If you came here because I removed a link that you posted onto Wikipedia. Please read and understand
this first.
Please watch this page as I will respond here, to keep the convosation togather, if you wish me to respond on your page, please make a note of that in your message, thank you.
Thank you, that was interesting, but I am still not sure what i´m doing wrong. Lots of charities have Wikipedia pages, so what wording would you use to share information about a charity in buenos aires? (by unknown user, whom I cannot find in the history.) —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowbot blocked
Hey, Eagle, in case you haven't seen this yet: [1].
We need to start making sure the databases are synced. Saga might be able to set the /Spambot directory on xerospace to have a username/password that the bots use. In any case, I'm not bringing Shadowbot up until we get this problem fixed. Shadow1(talk)19:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
hey thanks for the tips just now! i found out about the irc spam project from a banner on someones user page. im gonna try my best to help, but itll probably take me a while to figure everything out :) my names matt btw --gwc23:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as lots of work has been done of working through this list, again mostly by me, I think it now needs another re-run. Would you be able to do that in the next day or two. Thanks :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk)16:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Erm... I have been busy with the anti-spam project. I will work on getting another run done in a few days. (this weekend). About the other part, give me a week or so (if I am lucky, and have time). —— Eagle (ask me for help) 18:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is a widespread precedence on wikipedia for audio recordings as factual contributions.
Audio interviews are no less factual than links to text based fansites hosted on geocities or videos links to youtube or google videos, such links already exist all over wikipedia as acceptable and are sufficiently relevant to exist, why not the ones I have added?
If you allow some but not others, without a clear criteria as to what audio recording links are allowed and which ones are not, than there is not only a double standard going on here but a form of censorship as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Christopher70 (talk • contribs) 19:11, November 30, 2006 (UTC)
Please read this and this. Ask me if you have any questions. Basically what you are doing is adding a link to the same site over many pages. Remember wikipedia is an encyclopedia first. We are not a linkfarm. For some ideas on productive things to do for wikipedia, check out the Community Portal. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
links, content removed by Eagle 101
Eagle, I have read both the Spam and external link guidelines. I feel that the links and content that I've added do not run afoul of Wiki policies. Furthermore, if the links and content that I have added are contrary, certainly the large and widespread links to LawPeriscope, are in the exact same category. I do not feel, however, that Law Periscope nor the AveryIndex fit in the prohibited categories.
Here are the links to be avoided guidelines. The content is useful and relevant. The links I've added link to unique resources, including user comments, star rankings, firm news and firm practice areas. The research and information is all verified and high quality. The links are not intended mainly to promote a web site (any more than LawPeriscope) in that they provide information on the firm. No products or services are sold. There is very little advertising on these pages (similar to amount on LawPeriscope). No payment is required to view. Website is accessible. No external applications are needed. This is not a search engine result page. This is not a social networking site. This is not a personal website. This is not an open wiki. This is material directly applicable to the firms (perhaps more so than LawPeriscope).
I feel this is inconsistent treatment and that the content I have added provides value. Many references to the AveryIndex Law Firm rankings exist on Wikipedia. They benefit me and others who are interested in law firms, such as law students. In addition, I understand that the Avery Index doesn't generate enough on the little advertising there is to even cover hosting.
Also, the Schiltz 100 was designed by a law professor at Notre Dame and is academic, non-commercial. Seems like exactly what Wikipedia is all about. This unsigned comment was submitted by GreysAnatomy(talk·contribs·count·logs·page moves·block log) on 22:26, 30 November 2006
As for verifiability, the data is verifiable by the AveryIndex (a reliable source), The American Lawyer (a reliable source), Vault (a reliable source) and the Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz (District Judge in Minnesota). I think that more than meets the verifiability requirement.
Hey Eagle. I can give you several reasons the AveryIndex is reliable. 1. most of the data comes from a database of 6,500 attorney surveys, 2. some of the data comes from a separate database of 15,000 attorney surveys, 3. the rest of the data comes from either the NALP (National Association for Law Placement) or reliable new sources (CNN, The American Lawyer, etc.), 4. the information includes 6,600 direct links to official law firm websites (another source of verification), 5. the judge is not self-published at all as far as I know - the Schiltz 100 methodology was published originally in the Vanderbilt Law Review [2], which is published by the Vanderbilt Law School, a top 20 law school [3]. Law reviews are highly verified as they are professional publications and each article is subjected to extensive pre-publication scrutiny and then post-publication responses.
Ok, in that case propose the links on the article's talk page. Also perhaps learn what WP:CITE is. Don't go about spamming the same link (to the same site or domain) to more then 5 articles. External links don't help wikipedia, added content does. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 03:40, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Mohammed Rindus
Thanks for deleting that article, and I'm sorry about the confused nature of the AfD listing =/ I'm still not entirely sure which tag I should have used.... Alexforcefive04:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, it was unclear from your edit summary why you removed the picture of King's College Hospital Golden Jubilee Wing. Was it a copyvio? If so why not just revert the image back to the original one I had put up of the Ruskin Wing which has a commons licence? Thanks --PaulWicks17:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sample link of AboutUs.org in use.. and more defense of first popular DMOZ alternative. Please revisit the new article, but try the link to whois at the bottom showing about us in use by a popular information source on WhoIs.--162.83.180.17018:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I just got a message from you about my editing of links on the college bowl games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:75.36.213.220&redirect=no
What's sort of funny is that I was trying to do the right thing, and clean up some links that someone else had posted. I was making them go to the specific .htm page for each game, and correcting the link text because his site doesn't have a history of the games, but accounts of the games that have been collected from various uncredited sources. Personally, I would be fine with removing all of those links as the linked-to site has copied some descriptions from wikipedia, and other sites, without quoting or attributing the quotes. (I sent an e-mail to the owner of the site about that already.) So anyways, in summary, I was trying to clean up his links. From your message, maybe the links should just be deleted. Let me know what you want me to do.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.36.213.220 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]
I guess I will leave them for now since most of my changes have been reverted (which I think is wrong) and I'm afraid that if I start deleting his links, someone will think I'm vandalizing. User:Wizardry Dragon/Templates/UserTalkPage unsignedip
I did, it's now Mcrawford620. Still not sure -- do you want me to delete all of the links like History of the Liberty Bowl? If not, they should at least be edited.
Yep, I've read those and I think that the links should be deleted as they do not fall under any of the categories of "What should be linked to" or "Links to be considered." They are all links to a personal webpage (discouraged under "Links normally to be avoided"), they are a bunch of links across many articles to the same page (talked about on the Spam page), and have unattributed sources (I can see that some of his text is copied from Wikipedia). So, I can try to delete them as that's my reading of the situation.
But I guess my concern is that if I start deleting his links, it will be construed as vandalizing and my attempts will just be reverted again. Also, since I'm new here, I'm not exactly sure that I'm reading the guidelines perfectly. I appreciate your help.
