This 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.

Welcome to the Wikipedia, Elipongo! And thanks for weighing in on the Joe Lieberman article discussion. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are some perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, take a look at The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

Some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, Wikiquette, and you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Elipongo, and have fun! Ombudsman 03:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I infer from the exasperated nature of your comments on the "List of Faux Pas" article that you have had the displeasure of discovering it more-or-less recently. It sure is a piece of crap, isn’t it? I am the Wikipedian who added the CAVEAT at the top of the article after noticing that perhaps half of the supposed faux pas listed didn’t really qualify for inclusion. Here’s some more bad news: the article is added to almost daily, and more often than not the additions will make you wince. If you are smarter than me – and I hope you are – you’ll take the article off your watch list and forget it ever existed rather than allowing it to torture your sensibilities. Jocularly yours, ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 20:39, 15 November 2006

• Hey, thanks greatly for the unexpected barnstar. Reading the tone of my message above, I have to smile. I am just glad to be done! Happy Hanukkah and best wishes for 2007. ◄ HouseOfScandal ► 09:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello Elias,

Thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding Lord & Taylor. I did (and do) realize that my revision was going to take out the actual "citations" for the current store locations. However, the vandal I mentioned had done a lot of vandalism to the list of closed/former stores. Essentially, he did some good work on the page while also some not so good work. I don't know if he is intentionally vandalizing the page, or just a stubborn ill-informed user. Nontheless, I didn't know what else to do but to revert the page to a version before he started hacking away at it. Since my revision Tuesday night, he has went back and done the same thing again. I'm still somewhat of a new Wiki user, so I'm not sure where we should go from here. Any tips or help would be greatly appreciated!

Mike 17:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC) PanzaM22

I added a source for the 6 stores that were closed ahead of the Federated purchase. Here's the relevant para from the article, "In addition to the two St. Louis locations, Federated will close Lord & Taylor three other stores in Newark, Del.; Dearborn, Mich.; and Peabody, Mass. Those stores employ another 384 people combined. A sixth store in downtown Philadelphia is expected to close in June and then reopen Aug. 1 as a Macy's following some minor remodeling." Clipper471 22:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

An IP must have 3-4 official warnings within 24 hours, then vandalize again before they can be blocked. Sorry. - Royalguard11( Talk· Desk· Review Me!) 18:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Elipongo, it'd probably be best for you to take the actions of this IP to WP:ANI - with a very quick look, the vandalism is really blatant (but I have no knowledge of the subject) and we may be able to get to the bottom of the case over at the noticeboard. Thanks, M a rtinp23 19:16, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Haha - I suppose it can have occasional good points M a rtinp23 19:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello Elias, when you have time please check out the information I posted on the Lord & Taylor talk page regarding store lists, citations, and 2003 divestures. I hope that you can use the information I provided to better doucument the vandalism to the page. Feel free to contact me if you would like me to help you find citations for any other parts of the page, or if you have any other ideas or suggestions. Thanks again for all your hard work, and time!

PanzaM22 Mike 00:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Elias, I thank you very much for the comment you left on my talk page. Lord and Taylor is also my favorite store, and I enjoy visiting the many locations. Although Wikipedia does not allow me to post pictures on the Lord and Taylor page without citations, I can give you pictures of the many locations I have if you'd like. I always keep up with current events on Lord and Taylor, and I wondered why the vandal kept posting that the locations in Missouri are still open, and even that there was a store in California. I traced the vandal's IP address and found out that he/she is from Trenton, New Jersey. I would have guessed that they were from Missouri and were upset with Lord and Taylor pulling out of that state. I am very happy that everything has been resolved.

Happy Hannukah, Kyle-Yankeyfan315

Hello - you might be interested in these latest developments regarding the Lord & Taylor vandal. Best, Sandstein 07:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Our favorite little vandal is at it again with yet another new IP...this time he's vandalizing mall pages saying they contain a Lord & Taylor when in fact they do not. Check out the Lord & Taylor talk page for more info.

Mike PanzaM22 03:59, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 23:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Today, a new WP user from Scripps apparently decided to add links to their website from over 100 articles on WP which is considered link spamming, no matter how good the site or intentions. An editor issued warnings User talk:Plbman, admin asked the user to stop, and the links were removed. Calltech 21:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello Elias. Thank you for your note. Since I do Wikipedia editing as a diversion from my other work, I tend to spend little time and give articles only a cursory examination. If there is a very minor error such as a misplaced comma, I "tweak" the article and I don't usually elaborate on the change since it will show up in the history note on the article. As for citations, I rely on the MLA (Modern Language Association) style which is the world's most common bibilographic style and one that is accepted by Wikipedia. I have been utilizing this citation style in my own writing and in the cataloguing that I carried out in my other life as a librarian. I know that the standard today for library cataloguing is to simply download an entire MARC (MAchine Readable Cataloging) record form an established library but I continued to be a curmudgeon and relied on "scratch" editing which I still apply to Wikipedia work today. Basically it follows the old format of: Author. Title. Place of Publication: Publisher, Date of publication. (with variations to satisfy ordering and researching stipulations, usually ended by including an ISBN (international standard book number) and at times, page references). There are some subtle variations of the MLA style to facilitate multiple authors, articles, multimedia and other questions. Sorry for being verbose but I will make a point of stopping to clarify some of my edits but when it's merely a spelling, sentence or grammatical error, I will still give it a "tweak." Bzuk 04:49 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Further- the style employed for note citation is the Harvard style which one other editor had begun to use and even though it works well with the MLA style, it is a separate system. Basically, the first reference is completely cited and all following references are provided in a brief format: "Author(s) Date, page." Sorry, I got off on a tangent in my earlier response, you merely wanted to know what style was being employed. Bzuk 05:08 8 January 2007 (UTC).

I added a link to the Motorola RIZR Z3 which gives a view to the features and other stuff[the review link], how is that link spam. I've seen your recent edits and you just seem to remove all links without thinking. Get a hold of yourself man! Rushh — Preceding undated comment added 10:00, 13 January 2007

Funny, I just checked my recent contributions, and the last dozen before you made this comment all had to do with restoring content that had been removed from articles by vandals. Anyways, I originally deleted the link as it had been posted by 202.70.195.39 ( Talk) to Motorola RIZR Z3 and to a half dozen other articles besides, thus making it spam per WP:SPAM. Then you came along and re-posted the same link. I re-labeled it spam, since I had deleted it once already as such, and I cited it as a violation of WP:EL- the small amount of content is dwarfed by the vast amount of advertising on the site. I would suggest that you read WP:EL along with WP:NOT#REPOSITORY so that you'll understand my actions. Thank you very much and have a great day! -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 17:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Gee thank you! And I will get you your Bashert. I've got User:PassianCappucino my sister but she would get mad at me. -- Shaericell Talker to Triplets! |Email Me 20:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to you too. Your sister is very attractive, but I doubt she'd be interested in an guy my age.

-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 08:04, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Simply thanks for your edits, and please feel free to edit away. Also as these are going live tonight if you are around to help out please join us on the IRC channel #martinp23. Thanks again Khukri ^{( talk . contribs)} 18:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created the Manchester Road Race article and your user page came up for "What Links Here", so I figured I'd let you know. Hopefully we can make it into a great article! Leebo ⁸⁶ 18:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Not only is it always nice when somebody else gets things started, but it's even nicer when the starting article is already well written! I'll be glad to be of assistance! -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 20:03, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks also for adding the categories. I wasn't sure if there were good ones that applied. I'm planning on expanding the article, most importantly the history section, and I want to do more research on the notable female runners. I also think I have some pictures I took of the race, so if I can find a good one, I'll upload it myself. The references are sparse right now, since I was only looking online; do you know of any good "hard" sources? Leebo ⁸⁶ 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I haven't sat down to do the research on this article as of yet, so all I've got is this citation I used to establish notability for it in the Manchester, Connecticut article. I'm going to see about getting some more inbound links so someone doesn't slap an {{orphan}} tag onto it. -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 21:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think, at the very least, we could link to it from some of the notable runners' pages. I'll look into that as well. Leebo ⁸⁶ 21:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You reversed all those insider trading history links that that guy put up for Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers, Motorola, etc, etc. That was NOT spam. Those are listing of insiders who have sold in each of those publicly traded companies. This is not spam - it's useful information. Why do call that spam???? I don't understand. I am putting the Goldman link back in.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.106.239 ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 8 January 2007

Because that editor added ELEVEN links to the same website into TEN different articles in a matter of a few minutes. The links were not placed into sections about criticism about the companies but rather into the regular company history section. The editor also didn't add any content whatsoever to the articles, just the links, mostly in an inline citation style. This constitutes link spam as per WP:SPAM#External link spamming. May I suggest that instead of simply putting the link back in, you rather write some content based on the data contained therein and cite it as a reference? -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 17:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Opps, just came back from a vacation, and saw you have removed all the links. Those are insider trading links, and are fact, what would you want me to say? I thought Mr. Wales wants to get into search engine business ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6216619.stm), so I try to help him a bit, why would you go against him? I don't understand. What should I say about a fact other than a link? If you remove useful information, why people should be searching in wikipedia? In addition, I didn't add in the external section, which will take a line, instead, I put as a reference, a merely 3 tiny characters when they are shown...Would you mind to revert them back? Many thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.238.205.15 ( talk) 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I personally think that it is not necessary information. Insider dealings are public information and are not usually found in encyclopedia entries. Any financial website has this information (the fact that yahoo has it says alot) and if the person is looking for this kind of information they'll know where to find it. I don't think it's necessary to place it in any entry unless you are going to list the insider transactions of all public companies (several hundred thousand I'd imagine). Most insider trades are innocuous anyways. People sell their stock options all the time. Thesilence 03:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sure everybody has different opinion on different things. What should be included or what should not is totally based on personal opinion. But I don't think we are going to include every public companies, as you said there are thousands of them. I don't have a problem to include yahoo's, but yahoo's is not up-to-date (a week delay) and the links I added are real time and much easier to read. I am trying to include those companies with high profile, so everybody can monitor if there are any illegal activities done by them, and sadly, I have seen suspicious buying or selling, I saw one Chairman bought $3 million stock and the next day the company revised sale upward, and the stock jumped 20%, but I don't think I am going to name it in public places...In addition, as I posted, Mr. Wales is working on making wikipedia becoming a search engine and compete against google and yahoo, how can we compete against them if we don't have useful information? Because of different options people will have, I try to avoid adding them as external links, which will take a whole line, so I add as a tiny reference. I appreciate your contributions. Many thanks. 24.238.205.15 ( talk)

Hello, thank you for taking the time to write to me here. I don't use my computer during Shabbat, so please excuse this delayed reply. I shall try to address your statements sequentially:

1. "Those are insider trading links, and are fact, what would you want me to say?" If there are useful facts in the link, you should write those facts into the article and cite the link as a citation. For example, "Joe Blow, President of Widget Corp, traded x shares of Widget yesterday netting ten gazillion clams <ref>www.insidertradingatwidget.com</ref>". If there aren't facts in the link that can or could be contributed to the article, then it is likely not relevant to the article.
2. "I thought Mr. Wales wants to get into search engine business ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6216619.stm), so I try to help him a bit, why would you go against him?" The very news article you cite states quite clearly that the announced search engine will be a separate project from Wikipedia, an explanation can also be found at Wikia#Search engines. Clearly, the only search engine effort you're helping is the increase in Google rank to the page you're linking to.
3. "What should I say about a fact other than a link? If you remove useful information, why people should be searching in wikipedia?" You should state that fact in the article, providing it is relevant to the article. Quite frankly, I didn't find your link to be useful information, because since I have no training in investments, the page was pretty much gibberish to me. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, and has to be readable by people like me with no training in your field. People read articles on Wikipedia for the content of those articles, not to find links that they could have looked up on Google.
4. "I didn't add in the external section, which will take a line, instead, I put as a reference, a merely 3 tiny characters when they are shown." Yes, but you put each of these inline references next to text that had nothing whatsoever to do with the website referenced. If you had instead actually written sections about insider trading at those companies, then used the site as a reference, we wouldn't be having this conversation. The fact is that by placing the link as an inline citation, you are making it harder for people to find your "useful information", thus contradicting all your previous statements.
5. "What should be included or what should not is totally based on personal opinion." Wikipedia in fact has strict policies on what belongs and what does not belong here. The relevant policies in this case would be WP:EL, WP:NOT, & WP:SPAM.

The fact is that you posted ELEVEN links, mostly as inline citations, to the same website to TEN articles in the space of THIRTY minutes without having added any material content to those articles. Then during Shabbat you reposted them, claiming that you had talked to me, when it would have been more accurate to say that you talked 'at' me since I couldn't answer until now. Once you read the above policies, especially the section WP:SPAM#How not to be a spammer, you'll understand why that is inappropriate for Wikipedia, despite your best intentions. Quite frankly, if your site is what I understand it to be (a database of recent insider trading), then I don't see how it would be relevant anywhere except in the Insider trading article- which already has a plethora of similar links. Anyways, I hope that I have cleared things up some and that you will now erase the links you posted and propose them on the articles' talk pages instead, per Wikipedia policy. Thanks and have a great day.!-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 16:18, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi Elipongo! I see you have deleted lots of people's revisions, info they have added, links, etc. Deleted lots of links. I have decided that I am going to start randomly reversing your edits. I will dig back in your edits - start with some that you did in November, say. I won't do this through an account - I will do it every time I log on with a new IP address. Have a nice day!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.60.122 ( talk • contribs) 11:49, 26 January 2007
  • I think you should review Wikipedia:External Links before you accuse Elipongo of bad faith reverts. I know of at lease one article, Manchester, CT where he appropriately removed quite a few questionable external links. He didn't completely get rid of the topics' mention in the article, and he moved them to "see also" where possible. I think that was perfectly okay. Leebo ⁸⁶ 12:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for defending me, Leebo86! To my threatening friend— I would have thought you would be happy now that the Goldman Sachs article has been re-written to include a criticism section, but I can see that is not the case. In case you should be so unwise as to follow through on your threat, you should be aware of a few things:

1. There's this thing called a "Watchlist" which allow registered users to keep an eye on changes in articles that they are interested in. Most of my time on Wikipedia is spent keeping up with my own watchlist which has 493 pages on it currently.
2. Any deletions that you might make will look like (and be, for that matter) vandalism and will be reverted by other editors likely before I even catch up to it on my watchlist.
3. Logging in from your IP address is inherently less secure than actually getting yourself a user account. For example, a very cursory check finds that your ISP is http://www.tiscali.com/, that for your post above you logged in via Coventry, England, and that for your post which started this thread you logged in via Guildford, England.
4. The Wikipedia admins take a very dim view of people who disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, continuous violation of policy could see the Foundation contacting your ISP's abuse department.
5. I really don't care— I have a full life outside of Wikipedia and I really do this just for fun.

In closing, I hope that you don't follow through on your threat because it would be bad for you personally. Rather, I hope that you'll register for a user name and make constructive edits and help us build the encyclopedia. You have already helped, by the way— I'll give you the credit by your comments on that article's talk page, for getting Goldman Sachs re-written in a more balanced way including a criticism section. I hope that you'll overcome your impulse and do what you know in your heart is the right thing to do. Have a great day. -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 15:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed that you placed a dablink above the header of Christina Ellington as well as all the other articles on the Ellington dab page. I think that this is very unnecessary, as it is unlikely that someone would ever go to the Christina Ellington article when trying to find the article for Duke Ellington or Ellington, Northumberland (as an example). While it is fine to have all these articles on the dab page, you should only use these links on the articles themselves for necessary disambiguation, which this is not. I respectfully ask that you remove these. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You're quite right and I shall revert them (you did have to wait to ask me until I had just finished with the whole list! lol!) I think I shall leave them up on Ray Ellington & Duke Ellington because as two Jazz musicians I have already seen them confused in links on record pages. Honestly it didn't click with me that it's a disambiguation template, I was taking the "other uses" phrase literally as, "Hey, what else uses this word." Have a great day and thanks for pointing out my error. -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 03:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the timing, that's Murphy's Law, I guess. Thanks for taking my input in the spirit in which it was intended. Leaving those on the musicians pages certainly makes sense. Also, you might want to check out {{ otherplaces3}} for some or all of the geographic articles. -- After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 04:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion of the other template, that will indeed be helpful. Be well! -- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Oy oy oy. Poor autistic kid - and equally, our poor data. I'll see what I can do. Incidentally, you might want to specify your time zone in your "shomer shabbas" userbox.

On an unrelated point, I'm a guy, so referring to me as "she" is misplaced. DS 22:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

My most abject apologies for getting your gender wrong! Hey, at least it's not like I made the same mistake in person!

I shall follow up on your suggestion regarding my timezone forthwith. And, again, thank you for helping out in this.-- Elipongo ^{( Talk| contribs)} 22:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)