![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI - I have upgraded the Reid Stowe article to temporary full protection due to continued content dispute as noted in this request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
don't want to be poked for some reason. We've tried three times and have received a red link each time. MER-C 13:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.127.96 ( talk • contribs)
Hello Beetstra. I am the editor of leaksallday.com. I noticed there has been some questions as to the reliability of the information posted. I would like to ensure you that I do all of the research myself and actually listen to each album that is "leaked" before posting news. I am not sure what else could be done to make a site like this more valid as a source. Is there anything that comes to mind? Also, I respect your right to edit wikipedia content as you see fit. I noticed the reference was added again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(album): 19:35, 3 June 2010 Ldud (talk | contribs) (1,566 bytes) (Undid revision 365170430 by Beetstra (talk) Important piece of information had been removed.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.243.180 ( talk)
Yes, I've run into problems with reffing bad sites in the past. Having said that, I did not add the reference. You might wanna try talking to the person who added it. Also, regardless of whether or not this is a trustworthy source, the album was leaked to the internet. What we might wanna try doing is keep the ref in there till we find a better one with the same information. Thanks - Ldud CRAP (Ldud) talk some CRAP wit' me! 19:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As i said
Coercorash Talk Contr. 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Are these supposed to be empty?
Edit summaries here indicate that records exist in the database. MER-C 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a page I've taken a little bit of interest in from a history-viewpoint and I noticed that the link: Link GA|de (which apparently is part of a BOT you created?), appears on the page-code when one hits "Edit page". I am not that techno-literate and am trying to understand exactly *what* that link actually is and what it does. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearonink ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Link GA|de}}
(which I assume you saw on
Isoroku Yamamoto) puts a good article symbol
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I know about templates somewhat but couldn't quite figure out what the bits of 'code' within the double parens meant... And sorry for leaving my original question above signatureless. Shearonink ( talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would reconsider restoring the external links to the Soundmap entry. I make no claims for my own, and don't mind if that isn't restored, but several of the others are initiatives by bona fide cultural organisations and archives. Their inclusion would be wholly relevant to the subject.
I see from the history of the page that you spent some time mulling this over. I appreciate the links to the relevant guidelines by way of explanation, but they do not dispel the sense of the removal of all links as punitive rather than dispassionate. IMR ( talk) 10:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMR ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand the guidelines with regard to excessive numbers of links. Would it be acceptable to provide a single link to a blog post attempting to define a typology of different sound maps, describing and listing individual projects? dmoz doesn't appear to have a single category of 'soundmap', those that are listed on dmoz are scattered among many regional categories. IMR ( talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Acoustic Ecology Institute also has a list of sound map projects on one of its site pages, and perhaps might be better? I will investigate how new categories are created on dmoz, but I don't know anyone who's an editor. IMR ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I will see about expanding the article's content first. It may become apparent that such a link has illustrative validity as a note or reference, rather than as a disembedded external link. Eg the statement 'the majority of soundmaps listed by the Acoustic Ecology Institute[1] use the Google Maps API, with others featuring map interfaces of their own devising'. IMR ( talk) 12:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by IMR ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. May I ask why your bot is tracking me when I use the website paralympic.org as a source in articles? I'm currently creating articles on nations' and athletes' participation in the Paralympic Games, and paralympic.org is an official International Paralympic Committee website which contains a searchable, categorised database of Paralympic Games results. For obvious reasons, it's my main source for such articles, so I reference it in numerous articles, but your bot seems to think I'm spamming. Just to let you know. Thank you for your bot's good work on other issues, though. Aridd ( talk) 10:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I wasn't sure if you were watching the discussion page, so I thought I'd just drop by and tell you that I replied. Netalarm talk 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In this, you removed sourced info and added unsourced info. If there is a source, provide it - per WP:BURDEN. The source that the user provided appears to be verifiable and reliable, assuming good faith. If you do have good reason to doubt it, then you should remove the information completely, not put something unsourced. It is not the duty of the contributor to provide their source online; as far as I can tell, it is publicly available.
Additionally, please take into consideration the sad tale documented here.
Thanks, Chzz ► 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, I said that I am disputing half of the information in the reference that they gave, and what has not been verified. I am disputing her reference, half of it is contradicting an online source, what, there is no online source that states 'Salinas', whether or not scraped, they all say 'Monterey'. You say it is a good source, I have asked that it be verified. As that half seems plainly wrong, I do not trust the information that the birth name is correct. Go discuss with them, they did not provide a reliable source (again, as it contradicts another reliable, verifiable source), so I am asking, and have asked, for the verification. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't get it, do you? I don't trust that source, if the birthplace is disputed, then why do you trust the birthname from the same source ... I am disputing that reference until it is verified (if someone says that they read a reference which says that grass is blue when it grows, and it says that it is eaten by insects, and you know that grass is actually green, and not blue, and every other, (unreliable) source on the internet says that it is eaten by cows, then do you still believe that it is eaten by insects?). You can't ask the user (their account is nicely renamed, so even if they would return they is unlikely to find it), but at least I tried to ask others to actually verify the data. And there is biting and being bitten. My .., the first editor that warned left a first level warning, which are written to be in good faith, and XLinkBot did not even leave a warning. If I am not allowed to say to an editor 'hey, I am sorry, but that is not according to guideline, I have reverted it, could you check again', and then that is 'biting', then you are taking things a step too far. Sigh. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I moving this comment from a user from your User:Beetstra page to User_talk:Beetstra. Traxs 7 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made no disruptive edits. You are attacking me. Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. Your placement of a vallid company with referances on the spam list is simply a mob attack. I request User:Beetstra to be sanctioned. discussion,
User_talk:Abmin
Well, no discussion, so indeed apply WP:RBI, Wikipedia is not a place to promote information like this. Also please immediately blacklist every link used by this user (true redirect sites go immediately on meta). This has been going on too long. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
This is a message requesting removal of my links from the wiki spam page. I am a new internet user and have had no experience with promoting websites. I thought that useful non commercial websites could be promoted and so entered the website details into wiki. I realize that I made a grave error, but I did not receive any prior warnings except that I see my website in the spam page.
The websites in question are
humangrowthhormonesideeffects.org
hghbenefits.net
viagrainindia.com
I request your kind consideration and request you to kindly remove those links from the wiki spam report. I promise you that none of my links will ever get put in wiki even if they are non commercial websites. Please forgive me for the last time and kindly remove my links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
Praying for a reprieve. I have learnt my lesson. Mercy please... Pl help!
Warm Regards
Vijayjoys (
talk)
13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)vijayjoys
Hi
This is a message requesting removal of my links from the wiki spam page. I am a new internet user and have had no experience with promoting websites. I thought that useful non commercial websites could be promoted and so entered the website details into wiki. I realize that I made a grave error, but I did not receive any warnings except that I see my website in the spam page.
The websites in question are
I request your kind consideration and request you to kindly remove the links from the wiki spam report. I promise you that none of my links will ever get put in wiki even if they are non commercial websites. Please forgive me for the last time and kindly remove my links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
Praying for a reprieve. I have learnt my lesson. Mercy please...
Warm Regards Vijayjoys ( talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Vij
Thanks for the quick reply Dirk. I understand what you are saying. I made the mistake and I will not repeat it ever. Is there no way of removing my links from wiki spam. I will never repeat this mate. I have learnt my lesson. Pl consider removing those links from the wiki spam page. Is there no way?
Warm Regards Vijayjoys ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)vijayjoys
I poked
which is equivalent to
LinkSaver doesn't like the former. Can the linkwatchers cope with, say, http://παράδειγμα.δοκιμή or http://правительство.рф (links are safe and register in MW's linksearch)? It's only a matter of time until IDNs get spammed. MER-C 07:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had a question about the XLinkBot. I see where admins can edit the RevertList for the bot to add a site to be reverted. Can this be done at an admin's discretion? Or should a request be filed first? I've never spent a lot of time cleaning up spam, but today I've found myself going through and cleaning up a bunch of junk from patch.com. Thanks. TN X Man 23:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Beetstra. Hope everything is well. I don't mean to nag or anything, but as the user who initiated and implemented a restriction on CSD criterion G6 with regards to old IP talk pages, I would like to ask for your opinion. For pages such as User talk:64.174.166.78, User talk:82.36.24.14, and User talk:80.45.176.115, what should be done, if at all? As administrators, I feel it is our duty maintain the site, keeping it clean of pages that serve no apparent purpose and have no inherent value. Please let me know what you think. Regards, FASTILYsock (TALK) 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I made my point clear in the discussion. You are right, by far most of these pages could be deleted as non-controversial. The point that I tried to make was, that when the IP has been used in any form of long term abuse (strong POV pushing, spamming) or there has been a significant discussion on the page (about whatever subject), then thát deletion is not controversial. I have, and others, in the past, pushed to get that point through. Do NOT delete the pages just on the basis of their current content, do not delete them because they are blank, delete them only after having a look at the contributions of the editor, and (old) warnings or discussions that have been found on the talkpage. These pages were all blanked, in good faith, but it is all to easy for a spammer to blank all the talkpages where his warnings were on, and then they get deleted. If we want a CSD for user talkpages, then there should be a handful of strict criteria (which there were and are, but which are completely ignored through and through):
I know that the things then don't go towards CSD criteria anymore, and that every deletion is more work, but if there is no check for #2 here, the deletion would 'destroy' valuable information. And I am sorry to say, but to me all admins who engaged in mass-deletion of user talkpages always failed to consider that, when I noticed I have always contacted the editors and complained, but it is just a matter of time and it repeats. Note, that an earlier CSD discussion excluded user talk pages from G6, G6 is not a criterium there.
So, for the above three, they do not fall in any of the three points I stated here, they were not warned for 'systematic vandalism', also did not do anything related to that (even if they were not warned for that), they were not engaged on their talkpage in long discussions about a subject, and all three have never been blocked .. so these could indeed go. I hope this clarifies my point. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
hmm .. yes, I would support it, though I think that it is not unambiguous enough for a CSD, and that will be the dispute. U4 along such lines has existed before, and .. well, it has been my only time I blocked an admin over it, and it did result in a ArbCom and deadmin (and note, I am a supporter of said admin!). We will get questions 'what is systematic vandalism', which is something which is not easy to spot, and what seems simple vandalism, may actually be part of a long term case ( WP:LTA is full of them). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, did not get back to this, yet.
I am afraid that this will get problems, which I lined out above or in the discussion on WT:CSD:
The problem in the end is, you will have to go through every single edit the editor has done, see if they engaged in spamming (which would need a research if other editors have used the same link, which is quite a nice task if the editor is spamming a youtube.com (yes, it can be spammed!)), and check if the editor was warned for that. And even, maybe the editor was welcomed, but not warned, which could mean that the editor could have known a bit about our policies and guidelines. i hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I know the problem. No-one will have problems with deletion of talkpages of simple vandals, or those who did one edit and only got a welcome template on their talkpage. Oh, to the above you can add that also deleted contributions should be checked. Some of the spammers make a spam-page, which then gets deleted, still the editor was a spammer.
When I go through some old IP talkpages, finding the uncontroversial ones is quite easy. No edits to any talk-space page, one or two edits to mainspace, no deleted contributions, no blocks (OK, seeing if the vandalism was of another 'systematic' form than spamming is more difficult). When the list of edits gets longer, it is better to leave it alone. I think that a bot would be able to filter a lot of the not-so-controversial ones, which then could be checked by hand quite quickly. But if that ends up to be a CSD, I don't know. Maybe we need to shift this discussion back to WT:CSD, and see what others think. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Indian Alcohol Policy Alliance, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.indianalcoholpolicy.org/aboutiapa.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 09:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It was an article copied onto another page, I copied it there, and gave notice to the creator. They did not do anything about it (I changed a bit), but was hoping someone could do something with it, or review it. Maybe this is better. Thanks!! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, the main work is now finished, but there are a lot of reports on the main page that I think are inactive. Some of them possibly don't even belong there. Can you think of an easy way to figure out which reports should stay at LTA (active, long-term vandals)? The only way I've come up with is to review each on individually, but that's risky since we're not familiar with every entry. Netalarm talk 21:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed your COIBot is reporting mcclatchydc.com as a spam link. It is a well-known and legitimate US news service that posts recent articles written by its journalists that also appear in US newspapers. Would you take a quick look at the site; its legitimacy is immediately obvious. I have no idea who to contact about delisting this site, but perhaps you do since you run the bot? If so, would you ask to have it removed from the spam noticeboard or which ever blacklist it is on ? Thanks. KeptSouth ( talk) 08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Re your deletion of my picture on Nobel Prize Controversies:
1. It is, after all " Nobel Controversies ". This controversy is unique because it does not involve the usual second-guessing the subjective judgement of the Nobel committee. Face it, they missed an entire field. Or do you maintain that the 2000 Nobel prize winners really "discovered" conductive polymers ? If so, you seem to be the only person who still does. There are just too many papers.
2. Wonder if you read the caption, which reads "The last" conductive polymer before the Nobel assignment of discovery credit. Labels such as "the last" and "merely the last" hardly claim priority. The picture is to show how badly the Nobel committee messed up, missing a gadget that is now in the Smithsonian, generally considered the foremost institution re the history of discovery.
The point being that the 2000 Nobel prize committee apparently missed the entire field of conductive polymers previous to their 1977 rediscovery. This is hardly pushing some Nobel claim, which I emphasize belongs to the 1963 Australian paper. Just where do you get this ?
3. There is plenty of support for the fact that the Nobel committee missed the entire previous body of work in conductive and semiconductive polymers. I even have a 1964 textbook entitled "Organic Semiconductors"--- Perhaps I should post a picture of the cover. In particular, Inzelt's recent textbook "Conductive Polymers" devotes an entire chapter to this issue. Tellingly, this chapter is entitled "There is Nothing New Under the Sun". BTW, Inzelt does not mention the gadget in the picture -- it was far too late.
4. I only post occasionally. This is hardly WP:ownership. Similarly, there also seems to be only one person who objects to the picture. 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Other issues aside, you are incorerct about how concensus works: E.g., from wp:concensus
" Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages.
This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages. It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:
If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the talk page, in an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.
Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a neutral and readable product.
If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them..... " (emphasis-added ).
Which is exactly what I was doing. I can give numerous other examples of where you flatly "get things wrong". Perhaps this is because you don't know better. Alternately, you simply may not care. E.g., accusing me of wp:ownership when I have posted rarely is only one example. Have you actually read wp:ownership or do you just not care how wikipedia defines this term ? Either is not acceptible behavior.
True, most editors accept this kind of bullying and just go away. Better thing$ to do. However, such behavior on the part of admins spoils wikipedia for everyone and drives off expert editors, of which wikipedia is in sore need. Worse, bad behavior drives off potential donors as word gets out of admin misconduct. If you demand that everyone else here follows the rules, you should follow them yourself. In any case, aquaint yourself with them better.
BTW, I note you dodged the other issues I raised. Pproctor ( talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Robot Arena 2: Design and Destroy deleting the {{multiple issues|wikify =March 2008|unreferenced =June 2008|POV =March 2009}}. Please can you explain where these issues are present? 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I'm responding to your following message:
I'm Sorry, but I'm slightly confused why my Updated Link ( http://turpas3.angelfire.com/ ) to my website was refused. Having read a lot about what's acceptable and what's not I can only assume that because my website is a hobbyist page which is on a Free Provider it's not allowed. If so I'm confused because my previous page was on a Free Webpage, though had to be closed down due to Geocities closing down! :( Could you please advise why this was reverted?
--Cpm22 user (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess you should read WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:EL, and then decide whether the page really adds to the page you added it to. As the policies and guidelines say, we are not a linkfarm, not the yellow pages, etc. May I point you also to our conflict of interest guideline. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a read of those pages you suggested and while I feel my website isn't in violation with Wikipedia, it's perhaps not the most suitable site given the links on my website are to direct Turbo Pascal Files which offer no advise on how the program works and some of them are Machine Specific programs which won't help anyone who isn't familiar with that Machine.
Originally I offered my site to Wikipedia which was accepted and still present as the old link to Collection of Generic and Amstrad CPC programs written in Turbo Pascal 3 under CP/M. on your Turbo Pascal article. If that could be deleted it will save people from going to a Dead Link as I had to move it due to Geocities closing. Originally my intention was to provide a site which is the only site (that I'm aware of) to gather a collection of Turbo Pascal 3 programs I had written. While as I mentioned earlier my website has some Machine Specific code which was all done in Turbo Pascal 3 for my particular CP/M Computer, it also has a collection of Generic Code which would be completely compilable on other Platforms and while my website makes every effort to explain what's Specific and what's portable between computers, it has perhaps got to a stage where more of the Specific shows than the Generic code, though haven't been able to add anything recent to it in a while due to the amount of time I spend in other activities and the website itself is connected to the community for which it's specific to and that community also has their own little Wiki page related to that Machine and for which my page has a home in there as well.
Just a thought that if there was some thought's about having some program examples from different versions of Turbo Pascal on Wikipedia then your more than welcomed to grab something generic from my website, though I'm suspecting that's not allowed either.
-- Cpm22 user ( talk) 09:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I contact you directly since you are participant of the WikiProject Chemicals and do run bots.
Could you put all local images (files not on Commons) inside the Chembox (i.e. structural formulas or crystal structures) into a list or a maintenance category? I would like to move the ones with a good quality to Commons, in order to enable categorization and usage by other WPs. The low quality images are intended to be replaced by existing alternatives or new structures. In de-WP, I have already completed this task (but including other images in chemistry articles, see history of
de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie/Wartungsseite lokale Bilder). --
Leyo
14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If it is too complicated or if you find it too time consuming, just make the changes to the Chembox. :-) -- Leyo 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
File:
is missing. --
Leyo
13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Why do you delete the part of Regine Velasquez in this song, she has a single of that song. THAT'S THE PROOF THAT FOREIGNERS HAVE NO TRUST TO FILIPINOS especially Regine (REGINE VELASQUEZ IS THE ASIA's SONGBIRD!) -- 121.54.15.166 ( talk) 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
'Many people have praised' .. where is that written (and as I said, YouTube is not a proper source for that)? And please don't shout. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
WG"H
Please tell me why you have removed the 5 links that I have put up from the site Zissil.com
http://zissil.com/topics/na-nach/ http://zissil.com/topics/petek/ http://zissil.com/topics/na-nach-nachma-nachman-meuman/ http://zissil.com/topics/avtalyon/ http://zissil.com/topics/shmaya-nasi/
I did not put these pages up in an attempt to spam wikipedia. These pages have a lot more information about the subject then the current Wiki page have or ever will have. They are extremely useful to readers and provides them with a far greater insight to the subject then by reading the wiki pages alone. I do not consider it spam in any way and it is only beneficial for readers. My friend has worked very hard on these pages and I think his work should be accessible to people researching these subjects.
I would appreciate it if you would tell me why you chose to treat these quality pages like spam.
Moshe—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.150.89 ( talk • contribs)
WG"H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.65.199 ( talk) 11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It is very debatable if the page fails the guidelines.
Regarding the accounts adding the links, this is irrelevant. If the linked pages are productive and help users, what difference does it make who added the link.
Regarding the start-up issue; all the links given were to very complete and ready pages that cover their topics in detail. What difference does it make if the site contains some other incomplete pages, no one linked to them. Again if we are trying to help the user read more about the topic then he is being led to a very ready page.
Lets say the site is like a Wiki so therefore what? If the goal of Wikipedia is some kind of web domination, that anyone searching for information must go through them, then it is understandable what you are saying. However if the goal of Wikipedia is to help people find useful and productive information, then why wouldn't they link to pages that contain double, triple or a dozen times the information that their pages contain on the same topic.
Dirk, did you even read the pages, did you compare them to see how much better they are then the parallel Wikipedia pages? Or did you just give a fast glance and then pull off all the links.
How come the editors that built the Na Nach pages and have removed and canceled dozens of edits, why did they choose to leave the links up, why did they not pull them down when they saw them added. Because they know the subject and saw how much value the Zissil pages were adding for site viewers.
Lets even say in theory that a person created a wiki like site with thousands of topic pages, each superior to the parallel Wikipedia page. What exactly would be the problem in linking all thousand pages each on their corresponding page. Is some how the mass thing an issue, is it an issue that someone is doing a better job then Wikipedia. Again it comes down to the question of whether Wikipedia is trying to help people find information or whether they are trying to monopolize the web.
Moshe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.65.199 ( talk) 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
COIBot is struggling to keep up with existing spam:
The linkwatchers have caught up, but COIBot's various functions are still 39 hours behind. I've noticed that the reports aren't coming out at the usual speed too. Unfortunately, at this rate we won't see any pokes. Is this a temporary thing? MER-C 10:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Beetstra, I came over to say thanks for your input on the WT RFA threads that have been provoked by the stats I posted, then I noticed your Dutch origins and so I thought I'd ask for your help re meta:Death_anomalies_table. I need a Dutch speaker to tell me what the NL:Wiki equivalent is for Category:Dead people so we can identify "living" people on EN and other wikis who have a year of death on NL wiki. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've checked the full list again (I tend to stay away from it since it takes forever to load) and I've found a major problem that basically renders the list useless. As the list is too large, MW only displays the first few reports, leaving the ones at the bottom as links. Think we should just scratch the full list? Netalarm talk 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I had to block User:Olekp for attempting to revoke CC-BY-SA contributions over what seems to be a site which you said is unreliable and spam. Could you clarify on that a bit more so I know what is going on here? – MuZemike 18:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra - you may be interested in this "blog" post and this related discussion, where Daniel mentioned the DataTransclusion extension. Hope you enjoy your holiday. Walkerma ( talk) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
First off how is seonek preps.com a SPAM LINK? It is no different than yappi sports and it is allowed.Secondly the link was provided that had the football history of Portsmouth high school,I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT WIKI WAS ALL ABOUT???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You can talk to me you don't just have to give silly templates, it is a constructive comment not an attack,. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There are three open RFA's at this moment, and they all have the same question from you in them. I'm wondering if you honestly believe that this is a question that need be asked of every candidate. I ask because quite frankly this does not strike me as a question that will be a "magic bullet" that will give us some deep insight into the candidate, especially if they have no interest in this area of admin work. I have always felt that it is more useful to ask candidate-specific questions to test knowledge in areas the candidate has expressed an interest in, or situations they are likely to actually find themselves in, such as when they would block or speedy delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw one ip address that clarifies the role of Regine Velasquez in the song I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. Now, I will clarify the issue of that with 2 sources. I hope you understand why that user is clarifying. -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 07:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have questions about the isolation of sodium paragraph that I added? Usually I don't add information to the main body of an article, I only make it more accurate. I want to make my edits clear and complete without leaving the reader with more questions. So if you have any suggestions, I woud be glad to consider them.-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra, I am very disturbed by your repeated personally directed attacks, and especially by you latest, entirely false and groundless accusation on the Gary Ellenbogen that I likely had a COI. If you had any grounds for such an accusation, please present them. If you feel your assault to my integrety as an editor here was justified by any wikipedia guideline, please say what it was. YSWT ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
hello again. Can I put the infobox single in the article I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing? I put it but if not, you remove it. thanks. -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
ok if you want. thanks -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand why you put reported the edit war. I do not blame you for that, it was the right thing to do. But I am disappointed, that the full reception of Kane & Lynch 2 cannot be reported on wikipedia. The point was brought up that www.media-cows.com is a blog; that is true, so is Destructoid. Wikipedia should not be devoted, like Metacritic and Gamestats, to IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, etc.. Because reviews are opinion there cannot be a stated authority on the opinion of Kane & Lynch 2. I would request that this be addressed and Media Cows be included in the reception section. I was determined to include them because they were one of the first to review the game, one of the first to express a negative opinion, and should not excluded from the reception section because two reviewers find them unreliable.
Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I will bring it up on the respective talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I did try to delete the mediation but there was an error, so I will try again later. I posted on the video game sources talk page, if and when the site get added to the situational sources section will the protection be lifted or do you plan on just leaving it protected until it runs out. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a file that I uploaded mthe Regine Velasquez version of the song I Don't want to miss a thing. Please consult me if this file has problems. thanks!-- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to include factual information about Parasol unit, as a charity and include a history of artists and shows shown here. We don't want this page to serve as any commerical value for the organisation, so please could you perhaps give me some feedback as to what we can only include?
Many thanks,
(Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ2783 ( talk • contribs)
No, the article was rewritten in userspace, and then moved to mainspace. That article could use some work, and references, but it is not too promotional in tone). I'll have a look at the redirects. Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why, as that was originally written by me anyway off my website. Nothing on that site is copied from anywhere. I write all the articles myself. For that reason I have replaced the information, although I have changed the links so that they point directly to the article relating to the watervole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrnicholls ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrnicholls ( talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not getting any replies on that page, is that a bad thing? Endofskull ( talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Others might comment. Try to give a response (if you can ..). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you own a broom. Can you help here? This is the CP/CPPS article, in which a WP:SPA is repeatedly inserting unsourced info and speculation. The evil doer is Noodlebike ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as Arkaroola ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as IP 188.223.57.163. Can you please adjust the article so that only well established users can edit it? Thanks. TickleMeister ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw this on the wikiresearch mailing list, thought you might find it interesting.
-- Versa geek 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I have marked the page Wikipedia:Chemical sources with {{ historical}} and blanking most of the content. I feel the page is not currently serving any useful purpose for Wikipedia, and seems to be just a spam magnet at the moment. Anything useful can still be found in the page's history. I'm letting you know because you had a hand in creating the page. If you object to this, please feel free to revert ( WP:BRD...) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you are removing links to http://www.pan-uk.org in various articles and just wanted to know why? I've noticed the links you are removing are dead, but they are archived at http://www.archive.org/ so we can still link to them. If the articles first appeared in Pesticide News then I can't personally see the problem with having links so to pan-uk so that people can read them. Smartse ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you remove continuously the shoemaking video? Why it is less relevant than the thehcc.org or some other shoemakers, like a cobbler in washington??? This is the real, living craft and not the one you let the links and illustrations on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcellHUN ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest you drop the autoconfirmed requirement, I've seen spam from autoconfirmed accounts (often reposted). Also:
I believe the filter uses short-circuit evaluation, so it may be a good idea to move article_text=username as the first condition. MER-C 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, what's wrong with these links you've removed from: - 'kielbasa' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/kielbasa_polish_sausage.html) - 'pierogi' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/pierogi.html) - 5 pages articles about Polish pierogi - 'list of polish cuisine dishes' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/list_of_polish_food.html) - 5 pages of detailed descriptions of Polish food, nothing like that anywhere else in the Internet?
Of course it's my website. Articles are unique and cost me some work. TP still gains popularity (see our FB page) and people find it informative. I'm happy with that. IMHO my activity on Wikipedia is not spamming but sharing. If all links I had (9 or 10) was too much - than OK, but at least leave those three, that are the most useful.
Regards, Mat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.135.37.112 ( talk) 06:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen XLinkBot do some interesting reverts. There seem to be other protective bots around too, I do not have a list. Is there a Category called Wikipedia protective bots? I think there should be. The end of the story: I am thinking of an ensemble type blackboard model scenario where bots act as an ensemble with very high accuracy. I think this type of system would be interesting and very effective against vandalism, by having weights that are combined in the decision making process. A list of protective bots would be a good start. And the bots should provide "automatic explanations" for the revert, so you and versageek, etc. do not need to respond to user queries. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Please note that I did not create the links to Festipedia. They were created at least 2 years ago by other users, linking to our old address as part of the Festiniog Railway Heritage Group website. I merely updated them to point to the correct URL as we (the FR Heritage Group - a voluntary group) have now given Festipedia its own website. The lecture is therefore inappropriate, nor am I going to engage in a discussion as to whether or not your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, although I strongly object to your classification of these links as spam. We are not a commercial organisation and are not attempting to sell anything. I note that you have also rendered Template:Festiniog Railway Company ridiculous by changing the links in the line "Company web sites" so that they no longer point to the relevant websites and, less controversially, removing the links to the various support groups. I shall, however, leave the original authors of this template to argue with you over that. Do you intend to go through Wikipedia and remove the other 200+ links to Festipedia? Prh47bridge ( talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted Template:Festiniog Railway Company on the grounds that it does actually comply with WP:EL and was created to satisfy other complaints at the time (now exactly 2 years ago). The edits you made, by removing external links made the panel look foolish in having lines such as:
Header "Company WebSites" then directing them to WP sites Header "External Wiki sites" then directing them to WP sites Header "Support Groups" then directing them to non existant WP sites.
I have noted you have gone through the stations, but have not looked at what the edits consist of.
-- Keith 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Why has this now become a problem, after the initial setup was after taking it to dispute resolution (cannot remember the exact term - see comment on first edit 2 years ago) As for 14 active users, this is an extremely limited and dedicated wiki, and is advertised within related websites. For reference it usees "mediawiki" software -- Keith 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is the target of harassment by IPs over issues that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Is it possible to have the page locked against edits by non-registered users?
Run Amok ( talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep it on your wiki, IP. Does not belong here. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sir would you like to tell me whats problem with my written page? its was created to help students regarding their homework and assignments solutions. it was not an promotion or advertisement. It’s my humble request to republish this page as soon as posible please. I’ll be thankful to you-- Billal mirza ( talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Keith 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hoi Dirk, just a note to let you know that I reinstated one of your edits (you were very right). I think the article is a bit of a mess and I have the feeling that one or more editors isn't exactly neutral and might insert all that jazz again. Take it easy, Drmies ( talk) 16:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
i really learned a lot from your comments on the discussion of blacklisting literateur.com. I left a note for the journal's editor encouraging a close reading of your remarks, and warning that even one more new account or IP that seems to be spamming their site would probably mean a permanent blacklist status, which would be regrettable, in my opinion, although not so regrettable as having to waste wiki-time tracking down persistent spammers. Questionic ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I know you're probably inundated with these requests, but could you take a look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/05#examiner.com / Frank Sherosky? The admin previously attending to the request, Stifle, has gone on indefinite wikibreak. Being an admin myself, I would jump in, but I don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with whitelist requests. Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working with Wikio company and I have seen that your bot has detected an anormal activity that has conducted the website wikio.com to be blacklisted on wikipedia. Wikio is a news agregator service with elaborated algorythm to classify information, the service allow users to publish content if they consider that this content can interest other people. As all User Generated Content, the content is subject to spammers, so our service is moderated post publication.
All UGC content is publish under www.wikio.com/article/ directory.
It seems that someone has publish articles on Wikio and tried to promote their article pages by making a massive linking from wikipedia pages, if I understand well all the actions that have been listed here. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/wikio.com
The user has the same pseudo on wikio and wikipedia : matucana It can be seen on wikio com on the url /article/56367203
It seems that this guy has something against Berlusconi : http://matucana.wordpress.com/ So here, we have the case of a content on Wikio that is not Spam, but a guy that has tried to put a big number of backlinks on Wikipedia to promote his content on Wikio. The result is that Wikio has been blacklisted due to operations done by a third person with no relations with the website.
How can we fix that situation ?
Thanks, Christophe ODIN Kristoguy ( talk) 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice that I added it here, it may be that this was the case I thought I saw earlier. See here for the listing-discussion (you might want to link that in the de-listing request as well). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, there would be an easy way to fix that is to use a regular expression to blacklist only all urls starting with www.wikio.com/article, because the UGC content is only under this directory, so then it should fix the problem. I have not seen on the page that you link how to submit a de-listing request. Can you explain more exactly how to proceed Thanks Kristoguy ( talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Dirk. I see your bot keeps flagging me as a potential spammer. Apparently it's a bad sign when my user name nearly matches the name of the page (why is that?). Let me introduce myself. I am a geophysics professor, specializing in rock magnetism. I recently discovered that, if I Googled important subjects in geophysics, one of two things was likely to happen. Either a Wikipedia page would be the top hit, or there would be no Wikipedia page on the subject. And many of the existing pages need a lot of love. I realized that adding to Wikipedia would be a very effective form of outreach. RockMagnetist ( talk) 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi RockMagnetist. Welcome to Wikipedia. It is indeed as Netalarm states, the bot, a computer program designed to do tedious tasks on Wikipedia, or other forms of analysis, is designed to see overlap between usernames and added external links, or usernames and pages edited. When there is significant overlap, there often is a conflict of interest. Now, that does not have to be a problem, but in a lot of cases, there is reason for concern. Of course, there are false positives, and this is a clear case of that. I have therefore whitelisted you on the bot, it will from now totally ignore you. Happy editing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the blacklisting of our site gCaptain.com. We are very interested in the quality of our links and have no interest in distracting the conversation here at wikipedia. We are all mariners and consider the work you have done to promote maritime issues on wikipedia important. I very much wish to talk to you both about the blacklisting and about how we can help promote your goals here on wikipedia. Thanks, John Konrad - coFounder - -- Gcaptain ( talk) 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is I do not understand the system. All I know is a report from one of our users that the site was blacklisted. I'm trying to get myself quickly up to speed on wikipedia policy and procedure but, as I am sure you can remember from your early days on this site, this is a bit of a challenge. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- 66.215.124.171 ( talk) 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is it. You really don't understand what this site is about, do you. STOP your blatant self promotion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I am being reactive when I should have been proactive in learning wikipedia's policy before jumping in. While I am still learning the policies I do understand the problems of spam and I apologize for any infractions done by myself and by others in the name of gCaptain. I also apologize for making my appeal here on your talk page, which now seems obvious to me as the wrong place to discuss this. gCaptain is committed to doing the right thing and I appreciate your help guiding us down that path.-- Gcaptain ( talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
68.35.13.81 (
talk)
23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The User: Joerger has been lying about Wikipedia, saying "The website can say what it likes, but the fact remains that the site is filled with commercial adverisements. Someone is making a profit from the site. If it isn't the fanboys, they're being played for chumps.
Either way, the non-profit arguement is only a distraction. Their actions go far beyond any possible 'fair use' exemption. Theft and republication of trademarked and copyrighted material is criminal and not excuseable at commercial or non-profit sites.
I've said enough. The offense is clear."
This is untrue. All wikis are non-profit and their republication was fair, as wikis are reference sites, and require republication of certain tables, like his material in question. Please can you be fair to me, and tell him his behavior is not acceptable, and the people who were polite and leniant to him, as he is a robeteer, are not fanboys. 86.174.172.139 ( talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This quote, on his site, is untrue, and about Wikia in general. 86.174.172.139 ( talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help on this. Much appreciated! Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
COIBot is getting a bit behind. I haven't helped it much having dumped >100 on it recently; nevertheless I don't think it's been processing anything on that page recently.
If you get a chance, can you look into it? If you're too busy, don't worry about it. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of P-Anisic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Anisic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of O-Anisic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Anisic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he's back: 216.53.245.210 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Perhaps a shortish SP? Half Shadow 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot created WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/biointernational.ru., ie. not in the Wikipedia: namespace. Probably will only take a moment to fix. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have unblocked it since other reports went to the right place. What went wrong in this case? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been identified by COIBot on the spam reports, as my username and edited pages overlap. I chose my username based on the band Motley Crue as I am a fan, and therefore I do edit their page. I would like to be whitelisted on this. Regards, DrMotley ( talk) 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
It seems people either don't read the sources they use, or simply don't care. In the article on Andre Geim, an individual constantly edits the bio to say he is ethnically German. That is not correct, he is Jewish, and thus can not be ethnically German, his family had roots in Germany, but that's not the same as being ethnically German. All this information is in the article " http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1", see information under the heading "Top Grades in School". The article is actually cited, but not used properly.
I tried to edit the article to reflect reality, but someone kept changing it back until the article was locked, and only registered users could edit it.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.85.53 ( talk) 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I just wanted to point out to you this edit by CheMoBot that broke the chembox. Thanks for all the work you're doing to validate chembox data, despite the fact that you are clogging up my watchlist. ;) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cascite|correct|source}}
', where you replace 'source' with a code for the source (I have used 'CAS' for commonchemistry.org, NIST for the nist website, and ESIS for now. I think we should also do ChemSpider for one), and then add the saved revid with the pagename to the appropriate index. We are desperately looking for more verified identifiers (and when we have them, we can start sourcing for other data to be added and to keep track off. Thanks! --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be fine if you could add me to COIBots trusted user list, so that I could use it's cloak protected comments. I'm active in the SWMT and my IRC nick is "hoo" (Cloak: wikipedia/Hoo-man) - Hoo man ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Nobody answered me about wikio.com being blacklisted, I have made a proposal to disallow UGC pages of wikio to not be included into wikipedia. Could you please answer. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoguy ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We have also removed from wikio the account and pages produced by the user matucana, this user is blacklisted on our side. Then he will have no more reason to put again links on wikipedia, as his pages are no more existing. Kristoguy ( talk) 16:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to whitelist wikio.com now that we have cleaned the situation, or if your prefer just filter on wikipedia links starting with www.wikio.com/article/, the fact to be blacklisted on wikipedia give a bad reputation to the company due to third party people and we need to fix that. Thanks for your reply Kristoguy ( talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, regarding MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and moviereviewintelligence.com, you commented on the discussion about the site last August. Another editor and I would like to follow up on a whitelist request for the site's "about" page to include in its Wikipedia article. Could you please share your thoughts at the discussion here? Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you with this, but it seems to be getting out of hand. Historian.X1 is another sockpuppet and now he is posting on random users talk pages trying to convince them to edit the article in his own way. Is there now way of preventing these kinds of malicious activites? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historian.X1
Regards, -- Therexbanner ( talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. Another admin has already dealt with this case. Russian.science socks are now canvassing various users trying to gather support for unsourced editing.-- 90.192.240.115 ( talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC) That was me.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 17:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Primerica I added to the discussion, but also threw in a derogatory comment which amused me in my then inebriated state and you rightfully undid my edit. Wanting my comment to be seen however, I have revised my previous edit so as to remove the unnecessary insult. Please let it stand, as I have removed the questionable material. I would also like to thank you for calling me out on my sophomoric antics 71.84.126.174 ( talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Giorgiogp2! I appreciate you efforts to build the mycotoxin structures. I'd like to use them in a piece we're writing. I also need a couple of other sturctures built. Do you know where I could get other structures? -- Tec8854 ( talk) 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of ( )-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: (+)-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I started up the linkwatchers, coibot, unblockbot & chemobot - but xlinkbot won't compile. Turns out that reworking my home network was very overdue, between rewiring, replacing the old router and fixing some settings on my DSL modem - I think you'll see a huge improvement in network throughput. -- Versa geek 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but user:Russian.science has resurrected again. And this is his new attempt of canvasing [8]. Närking ( talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem, a correct identifier were replaced by incorrect ones. Please look at Revision history of Glucose for an example, the racemic identifiers were replaced by stereoisomer identifiers, which was already present. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 02:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
62.109.11.180 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.109.11.180
He/She is back (I guess, per WP:DUCK). This IP was used before (a few days ago) to evade blocks, so it's not a temporary IP. Same article b.s. Is there anyway of blocking it? -- Therexbanner ( talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why does the COIBot sometimes forget to put Wikipedia: at the start of titles? See Special:DeletedContributions/COIBot. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi... I refer to this edit that you made to the article rhodocene. The edit has added an InChI to the article, but it appears to me that consequently there are now two different InChI's listed. My understanding is that there should be a unique InChI for any substance. The InChI's listed are:
Would you please stop by the article and remove the one that is incorrect? I am unsure of exactly what to change. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
That was quite a tireless effort you made to update all those chemboxes! Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Dirk, titaniumwf.com has been added to the metaspamlist: [9] but spamming has continued, but with them not using a link, instead adding just www.titaniumwf.com. Do you know to set up a filter to automatically revert these edits? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG. Please whitelist on the linkwatchers. Thanks. MER-C 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You made this change to the Alice in Wonderland article. I think it was fine to remove the link, but addition of the link was a legitimate attempt to improve the article and should not have been reverted as vandalism. It justified a real edit summary and should not have been marked as minor. Ma t c hups 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra, I have seen your recent changes in History of the Jews in Turkey, which I found very professional and balanced. I wonder, if you could help me with my article Antisemitism in Turkey, more specifically, it would be very great if you could go through the article and make your comments or edits. thanks!-- Jim Fitzgerald post 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Heya Dirk
Just wondering. I thought we weren't using chemboxes for ions? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well enough people have been asking for an ionbox... can we make one? Perhaps with a different color scheme? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, leave the CASRN ... lets just copy-paste the templates and be over with it? Let the articles be pants, having a decent box may give input in expanding them. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you already have lots of CAS RNs. We can populate the CAS# ... no reason to leave it out. I was thinking of things like donor number, Drago-Wayland parameters, and pKb as important information in these boxes. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Then again, perhaps not of interest to non-inorganic chemists...
We have a spammer on WP:ANI who repeatedly inserts a phone number into articles. I've been seeing phone number insertions in #wikipedia-en-spam, hence I would like to ask whether XLinkBot can handle such things. Thanks. MER-C 13:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Dirk, you reblocked IP 24.29.92.238, apparently so that logged-in edits are allowed. However, it looks to me as if you did the exact opposite of what you intended. I am not that familiar with IP blocks and these settings, so I may well be mistaken, but could you perhaps check your block settings just to be sure? Apart from that, I have no problem with anyone changing a block I make to correct such problems, so thanks! Fram ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Due to your participation in a discussion on foreign language re-directs on the same talk page in late July 2010, you may be interested in joining the discussion on the usage of non-Roman languages in re-directs and DABs. Your input will be appreciated. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As one of two admins who commented on my request to get my Reliable Sources Search Engine white-listed, I am asking if you could take another look at it. The discussion is here. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
1. On the basis of the recent edits of the ChemMoBot, am I right in thinking that Chemboxes are now including both InChI and StdInChI (and the corresponding InChI keys)? And if so, where I find ChemBoxes without this info should I be adding it or leaving these to be bot processed?
2. Verification of data (specifically CSIDs) I tried reading the info in this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Chembox_validation) - but it is still not clear to me what CSIDs (or infact other data) are being being verified against when they are assessed by the bot. Would it be more correct to say that the bot is actually watching for changes?
3. I assume that it is considered inappropriate to verify your own additions or changes, but is there an list generated of 'records with outstanding verification1? I'd be happy to do a bit of verification on other users Chembox edits. The chemistds ( talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Quick follow up answer(s):
1) At the moment, CASNo, UNII and CSID are verified, if all three are correct, that page can be added to the index. I do off-wiki statistics and when another parameter reaches 100% (of the verified pages) I will add it and notify others (StdInChI and StdInChIKey are going to be the next two I think).
2) No, not at the moment. I'll have a discussion with the others, maybe it is time to (at least for now) drop verification of the CASNo until we have more. The data is not lost, but we have problems sourcing them all to the commonchemistry website. I am in any way helped with having correct CSIDs in the page, it makes the rest of the checks much easier.
3) CASNo's are a problem .. there are many places where they can be verified and found, problem is that some have restrictions on their use (so I can't encourage anyone to use them ...). Also for this reason .. maybe we have to drop CASNo's....
I hope this helps. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Update - we are likely going to drop CASNo's ... just CSID and UNII, and then soon StdInChI and StdInChIKey (need to run my script on all of them for the latter two). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ignore CASNo's from now (the bot will). I am updating CSIDs, UNIIs, StdInChIs and StdInChIKeys now (and well, also CASNo's if I have them available, but not for the verification). Would be great if you could help where we do not have CSIDs. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Categories: Arsenic fellow editor PlasmaPhysics is asking for resolution on the many discussions and reversions etc. concerning his recent and intermittently ongoing categorizations. It would be helpful if you and some other administrator helped resolve this case. It seems that there is little support for his recent work involving categories for As and Si (and probably other elements). My recommendation would to ask him to cease work on categories within the Chemistry project, period. I am going to send this note to DMacks who is also experienced in such disputes. But the main thing is that Plasma deserves some response. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF only takes it so far. I'm generally not a man of strong words .. but .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're tinkering with it right now. I'm seeing some pages with a rogue "value10=" at the top (e.g. Arsenicin A), and I'm pretty sure it's related. — Keenan Pepper 14:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to throwing Uw-spam4im notices around with great abandon. In some of these cases there seems to be no justification. For example, your warning is the only edit of User talk:87.248.226.210, an account that has, in any case, been blocked since August, and has obviously made no edits since. Jan1naD ( talk • contrib) 12:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was massively spammed, re-inserted when removed, editors using multiple IPs (20-30?), open proxies, accounts (5-10), on several wikis, etc. etc. Up to the level that it got meta blacklisted. It was plainly spammed, with no regard for our editing policies. Some IPs get used over longer times, others only shortly, or once. However, if it is an open proxy, they might return on it to see if it is unblocked already.
After blacklisting of ppdictionary.com, they created a redirect service, and happily continued to spam. Again, edits got reverted etc. etc., until today I also globally blacklisted that site. Upon looking further, there are other links also spammed by this group of editors, some of these links are more commercial in nature, but also this site is not really suitable.
Now, the person behind this spamming is now at 4im level, even as a first warning.
I now tagged a handful of IPs, mainly to make sure that the LinkSummaries are there (easier to track the many accounts). And might they return, they would see that there actions were noticed (I agree, on some IPs the chance is small - some IPs get used only once, others get used over and over, starting months ago, and still in use), and really unwanted in this form. I am sure, that in a couple of days they will return with yet another redirect site. I will try and be a bit more alert now. The spam warnings are there to make sure that if they return, they do see the warnings (or at least, we can say that we did try to warn them).
I am still working on a full report to get all the links they are pushing (there is also other stuff that got pushed). I hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your full explanation. I have now found the site on meta:Spam_blacklist. Best wishes. Jan1naD ( talk • contrib) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dirk, please have a look at m:User:COIBot/XWiki/pubmedcentral.gov, I hereby request whitelisting since COIbot keeps reporting Too many records to analyse. EdBever ( talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dirk
I understand you flagged Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art's page as having some issues. I have added external references, is this what was needed?
Thanks Umbrellaki ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Umbrellaki
Hi Dirk, was wondering if you could help me figure out why this entry isn't working on the whitelist:
The page I'm trying to link to is stores.lulu.com/raruto_eng?fContentOffset=3. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I suspect this edit to Template:Drugbox isn't quite working as intended. Around 1300 pages making use of this template are attempting to transclude the empty page Template:Stdinschicite (see what links here) - that is to say, the parsed results of their {{drugbox .. }} templates contain the text {{Stdinschicite}}.
Copying an pasting a drugbox (for example from Erythromycin) to a test page and using subst: to display its parsed result may show up more clearly what's going on. Probably a brace too few (or too many) in there somewhere. - TB ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Your name was given to me on IRC...
I was led to understand that you operated a bot that looked for specfic URI patterns?
Would it be possible for such a bot to generate a list of page revisions/URI additions to material on Wikileaks?
This is so that some idea of how much stuff is linked in relation to an on-wiki disscussion about linking to them. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What is LiWa3 BTW? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
hi, I agree that my actions regarding insistence of certain aspects about what I considered was right regarding links has put me into trouble. But I believe that some of the sources quoted by me were quite valuable to wikipedia community. I request you to kindly remove the urls from the blacklist and give me some chance to correct my act.
I have read your talk page and your policy regarding external links as to the pages which will help to improve the content on wikipedia rather than drain its traffic, which is true but many times it becomes a duplicate content issue to do the same.
In any case I will try to follow your guideline regarding adding content of references and then putting a link to the target page from which I have referenced content. Kindly revert the blacklisting as I am not a professional spammer just a health writer who needed more exposure. But now I know my limitations. Hoping to get a positive response from your side.
59.183.52.9 ( talk) 10:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Gauresh.
As I said, I will not decide that here, but I may chime in (though recuse from decision) if you request whitelisting or de-blacklisting. But you might want to start to first add info and content to Wikipedia, and show that you understand the policies and guidelines involved. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
59.183.0.61 ( talk) 21:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Dr Gauresh
59.183.37.83 ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Dr Gauresh
I am afraid that there is not much I can do. The only way forward for you would be to contribute content to Wikipedia without linking to your own site. If others then see the value of your site (you might want to talk to a Wikipedia:WikiProject), then maybe you will get somewhere. Until then I am afraid that you will have to use independent sources.
Regarding the rename, it does not matter .. Orthopedic footwear and Orthopaedic footwear both link to the same place, Orthopaedic footware, and everything can hence be properly linked and properly categorised. I hope this helps. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I've got a request in at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#thebestof.co.uk for a webpage to be whitelisted. Would you be willing to do this for me please? Mjroots ( talk) 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
FYI - I have upgraded the Reid Stowe article to temporary full protection due to continued content dispute as noted in this request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/ contrib 03:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
don't want to be poked for some reason. We've tried three times and have received a red link each time. MER-C 13:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.127.96 ( talk • contribs)
Hello Beetstra. I am the editor of leaksallday.com. I noticed there has been some questions as to the reliability of the information posted. I would like to ensure you that I do all of the research myself and actually listen to each album that is "leaked" before posting news. I am not sure what else could be done to make a site like this more valid as a source. Is there anything that comes to mind? Also, I respect your right to edit wikipedia content as you see fit. I noticed the reference was added again to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champ_(album): 19:35, 3 June 2010 Ldud (talk | contribs) (1,566 bytes) (Undid revision 365170430 by Beetstra (talk) Important piece of information had been removed.) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.27.243.180 ( talk)
Yes, I've run into problems with reffing bad sites in the past. Having said that, I did not add the reference. You might wanna try talking to the person who added it. Also, regardless of whether or not this is a trustworthy source, the album was leaked to the internet. What we might wanna try doing is keep the ref in there till we find a better one with the same information. Thanks - Ldud CRAP (Ldud) talk some CRAP wit' me! 19:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
As i said
Coercorash Talk Contr. 15:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
Are these supposed to be empty?
Edit summaries here indicate that records exist in the database. MER-C 12:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a page I've taken a little bit of interest in from a history-viewpoint and I noticed that the link: Link GA|de (which apparently is part of a BOT you created?), appears on the page-code when one hits "Edit page". I am not that techno-literate and am trying to understand exactly *what* that link actually is and what it does. Any clarification would be appreciated.
Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shearonink ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
{{Link GA|de}}
(which I assume you saw on
Isoroku Yamamoto) puts a good article symbol
Ah, thanks for the clarification. I know about templates somewhat but couldn't quite figure out what the bits of 'code' within the double parens meant... And sorry for leaving my original question above signatureless. Shearonink ( talk) 04:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I would be grateful if you would reconsider restoring the external links to the Soundmap entry. I make no claims for my own, and don't mind if that isn't restored, but several of the others are initiatives by bona fide cultural organisations and archives. Their inclusion would be wholly relevant to the subject.
I see from the history of the page that you spent some time mulling this over. I appreciate the links to the relevant guidelines by way of explanation, but they do not dispel the sense of the removal of all links as punitive rather than dispassionate. IMR ( talk) 10:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by IMR ( talk • contribs) 10:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand the guidelines with regard to excessive numbers of links. Would it be acceptable to provide a single link to a blog post attempting to define a typology of different sound maps, describing and listing individual projects? dmoz doesn't appear to have a single category of 'soundmap', those that are listed on dmoz are scattered among many regional categories. IMR ( talk) 11:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
The Acoustic Ecology Institute also has a list of sound map projects on one of its site pages, and perhaps might be better? I will investigate how new categories are created on dmoz, but I don't know anyone who's an editor. IMR ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I will see about expanding the article's content first. It may become apparent that such a link has illustrative validity as a note or reference, rather than as a disembedded external link. Eg the statement 'the majority of soundmaps listed by the Acoustic Ecology Institute[1] use the Google Maps API, with others featuring map interfaces of their own devising'. IMR ( talk) 12:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by IMR ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. May I ask why your bot is tracking me when I use the website paralympic.org as a source in articles? I'm currently creating articles on nations' and athletes' participation in the Paralympic Games, and paralympic.org is an official International Paralympic Committee website which contains a searchable, categorised database of Paralympic Games results. For obvious reasons, it's my main source for such articles, so I reference it in numerous articles, but your bot seems to think I'm spamming. Just to let you know. Thank you for your bot's good work on other issues, though. Aridd ( talk) 10:41, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I wasn't sure if you were watching the discussion page, so I thought I'd just drop by and tell you that I replied. Netalarm talk 13:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In this, you removed sourced info and added unsourced info. If there is a source, provide it - per WP:BURDEN. The source that the user provided appears to be verifiable and reliable, assuming good faith. If you do have good reason to doubt it, then you should remove the information completely, not put something unsourced. It is not the duty of the contributor to provide their source online; as far as I can tell, it is publicly available.
Additionally, please take into consideration the sad tale documented here.
Thanks, Chzz ► 10:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Chzz, I said that I am disputing half of the information in the reference that they gave, and what has not been verified. I am disputing her reference, half of it is contradicting an online source, what, there is no online source that states 'Salinas', whether or not scraped, they all say 'Monterey'. You say it is a good source, I have asked that it be verified. As that half seems plainly wrong, I do not trust the information that the birth name is correct. Go discuss with them, they did not provide a reliable source (again, as it contradicts another reliable, verifiable source), so I am asking, and have asked, for the verification. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
You don't get it, do you? I don't trust that source, if the birthplace is disputed, then why do you trust the birthname from the same source ... I am disputing that reference until it is verified (if someone says that they read a reference which says that grass is blue when it grows, and it says that it is eaten by insects, and you know that grass is actually green, and not blue, and every other, (unreliable) source on the internet says that it is eaten by cows, then do you still believe that it is eaten by insects?). You can't ask the user (their account is nicely renamed, so even if they would return they is unlikely to find it), but at least I tried to ask others to actually verify the data. And there is biting and being bitten. My .., the first editor that warned left a first level warning, which are written to be in good faith, and XLinkBot did not even leave a warning. If I am not allowed to say to an editor 'hey, I am sorry, but that is not according to guideline, I have reverted it, could you check again', and then that is 'biting', then you are taking things a step too far. Sigh. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
I moving this comment from a user from your User:Beetstra page to User_talk:Beetstra. Traxs 7 01:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I have made no disruptive edits. You are attacking me. Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. Your placement of a vallid company with referances on the spam list is simply a mob attack. I request User:Beetstra to be sanctioned. discussion,
User_talk:Abmin
Well, no discussion, so indeed apply WP:RBI, Wikipedia is not a place to promote information like this. Also please immediately blacklist every link used by this user (true redirect sites go immediately on meta). This has been going on too long. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi
This is a message requesting removal of my links from the wiki spam page. I am a new internet user and have had no experience with promoting websites. I thought that useful non commercial websites could be promoted and so entered the website details into wiki. I realize that I made a grave error, but I did not receive any prior warnings except that I see my website in the spam page.
The websites in question are
humangrowthhormonesideeffects.org
hghbenefits.net
viagrainindia.com
I request your kind consideration and request you to kindly remove those links from the wiki spam report. I promise you that none of my links will ever get put in wiki even if they are non commercial websites. Please forgive me for the last time and kindly remove my links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
Praying for a reprieve. I have learnt my lesson. Mercy please... Pl help!
Warm Regards
Vijayjoys (
talk)
13:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)vijayjoys
Hi
This is a message requesting removal of my links from the wiki spam page. I am a new internet user and have had no experience with promoting websites. I thought that useful non commercial websites could be promoted and so entered the website details into wiki. I realize that I made a grave error, but I did not receive any warnings except that I see my website in the spam page.
The websites in question are
I request your kind consideration and request you to kindly remove the links from the wiki spam report. I promise you that none of my links will ever get put in wiki even if they are non commercial websites. Please forgive me for the last time and kindly remove my links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam
Praying for a reprieve. I have learnt my lesson. Mercy please...
Warm Regards Vijayjoys ( talk) 13:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Vij
Thanks for the quick reply Dirk. I understand what you are saying. I made the mistake and I will not repeat it ever. Is there no way of removing my links from wiki spam. I will never repeat this mate. I have learnt my lesson. Pl consider removing those links from the wiki spam page. Is there no way?
Warm Regards Vijayjoys ( talk) 13:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)vijayjoys
I poked
which is equivalent to
LinkSaver doesn't like the former. Can the linkwatchers cope with, say, http://παράδειγμα.δοκιμή or http://правительство.рф (links are safe and register in MW's linksearch)? It's only a matter of time until IDNs get spammed. MER-C 07:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi. I had a question about the XLinkBot. I see where admins can edit the RevertList for the bot to add a site to be reverted. Can this be done at an admin's discretion? Or should a request be filed first? I've never spent a lot of time cleaning up spam, but today I've found myself going through and cleaning up a bunch of junk from patch.com. Thanks. TN X Man 23:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi Beetstra. Hope everything is well. I don't mean to nag or anything, but as the user who initiated and implemented a restriction on CSD criterion G6 with regards to old IP talk pages, I would like to ask for your opinion. For pages such as User talk:64.174.166.78, User talk:82.36.24.14, and User talk:80.45.176.115, what should be done, if at all? As administrators, I feel it is our duty maintain the site, keeping it clean of pages that serve no apparent purpose and have no inherent value. Please let me know what you think. Regards, FASTILYsock (TALK) 19:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I made my point clear in the discussion. You are right, by far most of these pages could be deleted as non-controversial. The point that I tried to make was, that when the IP has been used in any form of long term abuse (strong POV pushing, spamming) or there has been a significant discussion on the page (about whatever subject), then thát deletion is not controversial. I have, and others, in the past, pushed to get that point through. Do NOT delete the pages just on the basis of their current content, do not delete them because they are blank, delete them only after having a look at the contributions of the editor, and (old) warnings or discussions that have been found on the talkpage. These pages were all blanked, in good faith, but it is all to easy for a spammer to blank all the talkpages where his warnings were on, and then they get deleted. If we want a CSD for user talkpages, then there should be a handful of strict criteria (which there were and are, but which are completely ignored through and through):
I know that the things then don't go towards CSD criteria anymore, and that every deletion is more work, but if there is no check for #2 here, the deletion would 'destroy' valuable information. And I am sorry to say, but to me all admins who engaged in mass-deletion of user talkpages always failed to consider that, when I noticed I have always contacted the editors and complained, but it is just a matter of time and it repeats. Note, that an earlier CSD discussion excluded user talk pages from G6, G6 is not a criterium there.
So, for the above three, they do not fall in any of the three points I stated here, they were not warned for 'systematic vandalism', also did not do anything related to that (even if they were not warned for that), they were not engaged on their talkpage in long discussions about a subject, and all three have never been blocked .. so these could indeed go. I hope this clarifies my point. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
hmm .. yes, I would support it, though I think that it is not unambiguous enough for a CSD, and that will be the dispute. U4 along such lines has existed before, and .. well, it has been my only time I blocked an admin over it, and it did result in a ArbCom and deadmin (and note, I am a supporter of said admin!). We will get questions 'what is systematic vandalism', which is something which is not easy to spot, and what seems simple vandalism, may actually be part of a long term case ( WP:LTA is full of them). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, did not get back to this, yet.
I am afraid that this will get problems, which I lined out above or in the discussion on WT:CSD:
The problem in the end is, you will have to go through every single edit the editor has done, see if they engaged in spamming (which would need a research if other editors have used the same link, which is quite a nice task if the editor is spamming a youtube.com (yes, it can be spammed!)), and check if the editor was warned for that. And even, maybe the editor was welcomed, but not warned, which could mean that the editor could have known a bit about our policies and guidelines. i hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I know the problem. No-one will have problems with deletion of talkpages of simple vandals, or those who did one edit and only got a welcome template on their talkpage. Oh, to the above you can add that also deleted contributions should be checked. Some of the spammers make a spam-page, which then gets deleted, still the editor was a spammer.
When I go through some old IP talkpages, finding the uncontroversial ones is quite easy. No edits to any talk-space page, one or two edits to mainspace, no deleted contributions, no blocks (OK, seeing if the vandalism was of another 'systematic' form than spamming is more difficult). When the list of edits gets longer, it is better to leave it alone. I think that a bot would be able to filter a lot of the not-so-controversial ones, which then could be checked by hand quite quickly. But if that ends up to be a CSD, I don't know. Maybe we need to shift this discussion back to WT:CSD, and see what others think. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Indian Alcohol Policy Alliance, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.indianalcoholpolicy.org/aboutiapa.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 09:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
It was an article copied onto another page, I copied it there, and gave notice to the creator. They did not do anything about it (I changed a bit), but was hoping someone could do something with it, or review it. Maybe this is better. Thanks!! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Hey, the main work is now finished, but there are a lot of reports on the main page that I think are inactive. Some of them possibly don't even belong there. Can you think of an easy way to figure out which reports should stay at LTA (active, long-term vandals)? The only way I've come up with is to review each on individually, but that's risky since we're not familiar with every entry. Netalarm talk 21:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I just noticed your COIBot is reporting mcclatchydc.com as a spam link. It is a well-known and legitimate US news service that posts recent articles written by its journalists that also appear in US newspapers. Would you take a quick look at the site; its legitimacy is immediately obvious. I have no idea who to contact about delisting this site, but perhaps you do since you run the bot? If so, would you ask to have it removed from the spam noticeboard or which ever blacklist it is on ? Thanks. KeptSouth ( talk) 08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Re your deletion of my picture on Nobel Prize Controversies:
1. It is, after all " Nobel Controversies ". This controversy is unique because it does not involve the usual second-guessing the subjective judgement of the Nobel committee. Face it, they missed an entire field. Or do you maintain that the 2000 Nobel prize winners really "discovered" conductive polymers ? If so, you seem to be the only person who still does. There are just too many papers.
2. Wonder if you read the caption, which reads "The last" conductive polymer before the Nobel assignment of discovery credit. Labels such as "the last" and "merely the last" hardly claim priority. The picture is to show how badly the Nobel committee messed up, missing a gadget that is now in the Smithsonian, generally considered the foremost institution re the history of discovery.
The point being that the 2000 Nobel prize committee apparently missed the entire field of conductive polymers previous to their 1977 rediscovery. This is hardly pushing some Nobel claim, which I emphasize belongs to the 1963 Australian paper. Just where do you get this ?
3. There is plenty of support for the fact that the Nobel committee missed the entire previous body of work in conductive and semiconductive polymers. I even have a 1964 textbook entitled "Organic Semiconductors"--- Perhaps I should post a picture of the cover. In particular, Inzelt's recent textbook "Conductive Polymers" devotes an entire chapter to this issue. Tellingly, this chapter is entitled "There is Nothing New Under the Sun". BTW, Inzelt does not mention the gadget in the picture -- it was far too late.
4. I only post occasionally. This is hardly WP:ownership. Similarly, there also seems to be only one person who objects to the picture. 20:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Other issues aside, you are incorerct about how concensus works: E.g., from wp:concensus
" Someone makes a change to a page (any page other than a talk page), then everyone who reads the page has an opportunity to leave it as it is, or change it. When two or more editors cannot reach an agreement by editing, consensus is sought on talk pages.
This is the simplest form of consensus, and it is used in everyday editing on the vast majority of Wikipedia's non-talk pages. It begins with an editor boldly changing an article or other page. In response, the viewers of the page have three options:
If your changes have been edited or removed, you may wish to try to improve on them. If other editors do not immediately accept your ideas, think of a reasonable change that might integrate your ideas with other editors' ideas, and make an edit. You can also discuss the changes at the talk page, in an edit summary, or as a note to others at a user talk page or other widely read pages, such as the Village Pump or a relevant WikiProject.
Articles normally go through many iterations of this form of consensus editing to achieve a neutral and readable product.
If other editors accept your changes, then this silent acceptance is, itself, sufficient proof that your changes have consensus at this time. Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them..... " (emphasis-added ).
Which is exactly what I was doing. I can give numerous other examples of where you flatly "get things wrong". Perhaps this is because you don't know better. Alternately, you simply may not care. E.g., accusing me of wp:ownership when I have posted rarely is only one example. Have you actually read wp:ownership or do you just not care how wikipedia defines this term ? Either is not acceptible behavior.
True, most editors accept this kind of bullying and just go away. Better thing$ to do. However, such behavior on the part of admins spoils wikipedia for everyone and drives off expert editors, of which wikipedia is in sore need. Worse, bad behavior drives off potential donors as word gets out of admin misconduct. If you demand that everyone else here follows the rules, you should follow them yourself. In any case, aquaint yourself with them better.
BTW, I note you dodged the other issues I raised. Pproctor ( talk) 16:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
You reverted my edit to Robot Arena 2: Design and Destroy deleting the {{multiple issues|wikify =March 2008|unreferenced =June 2008|POV =March 2009}}. Please can you explain where these issues are present? 84.92.140.217 ( talk) 15:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I'm responding to your following message:
I'm Sorry, but I'm slightly confused why my Updated Link ( http://turpas3.angelfire.com/ ) to my website was refused. Having read a lot about what's acceptable and what's not I can only assume that because my website is a hobbyist page which is on a Free Provider it's not allowed. If so I'm confused because my previous page was on a Free Webpage, though had to be closed down due to Geocities closing down! :( Could you please advise why this was reverted?
--Cpm22 user (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Well, I guess you should read WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:EL, and then decide whether the page really adds to the page you added it to. As the policies and guidelines say, we are not a linkfarm, not the yellow pages, etc. May I point you also to our conflict of interest guideline. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
I've had a read of those pages you suggested and while I feel my website isn't in violation with Wikipedia, it's perhaps not the most suitable site given the links on my website are to direct Turbo Pascal Files which offer no advise on how the program works and some of them are Machine Specific programs which won't help anyone who isn't familiar with that Machine.
Originally I offered my site to Wikipedia which was accepted and still present as the old link to Collection of Generic and Amstrad CPC programs written in Turbo Pascal 3 under CP/M. on your Turbo Pascal article. If that could be deleted it will save people from going to a Dead Link as I had to move it due to Geocities closing. Originally my intention was to provide a site which is the only site (that I'm aware of) to gather a collection of Turbo Pascal 3 programs I had written. While as I mentioned earlier my website has some Machine Specific code which was all done in Turbo Pascal 3 for my particular CP/M Computer, it also has a collection of Generic Code which would be completely compilable on other Platforms and while my website makes every effort to explain what's Specific and what's portable between computers, it has perhaps got to a stage where more of the Specific shows than the Generic code, though haven't been able to add anything recent to it in a while due to the amount of time I spend in other activities and the website itself is connected to the community for which it's specific to and that community also has their own little Wiki page related to that Machine and for which my page has a home in there as well.
Just a thought that if there was some thought's about having some program examples from different versions of Turbo Pascal on Wikipedia then your more than welcomed to grab something generic from my website, though I'm suspecting that's not allowed either.
-- Cpm22 user ( talk) 09:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I contact you directly since you are participant of the WikiProject Chemicals and do run bots.
Could you put all local images (files not on Commons) inside the Chembox (i.e. structural formulas or crystal structures) into a list or a maintenance category? I would like to move the ones with a good quality to Commons, in order to enable categorization and usage by other WPs. The low quality images are intended to be replaced by existing alternatives or new structures. In de-WP, I have already completed this task (but including other images in chemistry articles, see history of
de:Wikipedia:Redaktion Chemie/Wartungsseite lokale Bilder). --
Leyo
14:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
If it is too complicated or if you find it too time consuming, just make the changes to the Chembox. :-) -- Leyo 12:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
File:
is missing. --
Leyo
13:12, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Why do you delete the part of Regine Velasquez in this song, she has a single of that song. THAT'S THE PROOF THAT FOREIGNERS HAVE NO TRUST TO FILIPINOS especially Regine (REGINE VELASQUEZ IS THE ASIA's SONGBIRD!) -- 121.54.15.166 ( talk) 10:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
'Many people have praised' .. where is that written (and as I said, YouTube is not a proper source for that)? And please don't shout. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
WG"H
Please tell me why you have removed the 5 links that I have put up from the site Zissil.com
http://zissil.com/topics/na-nach/ http://zissil.com/topics/petek/ http://zissil.com/topics/na-nach-nachma-nachman-meuman/ http://zissil.com/topics/avtalyon/ http://zissil.com/topics/shmaya-nasi/
I did not put these pages up in an attempt to spam wikipedia. These pages have a lot more information about the subject then the current Wiki page have or ever will have. They are extremely useful to readers and provides them with a far greater insight to the subject then by reading the wiki pages alone. I do not consider it spam in any way and it is only beneficial for readers. My friend has worked very hard on these pages and I think his work should be accessible to people researching these subjects.
I would appreciate it if you would tell me why you chose to treat these quality pages like spam.
Moshe—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.186.150.89 ( talk • contribs)
WG"H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.65.199 ( talk) 11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
It is very debatable if the page fails the guidelines.
Regarding the accounts adding the links, this is irrelevant. If the linked pages are productive and help users, what difference does it make who added the link.
Regarding the start-up issue; all the links given were to very complete and ready pages that cover their topics in detail. What difference does it make if the site contains some other incomplete pages, no one linked to them. Again if we are trying to help the user read more about the topic then he is being led to a very ready page.
Lets say the site is like a Wiki so therefore what? If the goal of Wikipedia is some kind of web domination, that anyone searching for information must go through them, then it is understandable what you are saying. However if the goal of Wikipedia is to help people find useful and productive information, then why wouldn't they link to pages that contain double, triple or a dozen times the information that their pages contain on the same topic.
Dirk, did you even read the pages, did you compare them to see how much better they are then the parallel Wikipedia pages? Or did you just give a fast glance and then pull off all the links.
How come the editors that built the Na Nach pages and have removed and canceled dozens of edits, why did they choose to leave the links up, why did they not pull them down when they saw them added. Because they know the subject and saw how much value the Zissil pages were adding for site viewers.
Lets even say in theory that a person created a wiki like site with thousands of topic pages, each superior to the parallel Wikipedia page. What exactly would be the problem in linking all thousand pages each on their corresponding page. Is some how the mass thing an issue, is it an issue that someone is doing a better job then Wikipedia. Again it comes down to the question of whether Wikipedia is trying to help people find information or whether they are trying to monopolize the web.
Moshe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.65.199 ( talk) 11:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
COIBot is struggling to keep up with existing spam:
The linkwatchers have caught up, but COIBot's various functions are still 39 hours behind. I've noticed that the reports aren't coming out at the usual speed too. Unfortunately, at this rate we won't see any pokes. Is this a temporary thing? MER-C 10:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Beetstra, I came over to say thanks for your input on the WT RFA threads that have been provoked by the stats I posted, then I noticed your Dutch origins and so I thought I'd ask for your help re meta:Death_anomalies_table. I need a Dutch speaker to tell me what the NL:Wiki equivalent is for Category:Dead people so we can identify "living" people on EN and other wikis who have a year of death on NL wiki. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I've checked the full list again (I tend to stay away from it since it takes forever to load) and I've found a major problem that basically renders the list useless. As the list is too large, MW only displays the first few reports, leaving the ones at the bottom as links. Think we should just scratch the full list? Netalarm talk 03:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I had to block User:Olekp for attempting to revoke CC-BY-SA contributions over what seems to be a site which you said is unreliable and spam. Could you clarify on that a bit more so I know what is going on here? – MuZemike 18:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra - you may be interested in this "blog" post and this related discussion, where Daniel mentioned the DataTransclusion extension. Hope you enjoy your holiday. Walkerma ( talk) 13:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
First off how is seonek preps.com a SPAM LINK? It is no different than yappi sports and it is allowed.Secondly the link was provided that had the football history of Portsmouth high school,I THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT WIKI WAS ALL ABOUT???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanceburg ( talk • contribs) 06:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
You can talk to me you don't just have to give silly templates, it is a constructive comment not an attack,. Off2riorob ( talk) 11:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
There are three open RFA's at this moment, and they all have the same question from you in them. I'm wondering if you honestly believe that this is a question that need be asked of every candidate. I ask because quite frankly this does not strike me as a question that will be a "magic bullet" that will give us some deep insight into the candidate, especially if they have no interest in this area of admin work. I have always felt that it is more useful to ask candidate-specific questions to test knowledge in areas the candidate has expressed an interest in, or situations they are likely to actually find themselves in, such as when they would block or speedy delete. Beeblebrox ( talk) 15:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw one ip address that clarifies the role of Regine Velasquez in the song I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing. Now, I will clarify the issue of that with 2 sources. I hope you understand why that user is clarifying. -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 07:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you have questions about the isolation of sodium paragraph that I added? Usually I don't add information to the main body of an article, I only make it more accurate. I want to make my edits clear and complete without leaving the reader with more questions. So if you have any suggestions, I woud be glad to consider them.-- Plasmic Physics ( talk) 08:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra, I am very disturbed by your repeated personally directed attacks, and especially by you latest, entirely false and groundless accusation on the Gary Ellenbogen that I likely had a COI. If you had any grounds for such an accusation, please present them. If you feel your assault to my integrety as an editor here was justified by any wikipedia guideline, please say what it was. YSWT ( talk) 14:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
hello again. Can I put the infobox single in the article I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing? I put it but if not, you remove it. thanks. -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
ok if you want. thanks -- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I understand why you put reported the edit war. I do not blame you for that, it was the right thing to do. But I am disappointed, that the full reception of Kane & Lynch 2 cannot be reported on wikipedia. The point was brought up that www.media-cows.com is a blog; that is true, so is Destructoid. Wikipedia should not be devoted, like Metacritic and Gamestats, to IGN, Gamespot, 1UP, etc.. Because reviews are opinion there cannot be a stated authority on the opinion of Kane & Lynch 2. I would request that this be addressed and Media Cows be included in the reception section. I was determined to include them because they were one of the first to review the game, one of the first to express a negative opinion, and should not excluded from the reception section because two reviewers find them unreliable.
Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, I will bring it up on the respective talk page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I did try to delete the mediation but there was an error, so I will try again later. I posted on the video game sources talk page, if and when the site get added to the situational sources section will the protection be lifted or do you plan on just leaving it protected until it runs out. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxpreaditorxx ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I have a file that I uploaded mthe Regine Velasquez version of the song I Don't want to miss a thing. Please consult me if this file has problems. thanks!-- EternityInThePast ( talk) 12:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
We are trying to include factual information about Parasol unit, as a charity and include a history of artists and shows shown here. We don't want this page to serve as any commerical value for the organisation, so please could you perhaps give me some feedback as to what we can only include?
Many thanks,
(Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art 13:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJ2783 ( talk • contribs)
No, the article was rewritten in userspace, and then moved to mainspace. That article could use some work, and references, but it is not too promotional in tone). I'll have a look at the redirects. Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see why, as that was originally written by me anyway off my website. Nothing on that site is copied from anywhere. I write all the articles myself. For that reason I have replaced the information, although I have changed the links so that they point directly to the article relating to the watervole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wrnicholls ( talk • contribs) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
Wrnicholls ( talk) 12:49, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm not getting any replies on that page, is that a bad thing? Endofskull ( talk) 23:34, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Others might comment. Try to give a response (if you can ..). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed you own a broom. Can you help here? This is the CP/CPPS article, in which a WP:SPA is repeatedly inserting unsourced info and speculation. The evil doer is Noodlebike ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as Arkaroola ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) also known as IP 188.223.57.163. Can you please adjust the article so that only well established users can edit it? Thanks. TickleMeister ( talk) 00:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I saw this on the wikiresearch mailing list, thought you might find it interesting.
-- Versa geek 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I have marked the page Wikipedia:Chemical sources with {{ historical}} and blanking most of the content. I feel the page is not currently serving any useful purpose for Wikipedia, and seems to be just a spam magnet at the moment. Anything useful can still be found in the page's history. I'm letting you know because you had a hand in creating the page. If you object to this, please feel free to revert ( WP:BRD...) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you are removing links to http://www.pan-uk.org in various articles and just wanted to know why? I've noticed the links you are removing are dead, but they are archived at http://www.archive.org/ so we can still link to them. If the articles first appeared in Pesticide News then I can't personally see the problem with having links so to pan-uk so that people can read them. Smartse ( talk) 11:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Why do you remove continuously the shoemaking video? Why it is less relevant than the thehcc.org or some other shoemakers, like a cobbler in washington??? This is the real, living craft and not the one you let the links and illustrations on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcellHUN ( talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
I would suggest you drop the autoconfirmed requirement, I've seen spam from autoconfirmed accounts (often reposted). Also:
I believe the filter uses short-circuit evaluation, so it may be a good idea to move article_text=username as the first condition. MER-C 08:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, what's wrong with these links you've removed from: - 'kielbasa' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/kielbasa_polish_sausage.html) - 'pierogi' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/pierogi.html) - 5 pages articles about Polish pierogi - 'list of polish cuisine dishes' ( http://www.tastingpoland.com/food/list_of_polish_food.html) - 5 pages of detailed descriptions of Polish food, nothing like that anywhere else in the Internet?
Of course it's my website. Articles are unique and cost me some work. TP still gains popularity (see our FB page) and people find it informative. I'm happy with that. IMHO my activity on Wikipedia is not spamming but sharing. If all links I had (9 or 10) was too much - than OK, but at least leave those three, that are the most useful.
Regards, Mat —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.135.37.112 ( talk) 06:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I have seen XLinkBot do some interesting reverts. There seem to be other protective bots around too, I do not have a list. Is there a Category called Wikipedia protective bots? I think there should be. The end of the story: I am thinking of an ensemble type blackboard model scenario where bots act as an ensemble with very high accuracy. I think this type of system would be interesting and very effective against vandalism, by having weights that are combined in the decision making process. A list of protective bots would be a good start. And the bots should provide "automatic explanations" for the revert, so you and versageek, etc. do not need to respond to user queries. Thanks. History2007 ( talk) 08:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your message. Please note that I did not create the links to Festipedia. They were created at least 2 years ago by other users, linking to our old address as part of the Festiniog Railway Heritage Group website. I merely updated them to point to the correct URL as we (the FR Heritage Group - a voluntary group) have now given Festipedia its own website. The lecture is therefore inappropriate, nor am I going to engage in a discussion as to whether or not your interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, although I strongly object to your classification of these links as spam. We are not a commercial organisation and are not attempting to sell anything. I note that you have also rendered Template:Festiniog Railway Company ridiculous by changing the links in the line "Company web sites" so that they no longer point to the relevant websites and, less controversially, removing the links to the various support groups. I shall, however, leave the original authors of this template to argue with you over that. Do you intend to go through Wikipedia and remove the other 200+ links to Festipedia? Prh47bridge ( talk) 13:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted Template:Festiniog Railway Company on the grounds that it does actually comply with WP:EL and was created to satisfy other complaints at the time (now exactly 2 years ago). The edits you made, by removing external links made the panel look foolish in having lines such as:
Header "Company WebSites" then directing them to WP sites Header "External Wiki sites" then directing them to WP sites Header "Support Groups" then directing them to non existant WP sites.
I have noted you have gone through the stations, but have not looked at what the edits consist of.
-- Keith 14:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Why has this now become a problem, after the initial setup was after taking it to dispute resolution (cannot remember the exact term - see comment on first edit 2 years ago) As for 14 active users, this is an extremely limited and dedicated wiki, and is advertised within related websites. For reference it usees "mediawiki" software -- Keith 14:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
My talk page is the target of harassment by IPs over issues that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. Is it possible to have the page locked against edits by non-registered users?
Run Amok ( talk) 20:00, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Keep it on your wiki, IP. Does not belong here. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 20:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Sir would you like to tell me whats problem with my written page? its was created to help students regarding their homework and assignments solutions. it was not an promotion or advertisement. It’s my humble request to republish this page as soon as posible please. I’ll be thankful to you-- Billal mirza ( talk) 05:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Keith 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Hoi Dirk, just a note to let you know that I reinstated one of your edits (you were very right). I think the article is a bit of a mess and I have the feeling that one or more editors isn't exactly neutral and might insert all that jazz again. Take it easy, Drmies ( talk) 16:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
i really learned a lot from your comments on the discussion of blacklisting literateur.com. I left a note for the journal's editor encouraging a close reading of your remarks, and warning that even one more new account or IP that seems to be spamming their site would probably mean a permanent blacklist status, which would be regrettable, in my opinion, although not so regrettable as having to waste wiki-time tracking down persistent spammers. Questionic ( talk) 14:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I know you're probably inundated with these requests, but could you take a look at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2023/05#examiner.com / Frank Sherosky? The admin previously attending to the request, Stifle, has gone on indefinite wikibreak. Being an admin myself, I would jump in, but I don't have the foggiest idea how to deal with whitelist requests. Thanks in advance, Dabomb87 ( talk) 23:29, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I'm working with Wikio company and I have seen that your bot has detected an anormal activity that has conducted the website wikio.com to be blacklisted on wikipedia. Wikio is a news agregator service with elaborated algorythm to classify information, the service allow users to publish content if they consider that this content can interest other people. As all User Generated Content, the content is subject to spammers, so our service is moderated post publication.
All UGC content is publish under www.wikio.com/article/ directory.
It seems that someone has publish articles on Wikio and tried to promote their article pages by making a massive linking from wikipedia pages, if I understand well all the actions that have been listed here. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:COIBot/LinkReports/wikio.com
The user has the same pseudo on wikio and wikipedia : matucana It can be seen on wikio com on the url /article/56367203
It seems that this guy has something against Berlusconi : http://matucana.wordpress.com/ So here, we have the case of a content on Wikio that is not Spam, but a guy that has tried to put a big number of backlinks on Wikipedia to promote his content on Wikio. The result is that Wikio has been blacklisted due to operations done by a third person with no relations with the website.
How can we fix that situation ?
Thanks, Christophe ODIN Kristoguy ( talk) 15:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice that I added it here, it may be that this was the case I thought I saw earlier. See here for the listing-discussion (you might want to link that in the de-listing request as well). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your answer, there would be an easy way to fix that is to use a regular expression to blacklist only all urls starting with www.wikio.com/article, because the UGC content is only under this directory, so then it should fix the problem. I have not seen on the page that you link how to submit a de-listing request. Can you explain more exactly how to proceed Thanks Kristoguy ( talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello, Dirk. I see your bot keeps flagging me as a potential spammer. Apparently it's a bad sign when my user name nearly matches the name of the page (why is that?). Let me introduce myself. I am a geophysics professor, specializing in rock magnetism. I recently discovered that, if I Googled important subjects in geophysics, one of two things was likely to happen. Either a Wikipedia page would be the top hit, or there would be no Wikipedia page on the subject. And many of the existing pages need a lot of love. I realized that adding to Wikipedia would be a very effective form of outreach. RockMagnetist ( talk) 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi RockMagnetist. Welcome to Wikipedia. It is indeed as Netalarm states, the bot, a computer program designed to do tedious tasks on Wikipedia, or other forms of analysis, is designed to see overlap between usernames and added external links, or usernames and pages edited. When there is significant overlap, there often is a conflict of interest. Now, that does not have to be a problem, but in a lot of cases, there is reason for concern. Of course, there are false positives, and this is a clear case of that. I have therefore whitelisted you on the bot, it will from now totally ignore you. Happy editing. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would like to discuss the blacklisting of our site gCaptain.com. We are very interested in the quality of our links and have no interest in distracting the conversation here at wikipedia. We are all mariners and consider the work you have done to promote maritime issues on wikipedia important. I very much wish to talk to you both about the blacklisting and about how we can help promote your goals here on wikipedia. Thanks, John Konrad - coFounder - -- Gcaptain ( talk) 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The problem is I do not understand the system. All I know is a report from one of our users that the site was blacklisted. I'm trying to get myself quickly up to speed on wikipedia policy and procedure but, as I am sure you can remember from your early days on this site, this is a bit of a challenge. Any help would be greatly appreciated. -- 66.215.124.171 ( talk) 04:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
OK, this is it. You really don't understand what this site is about, do you. STOP your blatant self promotion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
You are right, I am being reactive when I should have been proactive in learning wikipedia's policy before jumping in. While I am still learning the policies I do understand the problems of spam and I apologize for any infractions done by myself and by others in the name of gCaptain. I also apologize for making my appeal here on your talk page, which now seems obvious to me as the wrong place to discuss this. gCaptain is committed to doing the right thing and I appreciate your help guiding us down that path.-- Gcaptain ( talk) 18:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob ( talk) 23:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Template:Web presence has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you.
68.35.13.81 (
talk)
23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
The User: Joerger has been lying about Wikipedia, saying "The website can say what it likes, but the fact remains that the site is filled with commercial adverisements. Someone is making a profit from the site. If it isn't the fanboys, they're being played for chumps.
Either way, the non-profit arguement is only a distraction. Their actions go far beyond any possible 'fair use' exemption. Theft and republication of trademarked and copyrighted material is criminal and not excuseable at commercial or non-profit sites.
I've said enough. The offense is clear."
This is untrue. All wikis are non-profit and their republication was fair, as wikis are reference sites, and require republication of certain tables, like his material in question. Please can you be fair to me, and tell him his behavior is not acceptable, and the people who were polite and leniant to him, as he is a robeteer, are not fanboys. 86.174.172.139 ( talk) 16:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
This quote, on his site, is untrue, and about Wikia in general. 86.174.172.139 ( talk) 17:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your help on this. Much appreciated! Best, Voceditenore ( talk) 08:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
COIBot is getting a bit behind. I haven't helped it much having dumped >100 on it recently; nevertheless I don't think it's been processing anything on that page recently.
If you get a chance, can you look into it? If you're too busy, don't worry about it. -- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of P-Anisic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Anisic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of O-Anisic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Anisic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 13:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Looks like he's back: 216.53.245.210 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)
Perhaps a shortish SP? Half Shadow 20:30, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
The bot created WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/biointernational.ru., ie. not in the Wikipedia: namespace. Probably will only take a moment to fix. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have unblocked it since other reports went to the right place. What went wrong in this case? — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 16:39, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
I have been identified by COIBot on the spam reports, as my username and edited pages overlap. I chose my username based on the band Motley Crue as I am a fan, and therefore I do edit their page. I would like to be whitelisted on this. Regards, DrMotley ( talk) 11:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello,
It seems people either don't read the sources they use, or simply don't care. In the article on Andre Geim, an individual constantly edits the bio to say he is ethnically German. That is not correct, he is Jewish, and thus can not be ethnically German, his family had roots in Germany, but that's not the same as being ethnically German. All this information is in the article " http://www.scientific-computing.com/features/feature.php?feature_id=1", see information under the heading "Top Grades in School". The article is actually cited, but not used properly.
I tried to edit the article to reflect reality, but someone kept changing it back until the article was locked, and only registered users could edit it.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.85.53 ( talk) 16:56, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk. I just wanted to point out to you this edit by CheMoBot that broke the chembox. Thanks for all the work you're doing to validate chembox data, despite the fact that you are clogging up my watchlist. ;) -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
cascite|correct|source}}
', where you replace 'source' with a code for the source (I have used 'CAS' for commonchemistry.org, NIST for the nist website, and ESIS for now. I think we should also do ChemSpider for one), and then add the saved revid with the pagename to the appropriate index. We are desperately looking for more verified identifiers (and when we have them, we can start sourcing for other data to be added and to keep track off. Thanks! --
Dirk Beetstra
T
C
12:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
It would be fine if you could add me to COIBots trusted user list, so that I could use it's cloak protected comments. I'm active in the SWMT and my IRC nick is "hoo" (Cloak: wikipedia/Hoo-man) - Hoo man ( talk) 13:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Nobody answered me about wikio.com being blacklisted, I have made a proposal to disallow UGC pages of wikio to not be included into wikipedia. Could you please answer. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kristoguy ( talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
We have also removed from wikio the account and pages produced by the user matucana, this user is blacklisted on our side. Then he will have no more reason to put again links on wikipedia, as his pages are no more existing. Kristoguy ( talk) 16:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi, is it possible to whitelist wikio.com now that we have cleaned the situation, or if your prefer just filter on wikipedia links starting with www.wikio.com/article/, the fact to be blacklisted on wikipedia give a bad reputation to the company due to third party people and we need to fix that. Thanks for your reply Kristoguy ( talk) 09:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello, regarding MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and moviereviewintelligence.com, you commented on the discussion about the site last August. Another editor and I would like to follow up on a whitelist request for the site's "about" page to include in its Wikipedia article. Could you please share your thoughts at the discussion here? Thanks, Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:43, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Hello, sorry to bother you with this, but it seems to be getting out of hand. Historian.X1 is another sockpuppet and now he is posting on random users talk pages trying to convince them to edit the article in his own way. Is there now way of preventing these kinds of malicious activites? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Historian.X1
Regards, -- Therexbanner ( talk) 15:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Never mind. Another admin has already dealt with this case. Russian.science socks are now canvassing various users trying to gather support for unsourced editing.-- 90.192.240.115 ( talk) 17:49, 23 October 2010 (UTC) That was me.-- Therexbanner ( talk) 17:50, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
On this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Primerica I added to the discussion, but also threw in a derogatory comment which amused me in my then inebriated state and you rightfully undid my edit. Wanting my comment to be seen however, I have revised my previous edit so as to remove the unnecessary insult. Please let it stand, as I have removed the questionable material. I would also like to thank you for calling me out on my sophomoric antics 71.84.126.174 ( talk) 05:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Giorgiogp2! I appreciate you efforts to build the mycotoxin structures. I'd like to use them in a piece we're writing. I also need a couple of other sturctures built. Do you know where I could get other structures? -- Tec8854 ( talk) 03:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of ( )-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: (+)-cis-2-Aminomethylcyclopropane carboxylic acid. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I started up the linkwatchers, coibot, unblockbot & chemobot - but xlinkbot won't compile. Turns out that reworking my home network was very overdue, between rewiring, replacing the old router and fixing some settings on my DSL modem - I think you'll see a huge improvement in network throughput. -- Versa geek 01:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Please note that there's a new discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you but user:Russian.science has resurrected again. And this is his new attempt of canvasing [8]. Närking ( talk) 22:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
There is a problem, a correct identifier were replaced by incorrect ones. Please look at Revision history of Glucose for an example, the racemic identifiers were replaced by stereoisomer identifiers, which was already present. Plasmic Physics ( talk) 02:49, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
62.109.11.180 at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/62.109.11.180
He/She is back (I guess, per WP:DUCK). This IP was used before (a few days ago) to evade blocks, so it's not a temporary IP. Same article b.s. Is there anyway of blocking it? -- Therexbanner ( talk) 14:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Why does the COIBot sometimes forget to put Wikipedia: at the start of titles? See Special:DeletedContributions/COIBot. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 11:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi... I refer to this edit that you made to the article rhodocene. The edit has added an InChI to the article, but it appears to me that consequently there are now two different InChI's listed. My understanding is that there should be a unique InChI for any substance. The InChI's listed are:
Would you please stop by the article and remove the one that is incorrect? I am unsure of exactly what to change. Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 06:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
That was quite a tireless effort you made to update all those chemboxes! Thank you. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 12:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC) |
Hi Dirk, titaniumwf.com has been added to the metaspamlist: [9] but spamming has continued, but with them not using a link, instead adding just www.titaniumwf.com. Do you know to set up a filter to automatically revert these edits? Thanks SmartSE ( talk) 15:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
User:ClueBot NG. Please whitelist on the linkwatchers. Thanks. MER-C 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
You made this change to the Alice in Wonderland article. I think it was fine to remove the link, but addition of the link was a legitimate attempt to improve the article and should not have been reverted as vandalism. It justified a real edit summary and should not have been marked as minor. Ma t c hups 15:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra, I have seen your recent changes in History of the Jews in Turkey, which I found very professional and balanced. I wonder, if you could help me with my article Antisemitism in Turkey, more specifically, it would be very great if you could go through the article and make your comments or edits. thanks!-- Jim Fitzgerald post 15:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Heya Dirk
Just wondering. I thought we weren't using chemboxes for ions? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 18:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
Well enough people have been asking for an ionbox... can we make one? Perhaps with a different color scheme? -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 15:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, leave the CASRN ... lets just copy-paste the templates and be over with it? Let the articles be pants, having a decent box may give input in expanding them. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
I think you already have lots of CAS RNs. We can populate the CAS# ... no reason to leave it out. I was thinking of things like donor number, Drago-Wayland parameters, and pKb as important information in these boxes. -- Rifleman 82 ( talk) 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Then again, perhaps not of interest to non-inorganic chemists...
We have a spammer on WP:ANI who repeatedly inserts a phone number into articles. I've been seeing phone number insertions in #wikipedia-en-spam, hence I would like to ask whether XLinkBot can handle such things. Thanks. MER-C 13:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Dirk, you reblocked IP 24.29.92.238, apparently so that logged-in edits are allowed. However, it looks to me as if you did the exact opposite of what you intended. I am not that familiar with IP blocks and these settings, so I may well be mistaken, but could you perhaps check your block settings just to be sure? Apart from that, I have no problem with anyone changing a block I make to correct such problems, so thanks! Fram ( talk) 12:34, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Due to your participation in a discussion on foreign language re-directs on the same talk page in late July 2010, you may be interested in joining the discussion on the usage of non-Roman languages in re-directs and DABs. Your input will be appreciated. -- HXL 's Roundtable, and Record 23:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
As one of two admins who commented on my request to get my Reliable Sources Search Engine white-listed, I am asking if you could take another look at it. The discussion is here. Thank you. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 15:32, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
1. On the basis of the recent edits of the ChemMoBot, am I right in thinking that Chemboxes are now including both InChI and StdInChI (and the corresponding InChI keys)? And if so, where I find ChemBoxes without this info should I be adding it or leaving these to be bot processed?
2. Verification of data (specifically CSIDs) I tried reading the info in this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Chemicals/Chembox_validation) - but it is still not clear to me what CSIDs (or infact other data) are being being verified against when they are assessed by the bot. Would it be more correct to say that the bot is actually watching for changes?
3. I assume that it is considered inappropriate to verify your own additions or changes, but is there an list generated of 'records with outstanding verification1? I'd be happy to do a bit of verification on other users Chembox edits. The chemistds ( talk) 23:57, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Quick follow up answer(s):
1) At the moment, CASNo, UNII and CSID are verified, if all three are correct, that page can be added to the index. I do off-wiki statistics and when another parameter reaches 100% (of the verified pages) I will add it and notify others (StdInChI and StdInChIKey are going to be the next two I think).
2) No, not at the moment. I'll have a discussion with the others, maybe it is time to (at least for now) drop verification of the CASNo until we have more. The data is not lost, but we have problems sourcing them all to the commonchemistry website. I am in any way helped with having correct CSIDs in the page, it makes the rest of the checks much easier.
3) CASNo's are a problem .. there are many places where they can be verified and found, problem is that some have restrictions on their use (so I can't encourage anyone to use them ...). Also for this reason .. maybe we have to drop CASNo's....
I hope this helps. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Update - we are likely going to drop CASNo's ... just CSID and UNII, and then soon StdInChI and StdInChIKey (need to run my script on all of them for the latter two). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 17:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Ignore CASNo's from now (the bot will). I am updating CSIDs, UNIIs, StdInChIs and StdInChIKeys now (and well, also CASNo's if I have them available, but not for the verification). Would be great if you could help where we do not have CSIDs. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 18:38, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi there, At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemicals#Categories: Arsenic fellow editor PlasmaPhysics is asking for resolution on the many discussions and reversions etc. concerning his recent and intermittently ongoing categorizations. It would be helpful if you and some other administrator helped resolve this case. It seems that there is little support for his recent work involving categories for As and Si (and probably other elements). My recommendation would to ask him to cease work on categories within the Chemistry project, period. I am going to send this note to DMacks who is also experienced in such disputes. But the main thing is that Plasma deserves some response. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 01:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
WP:AGF only takes it so far. I'm generally not a man of strong words .. but .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Looks like you're tinkering with it right now. I'm seeing some pages with a rogue "value10=" at the top (e.g. Arsenicin A), and I'm pretty sure it's related. — Keenan Pepper 14:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
Hi. As you just participated in discussions on a closely related topic (also a current AfD re a Jewish list), which may raise some of the same issues, I'm simply mentioning that the following are currently ongoing: AfDs re lists of Jewish Nobel laureates, entertainers, inventors, actors, cartoonists, and heavy metal musicians. Best.-- Epeefleche ( talk) 08:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
You seem to throwing Uw-spam4im notices around with great abandon. In some of these cases there seems to be no justification. For example, your warning is the only edit of User talk:87.248.226.210, an account that has, in any case, been blocked since August, and has obviously made no edits since. Jan1naD ( talk • contrib) 12:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it was massively spammed, re-inserted when removed, editors using multiple IPs (20-30?), open proxies, accounts (5-10), on several wikis, etc. etc. Up to the level that it got meta blacklisted. It was plainly spammed, with no regard for our editing policies. Some IPs get used over longer times, others only shortly, or once. However, if it is an open proxy, they might return on it to see if it is unblocked already.
After blacklisting of ppdictionary.com, they created a redirect service, and happily continued to spam. Again, edits got reverted etc. etc., until today I also globally blacklisted that site. Upon looking further, there are other links also spammed by this group of editors, some of these links are more commercial in nature, but also this site is not really suitable.
Now, the person behind this spamming is now at 4im level, even as a first warning.
I now tagged a handful of IPs, mainly to make sure that the LinkSummaries are there (easier to track the many accounts). And might they return, they would see that there actions were noticed (I agree, on some IPs the chance is small - some IPs get used only once, others get used over and over, starting months ago, and still in use), and really unwanted in this form. I am sure, that in a couple of days they will return with yet another redirect site. I will try and be a bit more alert now. The spam warnings are there to make sure that if they return, they do see the warnings (or at least, we can say that we did try to warn them).
I am still working on a full report to get all the links they are pushing (there is also other stuff that got pushed). I hope this explains. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your full explanation. I have now found the site on meta:Spam_blacklist. Best wishes. Jan1naD ( talk • contrib) 13:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dirk, please have a look at m:User:COIBot/XWiki/pubmedcentral.gov, I hereby request whitelisting since COIbot keeps reporting Too many records to analyse. EdBever ( talk) 12:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Dear Dirk
I understand you flagged Parasol unit foundation for contemporary art's page as having some issues. I have added external references, is this what was needed?
Thanks Umbrellaki ( talk) 09:15, 6 December 2010 (UTC)Umbrellaki
Hi Dirk, was wondering if you could help me figure out why this entry isn't working on the whitelist:
The page I'm trying to link to is stores.lulu.com/raruto_eng?fContentOffset=3. Thanks! OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Howdy. I suspect this edit to Template:Drugbox isn't quite working as intended. Around 1300 pages making use of this template are attempting to transclude the empty page Template:Stdinschicite (see what links here) - that is to say, the parsed results of their {{drugbox .. }} templates contain the text {{Stdinschicite}}.
Copying an pasting a drugbox (for example from Erythromycin) to a test page and using subst: to display its parsed result may show up more clearly what's going on. Probably a brace too few (or too many) in there somewhere. - TB ( talk) 22:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Your name was given to me on IRC...
I was led to understand that you operated a bot that looked for specfic URI patterns?
Would it be possible for such a bot to generate a list of page revisions/URI additions to material on Wikileaks?
This is so that some idea of how much stuff is linked in relation to an on-wiki disscussion about linking to them. Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 16:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
What is LiWa3 BTW? Sfan00 IMG ( talk) 13:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
hi, I agree that my actions regarding insistence of certain aspects about what I considered was right regarding links has put me into trouble. But I believe that some of the sources quoted by me were quite valuable to wikipedia community. I request you to kindly remove the urls from the blacklist and give me some chance to correct my act.
I have read your talk page and your policy regarding external links as to the pages which will help to improve the content on wikipedia rather than drain its traffic, which is true but many times it becomes a duplicate content issue to do the same.
In any case I will try to follow your guideline regarding adding content of references and then putting a link to the target page from which I have referenced content. Kindly revert the blacklisting as I am not a professional spammer just a health writer who needed more exposure. But now I know my limitations. Hoping to get a positive response from your side.
59.183.52.9 ( talk) 10:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)Gauresh.
As I said, I will not decide that here, but I may chime in (though recuse from decision) if you request whitelisting or de-blacklisting. But you might want to start to first add info and content to Wikipedia, and show that you understand the policies and guidelines involved. Thanks. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
59.183.0.61 ( talk) 21:44, 10 December 2010 (UTC)Dr Gauresh
59.183.37.83 ( talk) 11:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)Dr Gauresh
I am afraid that there is not much I can do. The only way forward for you would be to contribute content to Wikipedia without linking to your own site. If others then see the value of your site (you might want to talk to a Wikipedia:WikiProject), then maybe you will get somewhere. Until then I am afraid that you will have to use independent sources.
Regarding the rename, it does not matter .. Orthopedic footwear and Orthopaedic footwear both link to the same place, Orthopaedic footware, and everything can hence be properly linked and properly categorised. I hope this helps. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Dirk, I've got a request in at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#thebestof.co.uk for a webpage to be whitelisted. Would you be willing to do this for me please? Mjroots ( talk) 11:02, 13 December 2010 (UTC)