User talk:SiobhanHansa/Archive2
This is an archive. Please do NOT leave messages here, leave them on my talk page.
January 2008 onward
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 00:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 6 | 4 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
LULU links
[edit]Dear SiobhanHansa.
You deleted the giannivenice link. Yet, there is extensive new information on medical references published on Giannis homepage. These new medical references of 2008 can be checked by everyone. Yes, in addition, the self-published book is mentioned, too. I think it's only fair, since Giannivenice's is a real author of advice books. I, thus, indeed challenge the removal of his lulu links. Lulu is a real editor!! Everyone can check these books. Often, there are extensive previews. LULU indeed is transparent! He who wants to know, can inform himself.
Referencing, doesn't mean peer review! Referencing means, that the source is open and accessible. That is the fact with lulu books. Why is a lulu book different from a random house book. In my opinion, there is none. So, please, don't delete lulu links just. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianna 61 (talk • contribs) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Are you back?
[edit]Hi, I am wondering if you are back and editing on Wikipedia. I think I need your assistance. Kathjim (talk) 20:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I just got your message about the Turkish names list; your intuition is right, the latter document (2006 Yılında Doğan ve En Çok Kullanılan İlk 5 Erkek ve Kadın Adı) translates as "Top 5 most used mens' and womens' names for those born in 2006", and the former (2000-2005 Yılları Arasında Doğan Ve Bu Yıllarda En Çok Kullanılan İlk 5 Erkek ve Kadın Ad) translates to "Top 5 most-used mens' and womens' names from 2000 to 2005". Glad to help, sorry if it's too late to be of any use. Xaphoo (talk) 08:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
NEW street children article
[edit]Hi, You seem to be taking an interest in the street children article. Me too, but I am not getting any feedback on my notes (on its talk page) and as a new contributor to Wikipedia I need some help, please. I initially began to try to repair the article but have since abandoned that and have begun to re-write the article from scratch. I still have several sections to go but would very much appreciate some comments on what I have done so far. The proposed new article is on my talk page if you have a few minutes to spare. Any comments and suggestions will be appreciated. Thanks. Almudo (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)Almudo
Why is it spam?
[edit]I see you have removed the link I added, saying it's spam, but I'm not sure I understand why. The link is relevant to the content and elaborates further on some of the topics discussed. Maybe i'm not understanding the way this works, any insight would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks 99.235.37.120 (talk) 15:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
- Responded at User talk:99.235.37.120. -- SiobhanHansa 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Why Additional Companies Cannot be added to topics?
[edit]Is it against the rules to add relevant companies? I am confused as to why it would be per say incorrect to add a coffee company to a coffee company page. It is Wikipedia's position that only those who have no interest in a topic can add content? For instance, I attended UNCC. Does this mean I cannot write anything on the UNCC page.
JLew71 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.16.1 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
- It is "against the rules", not to mention damaging to our encyclopedic mission, to use Wikipedia to promote a company, idea or platform. If all that had been done was the addition of a wikilink to a coffee company on a coffee company list I would not have left you the message I did. The addition of the wikilink to the coffee company article was left, since that wasn't inappropriate given the existence and state of the list. However, as well as that link you entered information, including blatant promotion of webfullcircle.com and its clients, that was in no way encyclopedic into several articles. Much of the text read like marketing blurb. Such editing compromises our ability to produce a good encyclopedia and is not welcome. As the editing with a conflict of interest guidelines make clear, it is not our position that only non-connected users can edit an article, however that does not mean that promotion is acceptable. If you are knowledgeable about a subject and can edit it within the spirit of a neutral encyclopedia, or you are updating facts that are within the spirit of our content guidelines, your input is welcome and encouraged. -- SiobhanHansa 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't you start deleting all things that mention companies, Many companies make and sell Pizza, start deleting Pizza hut, domino's, Papa John's and whatever else you can find that mentions a specific company that makes something. I know we should stay Neutral, but it's ok to state the facts. Titanic was regarded as a very good movie by a lot of people, so if we put that in the article does that mean we are biased, they are not adding thier personal feelings to it. The snare (talk) If you would be a little bit more specific as to why it read like marketing blurb, what would and wouldn't be acceptable? 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sibonna. I came here as to your comments on the nail polish page, you say it's unencyclopedia. I think it would just give a little more detail as to the kinds there and what they are like. You said it would be go on too long I don't know how many brands there are, maybe hundreds, but I just thought it would add more of a level of detail to the page, if they were described (right now it just lists some brands) At the very least what about if each brand had a link to each company? The snare (talk) 01:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good to see you around again
[edit]Says it all - hope all is ok. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Message from User:Scribeofargos
[edit]And within the scope of that knowledge is the responsibilities of others to prove in public discourse to do more than a little. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scribeofargos (talk • contribs) 23:12, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Greetings SiobhanHansa, sorry, I believe I was referencing a discussion you were having elsewhere and in rather cryptic form issuing a compliment.
Thanks and take care, Scribeofargos (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 7 | 11 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why did you deleted my picture?
[edit]Why did you deleted the picture -deepikapadu.jpg? the picture is owned by myself and i have the copyright to the pic. I REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY AVOID SUCH ACTIONS.
Deleation of Society of Vacuum Coaters
[edit]Sorry. I took my lead from American Vacuum Society Don Mattox (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not Vandalism
[edit]I wasn't f-ing vandalism, you french toast cootie queen. I go to that school, and thats what the students call the f-ing school, so STFU. GingerDemarque
- User advised against personal attacks. --House of Scandal (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Kelleninteractive.com
[edit]I gutted Association management company info that seemed to revolve around a for-profit website with a similar name, and it only took a hop, skip and a few jumps to connect it with kellen and previous discussions (and I took the long way). The article had caught my eye because it seemed similar to other (unrelated and small-game) generic-seeming articles that describe very specific companies/associations (see my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical management company. Old news to you, but I thought you'd be interested in ongoing edits by these definitely money-making associations and the PR companies that love them.
And I know from your user page that you don't want to talk about yourself, but are you really the french toast cootie queen? Flowanda | Talk 21:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
reH nay'meylIjyIn Dujablu'jaj
[edit]
Begrudging (hehe) thanks for undoing my edit to Toast. I have been mostly inactive in Wikipedia for the past year and didn't realize the standards regarding fair use of photos had become so demanding. Still, I will miss seeing that Klingon with this glass raised (sniff sniff). Ah, for the good old days! --House of Scandal (talk) 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Microfinance
[edit]Hi Siobhan. Thanks for your vote of support last November on changes to the microfinance article. Your support helped pull it through, as it was a big change and not immediately accepted by other administrators. I am working on microfinance in India now and hope to create an entry later this year on the vast and fascinating Indian self-help group movement. Best regards.Brett epic (talk) 06:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Grief
[edit]Thank you for your help in cleaning up the external links at Grief. The DMOZ solution is perfect. I've added a NoMoreLinks template (mostly because it explains about DMOZ and I hope that will help keep the linkfarm to a reasonable size. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
I am more then happy to work on the body language page. But in doing so I would like to reference my website and book as a reference. Please get back to me on this subject. I also have plenty of photos to help with explaining postures and cues. Thanks. Christopherphilip (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Working on the Body Langage Page
[edit]I am more then happy to work on the body language page. But in doing so I would like to reference my website and book as a reference. Please get back to me on this subject. I also have plenty of photos to help with explaining postures and cues. Thanks. Christopherphilip (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 8 | 18 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 9 | 25 February 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Body Language Page
[edit]Thanks so much for your explanation! That does make a lot of sense and I am learning the ins and outs of editing and also Wikipedia in general. I'll continue to add to the page and you are welcome to fix it if you see fit. I just hope it doesn't get nixed as a whole. I have over 80 resources used in my e-book from primary sources and have done research myself at the University of Guelph, thus the book does have legs! I am more then glad to offer you a copy of the book, perhaps to satiate your curiosity as it pertains to my qualifications as an author. In the meantime, I will refrain from adding myself as a credible source and try to quote some sources that I have used in my main book instead of myself. However, at some point, my goal would be to include the book as a source as well. I can look into photo additions, perhaps without a watermark if this would suite you better. Thanks! Christopherphilip (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 10 | 3 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Not Intended as Spam
[edit]I have a link that apparently was removed as spam - however, it is intended as a resource on canon law. While it is under development, it is not on wikipedia, but on another wikifarm. However, it is a resource for the page it was linked: Canon Law - to canonlaw.wikispot.org.
Amycsj (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)amycsj
Apologies
[edit]Your message to a producers on our Social Innovation Conversations [1] podcast channel made its way to me. We did indeed have a policy for our editors to post links on Wikipedia, as we thought this was a proper use of the site. We understand that this is contrary to your policies, and I have corrected the workflow here such that our editors and producers will instead suggest links to Wikipedia editors (via "talk") rather than post them directly. Thanks for the clarification and for your help with the high quality of Wikipedia content. Please let me know if you get any more inappropriate postings from The Conversations Network.
Doug Kaye, Executive Director The Conversations Network [2] A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Dkaye (talk) 06:56, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Shaftesbury page
[edit]Thank you for your comments on the Shaftesbury page, nice to see yet more editors agree! The user has just changed the page again and as such I have put the 3RR template warning on their (ip address since they dont have an account) page. I was wondering if you can give me any help since they seem not to care for the rules of wikipidia or discussing with the rest of us. --Curuxz (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks your help is greatly appreciated!!!! Its annoying because I wanted to use shaftesburytown as a reference for vastly expanding the page, I had already agreed with the editor that put the town hall images that he was happy for images from the town website to replace it (since they are of higher quality) but now I am concerned that it will be seen as an attempt to simply tie up the page further with my favored edit. I will take head of your advice to give other editors the chance to change the page before I as the last thing I want to do is cross the 3RR line my self! Regards --Curuxz (talk) 07:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
They seem to have a new IP address! I have no idea how to stop them doing this, they seem determined to keep posting on the page and ignoring consensus :( --Curuxz (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- Ive fully protected it for 3 days, if it continues after that, make a request @ MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist.--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
RFA
[edit]Has anyone talked to you about getting sysopped? You've demonstrated you'd be excellent at it. If you're interested, I would be honored to go ahead and nominate you.--Hu12 (talk) 16:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Adminship?
[edit]The fact that you don't appear to already be an administrator surprises me! Do you want a nomination? GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind, looks like someone already offered to nominate you. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello, can you help me with the Microfinance entry? I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to understand how to contribute. I tried to add external links, but they were blacklisted. Can you explain why? The links I was trying to add were for the Microfinance Gateway and for cgap.org. Can you explain what the problem is? I'm wondering if there's something that's gone on that's blocking these sites? Would love to understand what the issue is. Many thanks for your help. Best, Jeanette —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1431jt (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- Responded on User talk:1431jt. -- SiobhanHansa 08:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Plaxall - Wikipedia page
[edit]I would like Plaxall linked with other pages within wikipedia because of the age/innovations the company has contributed to the industry. You have been removing all information I try and incorporate with other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Third party references that verify the lefitimacy of claims are added. Can you remove the additional flags now? Can you now add in references to the company to related topics such as thermoforming? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cschiffner (talk • contribs) 22:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Internet Security and MyWOT
[edit]Dear SiobhanHansa,
I would like to ask your advice on how to get the MyWOT internal link back on the Internet Security page. I believe that it is relevant because the article identifies types of malicious online threats,and Web of Trust is applicable as a possible solution. It doesn't work like the anti-virus software Avast or AVG, which have their links on the page, rather it is a reputation rating system that allows users to see what type of site it is before they continue on. Web of Trust identifies, through user ratings and hundreds of published sources, sites that contain spyware, adware, spam, viruses, browser exploits, unreliable online shops, phishing and other Internet scams--all germane to the subject of internet security.
The WOT: Web of Trust wiki also includes information about dangerous categories of sites based on the analysis of 17 million websites, which I think complements the content of the Internet Security entry.
Thank you for your consideration, Debsalmi (talk) 07:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
SBL
[edit][3] feel free to slap a {{Declined}} on it if you like. --Hu12 (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Informal Non-Profit Organizations
[edit]Thank you for your comment on Non-Profit Organizations. I have another question: Is it possible to create a page addressing Informal Non-Profit Organizations? They are similarly set up, but do not require Tax-Exempt Status, gathering community members in a common goal for humanitarian purposes. As far as lists go, I have seen, on Wikipedia, lists detailing people and organizations. Could you please address what types of lists are permissible to create? Thank you so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyagray9 (talk • contribs)
Thank you, again, for the response. I truly appreciate it. I have another question about the possibility of my site, L'Epee De Dieu (Http://epeededieu.blogspot.com/), for inclusion on the List of Exorcists page. If you review my site, you will realize it's not being used as a blog, but as a Compilation of Exorcists in progress of providing contact information for each. I would appreciate it deeply if you would consider it, and include it on the page in a manner you feel might be appropriate. I was in Rome for a week trying to find an exorcist, and if people who are hurting can find help through Wikipedia simply through an informative link, it would mean so much for those who need to find help, both through the Vatican and other Religious Organizations. Please review it carefully. I believe it would do a lot of good, and contribute greatly to the page itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reyagray9 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Article importance scale for WikiProject Equine
[edit]Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Links on warnings
[edit]Sorry about that, i did not knew that blog link are not allowed, i di dnot kenw so i added again. If u take it out then i will not add again. I wanted to include the picture and some data there, The data on my blog is a erasearch frm one of the NGO working on it in nepal. I think that data can be shared at wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajansan (talk • contribs) 10:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about that, jumped to a conclusion. Certainly no objection here to sss. links. Orpheus (talk) 10:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Never mind the revert - did it myself. Orpheus (talk) 10:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 11 | 13 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 12 | 17 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses
[edit]
An editor has nominated List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Acceptable references
[edit]When is a company or organization's official website acceptable as a reference in an article about the the company or organization? Can it be one of several? There are many articles in Wikipedia which use, as their sole reference, a corporate or organization website. Thanks for your help on this. Leoniana (talk) 04:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 13 | 24 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
BookCrossing Edits
[edit]Thanks for tackling that page, it needed help. Just a couple of questions about this change. I think removing the mention of BookObsessed leaves the state of relays unclear. I think the whole section should probably go then because bookrelay.com has been gone for a year or more. Also RABCKs -- there is one specific site who serves that purpose. I agree it doesn't need to be linked, but I think changing it to more than one is incorrect. Thoughts? TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Street Children article
[edit]Greetings, I have been trying to contact anyone interested in this article with regard to a better version. I've not had much success so far and hope you will reply. almudo (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
WOT: Web of Trust images
[edit]Hi. Can you please check the copyright on the MyWOT images at this link? I am an employee of the company and have permission to use them. I changed the summary which now states that the images can be freely used. Perhaps it would be better to use Creative Commons or Attribution so that people will know they can be freely used? Sorry to be so dense about this; you can probably tell I am a bit confused. Thanks for your assistance. Debsalmi (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
WOT: Web of Trust images
[edit]Hello again. I changed the copyright info for the logo to non-free fair use (also notified EhJJ). I will work on the others as you suggested. Thank you for looking out for us. Debsalmi (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I'm writing to you since you had some interest a few months back on the women leaders. There has been a campaign to deem them superfluous and to blank them off the screen. Then, the parties involved declared a "consensus." (I restored the deleted material.) Thought you'd be interested, Cheers, Dogru144 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 14 | 31 March 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
WOT: Web of Trust images
[edit]Dear Siobhan, D-day (4.4) for WOT images is fast approaching, and I am getting nervous that they will be removed. I got the OK about the WOT logo from another monitor, and I emailed Wikimedia Foundation's permissions as you suggested. I haven't heard back from them yet, so I am unable to post the ticket number to protect the images from removal. The notice is still on the WOT logo as well, and I don't know how to get rid of it. Can I please impose on you again to advise me? Thank you, Debsalmi (talk) 06:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 7th and 14th, 2008.
[edit]Sorry, it seems that the bot quit before completing its run last week. Here is the last two weeks' worth of Signpost. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 15 | 7 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 16 | 14 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
WOT: Web of Trust New images
[edit]Dear Siobhan, I have uploaded new images for the WOT page. The copyright issue is still difficult for me, but I think I got them right this time. I did as you instructed earlier and sent off for permission from the Wikimedia Foundation's "permissions." If you have a moment, could you please pop over to the WOT page and see if I did it right? I am still waiting for the older issues to be resolved. Also, now I have loads of unused images in My Contributions. How can I go about deleting those or is it easier to just let them sit there? Thank you for you help. Best regards, Debsalmi (talk) 10:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 17 | 21 April 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not understand why this is spam. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 18 | 2 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 19 | 9 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
NPOV Dispute, Microfinance
[edit]Hi Siobhan: Cherlin posted a wiki-notice disputing NPOV for the microfinance article (though they seem to only have meant one section of it) nearly two weeks ago. I responded immediately with several new citations and generally tightened up the section, responding on her talk page and also on the microfinance talk page here. I also asked her to remove the NPOV banner. She has not answered.
The NPOV banner states it can't be removed until the disputing parties are all satisfied. What do you do when the peson who posted it isn't responding? Is it just left there indefinitely, even though all reasonable measures have been taken to address the issues?Brett epic (talk) 07:41, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Siobhan. Any suggestions on how to get the ball rolling on turning microfinance into a Good Article?Brett epic (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 20 | 12 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 21 | 19 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 22 | 26 May 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 2, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 23 | 2 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:55, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 9, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 24 | 9 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 23 and 26, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 25 | 23 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 26 | 26 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for June 30, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 27 | 30 June 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 04:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 7, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 28 | 7 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:32, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Conclusion of revelations
[edit]Good fix on BA38. I have concluded the word "reveal" is considerably over-used on Wikipedia. Gets even worse on fiction-related articles. Fletcher (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- The usage of 'reveal' does not even begin to compare to the usage of 'however' in this encyclopaedia. :) 216.69.219.3 (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
The
[edit]Links for the content in question is [4] [5] I don't know if the "blacklist" can help or not. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 19:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Redirect
[edit]Nice spot, thanks for fixing my mistake. :) KTC (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for spotting and fixing my error! -- SiobhanHansa 12:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
- Not a problem (was only a very small error anyway)! I have an interest in that article, so I tend to check changes regardless! Bungle (talk • contribs) 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
External Link in Au Pair page
[edit]Hello Siobhan Hansa.
My name is Sotir Rangelov and I do not have an account in Wikipedia.org but I contributed the external link section with the first external link to the Au Pair page yesterday. Au Pair program is more and more popular in USA, UK and EU countries. The website http://www.aupair-options.com is an online database for Host Families and Au Pairs / Nannies. The link I added is to the FAQ section where there is valuable information about the Au Pair program in over 10 countries. I think this information will be of use for the readers of Wikipedia.org . If I added this link to unappropriate article, please advise me where I can add it. In my opinion it is the Au Pair aricle.
Thank you in advance for your opinion on this issue.
Sotir
80.80.147.12 (talk) 06:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 28, August 9, 11 and 18, 2008.
[edit]Sorry I haven't been sending this over the past few weeks. Ralbot (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 31 | 28 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 32 | 9 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 33 | 11 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 34 | 18 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Help wanted | ||
| WikiWorld: "Cashew" | Dispatches: Choosing Today's Featured Article | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Short sale (real estate) links
[edit]I've been removing an external link at Short sale (real estate) for a few weeks after I found nothing notable -- it's about three months old, anonymous and with about 26 Google hits -- but I'm getting tired of posting warnings at multiple IPs just to have the site added again. If this is indeed a nn site, I don't mind going through the warnings, but does the process apply to blocking sites or just spammers? Flowanda | Talk 01:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
- Very helpful info...and thanks for your edits as well. I thought I was missing something. Flowanda | Talk 04:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Swordsmanship edit
[edit]Point. I have not used Amberger while editing the article. I can't be sure if other editors have used Amebrger. What if the book appeared under "Further Reading" rather than under "References"? I do feel that the book is a useful source for readers to pursue if interested (and that several other useful ones could be added). Pirate Dan (talk) 19:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Admin status
[edit]You don't appear to have replied to the above two offers to nominate you for RFA> any reason why not? I would also be happy to nominate. --BozMo talk 13:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Well it would save you having to ask for help to semiprotect a page as you just did. Perhaps you should apply the first time you have to wait more than five minutes for an admin to do something for you. --BozMo talk 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Oh goody - that is a page I will watchlist now :) (& it will certainly take me longer than 5 minutes to do anything for you :)). --Herby talk thyme 14:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- :) But it all gets done in the end! And then it's you guys that get any flack for being too trigger happy/taking too long/using the wrong wording/upsetting a spammer/using admin powers in disputes you're involved in and all those other things admins are routinely accused of. While I sit back and act all innocent. -- SiobhanHansa 14:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- There is of course, no rush for a candidacy, so in the mean time, I have granted you Rollback, as funnily enough, that's actually the reason I came to your talk page, having seen your diligence in removing spam/vandalism. Just remember that it is for bad faith edits only, never good-faith-albeit-misguided edits, other than that, it's no grander than obtaining Twinkle, it just lets you revert blatant vandalism that much quicker, with just one click instead of two or three. Happy editing! WilliamH (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- You can go here to practise using it :) WilliamH (talk) 15:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. The practice page is probably less confusing than my attempts to practice here :) -- SiobhanHansa 16:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Another opinion?
[edit]On this? Seems a bit advertorial to me but I've done my share of mistakes today :) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- These people who watch other people's talk pages ....;) OK & thanks - such pages are sooo easy to find if you know where to look :)
- As to mistakes - I'd never actually admit to anything on wiki 'cos someone else might see it. However yesterday's logs would show slight errors on my part! The help is appreciated, cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- Also notability might be questionable or am I getting it wrong? Enjoy the weekend. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
- That will be me being grumpy then :) Thanks anyway. I will stop in the end but these have been producing rather a lot of links that look a little COI maybe (you don't know what you are missing on Meta!). Won't be around much for a bit so no answers required for now - just don't like the thought that no one is aware of things. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Survivorship A to Z links
[edit]You're correct that the links I added are for a nonprofit I do contract work for; however, the Wikipedia guidelines you mention also state, "If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it." I think those links are to a relevant and informative site, and as a nonprofit, it has no commercial interests (i.e., it doesn't profit from the addition of these links). Do you agree, or do you think it would be best to start discussion on the relevant talk pages and leave it up to the community? Prestonmarkstone (talk) 06:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Clitoris Video
[edit]I'm not sure why you characterized the clitoris video as spam - it's a doctor hosted video that explains in effective detail what the clitoris is and how to find it. The very fact that it is a video medium differentiates it significantly from the written material which precedes it. jrsvc@hotmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.23.12 (talk) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Re: WOT: Web of Trust free-software project tag
[edit]I just didn't notice the clarification of "free (as in freedom) software" at the top of the project page. Fixed. --Geniac (talk) 17:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable web-site
[edit]Can you please explain what does it mean? The external links I left are clearly relevant to the articles, I personally missed such types of the links when I read those articles and articles similar to them, so I though the articles would clearly benefit from having those kind of links? Could you please provide some comments on it? Dryuap (talk) 10:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Bourn Hall Clinic
[edit]Please explain why you have undone my edits to the Bourn Hall Clinic page. Yes, I am their PR consultant, but the information added was all factually correct, and I did not remove any of the existing material which you have left. The information added came from Bourn Hall Clinic itself, as they are surely best positioned to know up-to-date facts about the staff and activities at the clinic.
Would you prefer an 'objective' source to add this material? Or someone from the clinic? Please let me know exactly what you object to, as your blanket 'undo' approach seems a little heavy handed.
Thanks.
Holdsworthassociates (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
- Any one of hundreds of Wikipedia editors would have removed the material since it violates WP:COI. Please do not add text for a company for whom you do PR work. If you wish you can submit material for consideration on the talk page of the article. --BozMo talk 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
China Care Foundation
[edit]Thank you for helping me out with the China Care Foundation page. This is my first Wikipedia page, and I am trying to make it nice. I noticed that they didn't have a page, and thought I'd give it a try. I am not an expert, however, so I appreciate the help. Also, another member tried to make an edit to the page today, and it was rejected. She contacted me to see what had happened. Do you have any information about what may have happened? She said that it reverted back to my old page. Since I'm a new member, I was not sure what to tell her. How can she edit it without that happening? Thank you for all of your help and guidance. I really appreciate your changes, as they really made the page sound more informational. By the way, do you have any help on how I can upload a China Care logo for the page? I had uploaded one, but it said that I didn't have the rights to do so. Edswallow (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Edswallow
Hey there! Thanks for your reply. I have posted the China Care Foundation logo on my personal page(I just created another page for this purpose): [6]. If the image isn't good enough, I could always email it to you, as well. I told my friend to contact you about the edits she made. You're a true help! Thanks! (By the way, you can call me Erica) :-) Edswallow (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)Edswallow
Re: Re:NionSports/Nion Systems
[edit]I have removed the link from the Kansas City Metropolitan Area article per your advice. I'll do some more reading on your suggested topics. Thanks again for your help. Nallen20 (talk) 04:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info on the Spamming (especially, "How not to be a spammer"). I've used Wikipedia for a long time and think it is a great source of information. I am new to contributing content. This seems to reflect my position quite well, "A new editor who owns a business may see that there are articles about other businesses on Wikipedia, and conclude that it would be appropriate to create his own such article. A Web site operator may see many places in Wikipedia where his or her site would be relevant, and quickly add several dozen links to it." So I'll try to be more careful about what I post. I also added to the Kansas City Metropolitan Area article, under section "8.2 Headquarters". Can you let me know if that should be changed /removed? Thanks! Nallen20 (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello
[edit]are u the same Siobhan that was in Rota, Spain?--Sallicio 02:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I knew a Siobhan and I don't really remember her last name but that sounded familiar. Sorry to bother you! --Sallicio 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Not intended as promotion
[edit]Hi I see you have removed the links I added this morning, saying that they are revert promotion, but I'm not sure I understand why. I am a student doing research on the private equity industry and while doing research on secondary transactions I was introduced to the AltAssets website, you can check the refernces for secondaries and see the links that have been there. The site was very useful and I wanted to share the links that I found helpful. The links were all relevant to private equity and elaborated further on the definitions listed on wikipedia. An explanation would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CBooch10 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps you should follow your own counsel. You deleted my edit of the Loving Female Authority entry with its references on the pretext of Wikipedia rules that disallow blog cites. However, of the two references allowed to be included, one is a Google search that turned up blog results and the other is a website that functions like a blog. When I included an edit without blog cites, that was deleted, too. Fair is fair, and if you are going to err, you should err on the side of a balanced report. Otherwise, the entire article should be scrapped.
Sir Scalpel —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Scalpel (talk • contribs) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
None of the websites I cited were my own. I am not Katherine West. I am not whoever posts as tallchisub, etc. The websites I cited differ from the ones allowed only in that they are daily or weekly chronicles as opposed to a website with serial articles. The individuals cited, such as Elise Sutton, if that is her real name, have no greater specialization, or no greater basis for their opinion, other than their self-published ideas.
The article on LFA describes a lifestyle, something that is completely subjective. The article describes different takes on that lifestyle and different takes on the particular sexual practices within that lifestyle. What, specifically, is the basis for accepting some of those and rejecting others? In what sense are the websites Around Her Finger, Taken in Hand, She Makes the Rules, controlling male masturbation, any more reliable and high quality than the others I have reference? I expect the editors at Wiki to be neutral, objective, consistent, and fair. Is that too much? Sir Scalpel (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC) Sir Scalpel, 1516 EDST, Aug. 22, 2008
Retrieved from "http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User_talk:Sir_Scalpel"—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir_Scalpel (talk • contribs)
I appreciate you try to cleaning up the posts. However, I do not agree why you have removed the link. Those links are highly relevant to "Reservation", "Mayawati","Dalit", "Ambedkar" and "Kanshi ram". Content is really relevant. Otherwise, users would not be clicking on those links. I am not directing them to my personal shopping site. I am directing them to articles and blogs on the SAME topic. Please note that we have been collecting different articles on those topics. So it would be very useful for readers to checkout the corresponding topic. We are nonprofit working for oppressed "dalits", who would find these topics relevant. We are not promoting anything. We are just bringing another whole set of reviewed articles. Please point out which article is not relevant. I have NOT randomly picked a wiki topic and added my link there.
If you find those articles relevant,please add the links back. I would appreciate that.
thanks samatha Samathawiki (talk) 14:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Talk pages
[edit]Please note that new comments normally go at the bottom of the relevant section, which is why I moved yours. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- There's no need to throw around accusations about "deceptiveness" and "incivility," and there are other ways to make it clear which specific comment you're responding to besides creating confusion by posting halfway up the section -- did it not occur to you that subsequent comments could be mistaken as responding to your own? In general I find it is much less confusing when new comments are placed at the bottom. This also avoids the situation where long, out of posting order conversations begin to occur partway through discussions. Anyway, I only posted here as a courtesy to you, and have no intention of entering a long, drawn out debate. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
- Siobhan: I moved your comment, you didn't like that and moved it back, and I posted here to explain my reasoning. End of story. Making edit summaries like "I'm sorry you have difficulty with a standard Wikipedia practice" is neither productive nor civil. I see no reason to continue this discussion, do you? Exploding Boy (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Why have you deleted the content
[edit]Hi Siobhan, I am working with Mort's assistant to add some content to the relationship counselling article. Why have you deleted the content that I added. You can see that the category Popular methods has several counsellors names, Mort has over 1 million subscribers and is more of a celebrity. I amnot sure why you will want to delete what I added? ~~FertelM~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fertelm (talk • contribs) 21:16, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
why have you deleted this conetent
[edit]Hey Siobhan, I put some information about oil additive to the page and you deleted the reference link. Why is this? Also if you are not suppose to "advertise" why are companies like stream, ignite, cermet aloud to advertise their product or service? ~~mattjharrison~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattjharrison (talk • contribs) 17:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
Blacklisting
[edit]Siobhan - I just logged in for the first time in a month to find that my company's website, www.sexhealthguru.com, has been blacklisted. We have the largest library of health videos on the web (nearly 1,000), and our mission is to provide easily understood health info in a format that engages - video. I added a couple of links to the site, which I saw you deleted. Once I saw that they weren't consdered valuable, I stopped adding them. I'm not sure why our whole site has been blacklisted, but I would really appreciate it if you could un-blacklist us. I won't add any more links dirctly to edit pages - I'll just make suggestions on the talk page from now on. I would appreciate it if you could remove the blacklisting, or provide me with some idea of how to petition for the removal. Thanks, Josh Jrsvc (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Microcredit
[edit]Hi Siobhan! I dropped a reasonably carefully thought out bibliography on microcredit onto that page today. Good luck! Note that the bibliographies for microcredit and microfinance and different but there are overlaps. Adams, Graham and Von Pischke is a classic that is looked to as a key source by people working in both areas. On the other hand, a lot of people started out in microcredit in the 1970s and '80s, and moved to microfinance in the '90s and '00s. Most prominently Grameen II (as reflected in Muhammad Yunus' own writing -- the older is a microcredit book; the latter much more balanced (paralleling the changes at the bank itself). The same has happened with Joanna Ledgerwood, whose classic 'Microfinance Handbook' is really almost entirely about microcredit, but whose more recent work acknowledges both the need of poor people for microsavings, and the possibility of profitability delivering microsavings to them (those are the essential points on which the microcredit ideologues -- who remain very loud -- are in denial). There is also an important strand of work in microcredit that focuses on microenterprise. This was a key distinguishing characteristic of the movement and one of its most important contributions to development. Sadly, microenterprise is in even worse shape than microcredit!Brett epic (talk) 11:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, for digital resources -- for digitial resources on microcredit (and a good weblink for Wiki's microcredit page) the best resource is at the Microcredit Summit Campaign [7] or start from www.microcreditsummit.org. For the bigger microfinance picture the best resource might be CGAP's Focus Notes [8] on various topics. CGAP also hosts the Microfinance Gateway -- by far the best resource on microfinance on the internet (with over 7,000 published documents), but unfortunately blacklisted by Wikipedia (if you know how to change that, please do!)Brett epic (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Blacklisting, Pt. 2
[edit]Siobhan- The linking activiy that you refer to in your last message to me was not intended as malicious or disruptive. I had never used Wikipedia before. Once I saw the notice to stop, I did... The edits that were made after the notice to stop were made by people who weren't logged in and therefore never saw the notice. Everyne in my company understands that they are not to made additional posts to wikipedia. I'm honestly not even interested in being linked to from Wikipedia at this point, I just don't want the blacklist affecting my search engine status, which is external to Wikipedia. I'd appreciate it if you would not oppose my petition to remove the blacklist - you won't see any additional posts from me or my employees, I assure you. Jrsvc (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Luciddreaming.com request for inclusion in external links for 'dream' wikipedia entry
[edit]We ask you take another look at luciddreaming.com and reconsider its inclusion into external links for the wikipedia entry 'dream'. Since its previous deletion, we've taken steps to make reference articles more authoratative, unique, and original. (http://www.luciddreaming.com/information). We consider the information contained within to be directly related to dreams and a useful additional reference resource. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.232.6 (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
- I have moved this request to the dream article talk page. and responded there. -- SiobhanHansa 07:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI: For other very recent comments about and from luciddreaming.com, see the talk pages of Sleep, of user Moonriddengirl (2 threads there), and of myself. Cheers, --Hordaland (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Stationery Images
[edit]Hi Siobhan. Stationery doesn't have a talk page so I'm contacting you here. I'm not sure I see any specific relevance to the images you added to stationery. Unless you have some investment in them (or can make a good argument/formatting/etc), I'm going to remove them, and continue to add relevant images. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thescimitar (talk • contribs) 14:39, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, discovered that stationery does in fact have a talk page. I'll look there for your response, or whatever works for you. thescimitar (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2008 (UTC)thescimitar
Seems I was wrong, checked diffs, was a different user. Mea cupla!! thescimitar (talk) 15:48, 3 September 2008 (UTC)thescimitar
Urgent care not global?
[edit]Hi Siobhan,
I saw that you tagged the urgent care article with {{globalize}}. So, how is urgent care different in other parts of the world? What's missing from the article?
Thanks, GentlemanGhost (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Questions regarding postings
[edit]Hello Siobhan, Thanks for your reply to our postings on Wikipedia. At Wellsphere, we believe strongly in Wikipedia's mission and the incredible service that you provide in maintaining the credibility of Wikipedia content. In fact, we share the goal of providing credible, objective information to those who are looking for answers on a wide variety of topics. If you take a look at our website (www.wellsphere.com), you will see that there are no advertisements. The focus of Wellsphere is to connect people with the knowledge they need. We would like to support Wikipedia in any way that we can, and would like to ask your help and guidance so that we may support Wikipedia in the manner that you tell us is the best for Wikipedia's users.
Wellsphere has assembled an unprecedented network of 1200 of the best health writers on the Internet. We have hundreds of thousands of articles from these writers who write about both common and obscure health and healthy living topics. Our health bloggers network consists of dedicated medical and healthy living experts from Stanford, Harvard, Yale and other large organizations writing for us. These writers are not paid and are purely voluntary - similar to Wikipedia's model. All our writers are carefully selected by us and individually approved by Dr. Geoffrey Rutledge MD, PhD, who was formerly on faculty at Stanford and Harvard medical schools. For example, we have a preeminent neurosurgeon, a Medical Director of Neurosurgery at a prestigious institution, who writes articles for us on Chiari malformation.
An example is this article about how another brain condition, Arachnoid Cysts, can masquerade as Chiari malformation:
http://www.wellsphere.com/chiari-malformation-article/arachnoid-cysts-chiari/21361
Here are a few more examples of the kind of articles that would support Wikipedia articles:
Prostate cancer screening: http://www.wellsphere.com/general-medicine-article/prostate-cancer-screening/30583
ADHD treatment: http://www.wellsphere.com/add-adhd-article/adhd-alternative-treatment:-lens-neurofeedback/258305
Current thinking on psychiatric therapy: http://www.wellsphere.com/mental-health-article/psychiatric-axioms-revisited/267778
Because we have so many such valuable articles on health and healthy living topics, we thought we might be able to support Wikipedia users who are looking for information on topics related to health.
If you could suggest some possible ways to post information which you would find beneficial to Wikipedia, we would be happy to oblige. Would you like to see us posting links to articles such as these in the appropriate external links section, or should we instead consider reposting selected articles on the relevant topics? Feel free to suggest other options for how we might help. I look forward to hearing from you soon, Thanks!Melsit (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for August 25 and September 8, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 35 | 25 August 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 36 | 8 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
regarding LiveAdmins black listing
[edit]Hello Siobhan,
My request is still pending review here:
http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#www.LiveAdmins.com ----- Could you just have a look at it and inform me the future course of action that needs to be adopted regarding the un-listing of this domain and its related material from the wikipedia resource.
Thank you. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
- Siobhan, I agree with you. Our site has nothing to do with wikipedia it was just the wrong policy of an employee that made all of this happen. There must be some way, any way in which the de-listing can take place. How will i be able to contact the foundation we have failed to even convince you people, and are cases like these forwarded to the foundation?
Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
- We have been confused with people who would like there spammed or blocked content put back up. That's not our objective, what we are looking for is a second chance, after which we assure that nothing like this will ever happen again. Why don't you have a look around on the website and see for yourself whether spamming would even in the remotest sense help our business. And i am just looking for a second chance, i thought of asking you people because i though that its a pretty normal thing with other people appealing in a similar manner to mine. And Wikipedia being an information would not want to keep a spam list filled with websites so i asked for a second chance to right the wrongs and prove that our organization doesn't spam or promote this activity in anyway. Still searching for a solution to this problem. Would like some help.
Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes i am aware of my predicament here on Wikipedia. Can you just clarify "what benefits to Wikipedia" really means. I have heard this statement quite a few times now, but no body has ever clarified what it implies. Do i stand any chance of getting my organizations website removed.
Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 06:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Lets suppose if i add certain sections to our website and then add content on wikipedia and then make the external link what would be the scenario like then?
and secondly hows about if i find something on wikipedia or something which can be linked to our site, how would that stand out? And am willing to become an editor if that's what it takes to clear the name in a good and descent enough way. But cant the 12 month period be a bit reduced? Or doesn't Wikipedia have another list apart from the spam list like potentially unsafe or something to which this site can be moved to, while i am passing my period of one year. Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 11:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your concern, and thank you for listening to me. I was expecting a little co-operation though still no hard feelings. We still respect Wikipedia and apologize on our behalf. On my part thank you for listening to me.
Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
HealthyStrokes link on masturbation
[edit]I have added the references you wanted to see to the talk page on masturbation.RandomWord (talk) 00:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Tx
[edit]Thanks for the info.Guyver85 (talk) 22:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
opt-out
[edit]Thank you for pointing out what wiki is not (i.e., a how to guide).
Will you please justify your removal of the section about pre-screened credit card offers?
Thank you Open Information (talk) 04:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 15, 2008.
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 37 | 15 September 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks good
[edit]I came to that article because of Original good. Could you look at that and see if you can find some way to clean that up, too? Corvus cornixtalk 23:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kewl. If you can make that not so spammy, then I have no problem with removing the db tag. Corvus cornixtalk 23:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
- Awesome. Good work. :) Corvus cornixtalk 00:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Re: National Sorry Day
[edit]Thanks very much! By the way, were you able to find out who the perpetrator was? I feel s/he should be blocked indefinitely. Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 00:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, sounds good. Thanks! Mr. Old-Skool (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Disc jockey protection
[edit]I've protected the article; if you want to go in and revert it to the last good version, please do, as I'm not sure which that is. If the IPs start using accounts let us know so that action can be taken. Keep up the good work! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 02:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
External Links - Luciddreaming
[edit]Please do not undo a thread we originally posted. --Crawfd (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Until you rephrase your comment to make it seem less slanderous towards our site, then I'm afraid we will have to act accordingly and remove it. As it stands right now with your comment, it suggests our site creates content with an infringing manner and that is not the case. We explained our situation about our content writer very explicitly and made changes accordingly only to discover that this fault was taken and propogated in such a way, as to extort it's weakness rather than strength.
The Wikipedia:Refactoring talk page also states, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors (plural) who have contributed to the talk page." This goes against your what seemingly appears to be personal vendetta (or personal attack) against our submitted external link. --Crawfd (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Also your comment bordered on incivility and misguides our true representation See: Wikipedia:CIVIL#Removal_of_uncivil_comments Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviours that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Crawfd (talk • contribs)
Wedding Websites
[edit]Hi there, I'm sorry if I offended you by including the "see also" link on your personal wedding website page. I have reinstated my original "Wedding Websites" page, but will absolutely not add anything further to your page. I hope we can both exist in peace now with our individual pages! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrskeane (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Philanthrocapitalism
[edit]Hello,
I have been reading a bit about philanthrocapitalism, and I think that it is incorrect to say that venture philanthropy and philanthrocapitalism are the same thing. Philanthrocapitalism is a movement that extends beyond venture philanthropy. Several people have written about it, including Michael Edwards, Matthew Bishop, and Michael Green. Can we reinstate the philanthrocapitalism page?
63.118.206.3 (talk) 18:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)Alexandra
Removal of the "China Sourcing Fairs" listing under "Trade Fairs"
[edit]Hello. On 21 Sept you removed from the list of trade fairs the entry "china sourcing fairs". Can you justify that? All other listings were left alone and this one follows the format of the table. (203.120.16.145 (talk) 01:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC))
The article "China Sourcing Fairs"
[edit]Hi. On 21 sept you tagged the article "China Sourcing Fairs" as a advertisement. That's debatable, because all claims made in the article are backed up by 3rd party sources and quotes. Anyhow, i have edited it even further to a more neutral tone, so it's less disputable. (Jkktay (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC))
MySlideShow
[edit]Hi Siobhan. I don't know what Notability is required in MySlideShow article. However I can find similar articles in wiki (PicturesToExe). CaptainDrony (talk) 09:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Marriage strike
[edit]
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Child Sponsorship
[edit]Hi Siobhan,
I hate the child sponsorship article. You are right to remove the uncited part on child sponsorship us of funds which I wrote a while back, but what is written is still uncited. The problem is article quickly gets spammy if examples are given. I can easily find statements by Plan, Everchild, SOS, World Vision on what the funds are used for but I think on principle references of this sort would breed, so I think what you have put is better, and would rather leave it uncited. The only real review (which is by a review charity but unfortunately in their blog section) is [9], and [10] is unfortunately a personal website even though quite good. The other missing element in this charity is the religious nature of the organisations. This is the big difference between World Vision and Plan for example. --BozMo talk 08:15, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
- On sources its hard to say. There are quite a few MA thesis etc, and research publications which are not public rattling around but nothing which looks like a third party review or peer reviewed journal that I have seen --BozMo talk 17:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
London Jewish Forum
[edit]London Jewish Forum is the representative body for London Jewry or that is how the Jewish Chronicle describes it. Please help me in suggesting what references are you looking for. I set the article up as a stub. Seems strange to delete it given the amount of column inches over it in the UK national press. Do you wish me to add these as references - this would extend the article unnecessarily but let me know... ent added by Fraser Katz (talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fraser Katz (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
What should we do about this [11] which keeps re-occurring? Happy if you want to delete the paragraph personally. --BozMo talk 09:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
- This was the same person who spammed the child sponsorship article on Every Child Ministries (which you partly reverted) now I look at it. I have never come across them but as the AfD on their article got "no consensus" so I am not sure they are that notable (but I didn't look carefully enough to vote myself). BTW I have asked Intelligent Giving if they would republish the blog as an editorially reviewed article, lets see. --BozMo talk 09:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Spam warnings
[edit]Regarding this warning, I don't understand why you and many other spam-fighting editors feel the need to go through 4 warning levels when it is obvious that the spammer is gaming the system (adding the same links from different accounts and ip addresses). My approach is 1-3-block if I think the first edit is in good faith, 2-4-block if the first editor activity is spamming many pages or has a particularly spammy website, and 4imm-block if it's obvious that the spammer already got warnings on another account. Going through 4 levels results in article histories that look like edit wars and possible 3RR trouble. Could you comment on this? Anyway, in this case, the editor is working as 3 separate accounts: 41.196.235.20 (talk · contribs), Essamak30 (talk · contribs), Ahmedak30 (talk · contribs). Han-Kwang (t) 17:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Jmlthr
[edit]Do not remove any of my editing. What the hell you have done. You removed all of my hard work. I do not have much time to edit again and again. Next time you must remain careful or I will write to authorities. There is no benefit of any topic or subject unless it produces real time impacts on people. Suck links provides real time understanding of topics. I have no such purpose of advertisement or promotion. I just want to highlight issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlthr (talk • contribs) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Natascha Kampusch
[edit]The citation showed that she sympasized with her captor and that she lit a candle for him. There are citations and is relavent. I'm sure why you removed it. It was properly cited. You can reword it but here another citation showing STOCKHOLM SYNDROME : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5284622.stm 204.52.215.30 (talk) 15:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the message. I've started a discussion on the Natascha Kampusch talk page. See here. -- SiobhanHansa 21:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion didnt happen you just removed it for some reason. On top of that discuss are suppose to last 5 days giving it less than one day isnt going to get responses. Also I added citation 24 which referenced Stockholm Syndrome and im going to add another one. Also other information regarding her actions after escape was also removed by you for some reason even though they were cited and undisputed. 63.76.234.250 (talk) 16:36, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- there's no 5 day time frame for discussions- especially on Biographies of living people. You seem to be capable of responding to edits to the article in a timely manner - you need to do the same to talk page discussions. And please respond to the actual points raised in the discussion - such as how it is encyclopedic and which bits of the citations you believe support the contention. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 17:34, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please note this is a shared ip,
- First You are correct in WP:SYNTH so i replaced the citation with a scientific journal.
- Secondly Just because certain articles did not mention it does not mean it is not true. There are plenty of citation that suggest stockholm syndrome may be plusible.
- Third you removed more than just that line regarding stockholm syndrome. In fact you removed anything that suggested that there was an attraction between the captor and the victim. Why?
- Fourth The information there was NOT written by me. It was removed by a vandal IP.
63.76.234.250 (talk) 19:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Good idea to post on the article talk page - I've responded in detail there. -- SiobhanHansa 20:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded on discussion. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 21:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've responded again. I will not touch any edits for now. It seems we have engaged in an Wikipedia:Edit war. I think it is best to get outside opinion. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 22:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've made new updates in a way that is not arguable. Nothing is taken out of context now. 71.248.231.160 (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Nespresso
[edit]Sorry, but I didn't restore your edits in a timely fashion. There have been many subsequent edits, and I don't have the tools to deal with them. Some editors just don't seem to like anything that goes on with this article, so there's a lot of noise in the edit history. Lou Sander (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
IndustryPlayer link
[edit]Apologies re the CSR link - I will go and read guielines Sunshinebr (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
From JPeizer
[edit]It's unfortunate and disheartening to see this self-moralizing about "self-interests" and "unethical behavior" in this discussion about a particular citation. The facts are that the Greentealovers site was a welcome and valid contributor to the wikipedia green tea page for years until Wikipedia decided to "upgrade" its citation policies -- after it had acheived enough credibility to diss the contributors that allowed it to break out of the perception by many that it was more a site for the technology-minded. Still greentealovers.com had as much validity to provide references to the green tea page as celestial seasoning, Stash Tea and other blog/advertisement references that existed on it -- and that was my argument -- PARITY AND BALANCE --until they were removed. Editors showing bias to one set of citations and not the other was hardly fair and balanced. It's unfortunate that the issue with greentealovers has spilled over into the editors deciding to also censor my addition of valid nonprofit technology references like capaciteria.org or my book about the Dynamics or Technology for Social Change. They were added to WIKIPEDIA over years along with other information on the topic of nonprofit technology and never challanged by wikipedia until the editors wished to make a point about this separate issue on greentealovers.com. If they'd like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate these other resources contributed to wikipedia in the past, thats fine. But please do keep the editorial self-moralizing out of the discussion when valid contributions become invalid and unethical depending upon the year and editor deciding upon them. What disturbs me is the hypocracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk)
- Self-moralizing? Rather than what sort of moralizing? And what would my hypocrisy be? While some of your edits may have been great content others were clearly just promoting your own external efforts without regard to Wikipedia's core policies, especially WP:NPOV. So things changed on you - and when you realized they didn't work with what you wanted on the the site here you didn't help fix up other problems or leave or even use Wikipedia's regular channels to try and change the community's mind - you continued to promote your sites after you knew they were no longer in keeping with guidelines. Wikipedia isn't about parity for your external interests with other people's - the community has never made that claim and has in fact explicitly said that it can't provide such "fairness". We clean things up one bit at a time. You don't get to keep spam or poor content or citations just because everything else isn't perfect yet.
- When you edit here you volunteer for Wikipedia - if your actions are all about promoting outside interests that's pretty unethical in my book - just as volunteering at a soup kitchen in order to write stories slamming the clients would be unethical regardless of whether you actually helped feed the clients during that time. There might be some justification - maybe you unearth a big scandal of wealthy bankers ripping off the soup kitchen - but the original intent is still out of keeping with good faith volunteering. And promoting your own sites here instead of editing with the intent of building a neutral encyclopedia is not volunteering in good faith. -- SiobhanHansa 16:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Siobhan I am only taking specific issue with your editorializing my motivations as "sickening" and "unethical" - not on your disagreeing with me on what I believe is an objective issue with a particular citation and a particular editor that I felt was not even-handed in his approach. You said, "While some of your edits may have been great content others were clearly just promoting your own external efforts without regard to Wikipedia's core policies" But ALL my edits including unchallenged and valid nonprofit technical references were removed because of a seemingly unrelated the issue with Greentealovers. The hypocracy I indicate is not specific to you but to these uneven decisions. Go to the green tea page on Wikipedia and you will still see citations from TEA COMPANIES that have only *JUST* been referenced as dubious/discuss because of the concerns I recently raised about evenhandedness. The fact is Greentealovers was a valid contributor to the green tea pages for years and wrote the entire initial section on Japanese green tea WHEN NOTHING EXISTED ON WIKIPEDIA but information on Chinese Green Tea -- How self serving was that to provide information that did not exist on an important element of green tea? And yes, I did appropriately cite where that information came from: greentealovers.com. My problem is that Wikipedia's CORE policies are always a work in progress and a valid contributor one month is in violation the next. You are correct that I did not remove other references on the green tea page because I felt it innapropriate and actually quite petty to remove the citations of others while my own citations (considered valid at the time) existed there. BTW, I wonder if you have even visited the greentealovers site to check for yourself the amount of referenced medical, preparation and tea processing information on it. I have no issue if you disagree with me about the appropriateness of a particular citation in an objective manner. But my motivations should not be a point of editorial because you don't know them. When dealing with the objective concerns about a partcular citation I thought it inappropriate to raise my other nonprofit work and editorialize upon the relationship. Even the greentealovers site invests its profits into reducing my carbon footprint through clean energy technologies. My work on social innovation and its effects on the lives of literally millions over the years is a matter of public record. Its unfair for you to extend what I beleive is a valid issue regarding this citation to impune my entire career.
- So you created your own sites that represent your own point of view and your own interpretation of the world (and I have no problem with that) and then cite those sources on Wikipedia - and you think that's in some way a good approach to writing a neutral encyclopedia? Your references were *all* blacklisted because they are *all* to sites you control and they haven't been added by other people. It's not like we're trying to censor a good source that lots of experts appreciate - apparent;y it's only you. And you didn't simply stop at content and citation. You promoted the other resources that you created on wikipedia - without seeking any kind of validation that your opinion on their appropriateness wasn't perhaps clouded by your connection to them. You may be unfamiliar with the idea of editorial integrity - but if you really can't see anything for Wikipedia to be concerned with about your actions I suggest you look it up.
- If your most of your edits had been less self involved then this wouldn't have happened. But your entire editing history is the same story of pushing your own properties. Criticizing OhNoItsJamie is disingenuous - he took the actions because he worked it out but all the comments you've received from other editors have fairly universally supported his actions. He isn't some rogue admin - he's got significant support for what he did. Sure there's more work to be done - but that does make the work he did bad.
- In my comments about ethics I wasn't simply lamenting your actions - I find the amount of spamming and POV pushing that goes on on Wikipedia by non-profits to be really disheartening. It's like they can't look up from the causes they're involved in to appreciate that this nonprofit has a mission too with neutrality at its core. And if they don't want to actively be involved in that mission - they should at least not subvert it by trying to promote their own self interests. They may do great work within their own sphere but that doesn't make them angels in everything else they do. And I see the same thing in your actions. It doesn't matter whether you go out of your way on your tea site to sell only teas you believe are healthier - that's a noble goal but has nothing to do with your editing actions here. It's editors like you who edited in their own POV backed up by their own sites that meant the guidelines had to get stricter in order to help the project develop content with more integrity. -- SiobhanHansa 17:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- I've added my two cents to the same comment at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Greentealovers.com (again). --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Real Christian Singles
[edit]Notability tag is OK with me -- even an AFD might be appropriate. I just thought I was a little too quick on the speedy trigger on that one. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
ChinaTravelGuide
[edit]Hi, SiobhanHansa, thanks for dropping a line at my User_talk:JayFang page. I've not signed onto wp for a while, and would not have known the situation without your message. So I greatly appreciate your taking time to let me know.
I was very shocked after reading the conversation you mentioned See here. I'm one of the founders of ChinaTravelGuide.com, a well-established travel wiki site dedicated to China travel community. Like wp, our policy is not to tolerate any forms of spams (we are a spam victim). As a professional with high integrity, and an occasional contributor to both wp content and mediawiki software, I would never spam any sites.
Out of curiosity of what kinds of links our website have on wp, I did a complete search of words "China travel guide" and "ChinaTravelGuide" on wp, especially studied 125.76.167.24 (the one you mentioned), and analyzed both the number of links and the contents being linked to. I think 125.76.167.24 is from Xi'an, China, probably from the friends/engineers who help us with the site development (I myself live in Los Angeles). But I'm not sure if I agree with you that the links are spams. Clicking through the ChinaTravelGuide links on wp, I found they are all relevant and suitable links. By the way, the total number of links on wp is about 30, and we have about 26,000 pages on en and Chinese versions of our web site. I did a link search on another similar travel wiki site, and I was not able to finish counting the numbers after paging thru many 500-results pages.
I believe many original contents on ChinaTravelGuide.com can complement wp in the area of China travel. In reference to qualification of the site on interwiki, the site was carefully reviewed and approved in April by several admins.
I'm very disappointed, and I really feel we were wronged, and are mistakenly treated as spamming wp. I'd appreciate if you can look into the links again.JayFang (talk) 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- I think there was some discussion on the meta interwiki page on these people and they may even have an interwiki. Worth a good look either way (I will when I have time if you like). --BozMo talk 21:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- See the information just posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#chinatravelguide.com; most of the links were added by IPs in Southern California or one of three registered users. Our link report shows virtually no links added by established users. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
removed links
[edit]You removed some links today from Georg Simmel and Charles Cooley. Please explain why these links are deemd inappropriate? thanks Peter morrell 16:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for the explanation I checked one link and it looked OK but it is a commercial site, so I guess you did right! thanks again no worries Peter morrell 16:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Orgasm
[edit]This revert. He explained it on the talk page here. --GraemeL (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, nm. you saw it and replied to him. --GraemeL (talk) 16:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
SiobhanHansa
[edit]You changed my edits instead of re-arranging them as you stated. This was incivil and I'd ask that you take greater care in the future when editing the work of an editor. Worldedixor (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
- Worldedixor, I suggest you pause, reconsider and then apologize rather than trying a spurious counter attack. Using rvv in the manner which you did is well established as incivil as a practice and if an admin had got there before SiobhanHansa, who is a rather polite individual, you would be looking at some kind of formal warning. Meanwhile, assuming good faith and that you might have a real complaint, I have been through the last three weeks of SH's edit summaries and cannot see the word rearrange used once. Nor can I see any uncivil edits. --BozMo talk 09:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC) rep
- Calm down Worldedixor, this user usually does just that. See his edits in relation with the Ketchup article spam photo and others like that. 89.42.228.136 (talk) 02:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
sss.hsdejong.nl
[edit]I think the link is appropriate: it is not commercial and shows photos about the current wikipedia page. Many other pages have external links to photo sites for a long time. Will you tell me on which page you have removedmy external link? Then I can discuss it there! Will you tell me on which page you have removedmy external link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.91.244 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- I understand your point about spamming, but I see many external links to other photo sites. Why are they not removed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.91.244 (talk) 14:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, no hard feelings! I invite you to have a look at my Photo Gallery about Myanmar. Maybe you find one or two pages which will contribute to the Wikipedia as external links.
Have a nice day! Henk de Jong —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.101.91.244 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Oi!
[edit]Have a barnstar.
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| For constantly popping up on my watchlist, cleaning up vandalism, spam and unsourced changes. You always seem to be able keep disputes civil which isn't easy to do. GraemeL (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC) |
Keep up the good work. --GraemeL (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
- Jeeze, there you go again. I had the page open to do that after I had finished working through my watchlist. --GraemeL (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
- (Just noticed your message about keeping conversations in one place - sorry) I do it on purpose:) That article is problematic and I suspect it will always attract SPA'a and those wanting to turn WP into a comparison shopping site. So as many eyes as possible... Have fun. -- SiobhanHansa 18:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Fox Learning Systems
[edit]Responding to your comment on my talk page... I appreciate you wanting to better yourself... here is where i feel you went about it the wrong way... We were nominated for deletion what seemed to me to be very quickly after the site had established a little bit of content... the only warning that i was aware of was one on the talk page that mentioned spam/advertising... i only saw that after we had been nominated for deletion. A lot of pages i come across on wikipedia have little banners on the top that say things like --this could be considered spam-- --needs citation-- --stub article-- ... the only one of those that i am aware of that the Fox Learning Systems site got were that this site was being nominated. granted i am fairly new to editing on wikipedia and you seem to know the rules very well... i do feel however that a lot of verifiable content has been added to the page since its nomination... i personally haven't used the talk pages which is something i need to get used to... which may be where a communication barrier exsisted... i was not personally ignoring you i just really didn't know how to respond... i tried once but couldn't find your talk page... hopefully i have cleared up my portion of this... at least you know where i stand... and i really do appreciate you helping out the site that one day... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdubya36 (talk • contribs) 21:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Zdubya. I am also fairly new to creating pages on wikipedia, and need everyones help in completing this task sufficently. I thought the articles for deletion was a bit extreme, so I hope we can take a step back and talk about how to make the page better. Again, thanks for your inputs and edits the other day! Theovoice (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- If i deleted that (which i guess i did) it was inadvertant... i honestly never saw that... might be a case of being new or my ignorance??? but i honestly never saw it... but thank you for putting that up there and i understand now why you could feel that you were being ignored... maybe by adding it a second time it could help (i don't know as i think this maybe an isolated miscommunication?) as for the new user thing... honestly that initial post to new user has so many links its would be impossible to read through that and absorb what is needed to be WHILE trying to edit a new site. in hindsight i would have tried more mini edits before i jumped into a page but here i am... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zdubya36 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with Zdubya. I am also fairly new to creating pages on wikipedia, and need everyones help in completing this task sufficently. I thought the articles for deletion was a bit extreme, so I hope we can take a step back and talk about how to make the page better. Again, thanks for your inputs and edits the other day! Theovoice (talk) 21:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi Siobhan. Could you give me an opinion on these link additions? It's one of those borderline cases where the behavior looks like spamming, but the links seem to have good content. This was reported at WP:COIN#Lorenzo43 but I thought your opinion would be interesting to have. The borderline cases sometimes lead to intemperate discussions, regrettably :-). EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
- Spamming pure and simple. Hopping accounts to do it. See: Larsvegas43 (talk · contribs). Going to indef block both, but not doing any cleanup atm. --GraemeL (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
IRR
[edit]Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Lothar (talk • contribs)
- Oh sorry, I've forgotten to sign in :). I've meant of course this [12]. Could you tell me kindly the reason of this revert ? Because I can't see "spam" there. Greets, Sir Lothar (talk) 17:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, my mistake :). Indeed it's a commercial ad of company, I haven't read the content of the link precisely :). Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 17, 2008 and before.
[edit]Because the Signpost hasn't been sent in a while, to save space, I've condensed all seven issues that were not sent into this archive. Only the three issues from November are below.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 42 | 8 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 43 | 10 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 44 | 17 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 10:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
How to get out of an edit war with spammer?
[edit]Hi there. I'd like to thank you (and User:A. B.) for adding dnabaser.com and related domains to the blacklist, this has noticably reduced the spamming activity. It continues, albeit now on a low level, without logging in and with redirector links (e.g. via Romania: www.cubic.3x.ro/free-DNA-tools/index.html. It still occasionally flares up like can be seen in the recent history of Sequence assembly.
Note that I would have nothing against the product being linked per se (other commercial, academic or open source apps of the same domain are too, and this helps readers to find something that suits their needs), but the complete refusal of the spammer to play nice makes this a bit hard.
Question: Would you have any advice on how one could get back to a more peaceful state? Those edit wars are childish ... but not really funny.
Regards, BaChev (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC) -
There is no war. You constantly deleted the link from that web page then YOU LIE that "I would have nothing against the product being linked per se (other commercial, academic or open source apps of the same domain are too, and this helps readers to find something that suits their needs)." Cut it out child. Nobody spammed that page in the last 3 months EXCEPT you, by deleting that software EVERY SINGLE DAY, then came here crying out that you are innocent. Go mind you life boy.
PS: the software is listed in the right position, in alphabetic order, and all entries are right. How do you think you are to delete that entry daily?
Bachev pretends to be the author of a software for contig assembly so it deletes other programs. Obviously the is conflict of interests here. Actually he is uses highly promotional language for his software and brings no references. "MIRA assembler was the first freely available assembler who could..."
Cut your bullshit and there will be no more war on that page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.16.163.181 (talk • contribs)
- I have also blacklisted the other link used to circumvent the blacklist. I suggest that that is done with any other link that is added to circumvent blacklisting. To the IP: please discuss on talkpages first before continuing to edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 00:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Your email to me
[edit]I have no idea if I'm replying in the correct manner. I'm replying to your message to me. Why you didn't use email, which would have been oh-so-less complicated, I don't know. If I'm not replying correcting now, please don't blame me or call me out, as I don't at all understand this reply process you have. I'm sorry you don't like the page I created, but you didn't really offer any concrete ways to change it. I did the best I could -- I can't help it that I'm pretty much the only person who writes regularly on the subject. I've emailed several online fora and individuals directly asking them to please contribute to the page, edit the page, etc. There's nothing else I can do. Jcravens42 (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC) Jayne Cravens
February 10, 2009 -- I've replied to you on my talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcravens42 (talk • contribs) 15:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
[edit]Dear Siobhan ... I notice it's been quite a while since I left a bibliography at microcredit and the only edits have been some spammy ones promoting digital microcredit sites. You had said you were hoping to write something up -- is it a mess beyond redemption? Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help.Brett epic (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
From Tylersboi: Research on Scott Frederick Byers
[edit]Try the following:
https://eservice.ag.gov.bc.ca/cso/index.do
Click on search criminal, enter Byers in the last name, and Scott in the First name.
Click on case 204377-2C, and click on the appearances tab. You may also click on participants, and look at alternate names, to verify the aliases I originally posted.
Tylersboi (talk) 11:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)Tylersboi
Deleted image restored
[edit]Hi Siobhan. I think you will be glad about the news: the 'controversial' image on Bachelorette party has been restored from a commons' file. Enjoy it!.--Fakundus (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi
[edit]And "happy new year". Rather inactive for now but Guy might appreciate a hand with this (assuming I'm correct!). Regards --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 24, 2008 through January 3, 2009
[edit]Three issues have been published since the last deliver: November 24, December 1, and January 3.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 45 | 24 November 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 46 | 1 December 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| ArbCom elections: Elections open | Wikipedia in the news |
| WikiProject Report: WikiProject Solar System | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 1 | 3 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Child Sponsorship
[edit]Out of curiousity I just wrote this: [13] but am no closer to finding a reliable review source (I looked for one for the article) --BozMo talk 15:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 10, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 2 | 10 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2009 (UTC)§hepBot (Disable) 20:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 17, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 3 | 17 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 01:00, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost, January 24, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 4 | 24 January 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Delivered at 05:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC) by §hepBot (Disable)
Wikipedia Signpost, February 8, 2009
[edit] |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 5, Issue 6 | 8 February 2009 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.--ragesoss (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — February 16, 2009
[edit]
If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 07:42, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
WikiProject Novels
[edit]You have previously edited the Steven Erikson Wikapedia page. If you are a fan of his, or any other authors, works, then:
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – #87 |
Wikipedia Signpost — February 23, 2009
[edit]This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 8, which includes these articles:
- Philosophers analyze Wikipedia as a knowledge source
- An automated article monitoring system for WikiProjects
- News and notes: Wikimania, usability, picture contest, milestones
- Wikipedia in the news: Lessons for Brits, patent citations
- Dispatches: Hundredth Featured sound approaches
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Islam
- Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
The kinks are still being worked out in a new design for these Signpost deliveries, and we apologize for the plain format for this week.
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 2 March 2009
[edit]This week, the Wikipedia Signpost published volume 5, issue 9, which includes these articles:
- Books extension enabled
- News and notes: Stewards, Wikimania bids, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia's role in journalism, Smarter Wikipedia, Skittles
- Dispatches: WikiProject Ships Featured topic and Good topics
- Wikiproject report: WikiProject Norse History and Culture
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 08:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia Signpost — 16 March 2009
— 16 March 2009- News and notes: License update, Commons cartoons, films milestone, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Manufactured scandal, Wikipedia assignments, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR appointments
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by §hepBot (Disable) at 23:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
: 23 March 2009
[edit]- From the editor: Reviewing books for the Signpost
- Special report: Abuse Filter is enabled
- News and notes: Flaggedrevs, copyright project, fundraising reports, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Alternatives, IWF threats, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
: 30 March 2009
[edit]- From the editor: Follow the Signpost with RSS and Twitter
- Special report: Community weighs license update
- News and notes: End of Encarta, flagged revisions poll, new image donation, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Censorship, social media in schools, and more
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 20:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
: 6 April 2009
[edit]- Special report: Interactive OpenStreetMap features in development
- News and notes: Statistics, Wikipedia research and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikia Search abandoned, university plagiarism, and more
- Dispatches: New FAC and FAR nomination process
- WikiProject report: WikiProject China
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 19:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
: 13 April 2009
[edit]- License update: Licensing vote begins
- News and notes: WMF petitions Obama, longer AFDs, UK meeting, and more
- Dispatches: Let's get serious about plagiarism
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Color
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports And Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delievered by SoxBot II (talk) at 16:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
: 27 April 2009
[edit]- Book reviews: Reviews of Lazy Virtues: Teaching Writing in the Age of Wikipedia
- News and notes: Usability study, Wiki Loves Art, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia Art dispute, and brief headlines
- WikiProject report: Interview on WikiProject Final Fantasy
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot II (talk) at 04:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
: 11 May 2009
[edit]- News and notes: Wikimania 2010, usability project, link rot, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Quote hoax replicated in traditional media, and more
- Dispatches: WikiProject Birds reaches an FA milestone
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Michael Jackson
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 22:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
: 18 May 2009
[edit]- From the editor: Writers needed
- Special report: WikiChemists and Chemical Abstracts announce collaboration
- Special report: Embassies sponsor article-writing contests in three languages
- News and notes: Wiki Loves Arts winners, Wikimania Conference Japan, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Arbitrator blogs, French government edits, brief headlines
- WikiProject report: WikiProject Opera
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 13:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
: 25 May 2009
[edit]- License update: Licensing vote results announced, resolution passed
- News and notes: New board member, flagged revisions, Eurovision interviews
- Wikipedia in the news: Wikipedia: threat or menace?
- WikiProject report: WikiProject LGBT studies
- Discussion report: Discussion Reports and Miscellaneous Articulations
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 04:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
: 1 June 2009
[edit]- From the editor: Browsing the archives
- Book review: Review of The Future of the Internet
- Scientology: End of Scientology arbitration brings blocks, media coverage
- News and notes: Picture of the Year, Wikipedia's first logo, Board elections, and more
- Wikipedia in the news: Tamil Wikipedia, Internet Watch Foundation, and more
- Features and admins: Approved this week
- Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
- Arbitration report: The Report on Lengthy Litigation
Delivered by SoxBot (talk) at 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)