User talk:Eric outdoors/Archive1

Recent Discussions

Why?

Why keep your talk page clean? It's for talk.

Why delete old talk? It's conventional to leave at least recent discussions so others can see what's up with you.

Why add so many stubs about non-notable places and organizations, with no verifiable sources? You need to add sources to indicate why these things are notable, if they are, and only add statements about them that are verifiable. Otherwise, it's just personal junk, not really helpful to wikipedia's mission.

Dicklyon 02:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• I am rather confused as to what you are talking about with me adding stubs to non-notable places with no verifiable sources? I need to add sources to indicate why these things are notable? I don't have a clue what you are talking about? Eric 02:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:N and WP:V. Dicklyon 03:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Another why?

Why split the Texas article. You didn't leave any reasoning on the talk page why this is needed. Please provide some input. Thanks Postoak 05:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

For the following reasons I think that the article on Texas should be broken up into other smaller articles. 1) the article on Texas is 66 kilobytes long and according to the Wikipedia: Article size guidelines articles should not be that large. This article could easily be broken up into the following smaller articles: 1) Texas Culture - 2) Texas Health Care & Medicine - 3) Education. If we created these 3 smaller articles and linked to them from the Texas Article this would bring the Texas article back down to about 40 Kilobytes which is the general size Wikipedia articles should be. Eric 16:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I hereby award you this barnstar for going above and beyond to prevent Wikipedia from being used for fraudulent purposes. You have removed external linkspam from dozens if not one hundred Wisconsin municipality articles. Thank you! Royalbroil T : C 01:43, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on Best Buy

I'm curious as to why you removed those two external website links from the Best Buy article? It appears from the looks of your contributions to wikipedia, that you've sort of been on a "link patrol" the past couple of days. Do you have some sort of criteria that you are judging links against? If so, I'm curious what it is. Thanks! B2bomber81 04:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello B2bomber81. I looked back at the Best Buy article and at the two links I erased. I did not realize that the two links were 2 of the company's subsidiaries, thus I viewed the links as an advertisment. I have restored the two links I erased. Sorry about the mix-up and have a great day! Eric 05:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your enthusiasm to help make Wikipedia a better place, but don't make such hasty edits. From your edit history, I can gather that your relatively new to wikipedia this week. I recommend holding off from doing anymore edits until you read Help:Contents and get some ideas on how you can best contribute to the site. Because right now, your headed down a road that will just get people mad at you. Also, regarding your efforts to keep your talk page clean, you need to read Wikipedia:Vandalism When you delete discussions and blank your page, you're actually vandalizing. So be careful with that. Good luck. B2bomber81 05:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks - I really hope to help make Wikipedia a better place - Eric 05:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I read through an assortment of Eric's link removals from Wisconsin and I saw no problems. Eric was removing commercial links to businesses in cities. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) For example, I disagree with User:Ezhiki's reversion on the Richland Center, Wisconsin article. Eric removed an external link to the state university in the city. The article had a valid blue link to the university. The university's article has that same external link to the university (which is certainly appropriate). Having the external link to the university in the city article only serves to promote the University, as it only happens to be a business in the city. We shouldn't be linking to every business in a city, even if it is the state university IMO. I couldn't find any applicable guideline in a quick search.

I obviously haven't read through all of Eric's edits, so this may be an example of something that he might be doing right IMO. From the volume of comments here, I urge Eric to slow do the pace and reach consensus with editors. There are plenty of other fast paced things that would be helpful to advancing the encyclopedia, such as New Page Patrol. Just make sure that you are very familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policy first. Royalbroil ^T : C 15:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, we can always use a hand helping with Wisconsin articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wisconsin! Royalbroil ^T : C 00:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:BestBuy-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:BestBuy-Screenshot.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello... Since the image is no longer being used in any Wikipedia articles I would just assume deleting it. Is there any certain way that I can delete the image from Wikipedia? Thanks - Eric 22:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Pardon the interruption (as I was watching for a possible response from above): If you created the image and no one else did anything to the image, you can add the template {{db-author}} to the image, and it will be speedy deleted by an admin usually within 12 hours. If the image has been touched, or someone else uploaded it, you can list it for deletion by following the steps at WP:IFD. Good luck! Royalbroil ^T : C 00:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Royal is correct about the {{db-author}} template. In regards to this particular image, it has already been tagged with a speedy tag (the red outlined notice on the image page) and will automatically be deleted by an admin if the image is not inserted into an article or if the speedy tag is removed. If you want the image deleted, you really have nothing you need to do. The main reason for the notice is to allow users to re-insert images that have been removed, generally via vandalism. Thanks. Anything else, drop a note on my talk page.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Apple-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Apple-Screenshot.JPG. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NMajdan•talk 14:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I did have that image on the Apple Computers article, however, someone went and took the image down without asking anyone and deleted the picture so I guess we don't really need to worry about it anymore. Eric 17:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Unity Area Ambulance

Eric, what makes Unity Area Ambulance notable, relative to the many thousands of other area ambulance companies? If it hasn't been the subject of reliable verifiable publications, it doesn't belong in wikipedia. You'll need to add references to the publications that serve as evidence of notability, or it will be deleted. Dicklyon 05:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The following is taken right out of WP:NOT: Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. The article on Unity Area Ambulance is written in an objective and unbiased style and also has references. Eric 05:38, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's part of the story. Notability is the other part. See Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations). Dicklyon 05:47, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

And references? An organization's under-construction web site is not exactly what usually passes for a verifiable and reliable reference; certainly doesn't provide evidence of notability. Dicklyon 05:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

"The company or corporation has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works" - Unity Area Ambulance is mentioned here:

• [1] Polk County Ambulance Service Providers
• [2] Wisconsin EMS Association
• [3] Wisconsin Ambulance Run Data System
• [4] Documentary on Carol Pool & Unity Area Ambulance

As to your bit about the website being under construction, it is true that the site is under construction, however, you can still get information from an under construction site. Eric 05:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how any of those would be considered non-trivial published works about the subject, any more than being in the yellow pages makes one notable. Dicklyon 06:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you take a look at http://www.regionshospital.com/Regions/Menu/0,1640,24627,00.html. Region's Hospital is a very large hospital in the Twin Cities of Minnesota. That alone is enough is to meet the Wikipedia criteria. I am not going to waste much more time writing back and forth because this article meets criteria. This article has way more information and creditability than other ambulance articles such as:

• Harley street ambulance service
• Mersey Ambulance Service
• Staffordshire Ambulance Service
• Schaefer Ambulance Service
• Surrey Ambulance Service

I could keep on going but I think I will go to sleep instead! Eric 06:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Cnn.com

You posted on the talk page of the cnn.com article that you thought it should be merged with CNN. In order to get that done, you'll probably want to nominate it under the Articles for Deletion, since the article itself will be deleted and replaced. JCO312 20:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

How might I nominate that article for deletion? I have never done that before. Eric 13:50, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Plymouth, Wisconsin, misc.

Would you clean up the Plymouth article? I would, but I don't think that it is too blatant (only somewhat).

Also, your userpage and its talk page display horrible on Internet Explorer. You really should to come up with something different. Royalbroil ^T : C 16:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the article on Plymouth, Wisconsin. It is just amazing how some people do not understand what Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to promote yourself or your business. I have also changed my user page around so that it should be able to be viewed now from any browser and look fine. If it still does not show up normal on your browser please let me know. Have a good evening,Eric 23:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with your cleanup. I prefer to be bold and do it without tagging it, but to each his own. The article is on my watchlist along with much of my part of the state. I thought the advertisement was marginal, so I'm fine with what you did. Some of the people that they had listed actually would pass WP:BIO if they had articles, like the gold medalist rower, and the 2 Wisconsin Badger players (especially Hein who started).

Your userpage looks even worse than before on Internet Explorer. The award is correct at the top, the categories are in the middle at the bottom of your graphic, and the userboxes are at the bottom of the page. You could only fully appreciate it if you see it on IE. Your browser is obviously rendering it quite different than IE. The edit boxes on this talk page are very far from the actual text. Royalbroil ^T : C 03:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear that my User Page appears even worse! I don't know of any other way to make it appear better. I am using IE VErsion 7.0 and it appears perfect. I also looked at it in Firefox and it appears fine. I am going to leave it as is for now because it appears fine in IE Version 7.0. If you look in the code of my User Page it is all laid out correct. Are you happy with the results of Plymouth, Wisconsin?

You are probably using a feature from IE7 that doesn't work in IE6. I don't understand how you have set up this page. I haven't looked and I would rather edit Mario Andretti (seriously). It's up to you how you lay out your userspace. I was happy with Plymouth either way. The parks did seem awefully wierd, so removing that was good. I do think that you should have left the 3 people that I said last time, but I do think that notability should be asserted by writing an article first. Overall: Good job! Royalbroil ^T : C 03:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

DMOZ link on furniture

did you look at the dmoz page all commercial. t h b 23:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you are not quite familiar with Dmoz.org. They are not a commercial website. They are in fact one of Wikipedia's sister sites. But my apologies for adding a link to a non-commercial Wikipedia sister site. Eric 23:59, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Just wondering why you decided to add a welcome note for me on my talk page. I've been editing wikipedia for ages.--The Nayl 20:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies! I glanced at your User Talk page and noticed that you didnt have very much discussion, which led me to belive that you were somewhat new to Wikipedia. But I was also falling asleep at the computer last night when I wrote that! Sorry, Eric 21:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Sarah Deere

I did discuss my reasoning, on the talk page for John Deere, which is where the Discuss link for a mergeto notice points. Mergeto and mergefrom are coordinated so that the Discuss link in both articles point to the talk page of the article that it propsed as the one receiving the content of the other article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 02:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You did not have any reasoning on the Sarah Deere article when I took the tag down. Please look at the Edit history of Sarah Deere, there you will find the reasoning for the tag coming off the article. From now on please keep the discussion on the John Deere talk page as that is what is customary here on Wikipedia. Eric 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:YouTube-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:YouTube-Screenshot.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Weather-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Weather-Screenshot.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was in an article at one time. Obviously somebody removed the image from the article. I am fine if they are deleted. Eric 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dell-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dell-Screenshot.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was in an article at one time. Obviously somebody removed the image from the article. I am fine if they are deleted. Eric 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:FoxNews-Screenshot.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:FoxNews-Screenshot.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:16, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This image was in an article at one time. Obviously somebody removed the image from the article. I am fine if they are deleted. Eric 17:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

External links

I'm not sure if you are familiar with the links you are removing from articles or not, but some of the links you removed from cities in Alabama were not SPAM and are perfectly acceptable by the guidelines covering external links. Links to universities within a city and the newspapers/journals that serve a city are exactly what an external link section is for. As the guideline states, links which provide "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail ... or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)." I reverted some of the links you removed from Birmingham, Alabama and looking over the subsequent edits, I see more that should be reverted as well. Thanks, auburnpilot talk 20:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Links to the following are blatant advertising and are not allowed on Wikipedia

• External links to Colleges (That are not on the college's Wikipedia article
• Newspapers
• Magazines
• Message Boards

The following are some key points you need to learn about WP:EL

• Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any.
• Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET need to be avoided
• Links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority need to be avoided
• Due to the rising profile of Wikipedia and the amount of extra traffic it can bring a site, there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked.
• Links to dead URLs in a list of external links are of no use to Wikipedia articles
  

Eric 20:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

• comment the links removed from Birmingham, Alabama are to the primary media covering the city. They do a better, fairer, more objective job of it than the city's "official website" and are useful resources to Wikipedia users seeking more information about the city. Links to newspapers are NOT blatant advertising. I don't know where you get that idea. --Dystopos 21:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The links to media are references, since they were (or should be) used to create the article. They need to be labeled as such. References are far better than external links. External links are a quick link to official websites. You could include the media references in both lists since it is better than the city's official website. Any link for a university or notable business should go to its article in Wikipedia, not to the university's external website. A user could get to the external link there. We should keep people from branching out into externals sites when the information that they were looking for may be contained on Wikipedia. Please read WP:REF. Royalbroil ^T : C 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The links to those media are not references. They serve as external links created under Wikipedia's existing policy on external links (Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons). Wikipedia's article on The Birmingham News does not contain the information about Birmingham that is found on the website of the Birmingham News. If you wish to create a policy against linking newspaper websites, then do so (Try Wikipedia Talk:External links). But please don't go around pretending that one exists and using theat pretense to undo the good faith efforts of other editors of Wikipedia. --Dystopos 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

communityhotline.com

I was on the verge of blacklisting http://www.communityhotline.com due to its repeated addition by a spammer. Why are you adding it now? -Will Beback · † · 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be the same user, user:West wikipedia, who added them last time. Please explain. -Will Beback · † · 05:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies, if you don't feel that the links are appropriate for the articles they are located on please feel free to remove them. Eric 06:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. Why are you adding them? In addtioin to the other user mentioned above, you also apper to be the same user as user:Unity-north, user:Extreme outdoors, and user:64.33.177.170. What's the deal here? -Will Beback · † · 06:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

First off, I added the links to article because I felt that they would be beneficial to the Wikipedia readers, as each link is appropriate for the article it is with and meets the WP:EL guidelines. Second, now to answer your question about being user:West wikipedia. It is true I did used to be that Wikipedia uer, however, that was quite a while ago when I used to not use Wikipedia for its intended purposes. (I used to be a spammer). This is the same reason for having the rest of the User Accounts. It used to be once I would get blocked I would just go and create a different account. But as I mentioned above I used to be a spammer. I have changed now and all my contributes on Wikipedia are now all done with good faith.

Also: user:69.4.121.216. Please remove all the spam you've added. If you don't do so promptly I will block this account and every other account that re-adds them, and then blacklist the links so that no one can ever add them. Your actions in removing other "spam" no longer have the apperance of goodd faith actions. -Will Beback · † · 06:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to inform you that since I have ended being a spammer I have performed 753 good faith edits. I am still learning new things everyday as I continue on my adventure for knowledge and contributing to Wikipedia. I don't understand why you say that all my removing of blatant advertising links are no longer going to be viewed as good faith edits. They are good faith edits. Every edit I have made with this account has been a good faith edit. Since you apparently don;t like a couple of the external links I added I would be happy to remove them. You really have kind of a snappy attitude for just not liking some of my contributions here on Wikipedia. Eric 06:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric, if I may call you that, you've been blocked three times already and warned many other times. You're on the thinnest of ice. Apparently hundreds of those "good faith" edits were deleting reasonable external links while labelling them "spam". Then, after a while, you go right back to re-adding your own spam to the same articles from where they've been removed before. How can you say you "ended being a spammer" when you just spammed articles a few minutes ago? You're incorigible and I think it's time that the sites were blacklisted. Any reason they shouldn't be? In your future edits, once you've finished removing all links to your websites, please do not edit any external links, either to add or delete them. If you can do so I'm sure you'll get along fine here. -Will Beback · † · 06:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Will, if I cn call you that, I do realize that I have been blocked 3 times. I used to be a spammer. I think I may have told you this? I can promise you that I will not add anymore external links to Wikipedia. I cannot, however, promise that I will not delete external links that are blatant advertising and other links not meeting WP:EL. I will make sure that the links that I delete though are for sure advertising and not good faith edits. As I mentioned before, I am still learning as you first did after changing your screen name and making edits that others were "not so pleased with" [5]Eric 06:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Eric, that's not good enough. You keep saying you're not a spammer anymore but that's an obvious untruth - those links to your website didn't add themselves. Unless you give me a very good reason I'm going to block this account and request a community ban. Stop wasting our time. -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you reading the same User Talk Page as me? I just mentioned in the post above that I would not add anymore external links to Wikipedia.Eric 07:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The standard I'm asking you to meet is not adding or deleting any external links, even as sources. And sticking to one account. -Will Beback · † · 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds Good. Goodnight, Eric 07:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:YouTube-Screenshot.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:YouTube-Screenshot.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. KonstableSock 09:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

New Discussions

More Link Spam Activity (of the wrong kind)

Hello again. Our paths crossed when you were 'editing' as WestWikipedia (see above)....

I don't think there is a word for what you did to Plough, but it is verging on vandalism. Removing a valid external link, and replacing it with a wikilink to John Deere Tractors is unnecessary and wrong:

1. The removed external link meets WP:EL very well
2. the article on ploughs does not require a link to ANY specific tractor manufacturer
3. leaving an internal link in the external links section and labelling the change as 'spam' rings alarm bells.

I have since reverted the changes.

You are obviously a fan of John Deere tractors (or else you have some kind of commercial interest in them), which is fine, but your input to WP needs to be appropriate. Your recent changes to plough and tractor were not. Please use your enthusiasm to improve WP in the way that other editors expect, otherwise you're just wasting your time and theirs.

(BTW the formatting of your talk page has big problems – none of the 'edit' controls line up with the titles and the TOC links point to the wrong places. Removing the code that creates the shaded formatting at the start might cure the problems.)

EdJogg 10:44, 9 March 2007 (UTC)