User talk:Veinor/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Garage Sales -deleted external links

Twice my external link -Yard Sale Addict has been removed from the article on Garage sales. The site is not a commercial site. I am and artist and writer who has kept an on line journal of what I have found at sales over the past three years. My work has been featured in a number of major publications including the Wall Street Journal, the Baltimore sun and the Atlanta Constitution. This past June I presented an installation at the Atlanta Contemporary Arts Center on the nature of yard sales and personal divestment. The event was named as one of the top ten visual arts exhibitions of 2006 in Atlanta by a local newspaper. This coming summer another solo exhibition of my work with yard sales will be presentated at a gallery in Nashville. I understanding your willingness to purge commercial endevors from the Wikipedia but my work is of academic and artistic interest and I feel it should be included and linked in the encyclopedia. Tom Zarrilli —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hardendorf (talk • contribs) 00:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I presume you are User:71.56.101.145 then. In that case, see WP:EL, under 'Links normally to be avoided', number 11: "Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority". I can't think of any reason for this to be a special case. Also see WP:NOT#MIRROR. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

likely spammer - please watch

Hi. I note that you have reverted some edits a likely spammer. They have so far edited under Rspowers (talk · contribs), 24.115.228.112 (talk · contribs) and 71.58.51.204 (talk · contribs), and added links to the articles: auto mechanic, surfing, Chincoteague, Virginia, Assateague Island & Microsoft Windows. I placed a {{multipleip}} on user talk:71.58.51.204, so if they add these links again, it will be reportable. Could you keep an eye out. Thanks. --Athol Mullen 03:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your time. Looks like user:Yandman and Guy have sorted this out. --Athol Mullen 23:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Stanley Port again

See Milford Sound history, reverted by me this time... MadMaxDog 11:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am Veinor on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/Veinor. Thanks. --Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 15:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Solomon

I work with the Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics. Bob Solomon was a dear friend and well-respected colleague to many people at the Institute where he served as an Academic Advisor since our founding. Although the Institute has only been in existence for three years, many of Bob's friendships with people in our group span decades. We just learned of his death and are currently discussing how as a group we can best honor his life. In searching the Web for his obituary I came across Bob's page on Wikipedia and noticed that his association to our group was not mentioned. If you think noting his contribution to/association with the Institute fits with the mission of Wikipedia please add this information in whatever format you deem appropriate. Since I am associated with the Institute I realize that my adding the association to Bob's page could potentially be considered advertising/spam--which would be absolutely counter to the spirit of this request. If you choose not to include the association, I defer to and respect your judgment--I am new to the Wikepedia community. In either case, thank you for your careful work on Bob's entry.

Best regards, Brian Moriarty —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethical Leadership (talk • contribs) 16:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

I decided that it probably would be a good idea, so I modified it a bit and re-added it, along with making a redlink to Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics, in case somebody decided that it merits a page on Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 16:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand

You keep removing the link I put on under "Intel 8008". It is realvant information. Nothing else that concise exists anywhere, what gives? It is my site, I gove permission to link. len

(looking at Intel 8080 and "6502" I see exatctly the same material I linked users to. i.e. More information and project pages. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbayles (talk • contribs).

The issue is that it's not really relevant in the sense of providing more information about the Intel 8008. As for the other pages, those links are more relevant; see WP:EL for a full discussion. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 00:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

So on "intel 8080" how does the 3rd link qualify for one that's correct?

It doesn't. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 02:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

New to this

Hi Veinor,

I not trying to spam, I know all about spamming, as I deal with the customer support from Anthony Robbins Europe. All I am offering is a Free book (Notes from a Friend) from the world's most powerful speaker.

If I was to add something likes (James Randi Critical article by an attendee of a Robbins weekend). would this pass? Which is on there now.

The reason being this sites has had press release's wrote and articles wrote would they count like James Randi have?

Look forward to your reply.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neilsp8 (talk • contribs).

The problem is that the site is essentially advertising for Tony Robbins. The Randi article does provide moe information (review). See WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 01:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia

Veinor, I added several sites, one of them in a few locations. It is one of the most authoritative sites on the subject and often used by BBC and other news outlets as a resource for anyone wanting more information, photos and contacts on the subject. It is the first website ever created to deal with the tribe and is probably the most popular site in the search engines.

I was surprised at your request. I consulted with other experts on the topic and we can't think of a more appropriate link.

Sorry, I was distracted. I think the Bnei Menashe links are acceptable, but not the israel-bar-mitzvah.com one. Too ad-like, IMHO. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

why and what I cant understand you?

Why you have removed the fan link from the Nelly Furtdao page? It’s not a commercial site it’s just a fan site, I have edited other fan sites on other artist pages there all still there after months ago. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Theoneandonlymeonlyme (talk • contribs) 13:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

See WP:EL, 'Link normally to be avoided', number 13: "Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject...For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site." As for the other articles, that doesn't mean they're allowed, it just means that the link patrol didn't see them at the time. May I ask what articles? Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 13:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Neo-folk Forums

i've seen plenty of forums on pages releted to music discussion, and none of them seem to be taken off. (example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Les_L%C3%A9gions_Noires) Come on and let it stay on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torith (talk • contribs) 09:55, 8 January 2007.

Forum links are in violation of the external link policy, with a few exceptions (mostly official fora or VERY LARGE ones). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User warning templates

Hi - when I saw your spam reversions to a couple of the UNC-Duke articles on my watchlist, I checked the user's page to make sure that he/she had been warned and noticed your custom templates. Would you consider toning down the colors a bit? They make it kinda hard to read, especially the yellow and red templates. Also, just as a friendly suggestion, you may want to tone down the text a little, at least for non-commercial spamming, where it may be done in good faith. --BigDT 16:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I pared down the colors some; as for the tone, I'll think about it. You're really the first person that's approached me about either issue. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ... I took a look at the new colors and they are much easier to read. ;) --BigDT 16:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Deleted content

You are talking about the links, but have deleted my definition of knowledge that was veryfied by the scientific community at knowledgeboard.com. Why and what's the reason?

Nikolay

In reply to:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Knowledge. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (talk to me) 16:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nikolay Kryachkov (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Ah. That was because:

• The text was copyrighted material, which is not allowed on Wikipedia (unless there are fair-use rationales, which does not apply here).
• The links were removed because they didn't contain any more information about knowledge itself, just about a project. I am not commenting on the site itself, merely whether it should be added to Knowledge. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I’m copyright holder and can’t republish my content on wikipedia? I would like to understand.

You said: "I am not commenting on the site itself, merely whether it should be added to Knowledge".

Who decides?

Nikolay

Any content put on Wikipedia automatically goes under GFDL. You'd have to prove that you're the author and that you're releasing copyright. Otherwise, the Wikimedia Foundation could get in large amounts of legal trouble due to copyright violations.

As for your second question, the community, generally. I'm not saying I have absolute power (I'm not even an admin, despite what some people think), but you need to prove that it should be added. I honestly can't see any way to do so; it doesn't provide any additional information on knowledge and it's not any sort of official site. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor: "You'd have to prove that you're the author and that you're releasing copyright".

According to what? I think you must prove that I’m not author, if you state it (but why?). But you deleted the link to the content source (my website with my name as author/copyright holder) and content.

Veinor: "I honestly can't see any way to do so; it doesn't provide any additional information on knowledge ...".

Are you expert on 'knowledge' or censor? What the reason to prove to you?

Nikolay

The Wikipedia copyright policy is located at WP:COPYRIGHT. And you need to prove that you are the author per that policy. As for the appropriateness of the link, I think I misread what it is at first (the English is not very clear). I think that it's actually a method for getting organized (for arranging your information), is that correct? In any case, however, the link to knowledgeperson.com appears to fall under WP:SPAM (the sole purpose seems to be to sell things) and the blog and Google Groups link fall under WP:EL for being a blog and a forum, respectively. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Could you give me a quotation from your policy page that I need to prove that I’m the author? I did not find such an obligation/need.

If you suspect that I'm a thief, do prove that. If otherwise it's a blatant slander (1. a false and damaging statement about a person; 2. the crime of making such a statement).

I did not give the link to the product page. It was the link to the content source knowledgeperson.com/from_what.html

The links to my blog and google group were made because they have relevant detailed content.

Wikipedia, for example, has content about KPMG with the link to kpmg.com and what from that? Nikolay Kryachkov 06:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I can't quote policy to prove that you need to be the author because it's copyright law and common sense. You can't give away other people's property without their possession; similarly, you can't release other people's copyrights. All I am saying is that you haven't given me proof that you are who you say you are. And you linked to both knowledgeperson.com/from_what.html and knowledgeperson.com (the latter in the External Links section). The reason KPMG links to kpmg.com is that it is the official site of KPMG. Even though it is probably not the best source for information on the company itself, WP:EL gives exceptions for official sites. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

My question was about: "a quotation from your policy page that I need to prove that I’m the author", not about that I need to be the author (your: "I can't quote policy to prove that you need to be the author because it's copyright law and common sense").

Of course I need to be the author and I am the author.

You started from the statement that my links were inappropriate and then substituted the subject: "All I am saying is that you haven't given me proof that you are who you say you are".

If your job is to check author’s identity (in this case that I’m Nikolay Kryachkov and the author of my content), do it yourself, but don’t waste my time. Proving my identity is not my obligation (you did not give me any legal reason for that).

KnowledgePerson.com is my official project.

And now give me your real name, your employer contact data. I’ll think about the legal steps. Nikolay Kryachkov 18:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to prove that you're the author because, if your claims are taken as true, you aren't the author, and the REAL author recognizes the copyright violation, the Wikimedia Foundation could get in a large amount of trouble for hosting copyright violation. And it isn't my job to prove that you're the author; I have no way of doing so. And it isn't your obligation either unless you want the removed content on Wikipedia. Finally, do not make legal threats on Wikipedia. And I will not give you my contact information for privacy reasons. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:45, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Your: "it isn't my job to prove that you're the author". No, YOU must prove that I’m NOT the author, if you state this. There is a presumption of innocence and YOU violate this presumption. It’s the fact. And keep your hypothetical trouble with you.

2. I did not ask YOUR contact information. I asked your employer contact information.

3. It’s impossible to make LEGAL threat. I said: "I’ll think about the legal steps".

4. According to this from your private message to me: "Your recent edits could give other users the impression that you may consider legal or other 'off-wiki' action against them" I can say – don’t connect YOUR doings with users.

5. I know you can block my account as you have said me privately. It is really threat (a declaration of an intention to inflict harm).

6. You're making Wikipedia reputation with your "customer service".Nikolay Kryachkov 17:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. Ok, how about you prove that I'm not the author so that anyone else can verify that proof? And why are you so averse to proving you are who you say you are? I'm not familiar with the procedure myself, but I don't imagine it would be that complicated.
2. If you knew my name and employer contact data, you would be able to find me.
3. Well, I thought you meant that you'd think about the legal steps you'd take against me. What did you mean, then?
4. What the statement means is that your statement could lead people to believe that you're considering taking action against me outside of Wikipedia.
5. I can't block my account; I can only request for an admin to look at the situation. I am not an admin. Note the difference between "you will be blocked" and "I will block you".
6. How so? I doubt people will judge Wikipedia based on me alone. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. As I have said there is presumption of innocence and I have rights.

2. I noticed you’re in subjunctive mood.

3. Legal steps.

4. You probably have nothing to do.

5. No difference because of a chain of actions.

6. That means you have violated my right.Nikolay Kryachkov 19:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Which one of those is a reply to which? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a very simple solution. If Nikolay wrote the text and posted it on his own website, then all he has to do is to post, on the same page, a statement that the page is released under GFDL. Right? Shouldn't this be a standard answer for people wanting to re-post their own work here? Cphoenix 00:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be acceptable, but I'm not sure. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

San Fernando Valley Forum link being deleted

Hello Veinor,

I added a link to the San Fernando Valley forum but it is being deleted. I am offering this as a free open discussion for the communities in the San Fernando Valley. I really think this link would be appreciated by people who are trying to find out any information about the cities in the San Fernando Valley. They can communicate with members of the community and the forum will be closely moderated to ensure that the content is suitable for all ages. Please reconsider allowing me to add the link (www.sfvforum.com).

Regards,

Alex Hart —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexh818 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Regardless of your feelings, links to fora are generally discouraged, per WP:EL. While special exceptions can be made, I don't think that this is one of them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:10, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

One last question

Thanks for quickly answering my last question regarding the forum. Can I add an external link to a website that has news articles and events that have to do with the cities within the San Fernando Valley for example? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexh818 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

No problem; I generally respond to messages on my talkpage near-instantly if I'm active. As for the question about the link: what's the URL? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually it is a website that is currently in production. It is not active. The forum was completed about 2 weeks ago and I just got started on the news website which should be ready in the next coming weeks. I am bidding on a few domains so I dont even have a domain yet. I just wanted to see if a website like that would be allowed. Everything will be free content by the way.

Again, it depends on factors such as the quality of the content. Also, adding links to sites you maintain/own/are actively involved in would probably be a conflict of interest. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will submit the site when its ready and I will let you folks decide wether it should stay or go. Thanks again!

P.S. You are welcome to post in the forum :)

Alex

Thanks for your help

For some reason, a link spammer (itsgreattobeafloridagator.com) keeps removing my link (from Florida Gators, Gator Football, University of Florida) and popping his in. It's getting a little frustrating, as my GatorCountry.com link has been there for a very long time and is a legit news site with a print magazine of our own, etc. I noticed the linkspammer used to have adsense on his site but removed the adsense stuff briefly when someone else complained it was spam. At any rate, thanks for your hard work.

Ray —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ScootRay (talk • contribs) 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I noticed; the user's been warned about removing your link and adding his. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

List of smosh videos

You wrote (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CRouleau&redirect=no)Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you I'm not sure if you're talking to me or Zoe -CRouleau 22:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

You; if I meant it for Zoe, I would've put it on her talkpage. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

United Nations headquarters

Hi! I did not write the above comment, but I noticed you deleted an external link which I wrote in the UN headquarters entry. I'm relatively new to this (I've only added a few pictures), so I'm sorry if I did something wrong. I felt the link I provided was relevant to the article. The link was to a Flickr group which contains pictures of all things UN. This is the group description:

This group is for pictures related to the United Nations in every way. We welcome pictures of all UN buildings (such as the headquarters in New York City and Geneva and of the major buildings belonging to the Agencies), pictures of UN at work in the field (peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance etc) as well as pictures from demonstrations, meetings, model UN projects and so on. Our aim is to give a global view, in pictures, of the most important international organization in today's world.

I felt that for people looking for pictures of the UN HQ in NYC, this would be a nice resource, as it will most likely grow to be the biggest picture bank of this particular building on the Internet.

Tristan Bukowski 22:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason I removed it is that Flickr groups are generally social networking as well as photosharing, and as such are highly discouraged under the Wikipedia external link guidelines. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

KokuDrumroll

I thought that this entry was unlocked so that it could be entered now because the review in TIGSource (the main Independent Game Journal) was considered a reliable source? Thraveboy 23:13, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No; it got unlocked because the delete-protect was old. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Links

Normally I would agree not to add external links to personal webpages, but I couldn't find any official sites that present the same information. Until we do, I think it is helpful to have these links on the webpage. Remember 23:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's because it's all false. Remember, essentially anyone can get an AOL page or a freewebs.com page, and could fill it chock-full of false information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:21, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

True, but the same could be said of wikipedia. Why do you think these links are false? From what I've seen they are good sources of information (and I should know seeing as I have done more work on the UNC-Duke article than anyone else). I don't really want to use them, but until something better comes along I am loath to deny access to them. Besides, one of them is specifically used as a reference for the past scores between the two schools. Remember 02:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

And that's why you don't cite Wikipedia in Wikipedia articles, or use it in your thesis. Did you use those links while writing the article? Because if so, then that might run afoul of the self-published sources section of WP:Reliable Sources. In that case, what I'd probably do is tag whatever you referenced as references but still put in {{fact}} after them or something to indicate that it needs a better source. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 03:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the sources, do you believe that wikipedia requires that all external links that point to personal websites are required to be deleted? If so, then there is no way I can persuade you otherwise. I know that WP:EL states that these links are "normally to be avoided" but it doesn't state that they are always to be avoided. After having looked at these websites they appear helpful and dedicated to cateloging the UNC-Duke rivalry and also appear to be totally accurate. If you have a philosophical problem with including external links to personal webpages, then there is nothing I can do to persuade you otherwise. But if not, then could you please state why these websites are problematic? Remember 14:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I acknowledge that WP:EL does have exceptions. As fas whether this is one of them, I think that maybe we should go to consensus. Since, as you said, those links are the best references you have, I'm more inclined to keep them this time around. In any case, I'll probably stay out of it and just watch; it'll be interesting to see what the community comes up with. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, and I will definately defer to whatever the community decides. Could you please set this up (because I don't really know the proper way on doing this). Remember 14:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really that hard; all you would do (in this case) is add a section to Talk:UNC-Duke rivalry asking about the links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:25, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Mike Panetta

Yeah, I added my own page with an approved campaign bio. Go ahead and delete since it is an autobiography. I'll find someone else (and objective journalist contact) to write something for wikipedia. Thanks. - Mike Panetta —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mpanetta (talk • contribs) 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I don't think deletion will be necessary; just some cleanup and tagging with {{US-politician-stub}}. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Stupid Editing

Hello, I have several messages saying that users from this IP have edited wikis on wikipedia, these IP's are *all* behind routers and are being sent from a secendry school in Hartlepool, England. Appoligies for the idiotic children that are plain prats.

NSF ~ cDc

DevilAsh

(P.S Personally I'm not a wikipedia user just yet, if you would like to contact me further then feel free to contact me through myspace) www.myspace.com/devilsmaycry

Egyptian fraction

• I'll be adding the required references within the blog that you have

removed. Thanks for the heads up, and reminder of Wikipedia policy, a policy that I was following in my head, but not my typing fingers. Milogardner 14:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) Milo Gardner

I did not understand David Eppstein thanking you for your assistance. Can you comment? Thanks, Milo Gardner

I think he was just thanking me for removing the link and saying that the rest of the article needed rewriting as well. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The blog has been extensively re-written. Editing and improvement of the blog will continue for the next week or so. Thanks again for the heads up. Best Regards, Milogardner 22:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The EMLR blog has three quality references attached, including one from the Encyclopaedia of the Non-European History of Technology, Science and Medicine. Your comments on the readable references is hereby reqested. Best Regards. Milogardner 19:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Michael Boudreaux, BlueLink Information Network

Regarding the avoidance of blatent advertising...

How about a simple list of milestone activities? Like so, borning, but neutral:

BlueLink Information Network ( www.bluelink.net ) is a virtual network of Bulgarian Non Governmental Organizations (NGOs) based in Sofia, Bulgaria, which offers a variety of Internet based services for NGOs and others interested in issues related to the environment, natural resources and sustainable development History

BlueLink Milestones

1998 • The BlueLink Information Network was created from a joint initiative of eight NGOs from five major Bulgarian cities. • The BlueLink Pilot Project was launched by ECO-CLUB 2000 with the financial assistance of Milieukontakt Oost-Europa. A Steering Group was formed by the founding organisations and an Internet domain was registered • BlueLink launched it’s first mailing lists, ICT training workshops and regular website content (derived from ECO-CLUB 2000 newsletter)

1999 • The role of BlueLink as the primary communication and information dissemination tool of Bulgarian NGOs was formalized at the “National Meeting” in Plovdiv. The meeting’s Final Declaration also recognized BlueLink as the Bulgarian NGO sectors electronic communication coordinator. • BlueLink began producing the “Day of the Earth” weekly television program • BlueLink created a network of over 40 environmental journalists to focus attention on issues in the Black Sea region

2000 • The BlueLink team won an international competition and was nominated to participate in the concluding phase of the annual festival “Media and Sustainable Development” in Paris for its TV report “Kozloduv, - the Nuclear Dilemma” • BlueLink participated in an Environmental Journalism workshop organised in co-operation with the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Waters. BlueLink arranged for two international environmental journalists (BBC correspondent Alex Kirby and Columbia University professor Steve Ross) to speak at the workshop • BlueLink Information Network joins the Association for Progressive Communications • BlueLink organized a seminar on “Civil Practices of Access to Environmental Information” focusing on intersectional co-operation between NGOs, state institutions, business and media. Thirty representatives of environmental civil organizations, state institutions, business sector, and media took part in this event.

etc... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaelboudreaux (talk • contribs) 15:04, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

I believe that timelines are discouraged; instead, I think that they're supposed to be written in paragraph form. Also, instead of the non-ASCII '•', use an asterisk '*'; it works just as well. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Rodger that on the asterisk. I'll change that. Regarding the paragraph vs bullet list, all I have is a list of events, which don't flow well in narrative form. In this case, I really think it will be more readable with the bullets. May I try that?

I don't mind; maybe someone else will be able to make it flow. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Veinor, I changed my article from a piece emphasizing the most important BlueLink activities to a simple list of milestone events, as we discussed above. The article is gone now though, and i'm puzzled as to how to proceed. Could you comment? Thanks! --Michaelboudreaux 11:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Michael Boudreaux

I don't see it as being gone; it looks fine to me. And when you sign comments with ~~~~, you don't need to add your name at the end; that's taken care of by the tildes. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Eddie Furlong

Hi, can you be sure that the www.edward-furlong.com link doesn't go back up - it's not active and he has no official site. www.angelfire.com/indie/eddiefurlongzone is the only up to date site on the net —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YokoIrl (talk • contribs) 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Sure. I added a comment to the effect that the above link is a stopgap measure, to be removed as soon as edward-furlong.com comes back up. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:51, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry. For some reason, the page doesn't come up using Wikipedia's search. I was able to find it eventually with Google. I'll keep working on it.--Michaelboudreaux 10:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

On a totally different topic...

I've notice you have a particular affinity for fighting vandalism. I recently set up a wikiproject to study vandalism (Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies ) which I thought you might be interested in helping out. Remember 17:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

External Links Deleted...

I do not understand why these links should not be added in the external links section on the Technical Writing page:

• TWI: Technical Writers India
• Blog of Rahul Prabhakar

Because the first one is a forum and the second is a blog. Both of these are under 'Links normally to be avoided' in WP:EL (numbers 10 and 11 respectively). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Kendo

Veinor, you removed some links to kendo federations, but not all. For example you left the european and USA links. When I restored them, you reverted. Those links are to legitimate, not for profit regional or national kendo organisations that practice and support kendo. I await your reponse and I believe they should be reinstated.

Since I wrote the above I found this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Protected_pages "Reverting ...if reverting over disputed content, it should be done manually with an appropriate edit summary" Kendo 66—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kendo 66 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 10 January 2007.

Well, I haven't read that page, since I am not an admin. I just have a tool that simulates it. And I removed the links because links to every single kendo federation would be totally unnecessary. I left the European and USA because those cover a continent and a very large country. And I'm not even sure about those. Although, I agree I probably should have used a better edit summary. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor, USA is only part of a continent, I think Canadians would agree with that. Australia, where I live is a continent, many other countries would regard themselves to be equally important as Europe and the USA. I urge retaining only the links to the recognised National or Regional federations. Thanks for considering this. Kendo 66 23:08 17 January 2007 (AEST)

Yeah; that was probably my US-centric bias showing up. I decided to remove them all except for the international one; I think that if we allow one country, we'll have to have one for every single country, and Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism - Eating Disorders

Thank you for repeatedly fixing anonymous vandalism on the eating disorder page. I came to the page to see whether a particular disorder in a fascinating paper I read was listed, and the introductory paragraph was downright inflamatory. I've reverted the edits to your last reversion and banned the vandal's IP address. I saw several anti-vandalism warnings on the IP address's page, and in the time I investigated this, he or she vandalised the page twice, so I feel the ban is warrented. FireWeed 19:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A little help...

I was wondering if this was a speedy or if it needs to go to AfD? I can't figure out which one. your input would be appreciated. Nashville Monkey 21:12, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think for this one you'd have to go to AfD; I can't see any way to fit any of the CSD tags to it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking, thanks for the help! Nashville Monkey 22:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

okay, done Again, thanks for the insight. Nashville Monkey 01:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the Stryker (disc jockey) page

I didn't see anything in the wikipedia guidelines indicating that my contributions to the Stryker page were spam (aside from the link to his MySpace page, which has all ready been discussed). If you can explain to me why you feel they were, maybe we can avoid an edit war and eventual arbitration. Additionally, can you please take this to the article's talk page where it belongs? Thank you. -- Craigtalbert 22:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem was that it looked to me like you were using it to promote the petition. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Minitel, external link

Hi,

You removed an external link I added in Minitel and warned me about that. Thank you. My point was to put a sample Minitel server which offers an access via Internet. It was a home built server, just for fun, and its sysop now offers an access via Internet (including a Java applet). So, I thought it could be an interesting way to see what a Minitel screen really was and try a server a little bit for those who'd be interested. Of course, since Minitel existed nearly only in France, all documentation related to this server and information on it are in French. That's the summary. Now, up to you to decide whether it would be useful to put this external link back or not.

Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.220.49.82 (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, I don't think a link to the server is necessary; perhaps a screenshot of a sample session might be appropriate? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

House Jack

I was just looking at the commercial link on house jack and was going to change it, but you had already reverted to the previous edit, thanks. Johnalden 01:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Comic Books.

Veinor,

Hello. I am a little confused from your statement.

"Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Comic book. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising"

When I added Comics Price Guide to comic books, I thought it was an extremely appropriate link showing the values of golden, silver, bronze and modern age comics. The price guide is free and they do not make people pay to use it. Again, it is a free resource.

This follows the same format as the following links already in Wiki on the comic book page

Grand Comic-Book Database

Lambiek's Comiclopedia

Lamont Larson collection of Golden Age comic books

CBC Digital Archives - The Comics in Canada: An Illustrated History

Silver Bullet Comics

The above are free resources.

Now you are talking about links that promote sales as a reason not to include it, well Wikipedia has included the following sites which are primarily sales sites.

Database of Comic Book Sales Figures

The Mile High / Edgar Church collection of Golden Age comic books

NewKadia.com - website displaying cover scans of over 100,000 comic books

I dont meant to come across as rude, please do not take this that way. As I stated, I am confused and still believe that the price guide is a valuable resource for collectors as any of the links that are there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.58.154.168 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Sorry it took me so long to reply to this; I'm kind of busy at the moment. I think that, in this case, I made a mistake; the original link I removed is OK. As for the other sites, could you give me examples? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Link Spammer

Sorry, didn't think adding a link to darkstep.org for the darkstep wiki page would be spam. When it dissapeared, I thought it just didn't save, so I added it again (didn't realised it was removed intentionally).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.134.128 (talk • contribs) 19:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Everybody makes mistakes; it's OK. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Quaranta

Hey I was editing a page referencing my family name "Quaranta". I posted a link to a commercial site, not to promote sales but to let other people with my last name and other's interested see the diversity of my family abroad. If there's another way that this should be done without the link please let me know, or if the link is fine I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by HomrQT (talk • contribs) 22:19, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

OK. The reason I removed the www.quaranta.it link is that it's basically a commercial site; the only relevance is that it has the same name. That's not really enough to justify it, I don't think. The quaranta.homestead.com link doesn't seem to contain any really useful information. The other links (to the pages of specific people) should go on that person's page, not Quaranta. The external link guidelines have more information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for speedy RVV

Howdy! - Just wanted to thank you for the ultra-speedy (under a minute!) RVV on Template:Buddhism. Well done! Kudos! Larry Rosenfeld (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A Question about Contributions

I have not edited any entries and yet I have been notified of a few changes that "I" (or my IP address, as I have just created this account) have "contributed" to Wikipedia. Can you please check? Thank you very much! Tosaka 04:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

It was probably someone else with the same IP address as yours. If you tell me your IP (to find out, go to http://www.whatismyip.com ), I can see what you're talking about better. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

About adding MapShuttle.com to the Google Maps API example page

Hi there,

  I am sorry for adding a new external link to the [Google Maps API] examples section without
  talking, but as a newbie, I really don't know what exactly the right process is. 
  The entry is delete at 17:14, 18 January 2007, and would you please tell me the property way 
  to put it back there? 

Thanks ahead and have a good day! Lailin. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chenlailinatgmail.com (talk • contribs) 04:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

As it says in the comment in the external links section, you need to discuss the link on the Google Maps talkpage. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

(→External links - rm spam per WP:EL)

I added an external link at "kiosk software". What are the reasons for erasing/keeping a link.

My oppinion: Keeping the leading companies (the well known) or erasing each commercial ext. link.

This case: 17:22, 10 January 2007 Veinor (Talk | contribs) (→External links - rm spam per WP:EL) Sitekiosk ist one of the leading kiosk software companies worldwide. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.234.245.82 (talk) 10:09, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that, in this case, just removing all the commercial links is better; if we allow one commercial link on that, then we're going to have other 'Me too!'-type additions, and then the article eventually has more links than actual content (I've seen it happen). The external link guidelines are located at Wikipedia:External Links, or WP:EL for short. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 13:55, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up on spam

12.160.180.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) created an account after you gave him his final spam warning and went on re-inserting his spam company links. It's Mjviscomi (talk · contribs). I reverted the lot, but you're more up on this spam-fighting business than I am, by the look of it, so you might want to keep an eye on things and add the site to the blacklist or whatever is most appropriate. Cheers, Moreschi ^Deletion! 11:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Addition to Further Reading on Bob Dylan

You won't list my book in the further reading list attached to the Bob Dylan article, on the grounds that this is 'advertising', but you are advertising the works of Ricks, Marcus et al. Can you explain the difference? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johngibbens (talk • contribs) 15:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The problem I had was that you were adding your own book; this is definitely a conflict of interest. Perhaps suggest it on Talk:Bob Dylan and see what other people think? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Having consulted the Conflict of Interest guidelines, however, it seems to me that my edit did not fall under the heading of 'Self-Promotion', but rather 'Citing Oneself', and: "You may cite your own publications just as you'd cite anyone else's, but make sure your material is relevant and that you're regarded as a reliable source". John Gibbens

I didn't see any citations for your book there, just an entry for your book under 'further reading'. The two are different; citations say that material in the article was obtained from a source, 'Further Reading' just means that the book has more information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:13, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

New Horizons link restore

Hi Veinor. I reverted what I thought to be a bad faith edit, the unexplained removal of an Ext link that was article content up until a few hours ago, but it got itself reverted and I received a tag for inappropriate linking, in a bot-like fashion. I certainly have no intent to add links to this article, so in case there is some mixup in automatic procedures I just wanted to let you know. MURGH ^disc. 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

There were no bots; that was all human. And humans make mistakes; I think that, since it was good faith and not intending to spam, you don't need a warning for that. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the human touch :) -MURGH ^disc. 18:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Urban fiction

Why don't you just mark it up and let the Augustus Publishing stuff be added. It's a reputable and successful hip hop publishing house. Are you just jealous. As a matter of fact, Anthony Whyte is friends with Shannon holmes. And my addition is no more advertising than what's already there.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cyelambert (talk • contribs).

Why would I be jealous? And the rest of it isn't advertising; there are three short references (that probably should be taken out anyway) to other publishers. The Augustus Publishing stuff is multiple paragraphs long. There's a clear difference. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Veinor for dedication in fighting spam on Wikipedia--Hu12 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

your fight against spam has not gone unnoticed! Great new tool also...  :) --Hu12 22:37, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

User:Veinor/Link count

I like what you've done with that link count! Quite the tool! The only request I can make for it some formatting changes to make it easier to read... Maybe each user could be on bulleted it's own line and anyone over 10 marked with a different color (orange?... green? *shrug*)? Thanks again! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, another idea... why not wrap the domain names in a link to the link-search tool? (For example: {{linksearch|*.example.com|example.com}} would create example.com) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting ideas, both of them. I don't think either of them would be too hard to implement; the main concern is the length of the resulting page (it's already 160 KB!). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh... hmmmm ... good point. I'd be ok with 300k or so, but I don't know what others would say. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Why is my wiki username associated with geocities? I don't use their services, I'm not hosted from them, I don't understand the association - Timmccloud 16:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, this would be when you added a link to Geocities here. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

NTL

Nthellworld is not really a critcism site. I suppose it can be quite critcal of their customer service, but it is a highly respected NTL news source and dicussion forum. Countless NTL staff can be found there offering what has become a superb back up for NTL' very poor customer service. NTL were actually so impressed with the site that they actually bought it and ran it themselves for a year or so. Therefore please restore the link as it is far more relevent than any other links on the page.

(I do agree that perhaps ntlhell.co.uk should be deleted though I was trying to add that for balance I suppose).--Shakehandsman 17:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, generally forum links are discouraged on Wikipedia. However, in this case, I think that Nthellworld is OK if staff visit regularly, and it does seem to be fairly active. However, I don't think that we should have ntlhell.co.uk should be added (even having one non-official forum is pretty rare, two is even rarer). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It isn't just a forum - there is news as well.--Shakehandsman 00:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, regardless, I have no problem with nthellworld being re-added. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

You move fast!

You keep beating me to reverts!  :) Aleta 00:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm a Wikininja. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

User warnings have been updated

Heya, take a quick look at WP:UTM. Looks like things like {{test4}} have been deprecated. --Brad Beattie (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of that; I'm going to update my textcomplete extension (I'd be mad if I tried to type {{User:Thadius856/templates/badlink|1|blog|~~~~}} by hand) with those soon. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

E-democracy

Hi

I recently added a link to a website of a non-profit organisation related to the topic e-democracy. You removed this article for the reasons quoted but I'd like to ask why you keep the following weblinks, when applying the same rule?:

1. — Experimental political advocacy site, which scrapes the UK Parliamentary record and turns the debates into an easily searched means of keep tabs on Members of Parliament.
2. UK Local E-Democracy website — The local government e-democracy projects being sponsored by the UK government.

Thanks

Graham

Well, I don't have time to go through every link. Often the way it is is I just see the most recent link added, remove it, and then go on to the next. I didn't choose to keep them so much as not choose to remove them, if you get what I mean. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Venoir

Thanks for your reply but it doesn't answer my question. I'm still left with an uncertainty as to whether or not the original non-profit organisation was valid or invalid. I'm left with the uncertainty as to whether if I reinserted the link it would be removed by yourself again or another moderator with the same views.

What kind of philosophy is it to: "Often the way it is is I just see the most recent link added, remove it, and then go on to the next."

A machine could do this. And your comment begs the question as to why Wikipedia is not configured to automatically remove all links added after, say, 10 external links have been added.

And what does your comment mean: "I didn't choose to keep them so much as not choose to remove them"?

Your views do not instill me with confidence about the Wikipedia moderation process!

Graham

Ah, but a machine cannot determine whether a link is valid or invalid. The link-removal task is bot-assisted, but a bot cannot do the job entirely. As for the 10-external-link question, sometimes you do need 11. It's rare, but it might happen. And to explain my comment further: there is a difference between not liking something and disliking it. Same thing here; it's the difference between not doing something and doing the opposite. Finally, I don't think the link is appropriate: the linked-to site is 'down for maintenance', so there's no real way to judge whether it's OK or not. And in this case, I have to err on the side of caution. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Laestadianism in America

My apologies. I noticed you deleted the links to various blogs related to Laestadianism, and now that I've read the policy, I understand why.

However, I would like to know under what circumstances a blog would be considered. The subject is obscure but my blog gets quite a bit of traffic, and I think it would be helpful for students interested in the topic to have access to its contributors and archives.

White2207 17:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs written by a recognized authority about the subject they're an authority on are generally OK (e.g., Stephen Hawking's physics blog, if he has one). Same for blogs that are written by the subject of the article (though some might debate that). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Reference in Education in Malaysia

Hi, I wonder how do you know that the link I've added is spam or whatever you call it. Now that links in Wikipedia is "nofollow" (I hope you know the meaning), so I'm not trying to spam it by adding that link. Also, if you're a Malaysia Students, you'll find that the website linked is not spam site. If the link added by me is spam, how about the previous one, linking to a Malaysian Students forum? Please, if possible, reply at my talk page. TQ.Cupid9 19:23, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You haven't answer why forum isn't reputable link.

External link added to anarchism individualism

Hi, I am new to this, but I did review the guidelines for external links and thought the two links I added complied with the guidelines. One link was to a book on natural rights, which can be read free online. The book deduces a system of rights from the premise of free will. The system of rights does not permit a government, so it sets the basis for anarchism. The second link was to a short novel, "On the Steppes of Central Asia," which also can be read online free. The novel deals with a society without government. It is popular on the anarchism.net site. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdfuerle (talk • contribs) 22:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

In this case, you have a preexisting relationship with both (author of the first, editor of the second); moreover, Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. The problem isn't that it's irrelevant to the topic, it's that there's an asymmetric relationship. Furthermore, the popularity on anarchism.net is irrelevant; if we allowed links because a certain group found them popular, then we'd be up to our metaphorical necks in links. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

External links that were added have been removed

We are in the process of adding links to our site, which is a complete online reference to global animation. We are not a commercial site. The pages that received links so far already contain links to sites similar to ours. However, several of those sites are commercial sites, and do not nearly encompass the information which we have been archiving and compiling for over a decade now. How is it that those sites are able to add links, providing the Wiki users to view their sites, but our site is unable to add links, when we fall into the allowed guidelines set forth? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Toonarific (talk • contribs) 01:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

I really don't see a lot of information. Take Dora the Explorer. The episode guide already exists on List of Dora the Explorer episodes and the pictures are low-quality (obviously someone just took a picture of their TV set). And if you could tell me what sites specifically you're talking about, that would be helpful. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

True, some images need to be upgraded, which we are in the process of since quite a bit of our vide footage is being digitized and better screen grabs can be taken, but that isnt a reason to exclude a full reference site. Toonarific contains over 8,000 production titles, and any time a new series or feature is created int he world, it is added to the site. There may be some overlapping information between both Wiki and Toonarific, but that is once again another reason not to exclude it. We have quite alot of information not present here, which definitely includes all of the foreign productions, as well as various features the users can interact with. The sites that seem to be scattered all over Wiki, on almost every page I have looked at for animated productions, are TV.com and BCDB.com. Both sites are commercial sites, and have even less information available then Toonarific, yet they still are listed on this site. If they are allowed to post their links here, it would only be fair to allow links to Toonarific, posted by both ourselves, and our users who have added links to pages they believe would benefit from the addition.

How does the fact that there is information overlap give a reason to exclude it? The purpose of adding external links is to provide information that shouldn't be in the Wikipedia article (reviews, copyrighted material that cannot be licensed under fair use, etc.). And while you may have many series, the depth of information seems to be shallow. Furthermore, the merit of each link is considered on an independent basis, regardless of the other links (though the criteria become more stringent as the number of existing links grows). And what sort of "features the users can interact with" are you talking about? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, the sentence should have read "There may be some overlapping information between both Wiki and Toonarific, but that isnt a reason to exclude it." True, alot of information could be added, but keep in mind it is also a 1 person project for the most part. We do not have the userbase you do, which provides your information for you, allowing a convenient hands-off experience for the webmasters. As for features, we are also building a coloring book archive, focusing on books that have been published since the beginning of the 20th century, and some of those books also have printable art so users can print them out for thier children. We also have a clipart gallery, where users can not only download, but submit their own to the site. This year we also plan on adding quite a few more features, including a ranking system for shows and episodes. We have also been working on a partnership with ASIFA-Hollywood to build a physical database of animation for thier Burbank location, so people can actually visit and view archived items from the last several decades. I understand that you are trying to avoid unnecessary links being added to the site, but from what Ive seen, it appears to me their is a biased flavor as what is deemed necessary and not. Im sorry my site is non-profit and doesnt make the income those previously mentioned sites do, and I cant make large donations to Wiki, but I believe not only for current content but also for the future content additions, my site is as good if not better than those could ever be. Of course, you have the final say on all matters Wiki it seems, so I really have nothing further to add. I can only watch and see which way the wind blows.

Yes, that makes more sense. And the amount donated to Wikipedia has nothing to do with anything, nor do I have the final say. I don't think any one person does, except for maybe Jimbo Wales. It's the quality. Your site might indeed become an excellent resource, or it might fall into the dust. We can't tell at this point in time. And if you disagree with my conclusions, you can always go talk to the community about it (go to an appropriate talk page and ask there). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ive been around 10 years already, and will most likely still be around long after those sites fall to the wayside. Thanks for your conversation.

No problem; I'd get around to changing that username fast, though. When they say they'll block you for it, they mean it. And I ran some stats: TV.com is in approximately 16,000 articles (for comparison, Myspace is in 12,000.) As for how useful it is, I would say that it does have a lot of information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Why would my username be blocked? I dont see how that is relevant to links. As for TV.com, it is a commercial site. Im not sure why MySpace was mentioned. The other site I mentioned was BCDB.com, which although it has many pages, most of them have very little information, and is really only a site of episode guides, which you seem to already list here. And that is also a commercial website. Now, how exactly would I change my username, if I must? I dont quite see why the name Toonarific would be banned for arguing a point.

Your username would be blocked because it's the same name as a website. It's not because of your comments, it's the name. You can either change your username by going to WP:CHU, or just register an entirely new username (if you do, I think it's courtesy to announce what the new username is on the user and talkpage of the old one so that people know). In this case, I think it's better to just register a new one, due to your lack of edits. Changing usernames places a large strain on the servers. The comparison to Myspace was made to prove a point; MySpace is widely perceived as the most linked-to site on Wikipedia. As for BCDB.com, I think you might have a point there. I'll talk about it with some people I know and see what they think. And commercial websites are allowed, as long as their primary purpose is not to sell things or they are the official site of the subject of the article. For example, a link to the page of a company that sells drill equipment is OK on that company's article, but not on Drill. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, Ill just create a new one. Thanks.

No problem. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Speartip Alliance

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Speartip Alliance. Since you closed the deletion discussion for (or speedy-deleted) this article, you might want to participate in the deletion review.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Speartip (talk • contribs).

spam?

how is this not a resource http://www.multihullcompany.com/Article/Catamaran_Vs_Monohull for a multihull?

Because the main purpose of the site is to sell multihulls. Also, you have a clear conflict of interest, seeing as how you are probably the owner of the site (correct me if I'm wrong). Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 24 2007 to Painswick

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 3 hours. William M. Connolley 20:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Important: {{uw-vandalism4}} no longer signs for you

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you!

I noticed when you warned User:66.244.123.100 about his or her edits to Athens. It seems you were expecting {{uw-vandalism4}} to provide your sig. However, both the auto-sig and auto-number stuff were removed. (Thank goodness.) Will (Talk - contribs) 22:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I've figured that out by now and changed my warning expansion thing. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam Warning

Veinor has indicated links to a book/website are spam and reversed external links. Personally, I find this irregular because the book and website explain the facts concerning items such as Lethal Electrified Fences, Armscor, Armscor Weapons Programs, The Angolan Conflict, Corruption in Canadian Politics, The Hegel Principle as applied to the present Iraq conflict and the South African change in political topography, I could go on. The question is I suppose, where does one draw the line? Is it based on Bayer's Theorem, is it a thumb suck and test the wind and wonder how I feel today, or is there something cast in granite? Please understand Veinor, I am not trying to be difficult, but those links you removed may eventually help us all get to the truth as to why 159 innocent people were killed on the Helderberg in 1987 as well as other events. The links concerning the Helderberg are very relevant as Armscor was bringing in U239 for my project. The Lethal Fence, well I designed 90% of the software and much of the hardware that was used from 1986 to past 1990. The Hegelian Principle references are based on sound facts and sequences of events that have occured since 1986 (all of which have been documented in news and media), some of which we were involved in directly. So I have to wonder how you base your decision to reverse relevant links.

In addition, I have met the guidelines according to;

"Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews).

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified. Note that since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links may not alter search engine rankings.

If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first. Refer to the citation guideline for instructions on citing sources. This guideline refers to external links other than citations." and subsequent articles.

Maybe you can explain. Meckanic 04:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that you obviously have a conflict of interest in this book, since you are the author (assuming you are Dave Meckanic, let me know if I'm wrong). First off, the link takes the viewer to the main page, which serves as advertising for the book. Second, I don't think that the website can even be used as a source, as it is self-published, and Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, which gives guidelines for what does and does not constitute a good source, as it is self-published (published by BookSurge, a self-publishing press). Also, the book is fiction. Even if you claim to base it off real events, fiction cannot be cited as as truth. We have no way of knowing how much is embellished.

And I think that your website's primary purpose seems to be to sell the book (as that's what the index.html does), so it falls under Links normally to be avoided. I can't really see any reason to link to this. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 16:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that is a valid reponse, the book was stated as fictional simply to avoid legal entanglements as I could not use real names. It is self published using Booksurge and as you state, I would possibly have a conflict of interest, but only in the book, not in the facts contained in the book. I can site another instance where books written as fiction and external links to the book were allowed, the first one that comes to mind is "The Davinci Code". How is this different? Meckanic 17:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, where do you see that? Because if it's on The Da Vinci Code, then it's perfectly legitimate (assuming that it's an external link to the book's official site). Links to the official site of the subject of an article are always permitted, regardless of whether they have commericial intent. And the conflict of interest I was talking about was in you adding a link to your own book; this looks dangerously like self-promotion to me. If you're talking about "The Da Vinci Code" being used as a reference, then that shouldn't happen (unless it's being used as a reference to talk about the book itself). If that's the case, could you show me where? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor, Opus Dei linked to popular culture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_dei This is a clear instance of an actually fictional novel that is linked to an existing organization. Meckanic 17:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The Da Vinci Code is an enormously popular novel; almost everybody has heard of it, and it has gained large amounts of mainstream media attention. Can you show the same for your book? Furthermore, the book is not being used as a reference (i.e., a place to get more information); you listed your book under 'References'. I'm not saying it would've been OK under a different section, I'm just saying that that's one of the differences. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 17:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor, so you are saying you have different rules based on 'popularity' rather than truth? Is that correct? It shouldn't matter whether my book is 'popular' or not, as long as it addresses the issues, is relevant and contains factual information. Anyway, to circumvent this problem, should I have my agent or someone more at arms length write an independant entry in Wikipedia? I can certainly have that done, it would just be questionable as to whether or not it would be allowed, since one rule fits none, based on 'popularity' as you seem to have explained. Meckanic 18:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm saying that the section is titled 'References to Opus Dei in popular culture'. The Da Vinci Code clearly falls under that. However, your book was listed as a 'Reference'. Your book is not a reliable source of information according to WP:RS since it's self published and labeled 'fiction', so there's little to no independent fact-checking done. And having your agent create an independent entry would certainly be a conflict of interest; you'd have to get someone that isn't related (by blood or by business association) to you to make it. And even then, there are notability criteria, and I'm not sure if your book will pass them. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, we've beaten a dead horse enough. I agree to disagree. Meckanic 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Heh, if you think this is a long discussion, you should see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 18:26, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The thing is Veinor, you have your opinion and I have mine. I am a reasonably guy and I don't see a solution coming out of this because your rules for inclusion are different for the same 'things' based on what appears to be Bayer's Theorem and a 'popularity contest' and you have stated as much re popularity. In fact, if I signed the affidavits for the SA and Cdn courts tomorrow and in two years everyone was charged and convicted, I am quite sure, this discussion would not change in the least. I believe however, that if my book was totally fictional but popular, from what you have said, then the discussion would change. So, that tells me, as I said before and you explained, it's all about popularity, not about truth or facts. I think my work should be referenced under Hegel because I provide clear documented examples of how the Hegelian Principle has been applied to two documented conflicts (the Gulf War of 1990 and Desert Storm/the removal of Saddam and the political changes in South Africa), the Lethal Fence, because I designed a majority of the software and hardware and have actual photographs up there, the Helderberg, because I have referenced articles, debris field maps, photographs and I was involved in the Armscor weapons programs, Canadian Corruption, well, I only dealt with ministers, universities, stock brokers, lawyers and accountants involved, and I only lost a few tens of millions of dollars in that scan, so that might be irrelevant, it certainly isn't popular. I can see you point as it possibly being a conflict of interest for me, but the truth never should be for anyone.

I don't think that the popularity is a factor for references in the sense of 'further reading'. It's only a factor in The Da Vinci Code's inclusion in Opus Dei (the section is titled 'References in popular culture'). The concern for references is whether it constitutes a reliable source and verifiability. The criteria for inclusion in the 'pop culture' section is more notability-oriented. We can have non-notable references (most science papers are) and pop culture references that are works of fiction (e.g., The Da Vinci Code). Again, we're not really comparing the same thing here. The 'references' section in the articles I removed your book from could also have been titled 'further reading'; it's intended to provide more information. The section in Opus Dei that The Da Vinci Code is mentioned in is concerned with pop culture that mentions Opus Dei, not further information on it. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Veinor, Are you saying then, that under a different heading on the articles, say "Books that Reference Topic" or "Pop Culture" (as you mentioned), that the link could be included, as I do offer more information that is not available on your site (pdf's, photo's, documents, etc) as well as copyrighted information which I own. Just trying to find reasonable resolve to this. Meckanic 19:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it depends on the articles you add the link to and what page on your site you link to. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Red Cloud - Yellowtail External Link Warning

Hello. I am extremely new to Wikipedia and I just discovered your messages. It took me a day to figure out how to respond to you. My ignorance of how to navigate the site caused me to spend the whole day trying to respond to your warnings. I was not ignoring you. Now, to the heart of the matter. I do not understand exactly what you are objecting to. The website for the external link I put up has two quotes from Red Cloud, a photograph of him and refers to a documentary which contains even more quotes and images of Red Cloud and relies on his words to tell a portion of the narration. I think it is clearly a legitimate reference material for anyone interested in Red Cloud and the experience of the Plains Indian Wars and the ultimate confinement onto the government run reservations. Given that the Red Cloud article contains other external links to Red Cloud movies, I wonder what the objection is. On the Thomas Yellowtail article, I also received a warning. This is all the more puzzling as the entire narration of the documentary, The Sun Dance Way,is in Yellowtail's own words, it is taken from his autobiography, published by University of Oklahoma Press in 1991, and from his personal memoirs, and the documentary was made with his permission. The documentary contains a 20 minute Biography of Yellowtail as well. In both cases, the sources are unquestionably documented, accurate, and of academic interest. How can these not be a sufficient resource for the subjects of the articles in question? I understand your very good intention to weed out simple marketing and I am glad that you do so. And I think I may have given you reason to question the legitimacy of my link by not giving sufficient explanation for the links appropriatness. I apologize for that, but again, my ignorance was a factor. Is it that I should list it under external links? Really, I am not trying to pull anything inappropriate. I just need to understand the objection. I will wait to hear from you. But please do not take any drastic action against me until we have communicated and realize that my delay in response was due simply to ignorance of the problem and ignorance on how to respond!Dvddirector

Really, I object the most to the external links; I don't care about the documentary so much as the link to a specific site for ordering it I think that the Thomas Yellowtail documentary is OK, due to his level of involvement. As to the Red Cloud one, I'm not so sure. Perhaps bring it up on Talk:Red Cloud? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Firstly, I should correct my message of yesterday where I stated that I had also received a warning about the link to the documentary on the Yellowtail page. In fact, I (in my ignorance about messages) just assumed the message at the top of the Yellowtail page was also a warning from you. In fact, it was a message of commendation on adding a good article to Wikipedia (from Shossess) with no objection stated to the link to the documentary. So, clearing that up, I would add some more information for us to consider as to the appropriateness of the link I proposed to Red Cloud. I note that the Red Cloud article currently has a link to a page that goes directly to a website where you can buy the movie. The PBS site in question has a shopping page ON THAT SITE, where you can buy the mentioned movie. Now in the case of the link I placed, there are two differences. Firstly, you can NOT BUY the movie from THAT WEBSITE. It is an informational site only. To buy the movie, you have to link from it to a third party site. So, if your objection is that the link leads directly to a site where the documentary can be purchased, that is in fact not the case. Also, perhaps it is worth noting that all royalties from the sale of the 2 documentary set are donated toward the donation of the documentaries to all Native American and Canadian First Peoples high schools and colleges - as the purpose of this documentary is primarily as an educational resource for the preservation of Indian traditions. Nonetheless, I have no interest in creating ill will and do not insist on the link to Red Cloud. I simply thought that given the content of the article, the documentary offered considerable information about the experience of the Plains Indians of the time of Red Cloud with Red Cloud's own words making up part of the narrative. The PBS movie (which is an External Link of the Red Cloud page now) did not deal exclusively with Red Cloud, but rather Red Cloud was a part of the overall story being told. The same applies to this documentary. With all this additional information, if you still think it inappropriate to add the link to an informational site, not a purchasing site, then I will defer. I hope any question of labeling me as a spammer has been resolved as a result of our coversation and request that you communicate with me again if you still have such thoughts. Thank you for your patience with a novice on Wikipedia and I look forward to your thoughts.Dvddirector

Request to Add Link to "Mike Kelley"

Dear Veinor,

We at Patrick Painter Inc have requested to add an external link to "Mike Kelley" whom we solely represent in Los Angeles. We think it is very relevant to have a link to our site showing Kelley's important and historical exhibitions which were executed in our gallery. Please reconsider our request. Thank you.

Best, Patrick Painter Inc —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Patrickpaintergallery (talk • contribs) 22:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

The basic issue I'm seeing here is that you have an obvious conflict of interest in linking to your own site. And though the site may be useful, it requires the use of Macromedia Flash, which can make it inaccessible to a large amount of users. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

AIS external link

Hi there.

Can you please explain what about the external link you removed in this revision you felt did not meet the requirements? We'd already vetted that link as a group and felt it was appropriate, so we'd really like to know if something was missed. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 04:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I just think it's too specific to be of use; also, the link was being spammed on many, many pages that had much less relevance (e.g., Barge). And could you show me where you had the discussion? Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 04:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. The article is about a communications network for tracking ships and the site in question is a free portal to witness that data in real time. The link itself does not appear to violate any guideline in the WP:EL, although it was interesting to see from your contributions list how many places you found it that were of minimal importance.

The vetting process was non-discussion; we were removing many inappropriate links and contributions were all checked against policy, plus we added the hidden-text header warning not to add inappropriate links. Here is a sample of the extensive cleaning.

I personally appreciate your work in ensuring that spam is not present. In this case I will be restoring the link to the AIS page and leaving its potential removal to editors familiar with the AIS topic. - Davandron | Talk 04:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think that, in this case, it might be useful. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Unjustifiably deleting external links of marine vessel movement

Why are you deleting the external link I added to tanker(ships)? The external link complies with all the guidelines for adding external links. There must be some misunderstanding here that I'd like to get to the root of. You mention that the link is a directory of links and used for advertising and promotion. That statement is totally misrepresentative of what the link achieves especially since there is no commercial interest in regards to educating the public on how marine vessels transit the waterways in real time with the aid of global vessel identification technology.

Upon further research which is accurate and on-topic readers are now able to view the various types of marine vessels that transit the oceans, ports and harbors by viewing the website from the external link. This information could not be added to the Tanker (ship) article due to amount of detail in the real time movement of vessels on the Google Map and would of not been suitable for inclusion in the Tanker(ship) article.

Reading the restrictions on linking I see that sites that violate copyright and sites that are on the spam black list are not allowed. The external link I added are neither of these. In regards to what to link, the site is proper in the context of the article as it enables the reader to see in real time tanker ships sailing and navigating on the waterways. This is factual and very informative, something that the reader can't obtain in just reading words on a page. Ships move like the waters they sail upon. Words on a page don't move. Yet the ships on the VesselTrax site move just as the ships do in real life. After readers complete the article they can now go to an external link that will bring them from the comfort of their home upon the seas and a bit of interaction with the vessels that they read and learned about.

So I ask. How am I not complying with the guidelines for external links? There is no promotion or commercial interests here. Only educating and sharing with the readers the wonders of the maritime trade as the initial article sets the stage. Now one can actually see a tanker moving in the harbor, docked, or actually conducting lightering operations offshore. How can the words of the page in the introductory article do that?

I feel that this external link should be added back to the tanker(ships) article and not deleted as you have done. The trade of the professional mariner has long been one that goes unnoticed as it is unseen upon the seven seas. By not letting the readers actually see how and where the ships of the sea ply the trade you only diminish the full importance of an understanding global shipping which is mentioned in the article. Watermon | Talk 05:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the link you added is only tangentially relevant, especially considering you added it to many pages. And if you read the warning I left, you'd see that I never said that that the link was a directory or used for advertising or promotion. I said that Wikipedia is not a directory of external links.

The section of the external link guidelines that mentions copyright violations and the spam blacklist only concerns sites that can never be linked to. If you go further down, there is a section titled 'Links normally to be avoided'. Number 13 is 'Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject'. I think that this falls under that category, since the connection from tankers to a vessel tracking website is rather tenuous; the reverse connection is even more so. Basically, the site doesn't provide any more information on tankers themselves, just on the movements of some actual tankers.

This is not to say that I don't like the site; I think it's very neat. I'm just saying that the link is inappropriate. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Silicon Gulf -- deleted additional link

Hi, I'm sorry if I added an unnecessary link to Trimaran Solutions, Inc. on the Silicon Gulf page. I just thought it was ok since there was also a link to Mynd Consulting in the same link list. Also, is it ok if I just included the name of Trimaran Solutions, Inc. in the list? To add, the link to TeamAssist is also even out of context cause as can be seen in their website, they're an Australian company and the main topic of the article is about Davao IT companies and organizations. Trimaran 06:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the entire list shouldn't have been there in the first place, so I removed it. Of course, there's a chance someone else will re-add it, and then there'll be a debate over whether it should be there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 14:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're right. The list shouldn't be there cause it would just be an advertisement and a listing of IT companies in Davao would never be updated cause there are new companies born ever so often. Thanks Trimaran 03:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Settlers of Catan

My mistake. Didn't realize the linking rules were so strict. Danno 13:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Everybody makes mistakes; that's why the link policy isn't zero-tolerance. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)