User talk:Versageek

If you leave me a message here, I will reply to it here. Please check back for a reply.
If I leave you a message on your talk page, I will check your talk page for a reply.
This way, we keep conversations all in one location, making them much easier to follow. Thanks!
To leave me a new message, please click HERE

A Note About Advertising and Conflicts of Interest

If I reverted your link addition or removed your links from an article, please read this:

Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote sites. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines.

Main pages: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Spam

If you have additional information to add to the article, why not simply add it rather than having an external link?

Archive Jul06-Dec07, Archive Jan08-Dec08, Archive Jan09-Dec10, Archive Jan11-Current

To leave me a new message, please click HERE.

---

George "Joji" Miller

The second time this article was recently CSD, would you consider salting this one? Tiggerjay (talk) 00:49, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Tiggerjay (talk) 03:59, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

External Links

Hi Versageek,

I am new to editing Wikipedia and I was hoping to add useful information about insects to pages. I make educational YouTube videos about insects. I do not want to run into a problem with "conflict of interest" policies, but I also think that these videos would add beneficial information to the pages. Somewhere it mentioned, bringing it up in a "Talk" and letting other editors decide if it was a valuable addition. Where would I do that? I tried to just place a couple up and your bot knocked them down and I just don't want to step on any toes as I did not know that links were discouraged. Also, would it be more okay to just add written information to the body and then add the link at the bottom as a reference?

Thank you, Insectopia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Insectopia 2015 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For a broad based discussion, you could try: The WikiProject Insects talk page. Otherwise on the individual talk pages of the articles where you are trying to add links. --Versageek 19:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Some stroopwafels for you!

Thank you for your work on OTRS and other technical issues. DThomsen8 (talk) 13:00, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-publishing&action=history

Hi Versageek,

I added the link to Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing. Why was it reverted? Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-publishing&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.170 (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

External links like that are not permitted in the body of articles. --Versageek 17:40, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Versageek, will it be ok with link to this page though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle_Direct_Publishing? --54.240.196.170 (talk) 21:23, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

to link to a wikipedia page use this format: [[Kindle Direct Publishing]], it will look like this Kindle Direct Publishing. --Versageek 03:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

help

hello, Well I was trying to create our wiki So if you know how can I create my own please help me out — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbcreativo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Disneyland Roblozia

Why did you delete it, It's aloud... I had permission from Disney themselves — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:2CEA:5900:31B5:D6EF:3D87:332 (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

sanyog kumar deletion issue

the page sanyog kumar is in the way of deletion . why this is going to be deleted . one thing is clear that this is going to be important ... but u applied A7 here .... but i want this to continued . what to do please suggest ....i don't want it in the way of deletion . thank u — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanyogchourasia (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

While this young writer may some day merit an encyclopedia entry. He currently does not meet our criteria for inclusion. Try again in a few years. --Versageek 23:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion bot XLinkBot on Propuesta Indecente

This edition is legitimate? or there is an error in it. --186.84.46.227 (talk) 19:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Checkuser check

Please do a checkuser check on user:Fuck the Golden State Warriors! Sincerely, Tikeem and user:TikeemIsMyWorld and block the IP address where those accounts originate. 2602:306:3357:BA0:B919:A583:2133:8AAF (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Looks like my fellow checkusers have already taken care of it. Thanks. --Versageek 05:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

XLinkBot

Hello, a concern about your bot, XLinkBot, has been raised at: Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Unflagged_bot_XLinkBot, please review the discussion on that page. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Your bot replaced my updated info with outdated dated. Please stop.

The page is Pedro Fernández. I had updated It with recent discography, updated, working links to his official page, his Twitter and Facebook pages. Updated the TV section with his 2015 and 2016 shows. Updated the opening with his Grammy awards. Updated the movie section by adding missing roles. Then your bot comes along and wipes it all out. If you can't capture updated data then leave it alone if you see it has been manually updated. That was qiute a bit of effort you wiped out! Please respond otherwise wiki is a waste of everyone's time and effort. SusanneSCSusanneSC (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How can I edit my Boardloch page so it doesn't get deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholastharpe (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Impersonator/Imbotinator

User:XLlinksBot, just created. Not sure if this is an imbotinator or a legit new bot, so just letting you know! Crow^Caw 19:41, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Recreation of Page

You have recently creation-protected RiceGum, however there's now been a page named Bryan Le (RiceGum) created. Dat Guy^Talk_Contribs 16:04, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Inquiry on attempt to publish article on Albert Fattal

Hello, my name is Terchi and I am a new writer on Wikipedia. I recently began working on an article on Albert Fattal and was alerted of your attempt to publish the same. I would like to kindly know why your article was rejected and any pointers you may have on how to make my article better. Thanks in advance.

kind regards, (T.terchi (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC))

The best advice I can offer is to lay off of the superlatives. I read the deleted versions of the article and for a minute I thought it had been autogenerated by one of those programs that uses a lot of big words that seem to say something but are really nonsense. --Versageek 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External Links, Conflict of Interest

Hello Versageek,

I totally understand the terms and conditions, please see that at this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teaser_(gambling) the explanation on https://www.bestonlinesportsbooks.info/betting-tips/how-to-bet-teasers is good for readers.

You can compare this one: http://www.bettingbrain.com/betting-tips/teaser-betting/ that is already there as well.

Please let me know.

thanks.

regards,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBOS (talk • contribs) 03:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a directory or link farm, also please see other stuff exists. I'm guessing from your username that you have some relation to the site you are adding. Adding links in this manner is discouraged and could cause the site to be blacklisted --Versageek 20:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Waiting for your answer.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBOS (talk • contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't put in blacklist a site the have information that matter to people.

I added the articles with information according to the content and what people are looking for.

So...I would like you to explain what do you don't like about the information? What type of information is ok for those pages??

thanks for your time.

regards,

Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBOS (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

We can and do blacklist sites if they are repeatedly added to articles by users with an apparent conflict of interest. Thus far, you haven't repeatedly added links to the site. The content on the site you want to link to adds nothing to the article that isn't already available, either on the page or in one of the existing references. If you want to add the link to that page, I suggest asking for consensus on the article talk page. --Versageek 16:22, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AndrewBOS (talk • contribs) 00:34, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

checkuser check

Someone brought up on Wolfdog's wikipedia talk page that he rarely does edit summaries. On many occasions he will delete lots of text and never put up a summary of his edits. he has been doing this for a long time. 57.9 percent of his edits do not have summaries. I was wondering if you could checkuser this user and see if he's deliberately going around and doing things he shouldn't be doing on wiki page articles? Since he does this so often and so frequently, I think it should be looked into. This would be unfair to all the other users that contribute to wikipedia that spend alot of time trying to make contributions just to have someone go around very often and delete things without summaries. If a user is going around and deleting large amount of text without a reason, I would figure that would be vandalism. And many vandals like to go around doing that under numerous accounts. And account that has nearly a 60 percent rate of deleting things without a summary, is in my view a problem. Thank you. Juliep94 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the function of the checkuser tool. It detects if multiple users are sharing the same IP address. It wouldn't be of any help here. The best solution in this case would be to ask the user to please use edit summaries. It appears that someone has recently requested that on his talk page. --Versageek 23:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I'm not 100 percent on the rules here so sorry if I'm wrong. Since this user goes around deleting a lot of text all the time from various articles, I was wondering since many vandals do this, if he could also be going under other names and doing something similar? Sometimes people spend weeks/months of research to add to articles. I think it's vandalism if you just go around and delete and snip stuff here and there. Obviously pages evolve all the time, and that's a good thing. But going around and randomly deleting things with no explanation to me is vanadalism. The near 60 percent rate is what worried me. This leads to suspicion. I don't know for sure if they're going under multiple aliases. I figured a quick checkuser would be able to find out if they did or not. And if they didn't, I'd have no problem apologizing for being wrong. I'd apologize to them personally on the talk page if that ended up being the case. Juliep94 (talk) 00:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Extended confirmed protection

Hello, Versageek. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy. Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas. In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions: Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort. A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard. Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you. This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)