User:Nixeagle/Talk/Archive/14

Talk Archive: March 2007 This is a talk page archive of Eagle_101. These are archives, please go to my talk page if you want to talk to me. I do ALL my archiving by hand. If there is something in this archive that I mistakenly archived, feel free to bring it back out of this archive (copy and paste it, but do remove it out of the archive), and put on my talk page. If you should do this, please add it to a new section at the bottom of my talk page and put a signed reason why you thought it should not be archived yet. Archives old stuff  •  March 2006  •  April 2006  •  May 2006  •  June 2006  •  July 2006  •  August 2006  •  September 2006  •  October 2006  •  November 2006  •  December 2006  •  January 2007  •  Febuary 2007  •  March 2007  •  April 2007  •  May 2007  •  June 2007  •  July 2007  •  August 2007  •  September 2007  •  October 2007  •  November 2007

Table of Contents

RFPP - template

I noticed you recently fielded some request for protection at WP:RFPP, can you please use the templates as described at Template:RFPP this enables the bot to archive off older requests. thanks Gnangarra 05:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm yeah I should have used those eh? I'm too used to the meta blacklist where we just use  Done and  Not done. Heh. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks for the help yesterday adding that music - it was greatly appreciated. Raul654 17:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

www.ronago.net in the spam list

Hi Eagle, I'm Matteo from Italy, recently I add ronago.net (ronago is my village) on the wikipedia, but now I find it in the black list. why? my e-mail address is info@ronago.net.

Thanks TEo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.104.56.229 (talk) 23:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

The reason why its on the blacklist is because someone using your IP address decieded to spam it across multiple wikis. See this for more detials. If you want to contest my blacklisting please do so on the blacklist talk page, at the bottom of this section. Regards —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eagle! TEo

NPW & Templates

Hi,

I think you probably can help me this time too.

I've done a template to warn users that their application for NPW has been processed. Unfortunately, the template isn't working :-(. I'm sure I did something wrong, but I don't know were... Can you take a look? It's here.

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 13:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank to Beetstra and FrancoGG work, the template is now working. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 09:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Drop them some congrats! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Already done ;-) Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

#WDM

Hi again,

May I ask you why official WikiDiscussion Manager channel is set to invite only?

Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 10:31, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, WDM isn't working for me. Even if in the bottom frame I appeared as logged in, in the bottom left corner it says "Not Logged In". Nothing is listed in the above frame. Also, even if you surely already know, WDM is pointing at User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscusion Manager and not at User:Eagle 101/WikiDiscussion Manager. I'll fix it with a redirect, while waiting for a new version. Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 10:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The official channel is no-longer used. I've been neglecting that piece of software. If you want to talk to me, go to #wikipedia-spam-t . I can do some updates if there are still people who want to use it ;) Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 17:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Main page FAC prot

I suppose the best way to move forward is getting more opinions in. I'm sorry to see this isn't resolved in several months. Perhaps you should open an RFC or ask people on the pump to weigh in. >Radiant< 10:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Reguest

Hello Eagle 101,

Hello. I request that you allow me to create a new page for the web site ActioBioscience.org (I have provided the proposed text below). A month ago I had created a page for ActionBioscience.org but you removed it on the 18th of January for being too commercial in tone and not in the encyclopedia style that Wikipedia requires. The situation was probably more complex because as a new user I added too many external links. I have stopped adding external links. I have also taken the time to read lots of sample pages and Wikipedia guidelines. If the new writeup about ActionBioscience.org meets with your approval, please be so kind as to remove ActionBioscience.org from the blacklist so that I can create the page. I appreciate any help you can give me so that I can post the new page. Thank you for considering my request.

The new writeup that I propose is: ActionBioscience.org is an educational web site of the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). The site's goal is to promote literacy in the biosciences by offering resources for the science curious, such as articles, interviews, postings in Spanish, "learn more" and "get involved" links as well as resources for the classroom, such as ready-to-go lessons and correlation charts to match the site's material to National Science Education Standards. Access is free and no login is required.

ActionBioscience.org is about topical issues in the biosciences, such as cloning, stem cell research, global warming, genetically modified food, and species extinction – issues that affect people's lives today. These issues are organized into seven challenges facing society: biodiversity, environment, genomics, biotechnology, evolution, new frontiers (cutting-edge breakthroughs), and science education. All articles are peer-reviewed, i.e., reviewed by other, independent scientists or educators for accuracy, before they are posted online. Authors include Edward O. Wilson, Niles Eldredge, Rita Colwell, Mark Plotkin, Norman Borlaug, Margaret Lowman, Fred Hoyle, and Donald Johanson. Scientific American, the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S., chose the site for its Sci/Tech Web Award for one of the best biology sites in 2003. The National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT) has officially endorsed ActionBioscience.org . History In 1998, a retired mechanical engineer/industrial products manufacturer who wanted to contribute to the advancement of bioscience education and to conservation biology, allocated his personal funds to create the non-profit, non-partisan corporation, BioScience Productions. The organization had as its sole purpose the promotion of public literacy in the biosciences. ActionBioscience.org was launched in 2000. On, January 1, 2004, ActionBioscience.org was transferred to The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS), a nonprofit 501(c)(3) scientific association headquartered in Washington, D.C. AIBS was founded in 1947 as a part of the National Academy of Sciences and has been an independent organization since the mid-1950s, governed by a Board of Directors elected by its membership. Scilit 19:21, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not the one that you should ask about this. Try asking at the village pump. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Veinor's RfA

You can add your co-nomination now. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Veinor. Thanks, Nishkid64 18:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Astro Pages

I am the owner of Antiquus Astrologia. Please fix what you have edited, thank you. Antiquus 02:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If you own the site, its poor practice to cite yourself. This is a proper encyclopedia. Please read our guidelines on reliable sources. In addition adding links to sites that you own is discouraged by our external link guidelines. If you think this info is relevant to the article, please post a note on the talk page, and make it clear that you are the owner of the site, and that you have a conflict of interest. Regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

My citations are from books offered on my site written by authors from the 16th century, just because I offer copies of the books I am not allowed to source the page to obtain them?? I have added them so there would be more background information on each of the Signs which I have seen none. Secondly, I sourced my page due to the fact I could not get certain graphics to be placed on the page. I fail to see how there is any conflict of interest in this. Antiquus 02:48, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that your site is offering to sell these books, which means that somebody profits. The best way to reference a book is by using the ISBN number, as wikipedia automatically converts that into a list of places to find the book. Remember its a conflict of interest for you to be adding a link to a site that you own. Thanks —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

These Books dont have ISBN numbers because they dont exist anywhere else but from my site, see my talkpage for details. Antiquus 03:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to User:Eagle 101/Sandbox/5

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Eagle 101! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule apdfasoiweaaspd.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 21:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Only one warning eh? —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Straight blast article.

Please give reasoning for AfD on Straight blast article discussion page. 207.202.227.125 21:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning is at the AFD proper, try clicking the discussion link on the AFD tag. Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 23:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:42, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}

Toolserveraccount

Hello Eagle 101,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

E-mail sent. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist addition

Please consider adding www.tinymixtapes.com per this discussion at WP:ANI, thanks. RJASE1 ^Talk 02:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

make a request on m:spam blacklist, I will look at it there. Please include a full reasoning as to why it needs blacklisting. Thanks :D —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 05:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to hold off a bit, there's still some discussion about the issue going on here. Thanks! RJASE1 ^Talk 05:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Achieve360Points.com - Link Problems

My name is Jonathan (Monster 2 of 2) from Achieve360Points.com [1] and I am one of the owners of the site. We are an Xbox 360 Achievement and Xbox Live Marketplace website. I can be reached at monster2@achieve360points.com.

It was brought to my attention that a couple of our users thought it would be helpful to add links that point to our Achievement Lists and Marketplace Content on the respected Wikipedia game article. I didn't see a problem with this, as we offer official content for Xbox 360 games that is not provided elsewhere. All of our information is 100% legitimate and we do not put up anything that is rumor or speculation. However, as these users quickly discovered, their edits were being reverted and they were being referred to as "sockpuppets" that put up "spam links." A few of them were banned, or so I have been told. I fully respect a fellow website and the work that goes behind running it. Believe me, I spend countless hours coding and adding content to A360P. However, I can assure you that nothing we do is "spam" and any links pointed towards us can be regarded as useful information. Honestly, anyone that owns or plays any of these games would be missing out on a great deal of necessary information in order to enjoy them to the fullest extent.

We serve out 20,000 unique users daily (currently) and serve out 4+ million pages a month, so we aren't a some personal website or blog. Secondly, all professional websites run advertising as it pays the bills. In addition, we are an official Community Developer, as you can see us listed in the Community 101 Section of Xbox.com:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/havefun101.htm

We have been mentioned on multiple mainstream websites and in magazines, such as Edge and the Official Xbox Magazine (most recently the March 07 Issue). We recently had an interview with TriXie of Xbox.com, which you can view here:

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/community/personality/trixie/communityspotlights/20070301-Achieve360Points.htm

Our content for these specific games can change frequently, so it would be impractical to "copy and paste" our information to the Wiki, not to mention the fact that we wouldn't be too happy over our content being lifted and posted elsewhere. We work extremely hard to database the information presented on Achieve360Points.com, as we are sure that you would feel that same way about content on Wikipedia.

Rather than deal with a constant stream of users that vary in importance, I tend to go to the top of the chain when dealing with an issue. You are probably like me and have more work to do than actual time to do it, so I am grateful for any response you can issue. What needs to be said and done in order to get this matter dealt with quickly and efficiently? Also, is there someone else I need to contact to get this over with? Thanks for your time and I look forward to your comments / actions.

Monster 2 of 2 11:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but I can offer some explanatory information - the user(s) he's referring to are Shadowdude55 (talk · contribs) and XxCAPiTAxX (talk · contribs), who were spamming links to the above site. You can refer to their contribution history and my talk page for background. RJASE1 ^Talk 19:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Administrator

How do I become an administrator? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwertyu868 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

Administrator

How do I become an administrator? qwertyu868 18:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have to get elected here :Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship but that won't happened until enough people vouch for you. --BozMo talk 18:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks qwertyu868 18:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting edit history -- you may want to get more experience first. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue X - March 2007

The March 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 19:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller

hello, the page was protected from editing after user RolandR and I have been "warring"^[2]. for some reason, people who cannot read hebrew are trying to protect the article about adam keller from criticism^{removal or criticism category} his political group has recievecd (by cencoring it from wikipedia under various false precursors^{"Removed allegation which doed not appear in source cited"}). one of the more obvious reasons for this, is that RolandR has made himself a friend of real life Adam Keller (via contact with user abu ali) who is an editor here on wikipedia.^[3],[4]

user RolandR has recieved his share of warning about his "mistake" reverts and nonsense edits and chose to ignore them and revert yet again just before you protected the page.

warning issued: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RolandR#Adam_Keller
previous behaviour of user:
1) help request by user abu ali,2) Israel Shamir edit warring, 3) 24 hr block - removed at the request of user abu ali.

if you need more information on these users for coherancy of my complaint let me know, i will dig it up. Jaakobou 06:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I suggest that you take this through the dispute resolution process, even though I am an admin, I cannot mandate a solution to this matter, the best place to go would be to ask the fine fellows at the mediation cabal to take up this case. Regardless I will say one thing, we must always remember that we need reliable sources, and citations to back up our claims. If I can be of any more assistance in guiding you through the dispute resolution process, please let me know. Thanks, and regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

VandalProof

We have a problem with VP. On startup, we get "The user list is corrupt. Please contact a moderator to have it repaired" (or similar). The first second mod I can find online is ... you! Can you help? Regards, Mr Stephen 00:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Zorpia.com

Some of the following posts are copied from http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagle_101#Zorpia.com since I notice its not updated often there. 219.78.223.174 19:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at 3. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that they are all search results that start from item 700 onwards.

1) By using the same method, we can find that many reputable web sites (including wikipedia) can be shown to have 'lots of references to drugs'

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as 4 only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

3) With 5 million member pages at Zorpia, Wikipedia is blocking a worldwide resource of potential quotes and links to images.

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)5, leads the user to links such as this 6 - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

5) Zorpia has in the past (like many Social Networking Sites) been a victim of drug companies trying to use it as a vehicle to deliver spam. Wikipedia has itself suffered from the same fate (and similar) hence the existence of the blacklist. Wikipedia tries (understandably) to use systems to reduce this and protect its integrity. Zorpia, over several months, has done the same. Primarily, it imposed a daily message limit of 50 messages on its users, virtually making it useless to spammers and scammers. In addition, it employs a full time team to detect and delete accounts associated with these activities.

Having Zorpia on this blacklist, is the equivalent, of Zorpia, MySpace, Friendster, Hi5 etc placing WIKIPEDIA on their own blacklists, because it also has been a vehicle for spamming in the past.

6) Nobody wants to see spam on wikipedia, neither do Zorpia members want to see spam on Zorpia which is spread to wikipedia. However, on this occasion, wikipedia is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It is going too far to blacklist the whole domain of 'zorpia.com'. I would suggest, that if a link is seen to be referring to drug company etc (e.g www.zorpia.com/drugscam), then that URL be blacklisted, rather than the whole domain. If these types of problems persisted, then I would suggest editors can contact support@zorpia.com.

       I am totally astounded that Zorpia is not included in such a marvellous site as Wikipedia.

I have been a member of Zorpia now for just over a year, and I am so pleased I joined. I have made some WONDERFUL friends in many countries. What on earth is this thing about drugs? If any members are found trying to do deals etc with drugs, porn etc they are kicked out. There are many hepers and supporters on Zorpia doing their best to keep Zorpia clean, and fun and useful. No where else can one intereact in so many many ways and have unlimited storage of photos. I would recomend Zorpia to anyone over 16. It is a fantastic site. Till a 18 months ago I had not known of his site, I was hooked only on to Yahoo groups. Now it is almost the reverse. AND I have in fact just come home off a tour around the world, and met up with some of my wonderful Zorpian (& Yahoo) friends.

I can not believe that Zorpia is even considered to be blacklisted site. I hope that this error will soon be rectified.

After all 5 million members cannot all be wrong. Please see my personal page philcovers

Chris Phillips aged 67

Again I'm writing to you about your Deleting of Zorpia.com from this site Zorpia works endlessly to keep perverts,predators,spam, from its site users actively report them to a place on Zorpia called the ZORPIA REPORTING CENTRE [ There are aso a number of active user groups to fight this problem too ] also im you need further evidence that Zorpia acts on this problem I will quote you some reference case numbers from cases from online reporting site [7] and [8]

VGT please contact Katy MILNE and quote this case reported 27 June 2006 at 11:43:50 CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007

CEOP child Expolitation and Online Protection Centre/ Ref NO CEOP-2006-31 case study Kelly Murray

im sure if you contacted these sites and also Public-OCSET-OMC@afp.gov.au tis is the direct line to report internet predators to the Australian Feds and contact Agent Darryl Hamilton will confirm that in 2006 were working with Zorpia.com on 2 cases Zorpia.com reported to them

These are legitimate law Agencies im sure this this can give you some sufficient Evidence to go on not only does this show that zorpia.com is fighting online predators actively it also shows that Zorpia.com is against online crime Drugs Spamming and Perverts. It would be a very unwise move if Zorpia was doing what you claim them to be doing while also working on this problem

Tony Taiwan age 27

Have you posted your objections to the talk page of the blacklist. Thanks and regards. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Eagle, Check your Spam Blacklist page. Thanks

(A Zorpia user)

Re: WP:WPSPAM

Could you possibly make something up for WP:WPSPAM. We can always use new volenteers to help deal with spam and advertising links. Enjoy the irony, and thanks ;) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eagle 101 (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi, thank you for your suggestion. I'll see what I can do – Qxz 00:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

AzaToth made one, which I've modified slightly. Here we go:

– Qxz 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Er - I feel the tinge of irony just a bit with this one :/ JoeSmack ^Talk 05:49, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, perhaps mention something about the irony of well advertising to get rid of advertisements, but really great job! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 06:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam commenting bot

Hi, I recently proposed an idea for a bot on the bot requests page. ST47 said it sounded good, and that I ask your opinion on it. Anyway, you can find the request here. Any ideas on this would be appreciated. Thanks! T_im.boun^ceback - TaLk 19:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though I really doubt if a spammer will pay attention ;). This shounds like a weekly task, but you will get a better feel for it just by running the bot a few times, if you do 100 edits in a week, then you might want to make it every 3 days. As the bot op thats sorta up to you ;) (if you have anymore questions, drop me a note on my talk page.)—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Disapproval of my link

I'm sorry, I don't understand why my added link got disapproved —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Egonitron (talk • contribs) 06:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC).

Just experienced the same, seemingly thoughtless edits on a couple recent additions of my own. WtW-Suzaku 06:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please read our external link policy, and make sure that they are really good links. Thanks! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 09:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Categories

This has nothing to do with the mediation- but I haven't gotten much in the way of responses much with other admins, sometimes. I'm wondering what the state of things is concerning categories. Here is what has been going on:

People have been trying to put articles like the one on John Edward, a claimed medium, in the pseudoscience category. I don't think a biography should be in the science category. However, it is true that some scientific studies have been done on Edward. So I put it in the science category also. ScienceApologist reverted this as POV pushing. Similar things happened on other pages. I don't even know how to put citation requests on categories, so I assume they don't need sources. So why is it OK for people to revert them as POV pushing?

SA left this on my talk page: [5] and then reverted or changed the categories to pseudoscience here: [6] [7] [8]

And re-instated an assertion which has had a citation request for weeks here: [9] and [10]

I think he is just mad 'cause I put that about the ArbCom decission on the mediation page. But what is the reality of this category thing? Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok as your mediator I'm not really the one who should be saying anything on this, If I were you I would make a Policy/guideline WP:RFC about the general issue of bios in the science cateogory. If you keep it to the facts of the matter, (should bios be used or not) a RFC would be very useful. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 04:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, sorry I asked you, I haven't done enough complaining to get to know the admins. But thanks for helping anyway. (= Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Obvious pseudoscience it is not wrong to categorize a subject as pseudoscience if it is obvious pseudoscience (which the subjects we are dealing with obviously are). --ScienceApologist 08:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The standard for this is Time Cube- a very far cry from parapsychology. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 23:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

fighting link spam virtual classroom lesson

heya eagle. give a look at User:The_Transhumanist/Virtual_classroom#Yuser.2C_on_fighting_linkspam, it is going live by the end of the day, and we all know you're an anti-spam pro. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 23:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It's live! That was quick! JoeSmack ^Talk 23:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Cool! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Eastlake 1

Hi could you help stop this guy messing up Pedophilia and child sexual abuse in fiction by re-listing a vanity published work.. thanks Tony 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Tony ps how do I complain formally about this sort of thing?

Betacommandbot 3

Um, I don't see where the request was withdrawn by betacommand. From what I see Tawker approved it. Can you explain the reasoning behind denying it? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the huge controversy surrounding Betacommand's removal of external links, I have withdrawn the approval for his bot. I've edited the request to make it clear that I am withdrawing the approval; he is not withdrawing the request. —METS501 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommandbot 3

Um, I don't see where the request was withdrawn by betacommand. From what I see Tawker approved it. Can you explain the reasoning behind denying it? Thanks. (please reply on my talk page) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 00:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Due to the huge controversy surrounding Betacommand's removal of external links, I have withdrawn the approval for his bot. I've edited the request to make it clear that I am withdrawing the approval; he is not withdrawing the request. —METS501 (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I responded on my talk page so that we can keep this whole conversation together and allow others to participate. —METS501 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

EVP mediation

Eagle, we could use a policy clarification on the EVP mediation page - there's some disagreement about what "majority (scientific) view" means in NPOV and related policies. Some interpret it as the consensus of science while others interpret it as the consensus of people who have studied EVP. If you could either clarify or point us to somewhere/someone where we could get a clarification, it would help put a major point of contention to bed.

I brought this up on the mediation page and haven't seen a response from you there, so I'm posting this on your talk page. I assume it would be most appropriate for you to respond there on the med page. Thanks. --Minderbinder 12:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

This issue is gone over again and again on the talk pages of AIDS and AIDS Reappraisal. What is important are policies in NPOV ('undue weight'/minority view), WP:POVFORK, and reliable/verifiable sources. The last and the first are big ones; i can't tell you how many times that came up for AIDS/AIDS reappraisal. Over and over. Its been two (or is it three) years looking after those articles, and holy bejesus does it get tiring keeping them from straying. ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 15:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip, could you point to a specific discussion? What has the consensus been on how "majority/minority view" is defined? --Minderbinder 15:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It is also on the Global Warming and Global warming controversy talk pages. Tiring is the word. --BozMo talk 15:48, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is one of a gazillion, the most recent was this dec-march brewhaha about Vitamin C as a treatment for HIV: Talk:AIDS#Alternative_treatment. It covers all the policies/consensus/emotional rollercoaster/word twisting/questionable sources points, etc. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links, they are helpful. Unfortunately, Electronic voice phenomenon seems to be a bit of a different situation. With the two examples mentioned above, there has been tons of study by mainstream scientists, so the majority/minority can be documented with plenty of sources. With EVP, there has been very little published and most of it is self published, with a couple articles in peer reviewed but fringe journals. As a result, the argument seems to be that mainstream science hasn't studied the topic so they get no say in the matter, which results in an article putting undue weight on the "pro" arguments simply because few if any mainstream scientists have gone on the record disputing it. In the absence of mainstream scientists going on the record, some editors have argued that "scientific consensus" and the mainstream view in that case is defined as the consensus of those who have studied EVP (scientists or otherwise). Personally, I think WP:FRINGE's "If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance" applies here. I'd like to hear an opinion on the specific EVP case from either of you if you're willing to give one. --Minderbinder 16:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No mainstream scientist has gone on the record saying they thought it was a great idea or that it was ridiculous? Really? Indeed WP:FRINGE has some say in this matter - AIDS is strictly science so it kind of dodges that bullet, but this is paranormal type stuff. Also, i hear 'authoritative' alarms going off in my head when consensus involves anyone who has studied EVP, scientists or otherwise. Reliable sources, reliable sources, reliable sources - this shouldn't have a 'pro' bent. I'd go through with a big red pen and start removing claims without a RS, or at very least {{fact}}ing stuff. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, no mainstream scientist or publication has covered it, just two mentions in journals that are peer reviewed (to some degree at least) but only cover paranormal topics - it seems to have dodged criticism through obscurity. There seems to be agreement that the topic would fail WP notability standards but deserves an article because of pop culture mentions like reality shows and fiction. That's another problem with the article - while most of the topic's notability comes from pop culture, some editors have insisted that the article focus on details of experiments (many of which are self published and "press conference" science) and other similar things because they are "historical" or "of interest to people reading the article". I absolutely agree with removing questionably sourced material - the current dispute is that multiple editors insist on leaving it in. --Minderbinder 16:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be emphasized that no real RS science has been put behind such studies, and only shows up in fictional tv shows/pop culture/"history" (find a RS that claims this, sounds like BS to me) then. remove anything that claims it to be scientific fact, and throw out self published crappy sources, and if by end it isn't a wikipedia article then it should be AfDed. Watchout for strawmen arguements, they come out at times like these like crazy. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. read over those two peer reviewed journal articles, can they received any mention in any other studies using them as a reference (that are RSs themselves)? The Vit C arguement from AIDS had one or two 'peer reviewed' journal articles from 10-15 years ago, but we're not confirmed, replicated or carried on in research cause everyone considered it crackpot pretty much, and the journal that released it lets all sorts of crappy stuff through (look for completely ridiculous articles from the same journal to show this if it is the case in these two RS examples for EVP). JoeSmack ^Talk 16:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, we haven't heard from you on the EVP mediation page in a while. What's the status of that? Thanks. --Minderbinder 14:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

DonorsChoose - removal of amazon link

Hello,

I saw that you removed a link to Amazon (and a reference to an award that DonorsChoose had won by Amazon) b/c it violated an external links rule. I have read through the rules and am unable to find what rule it violated.

article in question: DonorsChoose

the link in question: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/browse/-/13786331/104-8284175-4068764

This particular Amazon link simply links to a static page on the Amazon website, describing the award. I do think it is encyclopedic, it is not spam, and it is not a "purchase this book through me and make money" link either...

Thanks for your response, Karl —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karl.brown (talk • contribs) 19:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Its a tricky one because without the Amazon award DonorsChoose fails on notability (I am generally pretty sympathetic to charities on this one because if they are viable on third party donations they probably have achieved some sort of notability somewhere) --BozMo talk 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Use the link as a citation, in addition I would suggest getting rid of most if not all of the links in the external links section. There are quite a bit, and the list is almost as long as the text in the article. One or two external links should be all that is needed. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I might AFD (articles for discussion) it later BozMo, but right now I'm sorta tied up in this backlog on m:Talk:Spam Blacklist. I sorta have not had time to keep up with it, and now I've found time to clear it out. I will think on this though. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think your response was a good one. Amazon as a citation for a news article is unambiguous and should be allowed, I think. --BozMo talk 18:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC Links

Eagle, We appreciate your moderation and fair resolution. Just to clarify so we don't make any mistakes. If we had a link pointing to www.deathcamps.org and it was vandalized to point to www.death-camps.org will you revert it back for us?

The ARC Team

Well whoever adds the link is likely to get warned and possibly blocked, same applies for if someone moves from death-camps.org to deathcamps.org. This whole thing is just getting silly. We are an encyclopedia, frankly I can care less about which link is there and which one is not. Deal with the legal stuff off-wiki. Thankyou. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC-deathcamps.org appeal

Eagle, our account was blocked? Sergey was given time to correct the same exact issue and we were not?

Of all these apparantly biased wiki admins you come off fair. Can we please have our account restored

The arc team

Currently neither site has any links in wikipedia mainspace. I believe that your account was blocked because of WP:USERNAME issues, am I right? I have no clue what your account even is, as you never sign your posts. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Our account is ARC-deathcamps.org I believe it was WP battleground... Sergey had the same issue he was allowed to change his page to be brought into compliance and I was not... ARC-deathcamps.org

Please see your own talk page - your account was blocked for violation of the username policy - names that resemble web sites are not allowed. You should be free to edit under a new username. RJASE1 ^Talk 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahh ok, understood. A pity that links that existed here for years were railroaded into intentional deletion. "sigh"

Regarding Mediation Cabal

Hi regarding the [11], the matter was resolved in the discussion, if you look here. Heja helweda (talk · contribs · count) (not part of the mediation) is posting about an irrelevant matter which was not part of the concern. --Rayis 00:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So is the case no-longer needed? Is everyone happy with the solutin? `—— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 01:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I believe so. Jeff3000 who requested the mediation has just posted here saying so too --Rayis 10:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, congrats on figuring this out. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

I would like to thank you for your support in my recent RFA. As you may or may not be aware, it passed with approximately 99% support. I ensure you that I will use the tools well, and if I ever disappoint you, I am open to recall. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to leave me a note on my talkpage. Thanks again, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)