41:F3D (talk) 17:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

RFCs, ICANN and IANA db links are not spam![edit]

Perhaps you don't understand the importance of RFCs, ICANN links and IANA Whois database links on articles such as Domain Name Registrar and some ccTLDs. These are significant links and removing policy documents and IANA TLD whois links on ccTLD pages is not a good thing either. I've reverted your edits accordingly. Jmccormac (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Jmccormac. Thanks for stopping by. External Links are not permitted in the body of the article. You will need to remove any external links you're placing inside the body of the article. The links you've added to the external links section aren't necessary and should also be removed, in my opinion. However, unlike the links inside the body of the article, there is room for discussion. Per WP:ELBURDEN, please start a conversation on the article Talk pages with why you believe each of the External Links (outside of one Official website link) meet WP:EL and are relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article. If you wouldn't mind, please also ping me so I can participate in the conversation. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Pop PHP Framework External Links[edit]

Hello - can you please explain how the links you removed do not meet the external links guidelines? Those links are pretty important to expanding on the topic of the framework, including in-depth documentation, API documentation, all of the GitHub repositories for the code of the framework and the help room for those that want to ask direct questions about the framework. Please note, other frameworks have similar important links in their external links section of their wiki pages:

Looking at the the section on "Links normally to be avoided" under the external links section, I do not believe any of those links that you removed meet any of those "to be avoided" criteria. Please explain or provide evidence to your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicks3123 (talkcontribs) 15:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Nicks3123. Thanks for starting this conversation! The unnecessary External Links I'm removing from the EL sections generally do not meet WP:EL, specifically ELPOINTS #3,#4 here. One of the primary points that ELs should be kept to a minimum. Usually a link to the Official Website is all that is needed. If we have a link to the Official Website, then we don't need a link to their help docs, API info, etc. on the same site or linked from their site. We also don't need links to github/gitter, as those links also exist within the official site. With just one link, the user can find all that they need.
I'll take a look at those other framework articles and prune the EL section to meet WP:EL there, as well. Thanks again! Stesmo (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Stesmo. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Constant edits to the Gab social network page[edit]

Are you an actual editor here? I'd like to talk to you about actual meaningful revisions to the Gab social network's page, and not just random, tug-of-war edits between public IP addresses.

I attempted to "propose" the edit that people seem to be making off the top without much concern for Wikipedia's general processes, and then I reverted it because I didn't really understand what I was doing and accidentally pushed it to the live page. I would prefer to have it discussed before simply applying it, and the page may need to be locked from public editing soon afterwards. A reporter from the New York Times will be doing a piece on the site, and it will doubtless receive a good bit of vandalism here as both sides of the political spectrum attempt to abuse Wikipedia to duke it out for their own ends.

The essential bit of "controversy" is centered around the (in my opinion), slanderous characterization that the site is some kind of echo chamber for "the alt-right and white nationalists". This is a characterization refuted by the site itself, and more importantly is only cited once, by an article that is self-contradictory and clearly biased in its' reporting.

While the site is serving as a go-to platform for both of those groups(who have no other platform to turn to for healthy and non-violent expression), Gab is making great efforts to expand its' user base. They are also attempting, to the consternation of those "groups", to prevent their notorious discussions from being forced upon the general users of the site, without censoring them.

It is a difficult battle, and the slanderous, unfounded, biased, and above all self-contradictory characterizations of one writer should not be placed on equal footing to their own self-identification as a platform for all, where speech itself is safe. It belongs, if anywhere on Wikipedia, under the Criticism heading that already exists.

I have described the problems with this characterization in greater detail here, which you should be able to access as well from the two edits I made to the page. I'm not certain exactly what the standard process is for managing "hot topics" such as this, so please feel free to help me in making sure Wikipedia remains unbiased and fair for all. Kanryo12 (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Kanryo12

Hi, Kanryo12. We are all Editors here. The best place to discuss an article and proposed edits/direction for the article is on the article's Talk page (Talk:Gab_(social_network)). If you do not believe the source for a claim is a reliable source, there is a page for that WP:RS and a Noticeboard where you can request more clarification on a source WP:RSN. Stesmo (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! I attempted to access a talk page specific to the article from the editing section, but obviously could not figure out how. If preferable, feel free to delete this entire section here, as it's somewhat long, and is no longer necessary. Kanryo12 (talk) 02:04, 13 December 2017 (UTC)Kanryo12

Edit removing the Know Your Meme youtube account address[edit]

The reason why I added it back was for convince. If you try to watch episodes from their website it auto starts "all" the episodes all at once, wrecking most browsers, not to mention memory caps for the month for visitors. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, Devilmanozzy. We don't add external links to Wikipedia articles for convenience. And, we don't add more than one Official link for the subject. People interested in watching the videos on YouTube instead of in the subject's site will follow a link from the listed Official website to their YouTube channel or they'll search YouTube for the subject's name. If the Official website can't be bothered to link to YouTube, then there is no reason for us to do so, either. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Two thirds of the article is about the youtube channel as well. So if anything, the official website should be dropped. Devilmanozzy (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)


In your recent edit to NodeMCU you removed all inline links citing WP:EL. However, most of these do not fall under WP:ELNO and therefore by removing the links rather than moving them to an External links section, you have make the article less useful to WP users who want research this topic. Surely editing is supposed to enhance and not degrade the article content?

In this case doing half a job was a lot worse than than not doing the edit at all, so I have restored the valid links in a conforming External Links section TerryE (talk) 17:14, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TerryE. Thanks for stopping by my Talk to discuss this. The external links were removed because they were in the body of the article, which we don't want for our Wikipedia articles. I did not move them to an External Links section because I'd have to justify their inclusion per WP:ELBURDEN and I didn't feel they added to the encyclopedic understanding of the subject or otherwise met WP:EL. Additionally, External Links are to be kept to a minimum, and adding these links would not be in support of that. I absolutely enhanced the article by having it meet the Wikipedia External Links guidelines and removing cruft that unnecessarily distracted our readers. So, that's 100% of a job and one I do for 80% of my edits. :)
I've pruned the EL section of the links you've moved there for the reasons above and added the Official website instead. Some of the links should be satisfied by links from the Official site (and if the official site doesn't link to documentation/github, then why would we?) and others were already linked from their Wikipedia articles, which were wikilinked in NodeMCU.
I do appreciate you starting this discussion here. There are other places to discuss External Links, if you're so included, including Wikipedia_talk:External_links to discuss the EL guidelines and the EL noticeboard to discuss particular links. If you do continue the discussion elsewhere, please notify me by including {{u|Stesmo}} in your comment.
Additionally, I've fixed the WP:ORDER by moving the External Links below the References section. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Stesmo, the risk in your making edits from an abstract position without regards to the content of the article itself is that you can change the article. As the lede itself points out:
In summer 2015 the creators abandoned the firmware project and a group of independent but dedicated contributors took over. By summer 2016 the NodeMCU included more than 40 different modules. Due to resource constraints users need to select the modules relevant for their project and build a firmware tailored to their needs.
The primary reference for NodeMCU is now the Github project which maintains the Lua-based firmware. This can be and is deployed on any ESP hardware, and not just the DevKit hardware module manufactured by the originators. It is this community project that generates nearly all hits, and certainly all downloads and changes, etc. from the NodeMCU user community. The original NodeMCU site has had no changes since early 2015 and is of mainly historic interest. By removing all links to the Github project, yet retaining the reference to the moribund original website, your and other recent edits have fundamentally changed the emphasis of the page content. Yes the article is closer to the preferred style, but it now misdirects the user community that use NodeMCU Lua, and surely this is not your role here. TerryE (talk) 00:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
As a codicil, I question your determination of what constitutes an "Official Website". This is surely a judgement based on context. Take an example, is the official website for the ESP8266? No, it is not. The ESP8266 is manufactured by and this is the official website, but they are a Chinese company. However, an early US adopter, an end user, decided to bag the .com domain name. In 2015, the originator of NodeMCU was proposing to shut it down because he could not resource the effort to make it viable -- hence a group of community developers took over with his full support. The Github project is the home of this community. However he has left his website up, and still sells a trickle of hardware modules, but has had no further active involvement in NodeMCU. Perhaps we should just change the name of the article to "NodeMCU firmware" to make clear that the active community is based on the Github project. This wasn't previously necessary as the links in the content made this quite clear until your and other editors' changes removed them all. TerryE (talk) 01:18, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi, TerryE. You mention that the emphasis of the article's content has been changed by removing links that take the reader away from the article. I do not understand this article. Removing External Links changes *nothing* about the emphasis of the argument. The text of the article was unchanged by removing these external links.
Wikipedia is *not* a link farm; it is not intended to promote or drive traffic to sites via external links. We don't want WP:LINKSPAM. We are not trying to 'direct' any reader to a user community via External Links. You seem to have misunderstood the purpose of Wikipedia if you think the goal is to drive and direct readers to particular websites and communities outside of Wikipedia. This article is not the front page to the NodeMCU github community. This should be an encyclopedic article to educate readers on the subject of the article. If the NodeMCU community meets WP:NOTABILITY requirements for an article, by all means, create a new article for the community, with the Official Website pointing to the github link.
As to the official website, the {{Official website}} template pulls from Wikidata, unless overwritten by a pipe (e.g. {{Official website|}}). The Wikidata for NodeMCU, for example, is at If there is not one available, I try to use the one that meets WP:ELOFFICIAL:
An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following criteria:
The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article.
The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.
There is no exception here for 'the official website doesn't care as much as we do, so we want our site to be the Official website". The good news is that you absolutely can gain consensus from the EL community that your link is a better official link than the actual official website (or that the github link should be included in the EL section) by going to the EL noticeboard and making your case there. I absolutely would abide by the consensus from the EL Noticeboard community. If you do continue the discussion elsewhere, please notify me by including {{u|Stesmo}} in your comment. Thanks! Stesmo (talk) 04:02, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Stremo, As I said in my first post on the article's talk page, I felt that I had a potential CIO and was uncomfortable with doing anything other than correcting factual errors. The inline text in the existing article explained that the community had take the lead through the Github project at the NodeMCU owners request, and there were sufficient inline links reference the project that interested WP reader could link to the project. The words still say this but the links are gone. NodeMCU is notable in the IoT community in its own right, and simply typing NodeMCU into Google is enough to find the project, so this isn't about link-bate or promoting.
I agree that an article written in the currently WP preferred style would not have its meaning and emphasis changed by removing inline links, but this article is weak, and is not in current style so it meaning was enriched by those links. In removing them you have unreferenced 3 years of development history. Interested readers could link to the active project, but now they can't because of your edits. That's my issue.
You removed my replaced link to the Github project in the External Links section -- the repository set up by NodeMCU's owner and which he still administers, including appointing its committers (including me), so this is very much the official repository for NodeMCU. This is no adversarial issue here within NodeMCU so I don't understand why the ELN is even relevant.
Following this precedent, are you now also going to go around other all other Github based IT projects and remove their Github references, such as on the Node.js page? -- TerryE (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, TerryE. Thanks for continuing the conversation. The solution to a weak article is making it stronger, not adding external links. The same readers who'd work their way through 3 years of commits would also be the same folks who would have simply typed NodeMCU into Google. Or, clicked on the Official website and clicked on the Fork Me On Github! banner prominently displayed to access the official website's github repo.
To your question of removing github links from Wikipedia articles... NodeMCU wasn't the first github external link I've removed (probably not even on that day) and it isn't the last. The latest one is the Node.js github link you pointed out. There is nothing special about github links, and I've left many github links behind in the EL sections of articles when they are the sole Official website link for the subject of that article. It is incredibly rare where there is a company/project that has a github presence that doesn't link to that repo from the official website, making the github link unnecessary and running afoul of WP:EL. Additionally, you called that a 'github reference'. Any external link inside of <ref> or {{cite}} could be a reference (though perhaps not a good, reliable source). A bare external link pointing to the subject's github presence or a fork is not a reference. It's just an External Link. And, Wikipedia treats them very differently, with different guidelines. Thanks again! Stesmo (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stesmo. Your use of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL to remove repository references on software projects is inconsistent with the repo tag being included in Template:Infobox software. So are you now going to use WP:ELMINOFFICIAL as justification to go round removing all repo fields in the 12,000 or so articles which use this template? TerryE (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, TerryE. Are you thinking that I've somehow been picking on or singling out NodeMCU? You can see all of the previous edits for any editor on Wikipedia by checking out their [Contribs]. Removing external links from the body of the article and pruning the EL section is not something happening solely to NodeMCU. I'm actually applying the same standards to each article I edit. (And, yes, I am troubled by the inclusion of the repo tag in the Template for the exact reasons you mention. It is on my list of things to do some day. :D). Stesmo (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey, TerryE. Are you thinking that I've somehow been picking on or singling out NodeMCU? You can see all of the previous edits for any editor on Wikipedia by checking out their [Contribs]. Removing external links from the body of the article and pruning the EL section is not something happening solely to NodeMCU. I'm actually applying the same standards to each article I edit. (And, yes, I am troubled by the inclusion of the repo tag in the Template for the exact reasons you mention. It is on my list of things to do some day. :D). Stesmo (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Stresmo, I don't think that this is a personal agenda. OK, I am a bit out of date with the latest thrusts in WP editorial style and guidelines because I've had other priorities over the last 4 or 5 years, but I still know enough to have a quick scan of another editor's contributions. So I had already gathered that you don't have an article-specific agenda, and that you are working through a personal butt list.
However, I also believe that there isn't homogeneous WP identity. One bunch of editors group around a guideline such as WP:EL, and gain consensus between themselves. However this doesn't mean that this "consensus" is fully adopted by or accepted by other similar but separate groups within the WP diaspora.
WP:EL is a guideline and not a policy or even close to one of the five principles. Whilst a lot of it makes solid sense, IMO some of it like the extreme interpretation of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is bloody stupid in the context of a IT software project. Any WP reader who is interested in an IT project will ask basic Qs like: "where is the website?", "where is the SW repo", "where is the documentation?" and will want the WP article to give these, as they are 101 Qs. WP as whole does not gain by collapsing these data down to a single link. As I pointed out the software template embodies these and other "drill-down" data attributes. For example the template contains info on the latest released version. NodeMCU like many IT projects has a release at least once every six months. If the policy is a "single link", what you are really saying is fully normalise the metadata so that the project retains its metadata and WP has a single link to it, so WP shouldn't contain version data; the "official" site should provide that. Would WP be enhanced by adopting this policy? Bollocks, IMO. But please feel free to tilt at this windmill if you want, but I suspect that you'd create a shit storm if you try do this -- sorry for the mixed metaphors, but you know what I mean. :(
I've got other priorities now, so my editing days on WP are on a back-burner, but I still monitor 50-odd pages and make sure that no vandalism or edits which degrade the quality of the article occur unchecked. I also will fact-check and correct anything on a page that I visit that jars. The NodeMCU is a weak page and need improving, but as you correctly point out, I am too close for me to do it, but your "WP style" improvement turn a weak page into a crap one. and this tripped my threshold. And to be honest this debate is more interesting than the article itself. Ultimately the true test of a subject being notable is that it is notable in its own right. Like most other vital SW project, NodeMCU doesn't need a WP article, especially a weak one that doesn't do it justice. ut if we believe in WP:5P1 then WP should try to cover the range of articles that enumerate progress in IoT and it is in WP's interest to cover NodeMCU and not in a form that is a travesty. TerryE (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Leitmotiv returns![edit]

Stesmo This seems to be another example of you not answering the question and a reason people get frustrated with you. You would do well to stick to the subject at hand. Also, Stesmo, you work ELs a lot, you have a basic understanding of what is good and what is not. If you compare that to anyone arguing for a legal case, they probably also know the arguments that work against it. One of my two main criticisms with your interaction with me, is that you offered nary a thing on how to improve ELs based on your knowledge of the topic - you seemed to come from an angle only helping your own cause and not someone else's even though you had the information to help. My other main criticism, which you never addressed, is that even though I agreed with your assessment, you failed to work with me and give me an allowance of time to work toward your goal. Work on your inflexibility and work on your communication (this means reading and actively showing you comprehend what another writes). Leitmotiv (talk) 20:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC

Hey, Leitmotiv! You're not banned from Wikipedia this week! Congrats! You do know that anyone can see your interactions with me above in my Talk and in your [Talk History?] And via your [Contribs]? I wish I could have answered your questions in a way that would make you happy and I have always tried to WP:AGF with you and everyone else. I am an optimist. I still hope my answers will satisfy you someday! Stesmo (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh man, you just haven't caught me in a bad day! Sometimes we get emotional you know? As for our previous conversation, I will try to point out along the way where I feel you could be doing better in your current conversations so we can avoid that whole shitshow that was our conversation. I don't know if you understood this, but I didn't disagree with your edits outright, I was looking for a compromise on your end, which you never did. And it was the simplest of compromises - just give me a couple weeks. I just want you to be more flexible and I want to be understood. Leitmotiv (talk) 20:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources[edit]

Hi, I'm quite concerned that about your edits harm (as example: this one the topmost important wikipedia goal of "verfiability" (of origin) for the readers. Which is an far more important goal than any style guides for artlcles. The citations you removed with the argument "Also removed external links masquerading as cites." are perfectly fine primary sources. The external links you removed could and should have been converted in such referecnes, too. Now, the reader is left alone. Shaddim (talk) 07:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Pruned EL section edit on Zarnegar (word processor)[edit]

Hey Stesmo. I don't agree with your change on Zarnegar (word processor)'s EL section. 1) There is not much resource about this topic on the web and the links are indeed helpful for users. 2) the product page on the company website is an important resource on any wiki page describing a software product. (See Microsoft_Windows#External_links, for example.) 3) The page is the place I published the results of my research, under CC-BY-SA, and the content on WP is brought in from that wiki; because of the license, there needs to be a link to the original page. 4) The GitHub project linked is fine to drop, as it's already listed under the References, via Encodings section. What do you think? Behnam (talk) 22:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2018[edit]

20:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Jessica Fitzwater for deletion[edit]

As a previous contributor, a heads up that a discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jessica Fitzwater is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Fitzwater until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bangabandhu (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2018 (UTC)