User talk:IPSOS
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Links
This link WP:EL contains a lot of guidelines for what are considered acceptable links. Generally commercial links are discouraged, unless they are primary sources for information on a topic (e.g. Amazon.com's article contains a link to amazon.com, but we don't link to amazon in other articles.) We discourage linking to forums, unless they can be shown to be meet guidelines about reliables sources and we don't link to google or yahoo groups (for the same reason as forums). The first link contains a greater explanation. Also, I remember reading, that some editors prefer to use "Further reading" rather than "External links". Further reading is a broader category and allows for things like book and/or journal citations. TheRingess 05:33, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Mistake
Since you just created it, you can get it deleted by either using the "speedy delete" template {{db|"Give your reason here"}} or the "proposed deletion" template {{prod|"Give your reason here"}}. TheRingess 03:37, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Novatron
This definitely looks like a copyright violation, since it has been around for about a month, it can't be tagged for speedy using {{db-copyvio|url="source url"}} so I tagged it with {{copyvio|url="source url"}}. Basically, Wikipedia has a zero tolerance policy in regards to copyrights.TheRingess 05:57, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles for deletion
WP:AFD contains a lot of good information on when/how/why an article can/should be deleted. TheRingess 05:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
There are a lot of policies floating around, too many for any one person to know. I believe in adhering to WP:BB and WP:CIVIL and that I'll learn other policies as I need them. TheRingess 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signature
Go to "my preferences" and "user profile", there's a field there for the signature. Danlo Wi Soli Ringess 01:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lingam
Just wanted to remind you that 3RR policy prohibits reverting a page more than three times in 24 hours. Admins may also decide that the spirt of the rule has been broken even if the letter of the rule has not; in other words, reverting 4 times in 25 hours can still be construed as a 3RR violation. Don't let him pull you into that.
At this point I tend to agree with your position, but edit warring isn't the way to solve the problem. Since the anonymous user's changes aren't simple vandalism, they can't just be reverted out of hand. I'm going to look into the situation and see what we can do. In the meantime, remember: there are no emergencies on Wikipedia. It will all be fixed in due time. Kafziel Talk 14:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up: Do you have any evidence from a reliable source that Monier associates a lingam with a phallus? I'm unable to find independent verification of that. Kafziel Talk 15:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Google Books
A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless:
- The web site itself is the topic of the article, or
- It has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website.
I think google books has relevant content of higher quality than any other website...--Joostvandeputte 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gook linking
Well thank you for taking the time to explain wikipedia policies to me. I will change my linking behavior accordingly, but i must say that i regret that we at wikipedia forgo an excellent open content source (google books that is). Sincerely and thankfully --Joostvandeputte 10:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Nominating incorrectly
Ok, I'm not sure about the nomination sytle. It says to contact the originator, who seems to be anonymous. I read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_%28books%29 and it doesn't mention critics in NYT, which any good publisher can arrange a few. I also didn't search too diligently for awards. It does say any decent award will qualify. I also couldn't find any best sellers awards, but that could mean he has a bad publisher. Tmcsheery 03:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok you are right about the best seller on that one. So does that mean all of them qualify?Tmcsheery 03:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I get them all? Tmcsheery 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Dune article fan links
Acc. to the Wikipedia guidelines on external linking, it seems appropriate to add this established fan site to the list of fan sites for this article: no registration is required, the site is free and accessible to all, its representative of a section of the Dune fan community, there is no advertising, and the content relates to the subject matter of the wiki article. I fail to see the objection. If fan sites are deemed inappropriate to list, then remove them all from the article. 84.71.43.63 17:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links
I did not consider the link I added to be an inapproprite site to add to the external links. I do realize that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, and I was not intending the link to be for advertising or promotion. If you took the time to have a good look around, this site holds more information on pisces all within the site, than any I have seen so far, and I found it very helpful.
As for reading the external guideline links and spam policies, I have read them, and I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, so I have a good understanding of what it is all about.
I will ammend my link to take one directly to the Pisces information page and other informational pisces links. I have found an abundance of useful Pisces information on this page and believe it truly would be benificial for others to read it. Yes this site has some wonderful pisces artwork, but it also contains a very comprehensive collection of pisces information. I sincerely hope this clears up any confusion you had as to why I added this wonderful site for others to read...
- Yup, that makes a difference. Now it is specific to the article as required. Before it just didn't seem that directly related to the subject. I'd have put it at the end of the list of links myself, but no worries. IPSOS (talk) 14:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re
Hi, thanks for messaging me. It is wrong that templates should only go on articles which are included on the template. For example, the Buddhism template is on Buddhism articles which are not on the template, the only criteria being if it's Buddhism or not. The same applies to most other templates. --Bondego 16:03, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I believe that most articles benefit if they have 1 or 2 templates on it - and here the template fills a gap, because many of these articles have no template at all. I didn't add the template to articles like "Rabindranath Tagore", which already have 4 or more templates on it - that would be too many templates. I do not believe that templates should only be used for articles that are on the template itself - because that is not how the other religion templates are used. The templates "hinduism" and "buddhism", for example, are on all kind of hindu/ buddhist articles which are not on the template itself. Most templates do also have corresponding categories - but the template helps navigate between the more important of the articles and between subcategories. The template is young, it will mature with time. I am not yet familiar with the writings of Goldberg, but I agreee that the template should focus on writers that are known for their writings about Dharmic religions. --Bondego 10:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Neotantra
Hi IPSOS. In regards to your removing the external link to http://geocities.com/maya-gaia/mysticalexp.html titled: Nirvikalpa Samadhi (triggered by sexual ecstasy)
It would seem that anyone interested in Neotantra in which the core feature is attaining a transcendent awakening through sexual ecstasy would be vitally interested in a first-person account of such an experience - particularly one that has substantial epistemological credibility. Considering the ambiguity of Neotantric practices, the fact that this rare episode had no religious context suggests that the principle of reducing or even omitting doctrinaire constructs from the sexual protocol has validity- provides a unique, integral insight to the subject.
NeoTantra is one of the most ideologically controversial topics in Wikipedia as it offends anyone attached to any religious tradition even Vamachara Tantrikas. Presenting substantive information on such a volatile topic without drifting into negative bias is a major challenge. I'd appreciate your letting me know if you have actually read my account and why you feel it is not relevant to the Neotantra article. Thanks and regards Mayagaia 21:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi IPSOS- OK- I understand Wiki can't start making exceptions to the spam rules that everyone else can jump on to justify their case- thanks for the input Mayagaia 16:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Harassment
How do I remove harassment? 1Canuck2 / Peeldog / Al Macleod has created multiple personalities to accuse me of spamming, and then claim that everyone agrees. I am obviously upset, but there doesn't seem to be anything I can do and if I remove his comments, I'm accused of trying to hide something. http://forums.mocap.ca/viewtopic.php?t=92 also please note: http://mocap.ca/about.html at the bottom he admits his site is to promote his services, which if everyone bought our systems would be potentially reduce his income. He keeps creating sock puppets to remove our site, but then puts his site up and tells me I should be the one remove our other competitors. All I ask is a level playing field. Tmcsheery 03:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
