User talk:Wmahan/Archive4

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

Misspelling script[edit]

1 Is the database all done again? I'm stuck on the article "Post-symbolic communication" with error "Error: could not find corrections for this article in the database". 2 Request a - could you add a second 'save & next' button at the bottom of the page after the list of possible corrections, it would save having to scroll up repeatedly. 3 Request b - all the 'und' >> 'and' corrections I get are false positives for the German 'und', could you remove that one? Thanks. Rjwilmsi 20:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1) I think an article from a previous update somehow got left in the database. I removed it. I'm not sure exactly what caused the problem, but I changed some code so that the next time there's an error, it shouldn't get stuck like that.
2 and 3) Done and done. You're doing great work with the corrections. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to make things easier. -- Wmahan. 21:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've worked through the database again. Would you take a look at some of the common misspelling submissions I've made? Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be happy to, but is it OK if I wait until the next database dump is released (at [1])? Otherwise I'd probably have to re-do much of the work when it comes out.
Of course, I can fix any major problems sooner. It looks like a lot of false positives crept in when I merged Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/For machines into my list. I just removed sizeable->sizable, which is embarrassingly wrong since both are commonly accepted spellings. Wmahan. 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I'm supposed to be revising for my last MSci exam anyway! Rjwilmsi 17:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

e2fsprogs article[edit]

Nice work, thanks! --Piet Delport 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you liked it. Wmahan. 15:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


Hello Wmahan,
please send your prefer login-name, your realname und the public part of your ssh-key to Zedler-admins.png. I will create your account soon then :). --DaB. 15:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

OpenDocument/XML cleanup[edit]

Hello.--- I'm coming back to finish the ODF/MOOX cleanup. I have a couple of questions on methodology.

  1. Should I discuss the proposed organization of the ODF category first (articles, links, etc.), or move on and fix the whole thing at once?
  2. I'm not quite happy with the [OpenDocument debate] article name; I'd like it to be the common repository of the ODF/MOOX controversy, to keep both articles NPOV, and yet document the ongoing discussion. Suggestions are welcome.
  3. I deem [OpenDocument software] as a fairly informative title, and pretty encyclopedic; but most lists begin with [List of {whatever}] on Wikipedia. Maybe a revert is at order.

Cheers! Louie 16:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

  1. You've already been bold about making changes, so I would suggest going ahead and with whatever other reorganization you think necessary. Other editors can always tweak the results or undo the changes they disagree with.
  2. How about something like OpenDocument-Open XML controversy or the more verbose Office software format standardization controversy? Another possibility would be to split the article into smaller ones, giving each new article a specific name. I don't think there's anything inherently biased about having many separate OpenDocument articles if it improves the presentation.
  3. I agree with your assessment. Right now the article is not much more than a list of software, so I think it makes sense to use the standard "List of ..." format. However, if you think the article will be expanded to include discussion of software support beyond a list, I have no problem with the OpenDocument software name.
I look forward to seeing your changes. Wmahan. 18:29, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. I'll go ahead and work on both OpenDocument and MOOX.--- BTW, I think a useful name for the discussion container would be [Office digital standards debate]; that way, we don't use the subexpressions "Open Document", "Open XML", "Open Office", or any other commercial name or trademark of either party. I don't like the idea of splitting articles as a matter of principle: I'm a hard line Ockhamist. Links on the corresponding articles and the category would lead to the appropriate entry.---Cheers! Louie 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


I think I finished the major cleanup of the OpenDocument/MOOX combo. I checked the Category and links seem to be OK. The only thing left to do is asking an admin to delete old temp/move/redirect pages. Comments are welcome. Louie 00:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Now Pro-OpenDoc advertising[edit]

I re-read the whole main article on OpenDocument, and now it seems to me that, while the anti-MS bias is not fully gone, now the article reads back as an ODF advertising... I have three main complaints,

  1. the "political developments" section should go; otherwise, I see no way to avoid being redundant, against the debate article, or partisan;
  2. the "accessibility" issue may be properly dealt with in the OpenDocument software article;
  3. the advertising tone is pretty well avoided if we simply silence the existence of MOOX/DOC/XLS/PPT; comparison|contrast|debate should go in the appropriate pages.

What can we do? Louie 01:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I'm writing this reply twice... I'll keep the discussion on the OpenDocument article. See you there!--- Cheers! Louie 01:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. Wmahan. 06:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


I got a good way through removing "plain" ASIN links, the ones where they were presented as ISBNs but with no link ("History of England, Carlyle, ASIN B200034532F"). I finished this last year, and whilst some have probably been added again, it's a lot cleaner than it was. I'd redo it, but I don't have the capacity to run database queries to find the ones needing cleaned up. I see you have a toolserver account, though... if you can generate lists, even from the point when en. replication stopped on the toolserver, I'd be more than happy to work on them.

I also removed, in the process, a large number of superflous Amazon links - it's worth keeping them in some places, such as where a review is being cited, but generally they're just a bad idea. Any affiliate codes in external links should, of course, be removed on sight even if the links remain!

There was some discussion, User:Shimgray/ASIN and on wikien-l in August 2005, though a database glitch meant that about half the discussion isn't on the web archives (oops). Shimgray | talk | 18:10, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Right now the toolserver doesn't provide access to even an old version of article text, though I understand work is underway to improve the situation. I'm afraid a lot of unliked ASINs were added since you last cleared them out.
Here's a small sample from a partial database dump I downloaded: Abram Hoffer, Battle of Malaya, Black drink, John Donelson, Linda Lee Cadwell, List of movie appearances of the Statue of Liberty, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Obeid e zakani, Osmund Bopearachchi, Sanai
I removed the ~30 links with affiliate codes. I actually expected that there would be more, but I guess editors have done a pretty good job of spotting and removing them. Wmahan. 22:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a bit demoralising - gah. If you end up producing a list, feel free to let me know and I'll churn through it one weekend. Shimgray | talk | 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for going through those articles. Don't be demoralised; I appreciate the work you've done so far. I'll put up a list as soon as I get access to the full database. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Wmahan. 20:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not exactly the same thing, but I added a list of links to that should be convertible to ISBNs in a straightforward manner. Wmahan. 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Oh, excellent. I'll have a hack at those soon. (Incidentally, there's one major legit user of Amazon links - our various music album pages, which generally link out to a review on Amazon and two other places... not sure how we can filter these) Shimgray | talk | 09:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll keep removing entries from the list as I go through it. The list only includes links to ASINs on that start with 0-9, not ones that start with a letter, since in my understanding those are the ones for which the ASIN and ISBN are the same. As you say, we still need to watch out for legitimate uses, such as when reviews are cited. Wmahan. 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

SmackBot edit to Forsyth County, North Carolina[edit]

Done. Rich Farmbrough 21:30 9 June 2006 (GMT).

Back of the envelope[edit]

Good job on the merger. Thanks. --Runcorn 19:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Wmahan. 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

re:AWB edits[edit]

I apologize for upsetting you with my recent edits via AWB. I normally ignore a number of minor edits that AWB picks up, however, spaces after a colon in categories bug me. Maybe it's my (modest) background in coding that colors my vision, because minor spaces can make a difference. However, with wikipedia it makes no difference in this example. My rule of thumb is double spaces and extra blank lines in text are typically ignored, but extra spaces in coding areas are deleted. If my edits were really problematic, I'd be happy to revert whatever ones you suggest. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 01:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

ext link[edit]

Hi Wmahan - I took it out mainly because it offers a rather strong local/regional POV which is not too appropriate for an international topic - MPF 01:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! - maybe I should have used a better edit summary, it's so easy to use the stock phrases that my computer auto-enters in the summary! - MPF 02:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
No problem. Wmahan. 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Written Scots language[edit]

I removed the Move to Wikisource tag from this article as these are simply some excerpts from larger works. Wikisource is only hosting complete texts, if have these works avaible in their entirety please add any of them to Wikisource which do not already exist there. Thanks for your interest in the project.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I didn't realize that those were only excerpts. I still think the passages are too long for a Wikipedia article, but I don't think they should be deleted entirely if they could be useful to someone. Thanks for your work on Wikisource. Wmahan. 22:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes they probaby should be pared down to much smaller sections. If there was a larger amount of prose explaining the lingusistic information and trends than actual examples it would be quite a nice article. However I know nothing about the subject and cannot add to that end. Hopefully one day we will have a litte link to the full text at Wikisource for each one! Right now I am keeping it on my watchlist and maybe I can work on that in the future. There is always so much to do--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 23:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiny thing![edit]

A WikiCookie for creating your new tool. Most useful, even with the replication lag. --GraemeL (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't eat it all at once. --GraemeL (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, yummy. I'll try to savor it, but I could never resist a cookie that looks that good. Wmahan. 17:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

ext3 Link[edit]

The Link I've added to ext3 page was link to a software website. I didn't check the application itself because it needed MS Windows, and I use Linux, but it seemed to be a real application that could recover deleted files on a ext3 partition. Anyway, it was not a spam.

OK, sorry if I jumped to the wrong conclusion in thinking that you were trying to promote the product. I still don't think the link belongs. All the most important ext3 software is free software, and I don't think that program (which sells for 80 bucks or more) is notable to the vast majority of ext2/ext3 users. Wmahan. 04:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I'm a linux user ;-) As far as I know, there's no other application that can recover deleted files on a ext3 filesystem. On many FAQs about ext3 you can read that it's hard to do that. So, I think it's really important to give users a choice to know thre's such application, and this thing is possible. I recreate the link. Is that ok?
OK, makes sense. Maybe I was wrong to remove it in the first place. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. Wmahan. 03:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Extensible Markup Language[edit]

Which comment at the top of the Extensible Markup Language page are you referring to? I changed Extensible to eXtensible to indicate where the X in XML derived from, just like it's being done on the Extensible Stylesheet Language page. Prodoc 19:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it was in the source, I thought you ment on the actual page being displayed. Until now I only went straight to the part I wanted to edit in a page. I never thought about looking at comments since I wasn't realy aware of them because I never used it myself before. Prodoc 20:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


I tried using unlinkspam to find references to‎, of which there are many in the wikipedia, but I kept getting 0 results. In fact, all my queries got 0 results. Am I doing something wrong? (And thanks for making such a great tool for the Wiki community.) — Reinyday, 23:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

linkspam removal is over-aggressive?[edit]

On the 21 of July you removed a few links to that were included on the USB flash drive page, the Mixmaster anonymous remailer Page and the Mixminion page. I'm curious why those links would qualify as linkspam. Here's why I added them.

On the USB Flash Drive page, there are links to other howtos on external sites of similar quality, so I followed the lead of the preceding editors and added something I though the users might be interested it. If the links to Feraga were linkspam then why not the links to the other external howtos (there's a whole section of them).

Second for the Mixmaster and Mixminion page, I noticed one thing was lacking on both. A simple howto use them. And its kinda useless to describe anonymous remailers if you dont tell the user how to use them. So once again I added links in the External Links section.

I also read the linkspan section of the Spamdexing page here on Wikipedia and I'm unsure which rule you're using to justify removing them. With only 4-5 links to on Wikipedia its hardly a mass flood.

For future reference, I'm curious what is the appropriate format for adding links to external sites to the EXTERNAL LINKS section of a page so that I may do it properly. -- dvehrs, 15:41 07 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi dvehrs. I reverted your links because you (User: were adding links to one site across different articles, as well as multiple links to that site within articles. It appeared to me to be an attempt to promote one site, rather than an effort to improve Wikipedia. If you must have a rule, Wikipedia:External_links#Links normally to be avoided includes "A website that you own or maintain" and "links that are added to promote a site".
It's common for linkspammers to justify their actions by saying that the existing links in an article are promotional or similar in nature. I'm not saying that's what you were doing, but in general that's not a good reason to add an external link.
As far as I can tell, you haven't made any useful contributions to the articles in question, beyond adding links to that one site. If your only intent was to provide useful links, as you imply, why did they all happen to lead to one site? Also, a history of adding content rather than links to articles makes it easier for others to assume that your intentions are not promotional in nature.
In the future, if you are unsure about whether an external link is appropriate, just ask on the talk page of the article. I hope that answers your questions, Wmahan. 19:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

virtualization link removal[edit]

Adding my companies site IS adding content. We are a virtualization company that is looking to educate the masses on application virtualization. Have you removed links from other virtualization vendors like VMware, Xen, VirtualIron, etc.? I want to abide by the Wikipedia rules and I don't think I did anything wrong. What if I linked to whitepaper content that discussed industry problem and challenges associate with virtualization? Shigdon. 17:31, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

It appeared that you were trying to promote your company and its products, rather than to improve the articles in a neutral manner. Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided includes links "that are added to promote a site" or "that primarily exist to sell products or services".
I wouldn't have a problem with you adding links to neutral whitepapers, although adding content to the articles would be better. However, adding links to a site you are associated with brings up neutrality concerns. I would suggest follwing the advice on the External Links page: "If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." Wmahan. 23:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

List of persecuted Turkish writers[edit]

The article wasn't deleted, as you may or may not have heard elsewhere, so I'm canvassing opinions for what to rename it to/merge it to on its relevant talk page. All reasonable suggestions will be entertained. BigHaz 10:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No articles left to correct[edit]

As at 2/Aug/2006, there's nothing more left to do, according to your spell-checking bot!

I just need to spend some time running a script to find more misspellings. I'll try to do that in the next couple of days. Wmahan. 15:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Wmahan. Any progress on that script, please? I'm ready to bash a few more typos!--MichaelMaggs 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Many apologies. I'm running the script right now; things should be ready within a couple of hours. Wmahan. 04:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I've had a go this morning, and every article is coming up with the message "Error: could not find corrections for this article in the database".--MichaelMaggs 06:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The script was still running. It's done now, and everything should be all ready. Thanks for the reminder. Wmahan. 06:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Sorry for jumping in too quickly there.--MichaelMaggs 07:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Standard office document formats debate[edit]

I would have removed the article Standard office document formats debate if I only knew how to remove articles. It is an extremely poor article to reference to in the Opendocument article where already may articles are referenced containing simular information. Comparison of OpenDocument and Microsoft Office Open XML formatsOpenDocument standardizationOpenDocument vs. Microsoft Office Open XML licensing. I could improve the debate article a lot by rewriting it completly but I am not going to bother as it would only become a discussion page and those do not belong on wikipedia and the information is obsolete seeing those other articles.--hAl 05:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing an article requires a consensus: see WP:AFD. If you believe the article inherently does not belong on Wikipedia, that page has the proper procedure. I think simply removing all references to the article would be a form of pretending the problem doesn't exist and hoping it will go away. Wmahan. 05:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that the article is very poorly written, very biased, and does not add value like several other articles where simular information were written.

Comparison ODF/OOXML[edit]

You wrote: W3C standards as well as common media types such as GIF, JPEG, PNG, MathML and Dublin Core metadata

Firstly PNG, MathML and Dublin Core are W3C standards (or offcial recommendations) which you wording now sort of denies. Secondly The original senctence showed there can be non open binaries in both formats which is correct. You can in fact embed virtually every image filetype within both the formats. There is as far as I know not a limit to whatever embedden filetype you would like to add to any of the doccuments. GIF and JPEG are just well known and often used examples. So there is reason to use te word 'common' as you can also embed non-common propriety files in both formats.

Of course you are right that those formats are W3C standards. My main objection was that you described GIF and JPEG as non-open. It's possible to use open formats in proprietary software; that doesn't make them non-open. You are welcome to improve the wording further. Wmahan. 06:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikhism links[edit]

Excuse me, I am a practicing Sikh for 40 years and have over 25 years expert knowledge in Sikhism, I have helped Sukh (a friend) who is one the main contributors on the Sikhism articles. What are you talking about Spam; those links are to detailed articles on those Gurdwaras (most of the Gurdwaras in Punjab I have visited and paid my respects to). As an Orthodox Khalsa Sikh, I'm very offended by your comments to me, those are valid good articles (they are NOT commercial links or personal links). The site in question is one of the most respected Sikhism sites on the internet, a lot of the other most important Sikhism articles use it in their external links on Wikipedia e.g. the main Sikhism page. It is only site on the internet that has a complete list encyclopedic artitcles on all the Gurdwaras (temples) in Sikhism. I don't know whether you misinterpreted something on my part, I don't know, anyway please can you reply quickly because as a loyal wikipedian I'm very hurt--Sikh historian 21:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Sikh historian,
I am not sure how you could be very offended by my comments to you, because I have never directed any comments at you. But I am sorry that you are very hurt, because that was not my intention.
I did ask for other editors to review your contributions, because you were adding many links to one website. Contrary to what you say, the site is evidently commercial; it has ads and an online store. Wikipedia prohibits adding links to a site to promote it or adding links to a site you own; please see Wikipedia:External links. In the future, I respectfully suggest that before adding a link to that site, you discuss it on the talk page of the article first. Anyone mass-adding links to a site, particularly a commercial one, is likely to be noticed and reverted by other Wikipedia editors.
Because I assumed good faith on your part, I did not remove the links myself, but rather asked for further review. Please understand that I never called into question your knowledge of the subject or your value as a contributor to Wikipedia, and it is unfortunate if you saw it that way. -- Wmahan. 22:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
However, using that logic all the Sikhism articles (on Wikipedia) have links that have some commercial content?--Sikh historian 22:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
The existence of commercial links is not at issue; adding commercial links to promote a site is. Furthermore, I do not endorse the other links present; maybe there is spam that should be removed, but that is hardly a good reason to add more promotional links. Wmahan. 22:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
But you are missing the point. My intention was to add external links that have good quality articles. Like I say this is one of the only sites on the internet that has detailed articles on all the temples in Sikhism. Describing there history, their individual importance in the religion.--Sikh historian 22:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Your desire to improve Wikipedia is appreciated, but it is better to add content rather than external links to articles when possible, per Wikipedia:External links. I am sure that given your detailed knowledge of the subject, you could help improve the content of the articles.
If you think that a link to that site is especially notable, you are welcome to discuss it on appropriate the talk page to see if others agree. However, mass-adding links to a commercial site simply goes against Wikipedia consensus. Wmahan. 22:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Me and the main editors on the pages will increase content on them in time in addition to adding notable links --Sikh historian 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
(However, for us Sikhs our religion is very dear to us. Many us have died in the cause of freedom throughout the world e.g. Sikhs contribute the largest volunteer army in history in WW2 and in India's independence struggle against the British Empire died for freedom.

Many of our ancestors died fighting for the protection of Hindus in India against oppression and genocide. It just that our people have given so much to the world in sacrifice- that we tend to be a bit sensitive/emotional. Any way its fine you were just trying prevent those who abuse wikipedia.--Sikh historian 23:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that deeply held beliefs and emotions are involved. Like you, I want to improve Wikipedia as a high-quality and useful resource. Thank you for your constructive approach to the issue. Wmahan. 23:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Can I consider you a wikipedian friend, that I can come to you for help, advice and support regarding wikipedia?--Sikh historian 23:25, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Most definitely. It would be an honor. :-) Wmahan. 00:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey well handled. I didn't have the chance to check wiki today to see the reply to the link removal and respond, but see I you did. Kevin_b_er 03:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm glad the situation is resolved to everyone's satisfaction. Wmahan. 05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wine links[edit]

Yes, I'm well aware that they were mass-added -- and mass-reverted -- and yeah, the odds are it was done as a promotional thing. ON the other hand, in many cases those links are completely releveant to the articles in question, which are the specific ones I restored. There's no per se problem with commercial links, and seeing the site mentioned in Wine & Spirits (I bought a copy yesterday and came across their plug for the site) seemed to be vouching for the value of the link. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I replied over at Talk:Temecula, California. Wmahan. 05:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Removing spam links[edit]

Thank you for removing the spam link on the Aspects of Love page. However, it should be noted that I did not put the link there. My IP address doesn't even begin with 24. Mine is 68.6.x.x. I simply changed the bad .jpg to a nice colour .png.

--Carlosmnash 08:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, my comment was rv linkspam to last by Carlosmnash, meaning that the spam was added by the previous user,, not you. Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for contributing. Wmahan. 16:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for removing the linkspam there today :-) I was wondering if I could get your experienced opinion on another link on that page that was just added recently. I've already removed it once from an IP contribution since it appears to be a blog, but a new wikipedia user just added it back (the user and the IP could be one in the same) and I'm trying not to bite the newcomers, so I'm hoping someone else would enter their objective opinion. I've laid out my opinion at Talk:Franchising#External linkspam. I appreciate any help you can offer. Thanks! --Rkitko 01:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you're doing a fine job of not biting the newcomers. I removed the link and explained why on the talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Wmahan. 05:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance! Rkitko 05:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


The link you've removed it's spam only in your own opinion. It's a search engine. You should remove Google as well. --Eltener 16:52, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I have not removed the link, because I wanted to assume good faith on your part. I only left a message on your talk page because your pattern of edits (adding many links to one site) looked like it might be an attempt at using Wikipedia for promotion. If you could explain your reasons for adding the link, I might not have any objections. (Are you affiliated with the site? In what way is a "search engine" for the planet Mercury useful?) Wmahan. 17:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It's useful if you are into astronomy. Otherwise it's just as useful as an axe for the average non-lumberjack man. It lets you search for a place (for example, Cydonia on Mars, where the famous "face" is located), and returns its coordinates that can be exported for popular applications like Celestia and NASA World Wind (and more options are available for Planet Earth).
OK, the site does look pretty interesting and useful. I only suggest that you be careful about adding many links to one site, because it sets off the linkspam alarm bells. Wmahan (neither an astronomer nor a lumberjack) 17:58, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam again[edit]

Hello Wmahan. I don't think I was **advertising** on Wikipedia. I thought I was enhancing content by adding interview links to artists in the database. I saw other links to artists interviews from commercial links and I felt like I was enhancing articles that linked to interviews that were 2-3 years old or no interview links with relavent links. I was trying to add content to the database but this little free website has really discouraged me from participating because nothing I do ever seems to be right, but please know I didn't feel like I was advertising, I went to the appropropriate subject matter and carefully added appropriate external links. It would be advertising if I just simply put nonsense in the wrong place. I thought that visitors to the article would appreciate links to current features--my bad, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mia Williams (talkcontribs) 2006-08-10T22:38:34

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since you were only adding links to one site, and your only other contribution was an article about that site, it appears you were trying to promote it. That is not allowed; please see Wikipedia:External links. Wmahan. 02:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Royce Da 5'9" spam[edit]

Hi, I removed the link to to worldwideconnected dot com you readded at Royce Da 5'9", because it was added by (talk · contribs) along with many other links to the same site. This appears to be spam and promotion, which goes against WP:EL. But I should have asked before reverting your edit because you are not a spammer, so if I made a mistake in removing the link, please let me know. Wmahan. 05:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

About the spam, what spam are you talking about ? Someone removed it so I added it back because it's a nice interview. --Tuplad 15:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The IP's edit history shows someone adding 25 links to the same site, with no other contributions. So someone probably added that link to make money for the site from advertisements.
I was concerned because there are many different sites spamming Wikipedia with links to interviews. A famous person can give lots of interviews, and it's not possible to link to every one. But if you feel that interview is notable, I am OK with you adding it back. Wmahan. 15:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Well hehe, ok then :) I'll add it back Tuplad 15:59, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OLED spam[edit]

Hello Wmahan,

You recently removed a link I added to the page about OLEDs. This link was to This is indeed my own page, but I really feel this is the best link to OLED information, news and resources on the web today. I don't think this is fair to call this SPAM. It is certainly better than other news site listed here which are of commercial companies (like the chemical company page). Don't you agree?

Wmahan, This is Ron from OLED-Info again... I'm still waiting for an answer. Sorry to bother you ;-)

Sorry for not answering before; I must have missed your message. I suggest that you mention your site on the relevant talk page, such as Talk:Organic light-emitting diode. If an established editor agrees with you, I won't oppose the link. As you may have noticed, you're not the only person to think your own site is the best. Wmahan. 14:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello again. Thanks for the answer, no worries about not answering before. I'll post to the talk. I know the other OLED author. Indeed we both have OLED community sites, which I think are very relevant: with news, articles, forums and more. How can I find other "established editors" to agree with me? I wonder if it'll be possible for you to hop over to the site, and give your own views. Anyway OLEDs are so exciting, I'm sure you'll find the site good ;-)

Article United States housing bubble[edit]

Wmahan, thanks again for your suggestions for improvements in this article. I've addressed your points, and am really please with the results. I also agree with SlapAyoda that a featured article nomination would really improve the article's quality. I would appreciate your feedback or nomination if you believe that this is appropriate now. Frothy 13:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please note that I've requested {{peerreview}} for this article at Wikipedia:Peer_review/United_States_housing_bubble#.5B.5BUnited_States_housing_bubble.5D.5D. Frothy 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

"Several positive comments have been made about the article "US housing bubble," both at its talk page and over the web (blogs, Google), and the discussion came about about nominating it as a featured article. Saxifrage suggested that it be peer reviewed as part of this process, so I've requested this here. Your comments and feedback would be greatly appreciated. Frothy 11:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)"
I added some more comments. Wmahan. 16:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Graduate School links removed[edit]

Hi, you removed some links that I added to the grad school page - specifically I'm curious how you decided to remove that site which provided a citation for some of the admissions information but you left in the external links when gradish isn't cited anywhere and has basically the same level/style of information. I'm just trying to understand and while I read the links you cited in the editing note, I don't get it at this point. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greggles (talkcontribs) 2006-08-16T20:20:32

Hello, I reverted this edit because it appeared to be an attempt to promote a site. The edit added four links to one site without adding any substantive content. Thank you for reading Wikipedia:External links; it explains that adding links to your own site or attempting to promote any site are prohibited. My failure to remove another link is not an endorsement. Perhaps other links on the page are not worthy of inclusion, but that is not a good reason to add more inappropriate links. Wmahan. 02:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

ang → and[edit]

Hi Wmahan. Would it be possible to stop your program from automatically making the above change? I'm going through the list now, and there are very larges numbers of articles where this doesn't work. I'm not sure what 'ang' means, but it certainly seems to exist in at least one language. --MichaelMaggs 06:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. I remember removing that one before, but I must have accidentally re-added it. Wmahan. 08:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
That was quick. Thanks.--MichaelMaggs 10:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

You requested incidents of self promotion[edit]

They made their ID and created an entry entry for themslevs

Yes, it looks like there was some inappropriate self-promotion of at least one of those sites, and not only by one account. If you find more incidents like this, you are welcome tell me (or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam, since there is only so much I can do by myself). Wmahan. 05:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)



You wrote: Hi, I noticed that you add a lot of external links to Is it discussed anywhere whether these links are appropriate? I was wondering because it's common for people to try to use Wikipedia to promote websites, which is bad as explained by Wikipedia:External links. I'm not accusing you of anything; I'm just interested in more information.

I have absolutely no connection to the Find-a-Grave site, nor am I trying in any way to promote it. I add the links to the various biographies to enhance them, and to add additional information to them. In addition to the actual gravesite or memorial, this link can provide photos of the person not necessarily available in the main Article.


Michael David 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Thanks for the quick response. Wmahan. 21:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

"Insertion rate limit reached. Please try again in a few minutes"[edit]

One thing that slows me down quite a lot is that when trying to add new spellings I get the above message perhaps 75% of the time. I don't know what the technical limitations are, but I wonder if there's any way to capture more new words more quickly? Just a suggestion - which of course may be impossible. A wonderful tool by the way! --MichaelMaggs 21:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The only reason for that message was guard against the possibility of someone maliciously flooding the database with junk data. That seems unlikely, so I lowered the limit from 30 seconds between word additions to 5 seconds.
Unfortunately, I have to review all the spellings that are added before they take effect, to keep out spellings with lots of false positives (like the "ang" you encountered before). I'm glad you like the tool. Feel free to bug me if it needs updating again or if you have any suggestions for improving it. Wmahan. 05:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I nearly didn't bother to ask as I was almost sure it would be hard to fix! Regards. --MichaelMaggs 06:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

costal → coastal[edit]

Another change that probably shouldn't be automatic. Costal is a real word: it appears for example in the article Intercostal nerves.--MichaelMaggs 13:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

logo link[edit]

I'd like you to reconsider- please check out the discussion on the logo page. I'm kinda new to WP, but I'm pretty sure my logic is valid. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cochese8 (talkcontribs) .

I've added a comment on this at Talk:Logo, and removed the link for now. - David Oberst 00:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Messages saying 'Word not found'[edit]

Sometimes, the auto-correct feature lists an error, and gives the relevant correction. But then, instead of saying 'done' in green, it says 'word not found' in red. Any ideas why this might be?--MichaelMaggs 16:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

As an example, have a look at Christopher Boothe, where the auto-correct gives offically → officially. Word not found. --MichaelMaggs 17:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Revisiting ang → and; despatched → dispatched[edit]

This one has come back again today, as has despatched → dispatched. --MichaelMaggs 16:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I removed costal and despatched, although I couldn't find any reference indicating that the latter is an accepted spelling. I'm not sure what happened with ang; my algorithm for removing words must be imperfect. Let me know if it continues to cause problems.
The error messages about the misspellings not being found are usually caused by the database being out of date (for example, maybe someone fixed the misspelling, rewrote the sentence, or removed it altogether). The suggested corrections are not generated on-the-fly, but rather all at once when I run the updating script. So the corrections become out of date if I don't keep them updated. Wmahan. 18:41, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand! I'll let you know if ang comes back.--MichaelMaggs 19:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

If this isn't self promotion, what is[edit]

Created by Fanscape for fanscape wow!

Yes, that article was created as an ad, and it has already been marked as such. It may be worth keeping the article once it is rewritten in a neutral fashion, since some comments on the talk page claim the organization is notable.
However, other site owners' actions do not excuse your use of Wikipedia for self-promotion. If you continue to spam your site on Wikipedia, I will request that it be blacklisted from all Wikimedia sites, as I have done for some of the worst offenders.
I am disappointed, because I thought I had made this clear to those affiliated with the site at User talk: and by email. Consider this your last warning. Wmahan. 02:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

US housing bubble for featured article?[edit]

Thanks again for making the effort to provide comments and feedback on the US housing bubble article. As summarized at the page Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Response_to_objections_raised_above, I believe that all the objections and issues raised have been addressed. Would you please have a look and consider supporting this for "featured article" status? Especially given the (unfortunate) recent news (see, e.g., today's New York Times "most-emailed" Op-Ed "Housing Gets Ugly" here), this would be an especially timely featured article, and help "Wiki" live up to its speedy name. Frothy 02:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[edit]

Pls think about this link since this website is not giving away any information commercially. This is a Free Information which will help people requiring Logo Design. Logo Design Companies will also get a USN and PSW so that tyey can keep the information on this website updated for the visitors. People can compare amonst the available Logo designers and then choose the Best deal for themselves. In case you feel something is not correct and needs to be rectified for wikipedia acceptance, pls let me know and we can adjust accordingly.A1future

You are not allowed to add links to your own website; see WP:EL. The link may be useful, but the correct course is to ask for someone else to add it on the talk page. Also, your site has ads, which means it is not noncommercial, although that was not my primary reason for removing the link. Wmahan. 18:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
I just saw that Jsmorse47 has added the link. Is this OK now ? As far as ads are concerned I can point to 1000s of websites whcih are available on wikipedia (various subjects) which do display adsense ads and other ads. A1future 04:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I think I'll let things cool down a bit without endorsing or re-removing the link, since Jsmorse47 and I are already involved in a dispute over whether his own self-promotional link is acceptable. However, I will note that the existence of other promotional links is not a valid reason for more self-promotion. Wmahan. 04:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict of interest[edit]

The problem with Conflict of interest is that every action is tainted by it or none are. To demonstrate, I'll point out that your comment on User_talk:Oberst#Logo shows that some people are editing WP sites for the benefit of their own pride and joy in stirring up emotion. This is not the stated goal of any WP editor, but it happens just the same. Likewise, everyone has private and personal motives for doing what they're doing (including editing these pages), most of which would not be appreciated by others.

I think you miscontrued my comment there, which wasn't directed at you. I take no joy in stirring up others' emotions. However, I think that when editors take an honest and neutral approach, they generally can see issues dispassionately (without, say, branding everyone who disagrees as "subtractors" and posting an open call for a revert war at the top of one's user page).
How else would you describe someone who never creates, just subtracts?

Another question I have about the value of editing- could you see multiple motives for that process as well?

Of course there are lots of different, equally valid motives for editing. Promoting your own website, in which you have a financial interest, just isn't one of them.
Good thing that's not the reason I replaced the link.

Can I ask you honestly why you are so active on this website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsmorse47 (talkcontribs) 2006-08-27T22:08:59 (UTC)

Certainly. I'm not really that active; it just appears that way because I only edit using one account, rather than using several different ones. Wmahan. 02:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If multiple people have similar concerns, does that make them the same person? If so, you have several different ones too.
I find that people who are quick to accuse are often guilty themselves. This thought was fueled with regard to you based on the first of your contribs I checked.Joe 04:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

My edit history speaks for itself. If you wish to believe that I can somehow "subtract from the sum of human knowledge" by removing links from a website, that's your prerogative.

I would just like to know what your goal is. It looks like it is to stir emotion by taking away someone's work User_talk:Oberst#Logo or perhaps to catch the eye of a potential employer with your evident programing talent and send them to your website (User:Wmahan#External_links). It appears your goal, like most here, is personal gain in one way or the other. I dislike fueling your ego by giving you such an "emotional response," but I feel like defending myself.

My implication that you are User:Cochese8 was based on the facts that you are Joseph Morse and your website is registered to "Morse, Joseph cochese8@...". Furthermore, the account re-added links to your site; left an unsolicited message on my talk page arguing for your position; supported your position regarding another website with which you are affiliated; and made no other contribution except a minor change to another article that you have previously edited, and which previously had a link to your site.

Your first goal was to remove links that led to a commercial site, then to remove a link by its author, but when someone else added the link, you changed your criteria to, the person adding links should have as many edits as you. It seems that you like to move the goalposts to whatever helps you get your way. added more links to your website and put a comment at the top of your user page attacking another editor and me. Either that account is you, or someone you allow to speak on your behalf.

I can speak to my user page addition- I did that, I just didn't log in. We use shared computers here. By the way, if you think stating the facts (User:Jsmorse47) is attacking that would explain your general skewed view of life.

Finally, I will note that while you claim to speak for "the many" on your user page, you are the one who wishes to bypass the consensus against self-linking, and who disguises or neglects to mention his own financial interests when editing articles. Wmahan. 21:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I refer you to the above reply which describes how you may be in this for financial gain as well. Everyone on this site does their work for their own personal gain, whether it be for the joy in creating a new article (like my Broad Ripple Village) or the joy in taking someone else's work away (see all of your contribs). I suggest you pick an argument and stick with it instead of changing your conditions for acceptance. Joe 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Morse, I have no desire to evoke an emotional response from you or to allow a disagreement to become personal. My comment honestly was not intended to refer to you, and if it offended you, I apologize.
I see your point that no one's motives are above question. However, there are clear guidelines against linking to one's own website. I understand that you may honestly think the links are valuable, but I don't believe that justifies ignoring the established procedure, namely asking on the talk page rather than adding your own links. I have never added links to my own websites or attempted to edit articles in a way that promoted my direct interests. This isn't a rule I invented, and as you may have noticed from my other contributions, I am not singling you out in applying it to you.
It wasn't my intention to set arbitrary guidelines for who can and can't contribute, I certainly never suggested that anyone needs a certain number of edits for his or her opinion to be considered. I already explained my reason for being suspicous of the new accounts supporting your links; in addition, the four IP addresses adding links to your site are in the San Diego area. I admit the evidence is circumstantial, and maybe the anonymous and new users are genuinely independent. But suffice it to say that resorting to sock-puppetry is hardly rare among those trying to add links to Wikipedia. In general, I try to assume good faith by new users, but I am most supportive of decisions made by a consensus of clearly neutral editors--even when I happen to disagree with that consensus.
It's obvious that you are knowledgeable about the subjects where you edit--more so than me. I appreciate your contributions to the content of articles. My goal is not to diminish anyone else's work, but rather to help ensure that Wikipedia is as unbiased and neutral as possible. I recognize that there will always be people who try to use a site like Wikipedia to advance their own biases, intentionally or unintentionally. But I believe that the more people are allowed to promote their own interests, the more the encyclopedia will suffer as a useful and accurate source of information. Wmahan. 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

BMR link[edit]

I noticed that you removed a very valuable link on the BMR article (an article to which I've contributed substantially)- one that was very similar to others that you decided to keep. You also inquired about what people thought about the link Talk:Basal_metabolic_rate#External_link. Here's some of the feedback from that link (please read them):

What you didn't mention is that the link is to your website and advertises your book, and hence you have a direct financial interest in promoting it. And the fact that it is, in your words, "very similar to others", is exactly my point: Wikipedia is not a link directory, so the three other links to BMR calculators are quite sufficient.

[ testimonials snipped ]

OK, you're welcome to follow the established procedure by presenting the case for including your link on the talk page. Wmahan. 16:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear Wmahan: Thanks for your help keeping BMR clean and tidy. This is my first venture and I can tell by the communications that you are having with the other contributors that you hold your own very well. Looking forward to collaborating! BRiley 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRiley 17:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi BRiley/BRileyPTA, I replied at your talk page. Wmahan. 18:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

My bot[edit]

copied form User talk:SnowFire Template subsututions See this and the links within this discusion. does that take care of it? Betacommand 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe--it looks like Brion said that both categories and templates are likely to break. If that's true, then I think it might be better to remove the templates altogether; if the categories cannot be used either, don't these templates lose their purpose? In other words, if the contents are obsolete either with or without the substing, what's the point? Wmahan. 04:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
what he basicly said is that redirects can contain more than one line of data and that cats can be used on them. the main isue that was said was that Templets themselves might break the link not the extra data.Betacommand 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I was referring to
<brion> categories and templates are likely to break on redirects, they should not be used
I know TimStarling disagreed, and you may be right, but there's no need to rush into this. It would be bad if someone had to follow your bot with another one to fix the fixes. Wmahan. 04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
if that does happen my bot can revert its self, can i go ahead? Betacommand
Go ahead. Basically my concern was that this will break, but I guess it will have to anyway. Thanks for pointing me to the discussion. Wmahan. 04:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
at this point they dont break Betacommand 05:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
If you subst the {{R from misspelling}}, {{R from ASCII}}, and similar templates, that feature will break because as far as I know there's no way to do "what links here" for categories. Wmahan. 05:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
The pages in question will be under the given categories as for a "what links here" please see this. this doesnt appear to break anything other than the link to the templete which isnt a problem. Betacommand 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
No, your link does not provide the same function because it does not list, for example, Toryglen, which links to advertisment in that category. That was the motivation for using a template in the first place. Wmahan. 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I cant understand the last comment about Toryglen it wasnt a redirect so thus was unaffected. But please see these comments [[2]] and [this]. Betacommand 19:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The issue is getting a list of pages that contain links to redirects with {{R from misspelling}} or a similar template. This is possible with templates (see the link I mentioned above) but not possible once they are substed. At WT:R there is more discussion of why this might be a bad idea.

The burden is on you to show that you understand the issues involved before you run a bot. Wmahan. 19:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Can I get your help?[edit]

You seem to be kind of anti-spam person. :) Thought I'd ask for your help on User:Shadowthedog. If you look at his contribs, he's a linkspammer. But despite my warnings to the contrary, he keeps claiming that he's not a linkspammer. Can I get your backup on this? I'd much appreciate it. I'm an admin, so I could block him if he continues, but I want to make sure he fully understands our policies on this and I think you can explain it better than I can. Thanks. --Woohookitty(meow) 02:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I removed the 25 remaining links to lewissociety . org because they were all added by that user, and I commented on his or her talk page. Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. Wmahan. 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible spam[edit] -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 2006-09-05T00:32:32Z

I removed 25 of the 26 links added by that user,, and Froosh and replied on your talk page. Wmahan. 07:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Restored a link[edit]

Hello, I restored the external link on the Tom Collins article. I'm not sure if the orginal editor that added the link was a spammer, but I did find the link useful and relevant, and I'm not affiliated with the site. So I restored it for now, if you still disagree, let me know. --Bill.matthews 12:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you for letting me know. The link was clearly added by someone attempting to promote the site. In general I don't like the idea of keeping spam links when they're borderline-relevant, because it encourages spammers to add links to many articles in the hope that some of them will be kept; in other words, they throw everything against the wall and see what sticks. One link isn't going to hurt anything, though. Wmahan. 14:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Blog links[edit]

I think you made the right decision- I read the blog, and it's a good blog but has no place in an Encyclopedia math article. Do you have any reason to think he is the author though and not just a fan? I thought that he was making an attempt to improve the articles. Anyway you did good, and it's great that you took the trouble to write in his talk page a second time to clarify matters. Cheers! Borisblue 13:19, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I might have overlooked the links if there were only a few, but the large number made me decide to remove them. I wasn't certain about the decision, though, so it's good to have a second opinion.
In my experience, it's rare for even the best blogs to have fans devoted enough to mass-add links to Wikipedia, and indeed this edit says he is Larry Freeman, the author of the blog. I agree that the blog is informative, and I hope he doesn't take my removing the links personally. Wmahan. 14:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)