User talk:JoeSmack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
July 29th, 2004 to June 16th, 2006 June 17th, 2006 to November 9th, 2006 November 9th, 2006 to December 31st, 2006 ...

Contents 1 Kohlberg's stages of moral development 2 Banana Splits 3 Darlene Love 4 The Victor (comic) 5 Alexis Bledel 6 Spam Essay 7 dHealth Link 8 Vandalism studies project 9 Robert Kiyosaki‎ 10 Southern Party 11 Schooner Esperanto 12 Links to related articles 13 1 Night in Paris 14 Added link to Air Force Pararescue 15 The Simple Life 16 Spam?? 17 Milk (Spam?) 18 Barnstar from WP:UW 19 My Request for Adminship 20 Vandalism on project page 21 My RFA 22 Started first study 23 WP:ADOPT 24 Wine Region Maps Link removal 25 Invite to WikiProject Spam 26 NewsWithViews.com 27 Mark Vos 28 Link in Talk:Akiko Koumoto 29 link removal 30 External links 31 External links 32 Lyrics 33 Please Explain 34 Sorry Man... 35 Vandalism studies 36 Links 37 Rating the ToK 38 WP:V0.5 39 VC lesson 40 Burden of proof 41 Travel Victoria photo site 42 Vandalism project 43 WikiProject Vandalism studies 44 Wikipedia Weekly Notification! 45 WikiProject Vandalism studies - 100 data points reached 46 RfA? 47 Wikipedia Weekly Notification! 48 Request for peer review 49 Deaf-mute 50 HopAround 51 Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Donwarnersaklad 52 Wikipedia Weekly Notification! 53 Wikipedia Weekly Notification! 54 Sexinfoonline.com 55 Link spam lesson ready for proofreading/copyediting 56 WP:UW future? 57 wikEd 58 linkspam lesson 59 Vandalism study 60 I think it's done 61 wikipedia-spam-t 62 Matter is now the Core Topics COTF 63 Vandalism project 64 University of California, Santa Cruz reversion 65 WikiProject Deaf 66 Arabic 67 The coveted Spamstar of Glory 68 Vandalism Study 69 Barnstar for all your hard work 70 Revise conclusion 71 Question 72 User:Durova/The dark side 73 Response 74 Thanks 75 Deleted Links...

[edit] Kohlberg's stages of moral development

Sorry not to get back to you sooner. I did look at the article; I know nothing about the subject, but what's said seems to make sense — whether it's accurate or not I can't say. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:45, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 04:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banana Splits

I noticed you removed my link to the source of a DVD release - how else am I supposed to cite my information without people thinking it is bogus? Wrzfreak 21:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed a blog and a show themesong (undoubtedly copyrighted). See WP:EL, WP:NOT and WP:COPYVIO for the policies on external links and other relevant info on why these links aren't added to wikipedia. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I read the policies and understand the reasoning behind them - I'd just like to know if my information would need to be sourced (I don't want it deleted)...(themesong wasn't my doing!)Wrzfreak 14:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

As a general rule, source everything! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 17:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Darlene Love

I would ask that you not revert in the future without providing a reason, either via the edit summary or talk page. Thanks. --JJay 22:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry; on your talk page you said not to leave a message there but instead email you. I emailed you this talkpage message:

You recently added an external link to YouTube in an article. It has been removed because the link pointed to a non-encyclopedic source.

Per WP:COPYRIGHT: External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Also, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. If the site in question is making fair use of the material, linking is fine.

I'm sorry if because of this there was a communication mixup. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi and thanks for the email. There are a few points here: (i) per WP:EL, there is no ban on YouTube links (or links to any other site). This is clearly stated in a little box at the top of WP:EL. I would hope that you would not imply otherwise to users; (ii) Despite your assertion, YouTube links can be highly "encyclopedic"; (iii) The content I linked to was uploaded directly by the copyright holder, CBS, and is hosted on the CBS YouTube channel as part of CBS's partnership deal with YouTube. There was thus no copyright infringement here - this is authorized content. This would have been obvious if you had checked the link before removal. You should be aware that a long list of broadcasters and media providers have partnered with YouTube to make their content available to the public; (iv) the link directly related to article content, which discusses the artist's performance of this song. Please be more careful in the future when considering ELs for removal.--JJay 23:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi there! i)/iii) you're right, there is no ban on youtube ELs, but guaranteeing copyright permission isn't too savvy on youtube and CBS looks to be the exception more than the rule. i'll remember the CBS one though. as for ii) i've read the article closer, and i think that link would be better served as a ref than an EL (ref and EL policy is different). keep in mind there are many, many unencyclopedic youtube links out there (parody of Full Metal Jacket fanmade funny movie LOL1!!). i can count on my fingers and toes the ones that i've come across that were added that should stay. i apologize for the mixup. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. CBS is not really the exception if you are considering YouTube partners. There are many including NBC, Warners, Universal, NHL etc. Furthermore, some of these partnership agreements provide blanket authorization for all users to upload content to YouTube with the copyright holder responsible for policing the site. YouTube has also never been sued for copyright infringement by any major media company. It is for this reason that links from YouTube or elsewhere need to be individually considered before culling. Having said that, whether the link becomes a reference or not is of secondary importance. We should be doing everything possible to make articles that serve the needs of readers. Bio articles are greatly helped by links to the subject talking, performing, being interviewed, etc and those types of links should be encouraged. This is not a print encyclopedia. Its true force - like that of the internet - is by combining text, audio and video. --JJay 00:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Victor (comic)

Didn't realize that the Ebay link would be covered by WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. Sorry about that. --Davidbober 03:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Glad that you know now! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 03:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alexis Bledel

I undid one of your edits, if you disagree, please got to the Alexis Bledel talk page. Happy Evil Dude 13:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

(Replied here and on the article's talk page)

Saying most celebrity articles have them doesn't make them an appropriate EL (e.g. two wrongs don't make a right). In WP:EL:

(Links normally to be avoided): Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: it should be a simple exercise to show how the link is directly and symmetrically related to the article's subject. This means that there is both a relation from the website to the subject of the article, and a relation from the subject of the article to the website. For example, the officially sanctioned online site of a rock band has a direct and symmetric relationship to that rock band, and thus should be linked from the rock band's Wikipedia article. An alternative site run by fans is not symmetrically related to the rock band, as the rock band has only indirect connections with that site.

It is a tertiary source and not as reliable as the secondary and primary sources it draws upon (WP:RS). Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links (WP:NOT); if they are used they need to provide relevant and non-trivial information.

...you can see it from my contributions, but I remove linkspam a whole ton. A fansite is linkspam, no matter how many times it is repeated in other articles. I will leave it to ya'll to remove it if ya'll see fit (which I hope I have demonstrated). Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam Essay

Hey, Joe, just wanted to say, that I incorporated your spam essay into the Meta-essay Eagle_101 and I have been working on: m:User:Wizardry_Dragon/Spam. Feel free to expand on that essay to, or remove it if you don't want your content there. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Awesome! I'm looking it over right now! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 16:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dHealth Link

Hey Joe, I had added the dHealth Institute link to the Diabetes melitus type 1 page and was wondering why you had removed it? I am a type 2 Diabetic and have used their free service for keeping track of my blood glucose levels. It's really been a life changer and I wanted to share it with other type 1 and type 2 diabetics. Managing blood glucose levels is really difficult and this is the best online tool that I have found for doing it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.208.140.53 (talk • contribs).

It provides service, one of which you must sign up for and provide email etc etc. Promotion of a service or link still violates WP:SPAM and doesn't provide a reliable source (WP:RS) as it is only reliable for those who join. Seeing as how you have to join to get encyclopedic value from the link, it violates WP:EL for not being accessible.

I understand it has helped you, and your intentions may be good, but it is not a link that should be added, especially en masse. Hope I've cleared things up. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Helo, if find the Diabetes Health Institute to be very reputable and not for profit. In fact http://www.dhealth.org has no ads, registration etc.... I would recommend keeping it.

It doesn't matter if it is free or not, it could make money or not, it could harvest emails or not. Policy runs deeper than simply turning away adlinks, there are criteria that a link needs to meet. Please, read WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:RS and WP:SPAM for the full monty on this issue, and I think you'll see that the above explanation is correct and the link should not be re-added. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:47, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism studies project

I saw you joined the wikiproject I set up. I am relatively new at setting up these projects so feel free to provide as much imput as possible into the scope of how to do this. Any help I can get would be most appreciated. Remember 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Kiyosaki‎

I suggest protecting the page since it is repeatably vandalized Powered 01:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Southern Party

Hello - I just saw your message from early November regarding my recent edits to the Southern Party page. I looked at the changes you referenced but am at a loss to comprehend why this meets any definition of "vandalism." I edited the page, which was originally quite sparse, in order to provide readers with a more accurate and complete understanding of the history and mission of the Southern Party. Since I was the one of the three original founders of the SP and it's first national chairman, I believe that this qualifies me better than most to make such edits and fail to understand why they would be characterized as "vandalism." However, since this is the first time I've ever edited anything on Wikipedia, I am more than willing to listen to constructive criticism regarding my recent edits and how they may be improved. My goal is not to "vandalize" anything, but to contribute on a topic that I am intimately familiar with. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freecsa (talk • contribs).

Hi Freecsa! I actually remember that revert; i made it in error. If you look at the history tab of the article, you'll see i reverted it back. I'm sorry for any confusion this may have caused, and I hope you'll continue to edit here on wikipedia as you sound like you know a good deal and want to help improve overall quality. If you have any other questions, related or not to this incident, feel free to drop me a line here and ask. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello JoeSmack! Thanks for clearing that up. Being a first-time contributor to Wikipedia, I thought perhaps I had committed a major faux paux of some kind. Anyway, I'm very pleased to contribute to this topic - mainly for the sake of preserving some detailed "insider" history of this now obscure, but somewhat interesting, 3rd party movement that had its 15 minutes of fame back in August of 1999. I've been thinking about how I might further improve this article and may soon add some links to some of the major news media articles describing the launch of the Southern Party. They were very detailed and provided some interesting perspective of how the SP was viewed by the mainstream press at the time. I'm assuming that this would be considered a valuable content addition, correct? Anyway, thanks again for your kind reply to a newbie here on Wikipedia.  :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freecsa (talk • contribs).

Links to mainstream press are usually reliable sources. Sounds like a good addition! If you read the policy on links over at Wikipedia:External links you can learn more about linking. Anyways, if you want to be sure, you can always show 'em here before you add em, I'd be more than happy to look them over. Again, sorry for the mixup on my part and Wikipedia is glad to have you as a contributor! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 04:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schooner Esperanto

Greetings JoeSmack, I don't have a lot of experience at this, but I tried to update a link from the Schooner Esperanto article to the external site Schooner Esperanto. I think that it is a valid link. What should I do next? Hiya Watha 05:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

more info The external site is not a user-generated website where entries are made in journal style and displayed in a reverse chronological order. Hiya Watha 05:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I see that now. Is it fiction or taken from a source? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for staying with me! It is a user-generated site, non-fiction, based on historical documents. Hiya Watha 05:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem! Well, if it is based on historical documents, I would suggest citing those as opposed to posting the link. Have you read the policy against original research? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:21, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The external site is considered to be an authoritative one, but the link recently changed. For example, the Schooner Bluenose article contains a link to the external Schooner Bluenose site. The Schooner Esperanto contains some material which is not yet in the public domain. Just trying to update the link to the new address. Hiya Watha 05:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

From [1] "Wikipedia articles can include links to web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research which is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)"

After seeing some of the articles, it looks like you're building the contents of them around this link as a source. I don't think it could be considered a reliable source right now because it isn't verifiable (how do i know the person who wrote it is an authority?). I would say you shouldn't link it for this reason, and use more primary sources for your contributions. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Hiya Watha 05:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you too for digging deeper; it can get pretty hard to grok sometimes. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to related articles

I was just adding links to related articles in a magazine to which I'm a contributor (kapiTal magazine, www.kapitalmag.ca). I got your message and I see that all the links I've added have been removed. I see your point, but going through and unilaterally deleting all these links before even asking me anything about them is ridiculous. The content of the articles I linked to is all verifiable, it quotes real, live sources and interviews and has been edited and fact-checked for accuracy. Given that you went through and deleted all my links as quickly as you did makes it obvious that you didn't go the links and read the articles.

If you had, you would also notice that this is a totally free magazine which has no subscribers or ads. Given that, the suggestion that I put the links on here to advertise doesn't hold much water.

Deleting links to real articles that have entirely verifiable content, just because it's not a big-time publication, makes no sense. It's sloppy, and all it does is reduce Wikipedia's store of available information, making less data and information available to the user.

The fact that anyone can edit Wikipedia isn't always a good thing. If someone is making editorial decisions like this, they should at least do it responsibly (ie reading the linked material instead of just deciding it's not valid). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.33.10.92 (talk • contribs).

It looks like a blog to me from http://kapitalmag.ca/k/'s site. Blogs are not considered a reliable source. Is there an ink/paper version of this 'magazine'? How authoritative is the source? JoeSmack ^Talk 22:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1 Night in Paris

thanks for removing inappropriate ink from this article. this blocked website http://www.hotelheiress.com/?i=13139 is now tryibg to get around the spam block by using http://yep.it/ for redirection. if it persists, we will have to block this website also. 68.61.233.160 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I'll keep an eye out! JoeSmack ^Talk 22:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Added link to Air Force Pararescue

Added blog website link to this article. I viewed their request on this article's talk page - blog is unique to this article and it certainly adds value to readers. I'm not affiliated with this group and wanted to give you a heads up because you had removed it when they attempted to add to this article on their own. Thanks! Calltech 00:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing the link 'adds' is the notion that the authors are both Pararescuers. I don't think there is anyway to confirm this and it doesn't make this link any more appealing anyhow. You notice the Aviator article's external links is not littered with blog links from pilots. Blogs are not reliable sources (WP:RS) and unless there is a specific post that reveals some specific, encyclopedic, and verifiable information that can't be found anywhere else, it shouldn't be in the externals links section. Please, read WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:RS for policies on all of this before adding or re-adding blogs to articles as external links. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I appreciate your comments but to date there are approxiately 15000 to 25000 links to other blogs on WP using blogspot.com Wikipedia_talk:External_links#blogspot.com. One admin User:John Broughton made this statement in particular:

"What is certain is that there are thousands of Wikipedia editors who think that blogs have valuable content and that it's useful to link to them." This is not policy or guideline, simply an observation.

Although many of these links are to talk pages, others are to articles. I am very familiar with WP guidelines - I have even contributed to them. If you are going to apply your argument that all blogs are not reliable and should not be used in links, then please change current WP guidelines and practices. That is NOT the current policy. There needs to be a consistent guideline here and more importantly a consistent application. This is not a strawman argument, it's simply a problem with Wikipedia than one person's preference can block another's edits. BTW, I wrote to you and two other editors who also removed this blog link when added by the owners of this blog. I just received a message from one of the others User:Gpohara who gave me a thumbs up. I would appreciate yours as well. Calltech 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The most clear we can get is in Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, one of which is that links to blogs and personal webpages, except those written by a recognized authority should normally be avoided. There is no blanket ban on blogs, and shouldn't be. In pretty rare cases I would condone blog linking. For instance, an appropriate use of it as a link is when encyclopedic information can solely be derived from a specific entry of a blog: picture a famous film director who made a controversial and visible racist post on their recognized blog which was widely criticized in the media. In this case too, I'd actually say it should be <ref>'d and not put into the 'External links' section. Anyway, case like this are extreme hard to find.

Linking to a blog in 'External links' is also kind of like linking 'Atlantic-ocean.com' to the article on Sea bass; you're getting a ton of posts that often have very very little to do with the article at hand (like 'anyone else have a good Christmas? I did...'). Thats another problem with blanket posting of blogs to 'External links'.

I'd also say that the fact there are thousands of blog links posted does not justify the existence of this one or any other. A similar example is MySpace profile links; these are NOT encyclopedic, it is a link to a social networking site. Yet thousands exist as well, and should be (and I do myself) removed.

As it stands, external links in general are being added more and more frequently. If you'd like to see how big it is getting, login to #wikipedia-spam-t and ask around there, or the botfeed itself at #wikipedia-spam. At high tide, there are up to 12 links a minute! And if you look at my contribs, you can see there is a lot of links that don't cut the mustard that get reverted, and I gaurantee lots still get through that are valueless. Policy will have to change and be, in my opinion, more conservative or at least more rigid. Really education about good (interviews, journals, etc) links need to be improved, and bad (fansites, forums, myspace etc) links need to be emphasized as unencyclopedic.

I've been rambling, sorry, but this is a roundabout way in saying I still don't think that the blog link is a valuable addition, and it shouldn't be added to the article. I hope I've been clear, and I hope that you can see a little more of my reasoning behind my decision. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Simple Life

How do you suggest I cite source for the quotes without presenting a link to the article? Celebrity-Benji 05:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

cite.php my man! you don't need to link to a scanned copy, just the page number, issue, date etc. follow that link and all shall be revealed! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 05:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. :) Celebrity-Benji 05:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam??

Hi JoeSmack. Wikipedia states that external links can be a service to its readers, and should be kept to a minimum. The links I have been adding are not mend to be spam, but Thailand has 76 provinces and I have been adding a link on each province to a detailed map of that province, also with a postal stamp with a place of interest in that province and a provincial coat of arms... If you check the links you would see that the site linked to is not commercial. Links placed by myself are therefor just 'meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article', I would think. Please your reaction. As I would like to finish the job, but don't want to spam. So, if ok with you I would like to continue, but if considered otherwise by you (or others) feel free to take the links off again - as I do not want to be denied access or cause problems with anyone - although it would deprive many readers of the additional info retalet to the topic. Cheers. Tao. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.128.29 (talk • contribs).

There must be a more reliable place to find a detailed map of the province other than an online travel dictionary (not usually regarded as a reliable source as much as say a government site). Is there any other more reliable, verifiable source with this information you know of? JoeSmack ^Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Not that I know of. Also, the links I had placed are to interactive maps whci can be changed into the Thai language - an intersting item as upcountry roadsign are often not in Latin script and could therefor be compared with the Thai script.

Also: the site is listed number 7 out of 3,630,000 hits when you type 'thailand travel info' in Google and first out of 1,180,000 when you type in 'thailand travel dictionary' - so I don't think it needs to spam... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.128.29 (talk • contribs).

If the images are what are important, can you upload them? I bet other articles would like to be able to use em, and I bet the website doesn't like wikipedia leeching their bandwidth... JoeSmack ^Talk 06:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding? I think if Thailand had had just three provinces the adding of the link wouldn't have been considered as Spam, but since it has 76 provinces and I was adding a link to each one of them the links are misinterpreted as spam. I don't know how to upload pictures, but besides of that the interactive use of the map would go lost, and that is a pitty. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.10.128.29 (talk • contribs).

I think you're right. The mass addition is probably what set me off in the first place there being 76 provinces to add a link to. It does also look like this information is unique and hard to find anywhere else, and being that copyright/technical issues are involved with uploading the images to here, I think that linking will be ok. I've reverted all the removal of the links in the IP ranges Special:Contributions/58.10.128.30 and Special:Contributions/58.10.128.29, the two that I and User:Eagle 101 reverted before. This way you don't have to go back and do them again. I'm really sorry for all this inconvenience, but I'm glad we talked it out and reached consensus. I've certainly learned from this experience! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Milk (Spam?)

Hi JoeSmack. A response to your reverting of my (166.70.40.184) edit of the article on Milk. I visited the IRC channel as you suggested and discussed the issue. I added a link to www.notmilk.com to the external links section of the Milk article. You reverted my addition with the statement that you considered my addition too much like advertisement.

I discussed this with "Eagle..." on the IRC channel. In response Eagle removed several other external links that also presented potentially controversial information. For example, the link to the website of the National Dairy Council was removed since this is clearly an organization with a pro-milk consumption bias.

I did not agree with this action. In my opinion it is appropriate to have a small list of external links providing links to sites presenting information both advocating and critical of milk. If you look at the Soy milk article, for example, there are actually two sections of external links specifically labeled "Advocacy and general information" and "Critical". IMHO these two entire sections of external links should not be removed from the Soy milk article. I think they are entirely appropriate information for persons researching soy milk. Likewise, I think it is appropriate to have equivalent sections appended to the Milk article.

Please consider reverting both your changes and the changes made by Eagle. I believe that what is good for Soy milk is also good for Milk as well as many other articles. I don't think that we want to go around censoring all similar external references on Wikipedia. -- (166.70.40.184) - Stan

Hi Stan! I see more now of your views on the issue. When i reverted the link, it was not because it looked like an ad, but because wikipedia is not a mere collection of links (WP:NOT). There is, to put it lightly, a whole TON of links to info on the link you provided. However, if any of the links, journals, studies, articles, writings, etc etc on the site www.notmilk.com are relivant, reliable, verifiable and encyclopedic, then citing the individual sources themselves are what you should do. In this way too you can avoid info on that vast compendium of milk related knowledge that isn't all of that, like this piece on zits. You might too notice that this information is not very symmetrical to the article (unless the article was Milk and Zits or something).

I agree that an article should be balanced. I'm glad you went and talked to someone on IRC about this, because a 2nd opinion can really help on perspective for issues such as these. I however still feel that the link should not be added to the external links section. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello again for me. While I am not passing judgment on the specific milk issue, one way or the other, it does appear that complaints about your reverting external links are following you. I agree with you about the instability of forums and most blogs. But external links that are not commercial or specifically placed to promote a site, and which provide useful and relevant additional information, should stand. Imo there are not too many of these, despite the view of many admins that there are, and I reject the view of those admins who claim that they are completely unnecessary because we can Google search. If the info is new it will not rank highly in searches, and if it is unique it may not. If it is additional, useful and relevant, WP should find the space for linking it. EL's are usually in sections of their own, are clearly identified and take up very little web space. Because of its free-to-redistribute-without-credit policy, those who provide such info do not always wish to post it directly to Wikipedia. Also, I do not accept the point about leeching that you make. Most, perhaps even all, webmasters want their websites to be viewed because it improves their search engine rankings and thus helps them achieve what they want to achieve - to get their information across. If they do not wish to provide it free, then they can charge for it, as some do. Keep up the work, but do not be too trigger happy. Viewfinder 09:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Viewfinder. Complaints follow me because I do upwards of 100+ revisions a day often of links that people want to see stay (regardless of policy). Talk pages are for talking things out, and I love that people want to use it; better here than a revert war or someone getting blocked or uncivil. Wikipedia policy is all I am following, and you'll notice policy talk pages get plenty of use too. Also thousands of links get added a day, several a minute most of the time. Not even AntiVandalBot is perfect. And I'm not afraid of being wrong either - it happens. I will take your words as a heed; I appreciate you looking out for me and the people who come to this page. In fact, if you're really interested you should join the IRC channel (you'll see a link at the top of this page) and chat with some of the people there as they do a lot of similar work. Again, thanks for letting me know how you feel on the issue at hand. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I corrected your one letter error in addressing me. I am willing to assume that it was a pure accident although I must point out that it was the kind of unfortunate accident which might have been taken by some as a sneaky insult, please be careful. I tried clicking on the IRC link at the top of your page but it was dead. Re Wikipedia policy, my edit to Mount Ararat which you reverted did not breach Wikipedia policy. If you are going to revert hundreds of links a day, you need to make 100% certain of your knowledge of the relevant policy. Btw, I have come to conclude that anyone who regularly edits Wikipedia regularly is liable to accumulate enemies. Viewfinder 07:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Woa, no I did not mean to misspell your name. I'm really not that kind of guy (I highly value civility) and am sorry I made that mistake. As for the IRC link, it shouldn't be dead (I just tried it, and others coming to my talkpage have clicked on it with success). Do you have an IRC client installed? Since I use Firefox, I use ChatZilla as an IRC client (good/simple integration), but both IceChat (win) and X-Chat (mac/win) are kick-ass standalone clients too (other lists).

I like the new edit that doesn't like directly to the image, thanks. I know the relevant policy quite well, but like I said before, no one is perfect.

It's about midnight for me, so I'm off to bed. I really don't have any intentions but to make things better, so I hope I've done something right for you. I still encourage you to jump into the IRC channel and talk around with others who link revert like me; hopefully it'll work w/one of those IRC clients. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 08:24, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, no hard feelings. It was just that your misspelling created something unfortunately similar to another ten letter word ending in finger. Such misspellings can be and often are deliberate! I've made similar unfortunate slips myself, too. I'm not into IRC, perhaps I need to be. I'll see what I can do, thanks. Viewfinder 08:55, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe, back to my original concern. Either advocacy and critical external links should be added to the Milk article or removed from the Soy milk article. Soy milk appears to be a controversial beverage while Milk appears to be non-controversial. Both have their supporters and critics, but a person researching Milk would be hard pressed to learn about the controversy. This is not the case for Soy milk because they can easily find a short list of external links leading them to an wealth of information from differing perspectives.

Stanthomas 06:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stanthomas. My removing the link had nothing to do with how controversial or non-controversial the link/subject itself was. See my explanation above. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:21, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe, I am having a really hard time following your argument. The article on Soy milk has 24 external links divided into two sections, "Advocacy and general information" and "Critical." The article on Milk has 2 external links. The number of external links is clearly not the issue. The article on Milk does not violate the Wikipedia policy with one or two additional external links. On the contrary, according to the policy, "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to an article." The NotMilk.com site contains many articles specifically critical of milk in addition to TONs of links to additional information. External sites are not required to follow Wikipedias' internal policies. Again, I would like to know what specific policy permits the 24 external links on the [[Soy milk] article and similarly on many other Wikipedia articles while specifically excluding the addition of this single external link to the article on Milk. Stanthomas 17:23, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't have a policy against the number of links in an external links section. The reason I removed notmilk.com is because not all the links on it are specfically relivant, reliable, verifiable or encyclopedic. Many of them are however, and if they are appropriate they should they themselves be linked to the Milk article. Think of it like this: if the article was a book of common baby's names in the US, stapling a phonebook to the external links section wouldn't be particularly relivant, reliable, verifiable or encyclopedic. This is why even though you don't see specific policy against the number of links in an external links section, you usually tend to see less than more. Cite the individual links/articles/sources from that website as opposed to the website itself and I think you'll have better luck. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Joe. You admit that my addition was not in violation any Wikipedia policy. Then please restore it. I am beginning to suspect that this process of challenging deletions rarely if ever is effective. Since you are an admin and I am not you will get your way whether your case has any credibility or not. The fact that you do not like the content, format, or number of links on an external site is not a valid reason for you to censor it. My addition of a single external link to an article with less than 5 external links is perfectly reasonable. Your removal of the link because you do not like the format, style, or number of links on the external site was not. Is there any level above you to which I can continue my appeal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stanthomas (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

You addition was in violation of Wikipedia policy. See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 2 for some (like this shaky article on Milk and Zits) and definitely #13. And again, I didn't do it because of the number of links anywhere; adding 1 link to 5 or adding 1 link to 24 isn't a good or a bad thing and isn't a justification of anything. Read the policy, and if at this point you still don't agree then change it back. I'm not an admin, and I'm not an oppressive possessive person, so if you feel you are still between the lines and 10 other people would agree with you then go ahead. And look above this post at User_talk:JoeSmack#Spam.3F.3F if you want to see someone whose challenge was effective; i'm not unmovable. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar from WP:UW

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I award this barnstar to JoeSmack for your help and input in getting the WikiProject user warnings to the review phase, and to let you know your work has been appreciated. Khukri (talk . contribs) 22:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Khukri! You and all of WikiProject user warnings are doing great things. Glad to help. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Request for Adminship

Thank you for your support in my my RfA, which passed with a tally of 117/0/1. I hope that my conduct as an admin lives up to the somewhat flattering confidence the community has shown in me. And this is a special thanks to you for giving me the 100th support! Please don't hesitate to leave a message on my talk page should you need help or want to discuss something with me.--Nilfanion (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism on project page

It appears as if user 212.219.154.45 likes the idea of vandalizing the vandalism studies page. I have already reverted him three times. Do you know how we could get someone to block him or lock the page from non-named user editing? Remember 14:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Next time he does it drop a {{blatantvandal}} on his talkpage. If he does it again, add a second as well as report him on WP:AIV. Normally there is a vandal1, vandal2, vandal3, vandal4 approach, but i think this pretty clearly vandalism. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RFA

Hey, thanks so much for supporting my recent RFA. A number of editors considered that I wasn't ready for the mop yet and unfortunately the RFA did not succeed (69/26/11). There are a number of areas which I will be working on (including changing my username) in the next few months in order to allay the fears of those who opposed my election to administrator.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you sincerely for your support over the past week. I've been blown away by the level of interest taken in my RFA and appreciate the time and energy dedicated by all the editors who have contributed to it, support, oppose and neutral alike. I hope to bump into you again soon and look forward to serving you and Wikipedia in any way I can. Cheers! The Rambling Man 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC) (the non-admin, formerly known as Budgiekiller)

[edit] Started first study

Go to WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1 to check it out and help make it better. Remember 22:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Looks good! I'll start adding data points ASAP. I'll also try to work out a table for the summary section for conciseness and visual asthetic. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

You should know the new link the study is Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1

Excellent work!!! Incorporate your results into the study as you finalize them. I figured we should do summaries every 10 entries so it is easier to tally them up once we have a lot. Remember 17:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I liked your idea about doing 10 in your sandbox and then incorporating them. I plan to do the same. I have started on 21-30 data points in my sandbox. Remember 18:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:ADOPT

Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the {{Adoptme}} template to {{Adoptoffer}} on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking.

Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:54, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wine Region Maps Link removal

Why have you removed the links to Australian Wine Region maps on at least 10 sites? Each was relevant to that region. It provides a useful encyclopedic resource. I don't see the problem. What exactly is your objection? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matthiashayward (talk • contribs) 11:25, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

The links added by User:202.12.144.21 were removed for a couple of reasons. The first is that they were being attached to town articles; if they are going to be added to anything it should be the articles for the wineries themselves, otherwise the information isn't direct or semetric (See WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided, number 13 on the list). Secondly, adding it at all (like to the article on Australian Wine) is promotion of whatever wineries were added to that map (and why are they authoritative either, see WP:RS), which is against policies on spam (See WP:SPAM).

I hope I've been helpful in showing you why they were removed. JoeSmack ^Talk 16:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 17:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NewsWithViews.com

Joe, someone already contested this days ago and it was decided that it needed more but was a valid article. I don't know why it's not in the page history, though. People seem to want to rush to delete it because of the ".com." That's just part of the news source's name. Tim Long 01:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

For all of our sanity then please, get some reliable sources so it doesn't keep getting db-site'd. It should keep others from doing the same. :) JoeSmack ^Talk 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Vos

Sigh. How hard can it possibly be to get a good link a bot thinks is spam included in an article? Please see my talk page, Ral315's talk page and the EL in question and then please revert yourself. The link in question is useful and not spam. Thanks, Mikker ^(...) 03:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The link is neither authoritative or verifiable (WP:RS). My removal seems alright to me. Sorry. JoeSmack ^Talk 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ummm... that makes no sense whatsoever. Mark Vos is a poker player and, as such, won't exactly have an article in Encyclopedia Britannica or the NYT. A poker site is surely a reliable enough source about poker players. Furthermore, I note WP:EL nowehere mentions a link has to be "authoritative" and WP:RS applies to sources not ELs. Lastly, you rv-ed the link as Spam and even gave me a boilerplate warning as such, when it clearly isn't spam. (Please re-read WP:SPAM for a bit of a refresher on what spam is). Honestly, I am less than impressed by your edits in this case. There is a very good reason bots rv only once — they make mistakes because they're like broadswords, not scalpels. Acting, in effect, like a bot by rv-ing blindly (i.e. without checking the details or even reading up a bit where you posted on my talk page to see Ral315's agreement that the link is useful) is simply bad practise, period. Mikker ^(...) 03:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi hi. Read WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 2 where a link should be a reliable source (a link is a source, but not all sources are links). I was not blindly reverting, I saw the link, I saw Ral315's comment. My 'spam' boilerplate was for inappropriate external links, if you read the wording. I still dont see the source as being authoritative, and thus not an RS, and thus not a good link. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

You weren't rv-ing blindly? According to the Mark Vos history, my edit to rv Smackbot occurred at 05:09, and you rv'd me at 05:10. Then, according to your contributions, you posted {{spam}} on my talk within that same minute (i.e. 05:10). So you read Mark Vos, the external link and my talk (to notice Ral's comment), thought about whether the link in question is useful and found time to rv me and post boilerplate on my talk within a 2 minute time-span? Thou doth protest too much methinks.

Ignoring the above, if you did rv blindly it's pretty bad, but if you didn't rv blindly it's quite possibly worse. In the latter instance you gave me the {{spam}} boilerplate text when, clearly, the link in question isn't spam. It might be inappropriate per WP:EL, but it's obviously not spam. Consequently, if you are somehow super-human and didn't rv blindly you pretty clearly violated WP:FAITH, especially since I'm an experienced user in good standing. I simply tried to add what I think is a useful link to an article that needs work, and got an undeserved knee-jerk boilerplate thrown at me for my trouble. You might understand, therefore, why I'm less than impressed with your edits in this regard. I note also that you do not have some sort of veto power over which links go in an article (WP:OWN, WP:CONSENSUS etc.) when it isn't obvious spam. Two experienced editors with no agenda and no commercial links to the website in question thinks it would be useful. You disagree. That's fine, but let's discuss the disagreement on talk, don't throw insulting boilerplate at me.

I would genuinely like you to answer this question: if you realised the link wasn't spam, realised my edit was in good faith, realised at least one respected editor agreed with me, and realised I was an editor in good standing (i.e. you didn't rv blindly) why in the world did you post {{spam}} on my talk? Mikker ^(...) 19:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the info in the EL might not be as unverifiable or unreliable as you might think. Mikker ^(...) 21:34, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're not AGF here. I'm not super-human; it did take 2 minutes; the boilerplate for inappropriate ELs is the {{spam1}} template, it wasn't meant as an insult to your contribution nor your longstanding edit history. I did notice Ral's comment, which said 'might', which I took as a 'oh, i guess i better check for myself'. To me, it fails to be authoritative so i removed it due to WP:RS concerns, and dropped a boilerplate to let you know what happened (so there was no WTF, who is this chum whos making edits and not saying why?!). I do not have some sort of veto power. I am not blindly reverting. Mark Vos is notable I'm sure, as the google link shows, but verifying information with a better reliable source may as well default to the inclusion of the better reliable source.

I hope this clears things up. Apologies for seeming crass. JoeSmack ^Talk 14:01, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The probability that you can make sound, thought-out judgments about the appropriateness of ELs in articles you hadn't previously dealt with in 2 mins or less approaches zero. But, whatever, let's not quibble over events in the past; I'll take your word for it. For the record, I've always assumed your rv was in good faith — in my view a good faith mistake, but good faith nonetheless. The article clearly needs work, and getting ELs in there where readers can get more info (or that other editors can use as sources) is a good way to improve it. I suggest this and this. Thoughts? Lastly, I have a suggestion for future reference: feel free to use boilerplate on ips and newbies, but try to avoid using it on more experienced editors. It comes off either as rather condescending or as a case of mistaken identity (i.e. mistaking an experienced editor for a newbie). Mikker ^(...) 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

To me they both don't pass WP:RS on authoritative grounds. You should throw them up on WT:EL and ask, they are great for this kind of stuff and you get a suite of opinions. JoeSmack ^Talk 07:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link in Talk:Akiko Koumoto

Hey JoeSmack,

You've removed a link to playasia I left in Talk:Akiko Koumoto as information for any editors who wanted to work on the article more. I understand a link to a commercial website isn't the best in Wikipedia, and I wouldn't have done it in the main article, but I reckoned it be usefull for the editors.

That's how I see it at least. I'd like to hear your view on it.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Woa! My mistake, I should have only been removing that link from articles themselves. I went back and checked, and this was the only talk page I accidentally did that to; my apologies for it being this one! Links like that are fine for talkpages, its mainspace that requires all the WP:EL critique. Anyhow, I really appreciate you bringing it up here like this in such a nice manner, but it was a boo-boo on my part and I reverted it so hope no harm no foul! Cheers! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be noted this user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet (or quite possibly, emplyee) of MyWikiBiz. Just a heads up, Joe. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem ;-)

@Peter: The block was accidental. JackSparrow Ninja 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] link removal

Hey Joe

I need some help and/or direction. You've removed a link to know your pension I left on the Pension page next to PensionRights.org. The know your pension link is a nonprofit/noncommercial site simular to the pension rights. have you reviewed the site? if yes, were should the resource be posted if not within the pension section?

sorry for the bother. thanks

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.142.91.221 (talk) 02:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC).

Hi there. penionrights.org may be noncommercial, but WP:SPAM policies do not only apply to commercial websites; it applies to anywebsite added for promotional purposes. besides spam policies, the articles you added them to were not symetrically related to the content of the link you added (WP:EL, WP:NOT). finally, i don't believe pensionrights.org is considered a reliable source (WP:RS) on authoritative grounds as well as verification grounds. please read the associated policies listed here to gain a better understanding of external links that can be added to wikipedia articles, and if you have more questions feel free to ask here - i am more than happy to help! :) 21:44, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

(P.S. if other eyes see this post, this link was added by multiple IPs). JoeSmack ^Talk 21:45, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to offer feedback. I promise these should be the last questions: 1. Spam WP:SPAM - I understand posting within other wiki sections would be a violation. I am learning. Although, how is the posting to the pension/nonprofit section under the pensionrights.org considered spam? This organization had helped me with an issue a few months ago (which really means nothing for this conversation) and the pension content offered on the site was extremely useful and relative to Wiki Pension (WP:EL, WP:NOT) . You are right about pensionrights.org on verification groups. Yet, both penionsrights.org and knowyourpension.org appear to source data from erisa reports; the U.S. AoA (administration on aging) and published news articles from major publications which fits the guidelines (WP:RS). Should knowyourpension.org skill not be posted? And, therefore should penionsrights.org be removed? Once again – sorry for the bother.

I would put up the more reliable sources like the US AoA and news articles instead of pensionrights.org. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

JoeSmack, thank you for the feedback. If you agree, I'll remove the Non-profit area and replace it with the AoA gov link. I will also look around for new articles. Thanks for the redirection. John McLaughlin (JL)

[edit] External links

Joe Smack, NOT all external links are sources.

See Wikipedia:External links - See, Smack, there's a difference between a source and a plain old external link.

You say that WP:V governs all external links. Not so!

See: "Links normally to be avoided" - Forums are included in this section.

But normally = forums CAN be included as an exception. I judged the Wheatley Wildcat forums as "okay," since they are linked from and sponsored by an alumni site.

WhisperToMe 23:53, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way:

"Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked in a references section, not an external links section. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources for specific formatting and linking guidelines for citations.

WhisperToMe 23:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That is not a good enough reason to not be normally avoided. ELs do have to be verifiable otherwise it is original research. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:10, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Hi Joe. I am familiar with the WP EL policy. I believe that I made a number of worthwhile links which you have arbitrarily removed. I am sure that you were well intended but did you check the target pages for relevance? Please outline the authority with which you make these changes and/or direct me to the appropriate appeal channels. Regards, Speermeister.

I check the target pages for relevance. Relevance actually isn't the biggest problem, but how reliable they are really. Copyvios too (lyric sites). I don't have any 'authority', i'm a user like you. See the top of my userpage for a link to the spam-t talk channel, a good place to discuss ELs (even if they are not spam). JoeSmack ^Talk 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Hola Joe. I have to ask why would clevelandpark.net be removed and clevelandpark.com can stay. Same goes for adding community yahoo groups on Cleveland Park page once again there is a link to a ClevelandPark List serve that is private domains. All of the pages or yahoo groups added are free and community related. Regards, Nelson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NelsonJacobsen (talk • contribs).

Hi Nelson. Please read policy over at Wikipedia:External Links. If you feel that clevelandpart.com shouldn't stay because of EL policy, then feel free to remove it. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for anwser kind of. Just a question or 2 do you feel that the .com va the dot is more in line with the EL policy What is the beef with the yahoo groups in DC every community uses it to communicate and it really an extention of said communities. As for me presonally I am not here as the great subtractor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NelsonJacobsen (talk • contribs).

It isn't about .com/.net, it is about the site being unauthoritative and an unreliable source. See Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided number 2 and number 11. As for the yahoo group, see number 10. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lyrics

I think instead of pointing to WP:EL, the commentary should instead point to WP:COPY, which clearly says, "If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Hopefully that will help reduce some of the backlash I have seen of people putting the lyrics back in. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, im going to change that monobook hack to be more flexible. thanks for the tip. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please Explain

Joe, just curious as to why the site I have been linking (www.stepstochrist.us) is being removed on almost each and every page it is being placed. The site does not meet even ONE of the external linking rules as SPAM, nor does it sell anything, nor does it even increase in page rank due to nofollow, and it has everything to do and is relevant to each page it has been placed. I hesistate to imply why you are removing it. Please explain, kind regards; A —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AWHerritt (talk • contribs).

I think if every religious website added their website to Faith, etc, articles would be 95% links. Spam isn't just about pagerank/selling stuff, it is about promotion in general. JoeSmack ^Talk 19:27, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Joe, you are removing that link from totally relevant pages. The book itself was written by an Adventist, one of the founders, and is promoted and used by the Adventist church.

You removed it from the following,

Prophetic Gift of Ellen White : This book was written during her prophetic ministry

Seventh-day Adventist Church : The church holds this book as its greatest missionary book

Teachings of Ellen White : The book teaches what Ellen White taught regarding Christianity and God.

Ellen G. White : The book was written by her, and was one of her first.

Linking to it on these pages is considered promotion?

And although I agree it might appear more questionable on the other pages it was removed from, the content of the book itself deals with each one, from an authority on the issues discussed. We do not need to get into semantics. I'm willing to let those ones go. But the four mentioned above are totally legit and valid, if you asked the official Seventh Day Adventist Church itself. AWHERRITT ps. still learning editing, will get it down soon.

To gain consensus, post your reasoning on the articles' respective discussion pages and ask anyone else if they agree. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry Man...

Hey, I am sorry for the comment I made. I was a little mad that you did not contact me by email or talkpage about that issue. I hope you stay here. Mr. Asher Heimermann 18:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism studies

I'm so glad to here that you still interested in helping me finish this project. I am hoping to add another 10 points soon and I am hoping I can get the study up to about 100 points in the next couple of weeks. After we get 100 I figure that will be good enough to tentatively conclude the study.

As for the link spam vandalism, I added that because there was an obvious case of someone adding a advertisement to the webpage and it was quickly deleted. As far as criteria for future link spam, I would only categorize the obvious commercial linkspam (essentially links to unrelated matters or matters that are so tangentially related to the subject as to be obviously unhelpful). But I am open to changing the criteria or making it more clear cut. Also feel free to add any imput on how you think the study can be refined and how we can get the word out about our findings. Remember 14:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

Adding links to pages with the word heritage in, in which we refer to a free nonprofit newwsweekly on *European heritage* canot be classified as vandalism. Nor is it tadvertising - www.qultures.com is a bonafide magazine on the internet intended to create a community for Europeans interested in heritage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karen Schousboe (talk • contribs).

Please read Wikipedia external link policy as well as spam policy. Promoting a website certainly qualifies as spam. If every article EL section had newletters, wikipedia would be bloated with every newsletter under the sun. Please do not continue to add the link. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Note sock account 83.91.44.8 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log)
--Hu12 01:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rating the ToK

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project together and rate both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 22:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:V0.5

Hi Joe, we're currently beta testing. We had to wait for the offline reader and all of the cleanup scripts to be ready. The main testing was completed last week, though we'd like to check the Mac version. Things will get very exciting in the next week or two, I think - we're already drafting press releases. If you send me an email (to my WP Username AT potsdam.edu) I'll send you the beta test info - if you'd like to test it yourself!

I'm concerned that 0.7 seems to have stalled. eyu100 was going to organise it, but he seems to have lost interest for some reason. I'd work on it more myself, but I don't want to spread myself too thinly - V0.5 has to be a priority, and I had been neglecting things at WP:Chem and elsewhere on 1.0 for too long, so I've been trying to catch up. Part of that is meeting your request for a site map for 1.0 - you'll see that I've so far put together some comprehensive navigation templates at {{Version 0.5 pages}} and {{Work via Wikiprojects pages}}, and I plan to bring a bunch of these together to make one big organised list. Once I've done this stuff I'll get back to 0.7. Hopefully Martin will be back online soon and we can start using his bot to select stuff for 0.7. Can we rope you in to help with any of this stuff? Thanks, Walkerma 01:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VC lesson

I responded on my talk page, in case you didn't realize. Yuser31415 02:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Burden of proof

Re: these two edit summaries: "(rvt - take it to the talkpage BEFORE adding. otherwise, you could just fillibuster the talkpage and bad stuff stays in the article until it is removed. it looks like promo stuff to me, see WP:SPAM)."

• The reverse argument is that Shadowbot should take it to the talkpage BEFORE removing. Otherwise it assumes bad faith and (quite possibly) good information is removed from the article and an editor is unduly intimidated until the matter can be resolved through rigorous reminders of what the relevant (or often irrelevant) policies say and do not say. If it looks like bad stuff, remove it. If someone objects, then maybe it wasn't bad stuff. Maybe it was a mistake to remove it. Neither party becomes burdened by a requirement to satisfy the other party. Both parties have equal claim until it is resolved through consensus. Overstating the contents of a list of "links normally to be avoided" and then using at as a list of "links never to be suffered" goes a bit too far in my opinion. --Dystopos 01:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

They are burdened by a requirement to satisfy the other party, that is consensus: everyone agrees on a course of action and goes with it. Shadowbot was right to remove that link IMHO, and does make a very small amount of mistakes (just like the legendary but indispensable User:AntiVandalBot. If you dont like policy wording, their talk pages are the place to go. Hope this helps. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No. The obligation is to seek consensus. It is reasonable that consensus may not satisfy all parties. --Dystopos 02:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Travel Victoria photo site

I noticed you removed a link to the Travel Victoria site from the Wangaratta, Victoria article because of an unspecified external link guideline. Which guideline in particular? I have already had a discussion about this particular website here: User talk:MichaelBillington/Archive4#Travel Victoria photo site. Have you anything to add?GSTQ 02:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

P.S. That link at the top of your talk page doesn't work with my browser. Is it still a working link?GSTQ 02:57, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! This was a while ago, but I'm glad you ask about it now rather than never! :) Usually I de-link travel sites as they have an advertising bent and are generally unauthoritative (See WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided). Also I noticed that each photograph doesn't have it's own copyright, which usually makes me a little wary too.

I see your previous discussion: the site seems to be devoted to services and not photographs. Referring to others (like Allmusicguide) isn't a good enough reason to allow this link to stay; this isn't about the link's relative merits but about its merits on its own. Again, this is why travel sites pretty regularly get removed. Hope this helps. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand why travel site links are regularly removed, I never disputed the general principle. It just seems that spamfighters get a bit trigger-happy without checking the merits of each case (or any case?). By the way, I never quoted AllMusicGuide as a reason, just as another example of a site that had lots of links from Wikipedia, in order to refute one of MichaelBillington's arguments against having the link. I had a bit of a look around for a spamfighters' forum, but I couldn't find one; it'd be good if this particular site could be discussed somewhere like that rather than on random talkpages. Is there one?GSTQ 22:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh there is one! Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam's talk page, here, is definitely the place. On a more individual level, WT:EL is a great place too. Both are very active. JoeSmack ^Talk 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism project

I definately want to finish this project and I would like the whole project to continue but I am not sure I have enough time to dedicate it after the first project is done. My goal is to reach 100 points with the first study, get it out there, and hope that others will be interested to join in. I would be willing to do some research in the future, but I would want promises from others that the costs would not be borne by just myself (and you). As for the current project we have about 50 more to go. How about I promise to do thirty more and you promise to do 20 more and then we will double check our research and put it out there. How does that sound? I will try to get my points done by March 15. Remember 01:07, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Vandalism studies

Hi JoeSmack,

I just saw the WikiProject Vandalism studies, and as I try my best to fight vandalism, and consider myself member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, it seems a very interesting project.

Could you perhaps, if accepting members, get me into it a little, telling me some basics I should know and what I could work on or contribute to. For instance, what are the points Remember above is talking about?

cheers JackSparrow Ninja 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

awesome! we'd love some contribution to the project! the data points Rem was talking about are here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies/Study1. Basically each data point is an article that has at least one edit in November of 2004, 2005 or 2006. You can accrue this data points by hitting the random article link on the sidebar. From the data you can see there are plenty of article without edits in November in all three years, and those are noted but set aside each 10 data points. Each data point if it does have an edit/edits in some or all three years has each edit recorded. Sometime we get through 10 data points without any vandalism; thats fine. if you do run into some though, you want to record it as one of either Obvious vandalism, Inaccurate vandalism, POV vandalism, Deletion vandalism or Linkspam. If the definitions of any of them are unclear ask away; don't worry too much, we'll go over the data again. The layout of the data points are cut and paste from the previous 10 points all the way through. Again, thanks for being interested, me and Rem thought we'd be the only ones getting this first study out! Can we count you in for some data recording? :D JoeSmack ^Talk 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe,

Just did my first 'run' so to say.

It's pretty clear I'd say. Though, just to be sure, things like NPOV or inaccurate info that seems like a good faith edit, I didn't count as a vandalism. Is that correct?

I'm glad to contribute and help. =) JackSparrow Ninja 03:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Glad to have more contributors! I've had one instance where there were edits with POV/inaccurate info be inserted, but with an unreliable source, and then the debate was about the source, etc etc. In the end, I decided it wasn't POV vandalism because it was in fact made in good faith. Go with your gut, and don't fret too much because we'll be double checking each other's work, and we can talk out the finer shades of the definitions when it comes to that. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

And WOW, I just saw your contrib! Great job, spot on! You're a quick learner. We're aiming for 100 data points, and then we're going to see where we're at, lessons learned, data evaluated, and start planning for study 2. Keep up the good work! JoeSmack ^Talk 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

For the first time in well, over a month, we've put something together. We've been a little busy / the tubes of the internets crashed so apologies on the delay. We're finally back to normal, we hope....

Anyways, all is good now, here's the new episodes!

• Episode 11 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 03:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] WikiProject Vandalism studies - 100 data points reached

Hey guys,

Just wanted to let you know we've reached a 100 data points in the vandalism studies now. I resulted the data points 81 - 90 from Remember, and acquired and resulted data points 91 - 100, and the total results.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1#Results 1-100

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 05:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I've moved the discussion to the project page now =) Talk to you there! JackSparrow Ninja 16:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RfA?

I think you do a fantastic job here, and I think you'll make a fine admin. I'll write the nomination only if you accept it, so please do accept! Cheers :) Majorly _{(o rly?)} 14:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, it is very nice of you to say so. Really I can do all the things I need to do as a non-admin, so I respectfully decline. But again, the offer is much appreciated. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode!

This is a special episode we recored specifically dealing w/ the whole Essjay/Ryan Jordan situation. We recorded this before Jimbo's second comment, so it might be a little dated but still a good listen.

• Episode 12 MP3

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 08:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Request for peer review

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deaf-mute

Hi JoeSmack. I'm seeking opinions and possible support for an issue in which I'm in a debate with other Wikipedians. I'm trying to change indiscrimant use of the term "deaf-mute" in describing deaf people in general. To see some comments related to the issue, see Talk:The Heart Is a Lonely Hunter, as well as my own Talk page, User talk:Ward3001. You can also follow the links to other discussions. Right now I'm about the only person addressing the issue because deaf people are such a small minority. Other Wikipedians, with apparently no prior knowledge of the issue, are reverting my edits. If you're interesting in expressing your opinion, feel free to do so. If you wish to discuss further please leave me a message on my Talk page. Thanks. Ward3001 17:49, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HopAround

Hi JoeSmack, would like to clarify why WOW Philippines is retained in the external links section for the Province of Abra and the external site HopAround.net reference to Abra was removed? The WOW Philippines site does include link to packaged tours and I don't see any difference to what HopAround.net offers, and the fact that HopAround offers the service for free to small tourism providers wishing to enlist their services for the web.

cheers! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.69.220.172 (talk • contribs).

Hi there. I'm not sure what you mean exactly, but just because one link gets removed and another stays doesn't justify the first link being added back. Links are judged in objective rather than relative merits. If it is a tourism site, even if its free, it is spam %99.9 of the time. JoeSmack ^Talk 04:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Donwarnersaklad

Donwarnersaklad has filed a request for assistance and named you. There are no further details. Any idea what's going on? SilkTork 21:45, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 13!

We've decided to avoid the direct link to the audio file in an attempt to prevent any sort of audio format war. You can download whichever version you want (we have OGG, MP3 and AAC on the site.

The direct download to Episode 13 is http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/06/wikipedia-weekly-13/

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 07:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification!

This is just a friendly reminder that Wikipedia Weekly has been released with a new episode..... 14!

The link to all versions of Wikipedia Weekly 14 is at http://wikipediaweekly.com/2007/03/11/wikipedia-weekly-14/

The OGG version is here The MP3 version (non free file format but it works on an iPod) is here

In this edition

   * We wrap up the Essjay affair, as the famous Wikipedian cuts ties to the online encyclopedia.
   * A look at the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year Competition, which finished earlier this week. In addition, all the Featured Pictures of 2006 are available as a bittorrent download.
   * The new “Username Usurpation” feature at the English Wikipedia.
   * Jimmy Wales travels to India for the recent Indian WikiCamp, and narrowly survives an attack of ninja monkeys.
   * One thousand Featured Articles at the German Wikipedia.
   * 300 Spartans.

As always you can download old episodes and more at http://wikipediaweekly.com/!

Please spread the word about Wikipedia Weekly, we're trying to spread the word so that people know about the project, we've got some cool guests lined up and it makes it much more fun if people tune in!

For Tawker and the rest of the Wikipedia Weekly crew -- Tawkerbot 19:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery - if you do not wish to recieve such notifications please remove yourself from the list.

[edit] Sexinfoonline.com

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia, and just got a message that the external links I added were removed. I don't really understand why...I was not spamming and only added the link to a few pages that were extremely relevant to the resource. I read the policy and don't understand what I did wrong. Adding a link seemed like the easiest thing to figure out how to do and I just wanted to contribute useful information. The resource (www.SexInfoOnline.com) is produced by the University of California, Santa Barbara and contains very credible/accurate information. Can you please explain to me why my contribution to Wikipedia was removed? Thank You! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennifer2007 (talk • contribs).

Hi there Jennifer. I see that you made these additions in good faith, but when I go to sexinfoonline.com and see the front is signed by 'The Sexperts @ Sexinfo', I get doubts about the source being authoratative. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:43, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your quick response! "The Sexperts" is actually their "pen name" (like “Alice” for Columbia's Go Ask Alice site) which they use to answer questions sent in by users from all over the world... I really think you should look at more of the site than the homepage before deciding the site’s credibility. I agree that there are a lot of shady sites out there claiming to provide credible information, but from all the research I've done, this is not one of them. I've reviewed dozens of sites on sexuality and this is actually one of the better ones I have seen. It is also recommended by The Kinsey Institute, The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, AIDS Education Global Information System, and The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, to name a few... Anyways, I'm done rambling and pleading my case. I guess I'm just bummed because I think it’s a pretty cool site (obviously haha) and I hope you’ll reconsider. Out of curiosity then, do all users take down contributions or are there just admins that go around doing "quality control?" Sorry this got so long! Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jennifer2007 (talk • contribs).

Hi again Jennifer! The Kinsey Institute, The Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality, AIDS Education Global Information System, and The Association of Reproductive Health Professionals all sound like reliable, verifiable sources, and with good reason; however, how do you reliably verify information coming from Sexperts? Do they cite their sources? Can you link those instead?

Any user can add or remove contributions! No worries about length, this is a place to talk things out and sometimes that takes space! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 04:11, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Link spam lesson ready for proofreading/copyediting

Yuser has posted his draft of the Virtual classroom lesson on link spam, and it now ready for you to take a look at:

• User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on external links and link spam

I look forward to your reply.

The Transhumanist   08:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:UW future?

Hi JoeSmack,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! JoeSmack ^Talk 18:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikEd

Hi JoeSmack,

I have noticed that you have removed the wikEd announcement from the Wikipedia:Community Portal.

I think the announcement is a legitimate one. The text did not state it explicitly, but many of the mentioned features are very recent additions and the program has quite evolved since the last notice two (?) months ago.

As far as I can see, the Community Portal is made exactly for such content as judged from the page title, the description on the page (the listing of possible content is obviously not meant to be exclusive), and from other related pages that point you there (such as Wikipedia:Village pump (news)). Do you know about a better place for this announcement that still reaches many users. Otherwise, I would like to put the announcement back in.

Cacycle 17:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking that every time it got a new feature/reached another 100 users it shouldn't be added again the notices board as that has some potential for getting too spammy. JoeSmack ^Talk 18:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I promise not to announce it again before having at least 1000 users ;-) I have put it back in. Cacycle 19:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What I mean to say is the number of users using it is arbitrary; the amount of users using it isn't newsworthy, and new features come and go. It just feels repetitive the second time around, and given that the stay time is a week, 2 months ago was no so long ago. How many other times will this pop back up in the notices board? JoeSmack ^Talk 21:31, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The 500 users part is just an eye catcher and a side note. The availability of the tool itself is the important message. Call me bigheaded, but I think that the tool is something very important and unique and it is at the very heart of the whole Wikipedia project. The number of users was rocketing up while it was announced, so it obviously hit the right audience and a common demand. Cacycle 22:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The 'notice' reads like a flippin' advertisement! Don't you see? It doesn't matter if it juliennes fries, people don't go to the community notice board to see commercials, you know? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:19, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to edit it to a more neutral tone if you care that much. The tool is a Wikipedia project for Wikipedia users, and people obviously did go to the Community Portal for announcements like this as indicated by the again massive increase in users. Comparing it to commercial spam is not adequate. Cacycle 13:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] linkspam lesson

awesome!!!! give me some time to attack it, but im glad that this thing has made it this far. thanks for letting me know. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Please hurry. It goes live on Wednesday. The Transhumanist   19:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yikes! I'll do my best! JoeSmack ^Talk 21:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism study

I have finally finished double-checking all of the data points. All we need to do is check all of the calculations for the page and write the conclusions! We are almost finished. Please help out if you can. Remember 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

beautiful! i'll throw myself at it this thur or friday when im not supposed to be doing papers ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 05:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I think it's done

Thank you for helping out.

I'm done with my main copy-edit of User:The Transhumanist/Virtual classroom/Yuser, on fighting link spam. Please take a look, and touch-up anything that needs it. It goes live on Wednesday (tomorrow). The Transhumanist   22:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wikipedia-spam-t

you might jump into the channel and tell folks to look over it too, they have a lot of experience and could add some valuable stuff. JoeSmack ^Talk 23:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I tried accessing it from the link at WP:IRC, but kept getting an "unknown host" error. The Transhumanist   00:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The host is freenode. - this might work better: #wikipedia-spam-t. if it does, change the wikicode where you found it, im guessing that was the problem. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Matter is now the Core Topics COTF

You showed support for Matter at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics/Core topics COTF. This article was selected as our collaboration of the fortnight. Hope you can help.

Thanks Joe! Walkerma 05:22, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism project

I see your working on the project now. Anything I can do to help? Remember 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I just triple checked the math using Excel so there should be no more problems. Now we just need to write the conclusion. Remember 19:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] University of California, Santa Cruz reversion

I'm well aware that we're "not a link farm." However, what I was putting together (I'm still in the pocess of trying to bring some cohesiveness to the whole Category:University of California, Santa Cruz, not just that article) was in no way creating "a mere collection of links and Internet directories," and the article was in no danger of being "dwarfed" by my two augmentations to the list of external links.

I linked the two items you reverted because I felt they served an integrative function for the article. If you didn't see "see anything enyclopedic coming" them, neither did I. That's why I put them into the external links rather than the body of the article or the references. External links are where one goes to get beyond the encyclopedia. In this case, the article on the mascot viscerally integrates the content of a whole section, and the "BUS" piece gives a remarkably on-target snapshot of student life at the University. Its embellishment for satire's sake (even if it makes it ring all the more true) leaves it unsuitable for anything other than the external links list, but that only means it was right where it belonged, and WP:LINKS seems to agree with me on this point, if grudgingly.

I'll wait for your opinion before I revert the page back to how I had it before. Maybe I'm missing something here, but it's possible you might be too. Look at the content I linked in the context of the article and let me know if you're willing to give it a second opinion. Thanks. Dynaflow 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi hi. The playboy 'interview' is all stuff indirectly related to UCSC (What's your game day routine? Do your two sets of genitalia give you extra sex appeal?). Furthermore, whoever is posing as the Santa Cruz Banana Slug could be anyone, so it is unverifiable. My RA in Stevenson freshman year was the slug for that year, and it changes all the time. But uh, no telling his secret identity, heh.

The video link itself was broken. I seeked it out through some parent directories; it doest add anything useful, just a plug to a film students project. It doesn't convey any unique, verifiable or authoritative information about UCSC.

ELs aren't just a colorful spread of cool stuff at the end of the article, they need to be unique and directly relevant resources of information that cannot be incorporated into the article or that are waiting to be incorporated. If you'd like a second opinion, please go to the Wikipedia:External Links talk page and as there, but I think you'll hear more of the same. I'm sorry, but these two links just dont add anything. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Deaf

I notice you are a member of WikiProject Deaf. You may also add {{User WikiProject Deaf}}, which also adds a userbox to your page, or [[Category:WikiProject Deaf participants]] to your userpage. If you do, it will list you in Category:WikiProject Deaf participants. Taric25 20:06, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arabic

Hi. I was about to write a reply a few moments ago but I read your second message. Yes, it is a Unicode issue. There are more than one way to write the letter أ (alef). However, that edit was more correct because it used the alef in the Arabic keyboard. Cheers. —MK (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to JoeSmack for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. (talk) 01:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! Down with spam! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 04:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism Study

Thanks for the update on the study. Can you give me some explicit request as to what I can do to help? Thanks! Alex Jackl 05:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

JoeSmack, thank you as well for the update on the study. I have been a bit busy lately, but I hope to catch up on your work and possibly contribute in some way. Great work! Jonathan Stokes 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar for all your hard work

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your help in put together the first vandalism study, you greatly deserve this.

Thanks again for all of your hard work. I definately could not pulled off the first study just by myself. I greatly appreciate all the hard work that you have done to help make the first study possible. Hopefully, we will have started something that will give a greater understanding of how wikipedia works and will help out the whole community. Remember 12:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't have done anything without your help! Thanks, this wikiproject is going to great places, and it was a fine idea on your part! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 19:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revise conclusion

I revised the official conclusions on the first study in accordance with the information provided to us by one of the statisticians. Let me know if you agree with the revised version. Remember 14:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it needs some layman's explanation beneath... JoeSmack ^Talk 19:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Why was my message deleted off of the Bulletin Board? Where was I suppose to have place it? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! Wǐkǐɧérṃǐť(Talk) (Contributions) 22:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Durova/The dark side

I've blanked your reply because I don't want to give ideas to the vandals. Although I appreciate where you're coming from, too many of the wrong people read that sort of list looking for ways to exploit it. Durova^Charge! 05:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I responded on my talkpage to your question. Remember 22:05, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for your kind note. Happy holidays. -- Ssilvers 22:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Links...

Hi, Joe - I film people cooking. Regular people. Professional chefs. Anyone who's got something to cook, I film it. What has emerged is a unique and rapidly growing collection of 3-5 minute video recipes - part cooking show, part reality tv, part documentary. It's comprehensive and pretty unique. The ultimate value is that these recipes will be recorded, tied to these chefs, and shared in perpetuity. I post these videos on a web site called realmeals.tv, which is a pretty new site. Two weeks ago I went out and filmed a 75 year old Jewish grandmother holocaust survivor sharing her matzah ball soup, gefilte fish and other passover recipes. I had used wikipedia to decide how I was going to spell gefilte and matzah on realmeals, and after the films were edited I decided to post links to the videos in the wikipedia pages I'd consulted. I thought that a video recipe could be really useful for people who want to know how to make matzah balls, etc. (not to mention, these recipes are total recipes for lots of Jews of the younger generation). Some people did find the links useful. There were a few hundred clicks to the recipes from wikipedia in the two or three days they were up. Cool, I thought. Not earth shattering numbers or anything, but clearly people found these videos helpful. I see people post recipes in the food related articles all the time. I thought readers would appreciate the opportunity to actually watch stuff being made. (Written recipes can only teach you so much). So I posted a few more links. My wife's leg of lamb. My buddy's ridiculously good flank steak. A kid from Jersey City making beer can chicken (very cool dish) and an amazing chef in NYC making gnocchi from scratch. All stuff that really is best communicated in short videos.

Now, was I promoting realmeals? Sure, though I didn't think the links would generate big traffic and I wasn't promoting realmeals directly. My posts didn't say, "visit realmeals and watch someone cook beer can chicken!" Though I have seen posts that do just that, directing people to other big business food sites. The links I posted said, "Watch someone prepare and cook beer can chicken." My assumption was that if someone was interested in that kind of information, they'd click the link. The links aren't mainly intended to promote realmeals -- they're intended to inform people who might be interested in the content... and frankly to help create a fuller and more informative wiki entry. I know that the guidelines say:

"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines."

I will in the future request that my links be allowing in the talk page, but I don't know how that works or what I can expect in terms of debate... And I'm willing to bet that if you're interested in making gnocchi, the video in question would be potentially the most valuable resource on that page.

So, I guess my concern is about balance. The language in the guidelines says that we "should avoid" linking to sites we're associated with. So it sounds to me like its not an absolute rule. If I'd discovered a cure for cancer, wouldn't it make sense to post it and then let the community decide it was any good? Isn't that how this works? Now my gnocchi film isn't as important as a cure for cancer, though for Italian food lovers it's close -- but I do think that it would definitely prove to be valuable to anyone who types gnocchi into the search field. At what point does the value of the content outweigh the appearance of a conflict of interest in the source? And in this environment should the source even really matter? Because ultimately, if the content is no good, irrelevant, or otherwise undesirable, the community will remove it, right?

OK - thank you for entertaining my rant. I think it's a shame that all the links (even the passover ones) have been deleted, but I appreciate all the work you and others put into this amazing and invaluable web site. For now, I won't post any more links to realmeals without putting it in the discussion channel first. Though others hopefully will... ;-)

OK - gotta go finish editing the make your own wedding cake video now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.176.204.18 (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC).