Thanks for referting the planning article, and removing the name of that CEO xxx xxxxxxx. I have removed that name maybe two dozend times in the last months. Maybe we can get that name black listed or something like that. What do you think?? -- Mdd ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be nice, but the spam blacklist only checks external links. You'd have to get a developer to add it to the spam regex instead, and it doesn't seem likely that they'd bother. - Ehheh ( talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen that the name popped up again. As a response I removed this name from the Regina vacuum cleaners article. Could you take a look over there, and maybe put this article on your watchlist. Thanks. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Twinking. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Keilana|
Parlez ici 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy request as I am not convinced that it is speedy material. You're free to take to AfD. J Milburn ( talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you have recently removed the external links I've placed below a few select articles. I assure you it was not an attempt to spam these articles, rather, to add relevant information to enhance the articles. Each link went to a page with many resources on the subject from reputable, well established, sources. The information on the site also adds value for readers because it tackles the subjects from a parent's standpoint, and how a subject applies to children grades K-12.
I am employed at education.com, along with many other individuals who have dedicated much of their lives to improving education, but I placed the links because I'm proud of the content we have collected and felt it improved the articles by offering a resource for more specific information (how the subject relates to student). I was very careful to place a link only where they were "meritable, accessible, and appropriate to the article," so as not to be considered spam. I was also careful to not place any marketing jargon in the links, rather, simply stating: (dyslexia, eating disorder, education) resources for parents of school aged children.
I would appreciate you reconsidering your removal of these links. If you take a look at the content that was being linked to, I'm confident that you'll find it very relevant and valuable.
Thank you for your consideration
Educator08 ( talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read the COI article. Having a COI does not preclude an edit that is genuinely trying to increase coverage. The links increased coverage by giving specific resources on how a particular subject relates to children & education. The website being linked to is not a commercial website, it is a reference website, and the addition was not financially motivated. Nor are the reference articles promoting one author, they are a collection of articles from a wide range of resources.
Imagine if you will being a parent with a child who has an eating disorder. You come to Wikipedia to research this and now you know the definitions and biology behind ED, but you don't know what you can do to help. This is what the goal of the links was, to offer parents a place to go and be armed with information that allows them to proactively help the situation.
I know first hand how difficult it could be to track down all these resources from the myriad of different reference sites. Having these different and neutral resources in one location is of benefit to parents. Since the contributions show a great connection to what a general reader may want to consult as a reference, I ask that you reconsider.
Thank you.
Educator08 ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Allen J Scott is a professor at a major university, UCLA, with multiple published books by major publishers. To assert non-self-published books is an assertion of importance, and therefore nappropriate for a speedy as db-A7. The article needs some fleshing out, but it is almost certain to pass AfD also. You are welcome to take it there, though essentially all full professors at such universities have been held notable in the last year or so. DGG ( talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for referting the planning article, and removing the name of that CEO xxx xxxxxxx. I have removed that name maybe two dozend times in the last months. Maybe we can get that name black listed or something like that. What do you think?? -- Mdd ( talk) 14:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- That would be nice, but the spam blacklist only checks external links. You'd have to get a developer to add it to the spam regex instead, and it doesn't seem likely that they'd bother. - Ehheh ( talk) 15:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have seen that the name popped up again. As a response I removed this name from the Regina vacuum cleaners article. Could you take a look over there, and maybe put this article on your watchlist. Thanks. -- Mdd ( talk) 20:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Twinking. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Keilana|
Parlez ici 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have declined the speedy request as I am not convinced that it is speedy material. You're free to take to AfD. J Milburn ( talk) 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Hello,
I see you have recently removed the external links I've placed below a few select articles. I assure you it was not an attempt to spam these articles, rather, to add relevant information to enhance the articles. Each link went to a page with many resources on the subject from reputable, well established, sources. The information on the site also adds value for readers because it tackles the subjects from a parent's standpoint, and how a subject applies to children grades K-12.
I am employed at education.com, along with many other individuals who have dedicated much of their lives to improving education, but I placed the links because I'm proud of the content we have collected and felt it improved the articles by offering a resource for more specific information (how the subject relates to student). I was very careful to place a link only where they were "meritable, accessible, and appropriate to the article," so as not to be considered spam. I was also careful to not place any marketing jargon in the links, rather, simply stating: (dyslexia, eating disorder, education) resources for parents of school aged children.
I would appreciate you reconsidering your removal of these links. If you take a look at the content that was being linked to, I'm confident that you'll find it very relevant and valuable.
Thank you for your consideration
Educator08 ( talk) 02:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read the COI article. Having a COI does not preclude an edit that is genuinely trying to increase coverage. The links increased coverage by giving specific resources on how a particular subject relates to children & education. The website being linked to is not a commercial website, it is a reference website, and the addition was not financially motivated. Nor are the reference articles promoting one author, they are a collection of articles from a wide range of resources.
Imagine if you will being a parent with a child who has an eating disorder. You come to Wikipedia to research this and now you know the definitions and biology behind ED, but you don't know what you can do to help. This is what the goal of the links was, to offer parents a place to go and be armed with information that allows them to proactively help the situation.
I know first hand how difficult it could be to track down all these resources from the myriad of different reference sites. Having these different and neutral resources in one location is of benefit to parents. Since the contributions show a great connection to what a general reader may want to consult as a reference, I ask that you reconsider.
Thank you.
Educator08 ( talk) 16:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Allen J Scott is a professor at a major university, UCLA, with multiple published books by major publishers. To assert non-self-published books is an assertion of importance, and therefore nappropriate for a speedy as db-A7. The article needs some fleshing out, but it is almost certain to pass AfD also. You are welcome to take it there, though essentially all full professors at such universities have been held notable in the last year or so. DGG ( talk) 23:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 13:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)