User talk:Mwanner/Archive 4

Rabbit Visual aid

I admit that the changes to the vegetarian page may have been inappropriate and outside the intended sphere of the article. However, your well intentioned but perhaps overly-cautious removal of my picture renders the rabbit article bereft of photographic content, hence the picture is not only wholesome and tasteful but also extremly neccesary and addresses a serious and alarming deficiency in the aformentioned visual realm. Please uphold your integrity as a wikipedian and restore the article. AxellJ 17:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

No thanks, I added a better image, instead. -- Mwanner | Talk 20:39, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Puff Piece

The editors contradicted your claim by showing that someone like just copied and pasted that on here.

And I believe there is a good possiblility that you are the one that did it. 75.3.4.54 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Who is that? It makes sense that you would do it though. It isn't logical to make the assumptions that you made. You probably did it so you could say those things though. 75.3.4.54 03:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Custer's Last Stand

Eh ... if you think it sounded better before ... you're probably right in terms of the style. However, you really can't leave in the word "popularly". It implies either consensus or preponderance or majority or plurality, depending on one's interpretation. And I don't see any evidence of that. (Point to fact, it's hard to find evidence for things like that).

SO, I just substitued "by some" which doesn't contain a potentially false assumption. I left the rest of the section as per your reversion.

Thanks

No problem. Although, to be honest, I think that paragraph sounds fine as it is now -- it's the old K.I.S.S. principle. (I though about addressing the 'general' word, but I couldn't think of a way to do it without being ponderous)

Regarding my May 2 edit to Psychology

Sorry about my add. There was a list of eleven links to psych organizations, and I added a twelfth to a legitimate psych org. Didn't realize the list shouldn't have been there in the first place.

But I do wonder, what is the correct way to point people interested in psychology to the various professional psychology organizations?
--Dmittleman 16:55, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Spam encrusted New Mexico Articles

I was just circling back around to trim the other commerical sites from the New Mexico related articles only to find out that someone else has done the dirty work! Thanks for getting into the weeds! Kuru ^talk 00:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Sisalto

Hi, just saw (apropos the Inflation article) that you've edited Sisalto's user page, not their talk page. My apologies if that was intentional.

RandomP 22:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Buenos Aires Tourism

Thanks for doing a well deserved copyedit to Buenos Aires#Tourism. Gadig 02:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Flight planning

Following you helpful comments in a peer review, I have reworded Flight planning#Calculation to try and avoid the 'how-to' approach. Could you have a quick look and perhaps suggest any further desirable changes. Thanks Murray Langton 08:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting...

... the vandalism on my user page. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Lorenzo

Your article on Lorenzo de' Medici has been attacked again, with a large chunk containing the Pazzi conspiracy being erased. I have recently corrected some small vandalisms, but a full reversion is beyond my skill as a newcomer. May I pass it to you?--Anthony.bradbury 13:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry :-(

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was actually making a real change. I thought it was like when you press Ctrl-U to get the source code and edit it, and then it shows the edited page, but doesn't really change the actual page. Lol, my bad! OKaZaKi 21:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

ACU

Why did you revert all of my edits in the Army Combat Uniform article? Those were not personal style edits, they were edits for punctuation and grammar to make it a better article overall. Now the article looks just as unprofessional and haphazzard as it did before. ScreaminEagle 21:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciated your attention to this and for changing it. That's strange that it would do that. Oh well. Many thanks! ScreaminEagle 01:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Need to recover from a bot attack...

I don't have as much time or help as I need to answer every question about the article I am writing but I'm trying to anyway. This means that I have to make a preliminary edit followed by lots of revisions. It probably did not also help that I changed my user signature. At any rate I can't edit anything now and need you intervention. Thanks in advance. IMHO 17:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

New Jersey wild lands

You know alot about the Pine Barrens what about the Highlands in NJ and NY. Isn't it under threat? :( John wesley 21:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

One man's spam...

Hmmmmm. I definitely see the point, and admittedly had not yet read the external link guidelines. Clearly, we don't want to let external linkage become a crutch in lieu of better articles — but it also seems like a healthy supply of links is useful for editors in research and fact-checking, in order to assist in article growth. Such linking doesn't need to be part of the article itself, perhaps, but more of a meta tool. Do you think these sorts of links could have a place at the top of a talk page, instead, or does the difficultly of discerning spam from legitimate resources make it not worth the effort? ~ Booya ^Bazooka 20:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

American Revolution

If you think it needed a fix, a rewrite is preferable to a revert, you know. Can you defend these sentences, which you just reverted back into place?

"The American Revolution was a revolution that ended two centuries of rule in Thirteen Colonies of North America by the British Empire and created the modern United States of America. The American Revolution is the series of ideas and changes that resulted in the revolution and ensuing political separation of thirteen colonies in North America from the British Empire and the creation of the United States of America."

Not a lot is said here, and it's said rather poorly. My edit cited a trend in British radicalism that led to republican ideals being seeded in America while noting the growing differences between the two nation's versions of that ideal. And it gave a one-paragraph overview of the revolution and its social consequences. If you aren't trying to inspire an edit war that is beneath us, you should damned well back your actions up on Talk or write something better yourself. Fearwig 17:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Frances Hodgson Burnett link removal

Hi. I saw the link you removed from the Frances Hodgson Burnett article as "spam" and read the note you left for Pavlo Moloshtan. I disagree somewhat with what you did and I left a note on the talk page for that article.--A. B. 18:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:Frances_Hodgson_Burnett

Change to italy

Sorry, saw it on TV and just had to try it.

Changes in Denver page

Yes, actually I was making a new page for the Diversity in Denver section. I should've commented or put an editing notice on there. Apologies, Vertigo700 23:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How do we talk?

New Jersey

can you deny that it isn't a nickname for new jersey? Morriss 23:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, it comes up as second hit when googled - a very large difference. Anyway, i've lived there and was just offering another nickname. Further, state nicknames don't tend to encompass the entire state as it is. Arizona - the grand canyon state. is the entire state in the Grand Canyon? no. but it is simply a nickname. Morriss 23:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I do understand why it shouldnt be in there, you just weren't making good points. Anywho, Happy editing and have a wonderful evening, Morriss 23:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Wog: Derivative Definition

There are references for this variation of the term. See here and here.

I've had a discussion along these lines with Hartley Patterson; please refer to our respective talk pages, here and here.

--SpecOp Macavity 20:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, the primary link is neither a bulletin board, a Usenet newsgroup, or any of the other generally unreliable sources.

Second, I fail to see how the views on the second link are "incoherent" - I can understand them quite easily. Granted, it's a wiki page, and wikis are generally considered to be unreliable - however, I took the time to read through it. While i will admit that there are punctuation and grammatical errors, the page is by no means incoherent.

Third, I've been familiar with the derivative definition for many years. And from what I understand, the derivative definition's been around about as long as the Scientology definition, give or take a couple years or so.

--SpecOp Macavity 21:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It appears that you didn't look beyond the front page on the primary site (which, by the way, is neither commercial nor a forum); I can verify that it's in S1E4 (see here and here) - the section list for S1E4 reads as follows:

SEASON ONE EPISODE FOUR

INGREDIENTS:

RANT: KNOW THY ENEMY
SPRING CLEANING
POLISHING BOOTS
RANT: WHAT IS A WOG?

(Boldface is for emphasis.)

--SpecOp Macavity 21:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

First off, one link does not automatically make a site commercial. (As a matter of fact, RantMedia releases all of their programs under the Creative Commons system, and you can download it for free. They even distribute it on BitTorrent, for crying out loud!)

Second, there are fora on the main RantMedia site for discussing all of RantMedia's shows.

Third, the definition's in the referenced episode (my version is the referenced section condensed to its salient points - as such, it's a reduction, and not OR).

--SpecOp Macavity 22:04, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

PS - I've got to log off in a few, as it's getting on for dinnertime in my part of the world. Would it be all right if we continued this discussion tomorrow? --SOM

woo! thank you so now will you ppl finally let us place this deffination on the wiki page without further deletion? --stapuft 01:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you want a personal website? Take a look at Dark Atlas - that's a personal website, as it's administered, run by and contains information about Sean Kennedy, who's the host of Patrolling.

The Patrolling website is a RantMedia subsite (as is newsreal.rantmedia.ca, the home of NewsReal), and is run by the staff of RantMedia - Art Lindsey III, James O'Brien, Sean Kennedy, Derek Anderson, and Michael Moore (not the same Michael Moore who did Fahrenheit 9/11, though), amongst others. As it is not owned or operated by a single person, but rather by the staff of RantMedia, it is not a personal website. It is a website that concerns a particular production of RantMedia, and is operated by the collective staff of RantMedia.

Take the time to look over the sites I've mentioned, as well as the RantMedia staff page (which can be found here), and then let me know if you still think that the Patrolling site is a personal site.

--SpecOp Macavity 18:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. - I believe I may have come up with an acceptable solution, which is detailed here. Let me Know what you think, OK? --SOM

Regarding my edits to mountain biking, cycling, road biking, and hiking

Sorry for the links, we wanted to test the waters as it seemed that there were some other simmilar links in the external links section of several pages and we didn't realize that they shouldn't be there, I did some more wikipedia policy reading and have removed all the links we placed (the one on hiking was still there). Watch out for links being placed to www.abc-of-hiking.com and his many other sites (abc-of-fishing.com shop-of-hiking.com travel-of-hiking.com) as he seems to be pretty widespread and his pages are nothing but a collection of commision junction partners and adsense advertising. hillclimb 11:08am (pacific), June 2 2006

Thanks for cleaning up Mountain biking

Thanks for cleaning up all those extra external links in the Mountain biking article. That list was getting abnormally long, and there were clearly a lot of people putting in links for their own purposes as opposed to having high-quality external links. If you feel so inclined, Mountain bike could probably use some cleanup as well. There might be other participatory sports pages that attract external links that aren't high quality, but I haven't checked yet. --Elkman 18:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article on featured candidate nominations list

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States

Cast your vote! The more responses, the more chances the article will improve and maybe pass the nomination.--Ryz05 _t 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

bonsai

I'm the original writer on that. There is no copywright issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Futurebird (talk • contribs)

Spam

I'm afraid I don't agree with your intepretation of the policy. That policy page reads "there is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Many of the articles from which you deleted that link did not have "excessive lists" at all. Simhas is a valuable site with a lot of good information, but I have nothing to do with it and no interesting in "directing traffic there." User:Sylvain1972 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Perth Amboy

I removed the categories because the categories are related to specific school districts. Because Perth Amboy's school district has its own page, I moved the categories to the school district page (See Perth Amboy Public Schools) WhisperToMe 22:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Mailseth

I disagree that I was adding spam links to articles. I even asked on the mailing list if they thought my pages were useful, and what to do. Here is a an email of suggestions that I followed. Here is someone saying that I have a useful amount of of information. Much of the information contained in my pages is not duplicatable on Wikipedia, such as weather, lists of photos, and books, depending on what you are looking at. Mailseth 13:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

From your response "Links should only be added if they have valuable information that does not belong in the article itself and if they are not trying to sell something." I won't add links if you still disagree, but I believe that my site fits both of these requirements. It has detailed information that may not be relevant to WP, such as maps, more photos, reviews, weather, reviews, etc. It also does not charge for its services. All info can be viewed for free (without registration), and the linked pages didn't even contain items that would net me an affiliate commission (to view those links required at least one more click). I would be interested in what gives the impression of a commercial site, because that is not my intent.

WP:EL has similar points under What should be linked to (points 5 & 6). It even specifically mentions reviews there.

BTW, I only added 11 links in the first week, and there were no comments on my talk page. Although the suggested number of links was 10, I believe I followed the spirit of the recommendation. Mailseth 14:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just so we're clear: You would be OK with me continuing to add links (and content) to articles lacking such? What about reverting the reverts that you made? I would also be interested in what on my site gave the impression of a commercial site, so I can change it. I actually started working on my site with the intent of being a non-profit, but my wife talked me out of it. I'm still trying to stay close to that ideal (and have yet to make any profit, heh).

Please continue to tell me though if I do something overly spammy, though. As I said in my first email, I really don't want to step on any toes. Mailseth 15:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

RV SPAM

You deleted a link on the East Haven page, which is fine with me, I didn't think the calendar site should have been here. My question is what is rv spam? thanks--dep369 17:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)dep369

Image:Lake Atsion Heron.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:Lake Atsion Heron.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs)

Buffalo, New York

Ok, i was more careful this time. Thanks.--Lc 04 14:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam clean up tag at Sufism

I noticed you put a spam cleanup tag in the Sufism article. Which items do you believe are spam, and why? I looked at the list very carefully a about two weeks ago and I found nothing that would count as spam. If you see obvious spam, please delete it rather than tagging the list. Thanks. David Traver 15:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my user talk page. David Traver 17:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

America's Got Talent

Thanks. FellowWikipedian 15:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction

Thank you for both of your comments. After reading your first comment, I re-wrote the article based on Wikipedia standards. Upon completing the article, I saw your second message regarding links to "commercial" sites. My site is not meant to be "commercial" and I immediately saw the error of adding content to Wikipedia (which I would then not add to my own site) thereby enriching Wikipedia and making my own site appear lean on the "content" side. I wish I could take back my other Wikipedia contributions, but alas, we are here now.  :)) In any case, please delete any and all of my information related to Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction. I will add it to my own site. I appreciate your allowing me to see this early in the process as my site is relatively new. Best, Kelley 11 June 2006

Question about removal of links

I appreciate your willingness and dedication to removal of spam from Wikipedia. I am wondering, however, why you removed our links, but left the BBC (Happiness)? and other articles? The Open Grove is a media company. I have added the links only to add to the content of the page - in fact, I don't think the audio actually promotes the Open Grove. The audio is focused around the topic and the links do not go to any page on the website - simply to topic related audio.

You requested that if I wanted to re-add the links, I could discuss it on the discussion page - however there isn't a discussion page for some of the pages. Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chc opengrove (talk • contribs)

To clarify then, content in the audio should be added to the page as information rather than listed as an external link due to the desire for the page to be complete without external links. There's no question that Wikipedia isn't a link farm. Our attempt is to add content, and as much of our content is audio, I created these links. Again, I appreciate your fastidiousness and dedication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chc opengrove (talk • contribs)

Don't bite the newbie

So far as I can determine, the "user" never did add anything to Wikipedia, other than a self-serving link to his own site. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I consider the discussion on Bicycle touring closed, since the OP was driven out. However, I think you need to stop and examine your actions. Your comment above is completely unnecessary. That user will never contribute to WP because you rejected his first attempt. You bit the newbie. Walt 16:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You could be right, I suppose, but it seems to me that a spammer doesn't really qualify as a newbie. The guy had (at least) six months after his first "contribution" during which time he could have added to the article from his (presumably) considerable knowlege of the subject, and yet he appears to have added nothing other than the link. If that's biting the newbie, then mea culpa. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That is my point - by assuming bad faith (i.e., spammer), you failed to correct a newbie in a gentle manner. You could check the IP, but I don't think the December edit was him - on his site he just a few days ago said he decided to try editing the article. -- Walt 18:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, again, you could be right. But in his first post as User:Neilgunton, he is already talking about having had a row via email with JzG, who first removed his site back in March. So who knows?

Still, I've been fighting spam pretty intensively for a couple of months now-- maybe I need to take a break. I would be interested to see how your ability to assume good faith would hold up under an extended period of spam removal.

Anyway, happy editing! Onward and upward! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

What I think happened is he was unaware the link had previously been there and removed. He emailed JzG when his edit was removed the first time, 2 days ago. So that had nothing to do with March. Both of them would have benefitted from toning down their emotions.

Maybe you're right about spam - I revert stuff on pages I watch, but I don't try to patrol RC - I don't have that kind of time. It must get tedious doing it for the whole namespace. If you're not enjoying it maybe you should focus on another aspect for now.

Yes, I would much rather edit articles than mediate disputes. I just followed the links to types of Wikipedians, I guess I would tend to be an Exopedian. --Walt 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Booker Prize external links

Should we not keep this as it provides a ranking system that might be useful? Skinnyweed 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I dunno-- it irks me because it is an actual retail site. On the other hand, I just spent some time looking for the same info in a non-commercial site and came up empty-handed. If you want to put it back, I won't revert. You might want to see if you have any better luck than I did first though. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 00:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I can understand your preference for non-commercial sites, but a site about books that shows the current bestsellers isn't always commercial. Public libraries do the same thing. Commercial booksellers have information and reviews on books, and indications of what people are reading. They use this information for commerce, but the information itself is not commercial, so its presence on a web site is not a good reason to should "link spam!" KennyLucius 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of biting relative newbies...

It's summer now, and maybe a break would be in order. You asked me to re-write an article about the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Course, which I did. I spent a couple of hours doing this only to find your comment about not linking my site (which you have deemed commercial) to the content I had written. I thought I understood your point to be that I should enrich my site's content rather than Widipedia's - then make the appropriate link. Here is the page to which I linked:

• What is the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Course?

This page is purely informational (as many of the pages are) and is offering nothing other than content that is enormously related to "Jon Kabat-Zinn" (where I made the link) and also to "Mindfulness" (where I made another link). In fact, this is exactly the article I intended to post to Wikipedia and which your comments discouraged me from acting on.

I fail to see how my site is different from the other links you left on the "Jon Kabat-Zinn" and "Mindfulness" pages such as the Center for Mindfulness and a Dutch site. Both sites offer courses (and usually people don't offer courses for free). Both sites offer CD's for sale - Mindful Living Programs does not. The Center for Mindfulness advertises corporate programs, how to find local MBSR teachers and retreats run by Jon Kabat-Zinn. In addition, they offer consultations and advanced teacher training. None of these things are free and Mindful Living Programs offers almost none of them. The Center for Mindfulness also has some good content including research abstracts.

The Dutch site has virtually no content (which is linked to "Mindfulness").

Can you explain your rationale regarding how you determine what sites are "commercial" and therefore, I presume, guilty of "spamming", and which sites offer enough content? Now I have written a fairly comprehensive explanation of the MBSR program, how it orginated, and why it is effective as a form of complementary medicine; all information Wikipedia users could benefit from. Why is it that you don't wish people to have access to this information? It's hardly a "commercial" topic.. PBS has aired two different specials on alternative medicine where MBSR is covered in some detail.

I did write to you above, under "Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction", regarding my assumptions and you made no comment. If you wish to modify my behavior, it would be very helpful if you would communicate clearly.

Thank you very much. Best regards, Kelley 15 June 2006

Communication's a funny thing... When I said "You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopaedia", I meant "add content to the Wikipedia article". And nothing you said above suggested that you were rewriting your site with the aim of re-adding the link after you had improved your site. Granted, the rest of your comment didn't make a lot of sense, but I didn't think much about it.

As for removing your link but not others, that's simply a matter of having caught yours as it went on. One always means to go back and clean up the links in each article generally, but you get distracted and don't get around to it.

Anyway, I've reverted myself on the grounds of our miscommunication, though that doesn't mean someone else won't come along-- you may have noticed that at least one other user removed the same link as spam.

About now, I feel like we need a Please don't bite the Oldie policy ;-)

-- Mwanner | Talk 23:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Communication might be one of the funniest things... In any case, I didn't mean to bite, I was frustrated because I'd spent a fair amount of time trying to do what I thought you wanted. Thanks for the reversion. Best regards, Morngglori 02:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Spam

I found some bot spam on Wikipedia posted by this ip user: 69.61.80.54 Do you have any suggestions regarding the proper way to deal with it here? Thanks. David Traver 12:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops

If I cut 6 para's of Wrights, it was a mistake. Thanks for fixing. I reverted some stuff "by hand" and must have been a bit careless. DonFB 16:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens to a disputed article?

There is an article on Rajneesh that has been disputed since January 2006. How does this ever get resolved? There's a long talk page with two sides arguing their points of view - but it looks pretty clear to me that the basic article on Rajneesh is fairly one-sided (although it looks like some edits have been made to make it less so). Moreover, there are numerous claims made, for example: "He (Rajneesh) also reintroduced several traditional meditation techniques, reducing them to their most minimal expression, stripping them of ritual and tradition, and retaining the most therapeutic parts" that have no basis in fact and are not supported by the article.

I've read about articles for deletion, but nothing on disputed articles. Is there a protocol for resolving the dispute?

I realize this may not be your area of expertise, but I would appreciate any guidance you have to offer. Best, Morngglori 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)