User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here and please don't forget to sign your post You may want to have a look at the subjects in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject. The question you may have may already have been answered there Dirk Beetstra	Qxz Ads file info – show another – #31
User:BetacommandBot is going to add the {{chemicals}} to all chemical compounds. I have done my best to check whether the subject is about a chemical compound, but when the template gets added to something that is really not a chemical compound, just revert. In these cases, I am sorry for the trouble I caused.

Responding I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me. I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header. ON EXTERNAL LINK REMOVAL There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first. My view in a nutshell: External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines). Please consider the alternatives before readding the link: If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information'). Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz. Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects. Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this) If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the before things get to that point. The answer in a nutshell Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines. Pertaining links on pages about chemicals: If the link is a regular source of chemicals, consider adding the link to wikipedia:chemical sources, and add the template {{ChemicalSources}} to the external links sections of the chemicals' page(s) (when not there). If you would like to see my proposed special:chemicalsources be activated, please vote for bug 7514 on bugzilla. If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1]. Reliable sources I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong. Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs. Stub/Importance/Notability/Expand/Expert I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog. Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof. Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to Shadowbot. Archives This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Timestamped sections older than 10 days are automatically archived to the current archive Talk started 20/3/2006 1 - 7/9/2006 2 - 29/11/2006 3 - 05/02/2007 4 - 05/03/2007 5 - 15/03/2007 6 - current Contents 1 Question about the best approach to contribute. 2 Obsessedwithwrestling 3 Why did you remove http://www.smileysmile.net ? 4 Hello there Beetstra, you did not like my contribution? 5 Beware the 26 6 Spammin'? 7 Conflict of interest? 7.1 Canadian Music Center reference 8 Chem Stubs - 'Stub of the day' 9 www.captcha.biz - external link 10 Template:Chemical-importance 11 External links 12 Nyboma link 13 Data compression 14 External links section in "Regression analysis" 15 Nyboma - Franco 16 List of Egyptian gods 17 Why did you remove my links? 18 Why didn't you remove my links? 19 From Save OU Sports - Regarding our edits on pages dealing with Ohio Sports 19.1 Response from Save OU Sports 19.2 Response from Save OU Sports

[edit] Question about the best approach to contribute.

Hello Dirk. Your bot zapped some well-intended but apparently suspect external links that were recently added by edit. You can get a brief background at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ST47 - Am I in Trouble?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oops .. forgot to answer. Was busy with another task yesterday, so I only had a quick glance, sorry.

Thank you for the inquiry, but I don't run a bot, though I have access to a couple (a.o. shadowbot). I indeed saw that you added a link to several articles. Per the wikipedia definition, it does not matter if the link may have been of interest to the pages, if they are added en masse, they are regarded spam, and removed. As I say in my talkheader (I hope you read that), external links are by no means meant to tunnel people away from this encyclopedia. Moreover, indeed, you seem to have a conflict of interest, also something wikipedia is not happy with.

You can of course add content to the articles, and, in principle, are allowed to cite to information on your own site (wikipedia states in WP:A: "You may cite your own publications just as you would cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you are regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of Wikipedia. Be cautious about excessive citation of your own work, which may be seen as promotional or a conflict of interest; when in doubt, check on the talk page."), when you think your site complies with the regulations, it should be possible to use that as a reference.

If you remind me again of the link you were adding, I will remove it from the blacklist. I hope you understand that the link is being monitored (as all link additions on mediawiki projects). I will leave you a full welcome message shortly, with maybe more reading regarding guidelines and policies. Hope to hear more, and to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk, thanks for your reply. I did, in fact, read the material at your talkheader. I also appreciate what you sent to me and posted on my talk page. It's precisely what I could not find and would have loved to have had instead of going here, there, and everywhere trying to learn the ropes. I'd suggest that it be an automatic offering to any newly registered Wikipedia contributor before they do themselves in like I did.

In response to your request, The zapped link is http://www.getresearchsmart.org.

About the copyright issue. Does a Wikipedia reference or an external link - as opposed to contributed text - negate existing copyright provisions that otherwise apply to the cited source? My guess is no. Thanks! CCS 20:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, and you are very welcome. The welcome message is not automatic, it has to be added by other users. In general that happens when an account starts making notable contributions. In your case it did not get added, because the the people from WP:WPSPAM picked up your link-additions and reverted and warned. In those cases welcome messages are often not given.

Wow .. copyright issues. Never got a case of that. I think that when a text is copyrighted, one can not incorporate it into wikipedia. But I am not sure how that exactly is. I guess you should be able to find that in WP:A, WP:C (I am going to have a look at this site now ..) and WP:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:58, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk. Thanks for all you did for me. Today, on the talk page of the Wikipedia article on informed consent, I explained the possible utility of augmenting the article with self-help information and proposed a possible link to the previously zapped website for feedback.

By the way I think I found the answer to my question about copyright protection of cited external links at WP:C under: Contributors' rights and obligations. It seems to say that copyright-holders retain copyright to their own materials. In other words, I think, anything contributed to Wikipedia text is fair game but, when only an external link, no protection of copyrighted material is lost because no related Wikipedia text is involved.

I appreciate your assistance in having lifted whatever barriers may have been placed to any future legitimate citation of the website. Couldn't have gotten this far without you! CCS 15:59, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dirk, I posted a proposed external link to the Wikipedia article on informed consent - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Informed_consent. To my surprise there's been no reaction after about a week. What's the applicable Wiki etiquette in this situation? Should I assume no reaction is passive concurrence and add the link or remain passive myself? Thanks! CCS 23:23, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I see there is another editor having concerns on your talkpage (user:Hu12), you might want to address these s well. It could be that when you add the link yourself it will be removed again, several alarms will start ringing due to bots that are listening to the feeds (that shadowbot is not listening does not mean other bots do not, but it might not get autoreverted). The best thing is to wait and let an uninvolved editor make the addition. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I have responded at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GRS_LLC_Founder#Username --Hu12 21:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Obsessedwithwrestling

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

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

[edit] Why did you remove http://www.smileysmile.net ?

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

Thank you for your question. The link was removed because it was spammed around a couple of pages (see Special:Contributions/68.207.248.138), and it does not comply with WP:EL on the pages it was added to. Therefore it was blacklisted on user:shadowbot and removed from the pages it was spammed to. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't help at all. The site it refers to is Beach Boys-related and its links belong on all the sites that I see listed in your reference. I am one of the world's recognized experts on the Beach Boys and Brian Wilson and I think this is an absurd deletion. --Jules Siegel 15:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:SPAM clearly states 'Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed.' That is why the links were removed, and that is why it is blacklisted. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I still don't get it. It's not like he selling Viagra. He has a constantly updated site on all things Beach Boys. The information is useful and factual. He is a chronicler. How about if we get some kind of outside thinking on this? Just because an external link appears on several pages does not -- in my estimation -- automatically qualify it as spam. The content must be taken into account as well.

The presence of ads or products for sale should not disqualify the site; otherwise links to the New York Times would be bannable. I have nothing to do with this guy commercially except the one transaction I mentioned, the circumstances of which cause me to recommend him as an honorable guy. He respected my copyright. Do you hear about a lot of that on the Internet?

So if you remain satisfied with your current position, I'd like to take this to the next level of review. I understand and appreciate what you are doing, but I feel that it is important for Wikipedia to either add or highlight content and appropriateness as overriding factors in the spam definition. I'll also look at WP:SPAM myself meanwhile. --Jules Siegel 16:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a second look at the site. and yes, I still remain with my point. The link does not comply with WP:EL and was spammed across wikipedia. I am sorry. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I looked at the specifications you offer, and I really don't see anything that would disqualify it. Maybe I'm missing something, but I also don't see how adding one link to each of three pages about the Beach Boys equals "spammed across wikipedia." I think we better take this up the line. --Jules Siegel 17:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

You are of course free to take it to a higher level. But let me first cite WP:SPAM:

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

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

Three is not several. Even several does not define spamming if the links are appropriate to the articles. Your other observations are really matters of opinion with which I don't happen to agree. You have the advantage of me in that you can quote various internal references and are more familiar with the review system. It's a lot easier for you to remove links than it is for me to challenge you. Nonetheless, I will put in the necessary time to get this looked at by someone neutral. Jules Siegel 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The links are not appropriate per WP:EL, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. But you are free to ask at e.g. WT:EL. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello there Beetstra, you did not like my contribution?

Hello Beetstra,

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ethernet_crossover_cable&oldid=118357101

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

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

Thanks!

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

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

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

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

[edit] Beware the 26

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

• Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising related subject)

Beware the 26 is a page about an advertising related subject, just at The Lost Experience is a page about the same kind of advertising.

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

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

Please advise then, how you justified the deletion of the page. thank you—The preceding unsigned comment was added by UNFJoel (talk • contribs).

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

[edit] Spammin'?

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

I agree, the addition is certainly spammy, though the information is appropriate. I have fed his name to my coi-recognition bot, and am currently changing the external links to internal links using AWB. I will try and keep an eye on it. I will leave it to you to see if the edits are appropriate, if you feel they are not, consider reverting all the edits. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your work! I think I'll do a bit of reverting.... Figma 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conflict of interest?

hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, thank you for you question. Indeed an apology from my side is on its place here, I should have left you a message concerning your edits, apparently I forgot in a busy revert period (although that is not a good excuse). I am sorry.

I removed the links because you seem to have a conflict of interest with the data you are adding. The links you were adding resulted in some alarms going off on linkfeeds. Just as a warning, you have been adding the links cross-wiki (on more wikis), which could be regarded as cross-wiki-spam, and that would be enough to get the link meta-blacklisted (which means the link cannot be used at all in any mediawiki project).

It is for me hard to believe that for notable persons they only have information on your site.

May I ask you to read WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:CITE and consider WP:COI. I am sorry, but maybe you should not be adding the information, even if you release it into wikipedia; you are involved with the site you are linking to, and it is hard to believe that you do not have any interest in people being tunneled to your site or that you have a neutral point of view (and other editors may blacklist because of these edits). Could you try to adapt the documents so that you use the site as an inline reference (using wikipedia's <ref> and <references/> tags), and, where available, consider including information from other sites/places as well (references do not need to go to an online source, it is perfectly fine to refer to printed media, the aim is to be able to check the info, not that it needs to be checked). Sites that are used as references don't need to go into the external links sections. And for other cases, maybe discuss on the talkpage of the articles, or on an appropriate wikiproject.

Again, thanks for your remarks, and I hope this explains, happy editing, and have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe the point of view in these articles is as neutral and objective as it can be. At any rate, by releasing them into Wikipedia we of course expect visitors to correct any inaccuracies, that's the whole point. That said, the biographies we have are pretty thorough, and for every composer we even include a full (as far as our knowledge goes) discography as well as a near complete list of works, all of which is correct to the best of our knowledge. I estimate that at least half of the CDs we include in these discographies are NOT available for sale through our website; in other words, we are not limiting the information so that it advantages us over another supplier of electroacoustic music (which as you know is a pretty small field to begin with).

As for the external links, for some lesser known (or less web-savvy) composers, sometimes the only thorough resource on the web is indeed electrocd.com. In many cases however, you are correct, the artist has their own web site, which we are also including in our contribution. If you think that might make it look less like conflict of interest, then we can remove the link to electrocd when there is already an official site for the artist? Please let me know if that would be good, or if you think we need to scrap the electrocd.com link no matter what.

As for adding "cross-wiki", you are right, we are adding the same articles on the French Wikipedia, and even including the fr: and en: links for cross-referencing. I can understand your previous point about conflict of interest but in this case I can't fathom what we are doing wrong.

Please let me know when you have the time.

Thanks for your help, Electrocdwiki 17:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Still, it is your link in the article, and you are writing articles from your own POV, which is not neutral (even if you do your best to do so). The field may be small, but there may be more sources, and you are not adding them. So I am asking you to adapt your style, to remove or stop adding the external link, and maybe add a reference (see WP:CITE for the howto). Please read the policies and guidelines. What you are doing 'wrong' is that you only provide a link to your website across different wikis. It may be that I am not going to block the link on wikipedia (I did put it on shadowbots revert-list earlier, but decided to remove and give you a second chance), but I am certainly not the only editor watching the linkfeed and the output of the different bots, others may do that, and it is in your case then better to adapt your style: use the link as proper references as I describe in the above message, use also other references, consider writing a minor stub (without references, the article will grow in time), or consider not adding the articles, but put them on a request list (ask an appropriate wikiproject), and let independent people write the article. If the subjects are notable enough that will happen soon enough. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind reply. I will modify my future contributions so that they include references and generally make them more Wikipedia-friendly. I will also remove the external links to electrocd.com since they duplicate what's already in the references.

Thanks for trusting our good faith, I understand the POV issue but electroacoustic music is not a very big field and there are few specialists, which means that often we have to wear many hats: composer or record distributor on one side, enthusiast on the other. We hope that if there are any inaccuracies in our contributions they will be corrected. Thanks again, Electrocdwiki 19:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering once again, I have just added Philippe Le Goff as a stub as you have suggested. Is that correct? I just want to make sure this looks good to you before I continue. Thanks, Electrocdwiki 20:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Close, but it still contains an external link, which is probably better used as a reference. You still have a COI with that link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll remove the link which you consider COI then, and all should be good? Please see below for the rest of the response. Electrocdwiki 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Music Center reference

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

Hmm .. I am not happy with that link. It is not pointing to the topic, but to the homepage, and I don't see the info on the site (but maybe I have to look better). In a way, that link looks spammy too. But at least I can't proof a coi on the person who added that link. In your case, no, I don't think it is appropriate that you add that link.

I am sorry, but all I can see is that you have an interest in having links to your page on wikipedia, and that is the only reason you edit. That is considered spam. Please be aware of that, and again reconsider the linkaddition. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up because I have been basing myself on the Canadian Music Centre example when I started adding my contributions, thinking that was the proper way to go. Again, I want to work in Wikipedia's spirit, not against it, but you'll have to agree with me that it's not always easy to understand what is acceptable and what isn't. I also understand the spam problem, I hate spam and that's certainly not what I'm trying to do here.

At the risk of repeating myself, in my contributions I try to only include links that are informational and useful. If some of them appear to you to be COI then frankly I don't have a problem removing them, I just need to understand if it's more important for a link to be useful (for your information, electrocd.com doesn't just sell CDs, it's also an important informational resource on electroacoustic music, often used by music teachers and journalists), or if what's more important is that it shows no appearance of COI whatsoever. I hope you understand that the answer to that question isn't self-evident. From now on I will use the "stub" model (like Philippe Le Goff) but excluding any link to electrocd.com. Thanks for your time and assistance. Electrocdwiki 21:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chem Stubs - 'Stub of the day'

Dirk

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

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

I think it would be more useful to make lists of related stubs, rather than list them singly. On eproblem is that much of the information is not available on the web, and so editors have to go to textbooks or even original sources. One visit to the library can improve a good number of stubs, if the ditor knows they're out there! Physchim62 (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The biggest problem is the articles that carry the {{importance}}. These really need some work since they keep on coming up for AFD's, prods, or other things which are not helpfull. I am really feeling like retagging them into {{chemical-importance}} and put them in our own category (which would not be a good solution, but I have had enough of the discussion 'they have been tagged for importance long enough, lets delete/merge them'). They need work, but I don't want to be forced to work on them because someone decides that they should go up for deletion (I am working here as a volunteer, leave those articles alone until a person who knows the subject does the job). Stubs are fine, those are not a big problem, they will grow in time, just as many other stubs. No need to hurry things, except when deletionists or mergists start 'working' on them. But a stub-of-the-week would be nice, though I think it would not really help. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and created the template and categories. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I suppose someone out there would be able to write a small program to select a stub randomly from the chemistry stubs each day. I like the 'stub of the day' idea as it has a very low commitment threshold, people can dip in and out as they see fit, and more importantly if the article appeals to them. Some articles I know I'm not too keen to write things for. I then have to wait a whole month before seeing a new prompt (I know I can search for stubs myself, but that's not the really the point I'm making). The trick is once a person bites the bait they are likely to continue to adds material to the article for sometime! Anyway luck with the re-tagging thing!!! -- Quantockgoblin 19:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, you can even think about Qxz's banner (see header of this talkpage) to point people to the stub of the day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hey that's great idea!

Also thinking about it, the 'stub of the day' could have general application as a box on a user page, i.e. if you could enter a term into a "category selection field" to select the category you are interested in i.e. "chemistry stubs" or "films of the 50's stubs" (<-- if that even exists!) and so on! People could have a custom box on their user page if they want. The only limit I would impose/suggest, is not to make the stub update on simple fresh. It would loose its impact. That is have the same stub for the day. I guess this could be done by fixing the random number which selects the stub for the day (i.e. generated a midnight, and fixed for 24 hours). <-- I hope that made sense!

... and on another point, just to get you curious .... say Hello to Nancy for me ... she's an old Lab-buddy of mine from my/her Bristol days, she might guess who I am from my interest in stable carbenes!!!! -- Quantockgoblin 19:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Heh, ever since the first edit I noticed of you I thought you were (or are) in the group of Roger Alder. So that part is true. Curious how wikipedia brings people together ...

I don't know if the mediawiki-software has a trick for that. It does not even have to be the same article for a whole day, it can also be just a random article from a category behind a click. No clue about that. You could try and dump it in the wikiproject and see what they say. Hope this helps, have a nice evening! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Dirk - please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Bot_requests#.22Stub_of_the_Day.22

These guys seem to be working on the 'stub of the day' bot. I think they want a list of categories for it to search. I don't want to waste there time ... what do you think a the best categories to include? [[Category:Chemistry_articles_with_topics_of_unclear_importance_from_June_2006]] and the stubs mentioned on [[Category:Chem-stubs]] - I'm not sure if we should be more slective to start with? Thanks, and yes, I'm an ex-Alder Boy, finished Ph.D 1999 - stable carbene article based on my Ph.D introduction (little out of date now!) -- Quantockgoblin 07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I know user:Betacommand, I chat with him on the spam IRC channel (we are both bot-programmers, though I do not have a bot-account on wikipedia, and my bot would have another task). I should still poke him about tagging chemicals talkpages. So it is a nice thing that it is possible. I think a good place to start is the importance catagories, though all of these articles may be tagged as stub as well. But these in importance need our first attention. But I guess a couple more people discussing this would be good. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As suggested, I've posted a message relating to the above on the Chem-project page. -- Quantockgoblin 09:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] www.captcha.biz - external link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerning the other 1 account created:

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

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

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

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

Here is one example:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

they found no such solution especially not on wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"My encyclopedia which only my aparatchiks can edit."

Wikipedia the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit ?

You must be joking.

If policies are needed to run an encyclopedia -

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

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

That's it and I am done.

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

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

Beetstra

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are giving your own answers. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. If you read the notes below (I will cite them for you): "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it, you know that others will mercilessly edit things you add. And you say you have read the policies, so you know that:

• advertising is not welcome here (WP:EL),
• wikipedia is not a linkfarm (WP:NOT),
• multiple additions of links only are considered spam (WP:SPAM)
• one has to take care with a conflict of interest (WP:COI),
• we have the right to ignore all rules to make this place a better place, (WP:IAR),
• we try to keep a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV),
• material should be attributed to reliable sources (WP:CITE, WP:ATT, WP:RS)
• we respect each other and don't attack people (WP:NPA),
• we have a manual of style (WP:MOS),
• sockpuppets are not allowed (WP:SOCK),
• that people are doing things wrong does not allow others to do the same (WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS)

Do I need to interpret more guidelines and policies for you? Oh yes, of course we have policies and guidelines, because we are trying to write an encyclopedia, and we all have to follow some policies and guidelines to end up in something that might in the end be similar in value to an Encyclopaedia Brittanica i.s.o the yellow pages, a dictionary, or a novel. I gave you a welcoming message and a friendly warning before you started your diatribe against me, and you know that your link and your page have been deleted by several other people (some of them with thousands of edits). I am sure these and the other thousands and thousands of wikipedians are all just against only you. You say you have read some of the other posts on my talkpage, you can see better examples than your reaction (as I say in my talkheader, "I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header"; you already got more than that). Your reaction only shows me that you are only here to advertise your site, which is exactly why it got blacklisted (blacklisting actually means that a human being looks at the page, sees that it does not comply with WP:EL, that it gets added over and over, and hence puts it on a blacklist; if you would have taken the time to discuss the link on the talkpage of the page, again see WP:EL, then it might not have come this far). You say that certain information is not available in the wikipedia, then read the guidelines and policies, become a wikipedian, and add content according to these guidelines and policies. When you would have taken a bit friendlier approach, you might even have succeeded in that.

I hope this explains, and I hope you have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Chemical-importance

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

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

[edit] External links

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

Neilrobertpaton 10:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

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

[edit] Nyboma link

Hallo

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

Groeten Ronald

Hallo Dirk

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

Groeten Ronald Zee—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yospan (talk • contribs).

I will answer in English, since this is the English wikipedia. The links you were adding do not comply with wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When adding external links or references, they should be used to attribute the information, not to tunnel people away from the wikipedia. Links to forums are mostly not reliable sources, and in this case, you seem to have a conflict of interest. Instead of adding the external links, consider adding the information to the pages, and you are more than welcome!

I will leave you a welcome-message shortly with some policies and guidelines. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Data compression

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

That may indeed be a great plan! I indeed removed the link since I suspected you had a conflict of interest, and I saw that one of the pages already had a large linkfarm. But incorporating the info is completely in wikipedias state of mind, great! I will leave you a welcome message shortly for some guidelines and policies, and I hope you have a great time here on wikipedia. Happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it good for you now? Sorry for my english. Rlwpx 12:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes. Could use some wikification still (transform table to wikitable, some colours), and some explanation and some references (see WP:CITE, WP:RS). Don't worry about spelling, I am sure others will correct that. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but Wikitables are not useful for me. I have added the link in the reference (don't hurt me! ;) and some colors to make the reading easier. If something is wrong, please change it. Bye from France. Rlwpx 12:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, we'll see what others do with the data now. You can use own material as a reference, but don't overdo it. If other references to the same or similar material comes up, others will add/change/whatever. Hope this explains, thanks for your friendly reaction. Hope to see you around, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links section in "Regression analysis"

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

I just hope that there is no regression in the contributions of user: 80.201.212.87. Have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nyboma - Franco

Hi Dirk

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

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

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

Hi Ronald. Thanks for the question. Links to forums are almost always not reliable, which simply means that you can not use the link to attribute information. It is of course possible to write about the subject on wikipedia, using the text from the forum, but one will have to attribute the information to the original sources (people who post on the forum have heard/read the information somewhere, and that source is already a better source than the forum). And some information may not need attribution. Or, when the information in not controversial, it may not need attribution. When the information can not be attributed, the information would not be reliable, and may very well be untrue.

Pictures are another question. In the toolbox (bottom box on the leftmost column of the screen) there is a link 'upload file', if you click that, you get to a screen where you can select a file and upload it to the wikipedia. You can then insert it in the document. A tutorial can be found in WP:PIC.

I hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Egyptian gods

Need these links in List of Egyptian gods.

• Makara's List of Egyptian Gods from A to H. angelfire.com/me3.
• Makara's List of Egyptian Gods from I to Z. angelfire.com/me3.
• Makara's List of Egyptian Goddesses. angelfire.com/me3.

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

Angelfire is a forum, which are named in WP:EL, it is on the revert list of shadowbot for a reason. Simple alternative, see the links on http://www.angelfire.com/me3/egyptgoddess/Links.html, I am sure there are links there that are good sources for the information (as is disclaimed on the pages you want to insert). It might even be possible to create reliable references for each of the seperate gods. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why did you remove my links?

Instead of busying yourself at removing "Commercial Links" and thereby discrediting the actual authors, you might do something good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 217.132.36.196 (talk • contribs).

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

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

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

[edit] Why didn't you remove my links?

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

That's right! I checked through all 22795 chemistry pages myself, and found spam on 21323 of them. In addition, 3214 of them cite the dangers of higher oxides of the actinides. Can you clean these up? :) (Thanks for all your great work, Walkerma 13:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC))

I'll let shadowbot digest it all .. and I am now really wondering, are there any clean chemistry pages in wikipedia? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, what my message really said was - step back, relax, and smile! I think the chemistry pages are actually in pretty good shape - partly due to your efforts. Your work has really made a difference! But you do need a break some time! Thanks, Walkerma 14:33, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I know. And I am actually waiting until they fix an error in AWB to do a run on those 4500 chemicals. As you may have noticed I have not been too active in chemistry lately. I have found the fun of bot-programming. But I have a long weekend ahead (4 days out of the lab). I will take some time to relax. See you all around, have a good weekend! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

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

Dear Dirk,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Save OU Sports—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Save OU Sports (talk • contribs).

Thank you for your explanation. I saw you are a new editor, welcome to the wikipedia! As you may understand, it is allowed for everybody to edit everything, but still we have some rules, which are linked from the welcome message I put on your talkpage.

Although I fully understand your cause, wikipedia is not a soapbox. It may be that the pages as they stand are not conform the current status, but in that case I would suggest to describe clearly the changes you propose on the talkpage of the pages. An editor which is not involved can then perform the edits on the pages (as you have a conflict of interest, and it is probably difficult for you to keep a neutral point of view).

I hope this explains, happy editing, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Save OU Sports

Dear Dirk, Thank you for your explanation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you, Save OU Sports—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Save OU Sports (talk • contribs).

First, could you please sign your posts (you can do that easily by typing for tildes ("~~~~") before you save), and second, could you please use the edit button next to a header if you want to reply to the same section, that keeps the information nicely together. Thank you!

I am sorry, you are clearly trying to push your point of view, you have a conflict of interest, and the link you are adding does not comply with WP:EL, WP:V, and the way/reason of adding can be considered WP:SPAM. As I explained, wikipedia is not a soapbox. That other, similar pieces of text exist on the wikipedia does not mean that you can also add that (it might even be that those other pieces should be discussed and maybe removed). As I explained, I would suggest to discuss the edits on the talkpage (i.e. ask for approval, and wait until there are reactions, and then ask an uninvolved editor to make the edits), if that approval is there, removal from the spam blacklist can be considered. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Save OU Sports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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