User talk:Cumbrowski/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cumbrowski. Do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion with this User or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
User:Cumbrowski  -    Current Talk Page  .oOo.      < Archive 3    Archive 4    Archive 5 >
All Pages:  1 -  2 -  3 -  4 -  5 -  6 -  ... (up to 100)
This is a Wikipedia user page.

This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cumbrowski/Archive_4.



Contents

WP:COI

Main article: User_talk:Gwernol#WP:COI_Debate_at_ISTIA_AfD
(Initial discussion)

Roy, thanks for the message on my talk page, though I wish it had been more concise. I'm afraid I don't think your proposal is workable, it certainly isn't current policy and it would turn Wikipedia into nothing more than a blog. Whether you like it or not, WP:NPOV is a core policy of Wikipedia. WP:COI is taken directly from the need to strive for neutrality. Neutrality can only be achieved by having disinterested editors summarizing secondary sources. It could never be achieved by those with a severe personal interest in a subject editing articles on that subject. If you want to write articles that are a collection of polemics, there are plenty of free web hosts available for you; Wikipedia is not that place.

The only way your proposal could work would be for ever editors to be required to disclose their personal details so their contributions could be judged. This is the Citizendium Project where articles are written and controlled by subject experts whose identities are verified and where their is no neutral point of view policy. I believe you might be more comfortable at that project rather than Wikipedia. Gwernol 15:39, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on this one. If an editor hides his identity and his relationship with the subject of the article, but shows a very strong interest in the article, contributions by that editor must be checked even harder for violations of WP:NPOV. The concerns expressed in WP:COI are in this case also fully warranted, especially if the identity is being discovered and revealed by another editor. I guess I should have mentioned that, but I thought that this was already implied. Anybody who uses a false identity has something to hide. That is by itself okay, but not if the disguise is used to manipulate and perceive others (directly or indirectly).
My argument is based on the premise that the editor was never actively hiding his identity and also reveals it when his contributions are scrutinized and questioned WP:NPOV (if not already done via information on the editors userpage or by the user name itself).
Somebody who is involved with the subject can most likely point to references and sources much easier than an editor who does only little know about the subject. This does not relieve the editor from the duty to check for other resources as well. You can not expect but also not exclude the possibility that the editor who is involved personally with the subject will provide material and references to less favorable content and facts without being asked for it, but that does not reduce the value of the references and verifiable facts he did provide.
Not to trust a single source is never a good idea anyway, but it must be kept in mind specifically under the circumstances I described.
I believe we are overall on the same page, but only differ in some details. I got to know about instances where the unconditional enforcement of WP:COI created issues. Examples: Danny Sullivan edit of SEO article and Barry Schwartz AfD, which was actually also good to some degree, because it proofs my point and yours :) The whole discussion could have been much shorter and the focus should have been shifted much quicker towards working on the references and the article itself.
If an A-List hollywood actor you don't know (because you don't care about those things) would come to wikipedia and create an article at wikipedia about himself (and link to studios and movies he was part of etc.), you should not assume from the start that the whole article is worthless, because it was written by the person himself. Notability can be established quickly and the only negative thing about the action of the actor you might be able to say without checking the provided content in detail, is that the actor is not very humble about his fame. :) It is often the case that you a lot of good information were provided, some references already and other are much easier to find because of the hints provided with the content already. Does this make sense? I think that this should be considered and pointed out in the WP:COI guideline. Use the editor with a conflict of interest for the good, if he is willing to play by the rule. He can help a lot and take some of the workload of other editors --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we only look at the glass with water differently. I get the impression that you look at it as half empty and I am looking it as half full. You might have encountered a lot cases where the usable content by the editor that was accused of WP:COI was pretty much worthless and a fresh start from scratch easier. I encountered more cases where the provided content was actually a good basis to start with, because the editor had actually good intentions and wasn't on a mission with his own personal agenda. This is only an assumption, correct me if I am wrong. It was very similar with some members of the WP:SPAM project and different opinions about how to go about WP:EL. I got to understand their reasons, because of their experiences in the past and the work it caused and still causes, but it did not make it right. I'd say we settled stuff somewhere in the middle and everybody was okay with it and got to walk a bit in the shoes of the other to get a feel for each others experiences  :) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 16:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Cumbrowski/Sandbox

Roy, you have a link on your user page to AffiliatePrograms.com. Another editor, perhaps the site owner, has been spamming that and some other links to the point that I've nominated this domain for the spam blacklist. That means the MediaWiki software will not let you save any changes to a page if it's got that link on a page. It's your user subpage and you are not a spammer, so you are welcome to keep the link if you want, but you will need to delete or disable the link before making other changes to your page. (To disable the link, just strip the http:// off the front of the link).

For more info on the actual blacklisting, you can find the blacklist request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#FindMySpecialist, Inc. spam on Wikipedia.

Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 21:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I first did not know what you are talking about. I totally forgot about User:Cumbrowski/Sandbox. The content was a draft for a proposal for the Affiliate marketing article. I wiped it. :) Thanks for letting me know though. And a note on the side. I know the guy (not personally, but emails) from AffiliatePrograms.com and he should have known better, especially after I told him how it works and how it does not when he asked me why the reference to his site was removed from the Affiliate marketing article and if I could add it again. Tsts.. Well, if he did what he did, go ahead and ban the URL. Who does not play by the rules has to live with the consequences. The only thing that is sad about it is that he has actually a good site and a lot of original content which can not be used as references anymore in any article where it would be appropriate. Well, "life is tough". Cheers. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 00:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Shareasale

  • I have restored Shareasale, and then started an AfD on it (= a discussion whether to keep or re-delete it).
    (In Wikipedia jargon, "prod" often means "proposed delete".)
    Anthony Appleyard 16:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks Anthony. I am pretty "fluent" in Wikipedia jargon (at least I thought I am), but that "prod" means "proposed delete" was new to me. Thanks for the info. I never had it before that an article I edited or created and also watched simply disappeared without warning :). FYI. I also provided arguements to keep the article at the AfD discussion page for you and others to review. I hope that the info I knew out of my head and what I found by on the first page of Google search results for "shareasale" is enough. The AffStat report I refer to is a commercial statistic which is sold and not free to the general public. I do own the report and cited the numbers from there. I stated already at the talk page for the article to affiliate marketing that those figures are not easy to come by and why. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 05:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Paso amiga ice cream ascii.gif

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

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

There was a badgif tag also. I replaced the image with a smaller png version. I added tags that seem to fit to the image(s) and also entered more descriptive text to the image itself that hopefully clarifies enough that it is okay to use the image in wikipedia. in general was text art created in the underground computer art scene with the notion to spread it as far as possible, but prohibit commercial exploit/use of it. I know the person who created the ascii in question and he is of course okay with its use in wikipedia. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 13:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

SEO for Featured Article

I've nominated SEO for Featured Article status, which can also get it to run on the home page of Wikipedia. We need to standardize all 24 references using {{cite web}}. Maybe I can do the first 12 and you can do the last 12, and we'll get the job done quickly. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 16:22, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do a few.. I need to check how much are left :) I am not familar with that template. Do you have a good example? We have mostly web sources that are being cited. From wht I read is the right format of citing such sources how I did it in this recent post of mine at SEJ (where I tried it out[1]). It's basically:
  • Name of the Author (Date of the Publication in parenthesis), "Name of the post/article in quotes", and publication in cursive, URL: url printed in addition to linking the article name e.g.
Okay, I skipped the printing of the URL part at my blog post hehe. No serious. I researched it, because I was always unsure and saw the mess at numerous articles. But hey, consistency is the most important thing IMO --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
This one comes the closest

{{cite web | author=Doe, John | title=My Favorite Things Part II | publisher=Open Publishing | date=[[2005-04-30]] | work=Encyclopedia of Things | url=http://www.example.org/ | accessdate=2005-07-06 }}
→ Doe, John (2005-04-30). My Favorite Things Part II. Encyclopedia of Things. Open Publishing. Retrieved on 2005-07-06.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

SVG

I noticed that you removed the {{ShouldBeSVG}} tag from Image:Paso amiga ice cream ascii.png, stating "shouldbeSVG template removed. how should that be done? There does not exist a converter for PNG to SVG to my knowledge". In short, the way ASCII art, such as this image, should be converted to SVG is by typing it out as plain text, pasting the text into Inkscape, and having Inkscape flatten the text into a path. Raster images other than ASCII art can sometimes be converted to SVG through skillful use of Inkscape's "trace bitmap" option. I think there are a number of editors who use Inkscape and are capable of doing this kind of conversion. —Remember the dot (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you lose the information that is the whole purpose of the image. It demonstrates the difference in looks on a commodore amiga system, which you can not replicate on a PC. So what you propose won't work, because this vital information would get lost. If you look at the part of the article where the image is being used (ASCII art), you will see what I am talking about. Maybe something should be added to the description of the image itself too. What do you think? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 06:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
    • note I added the explaination why a conversion would not work to the image and removed the "should be SVG" template. Just FYI. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 15:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey roy....

Hey roy... apparently someone on wikipedia is accusing you of writing a good article, they're crying Conflict of Interest! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Superior_Art_Creations ... thought you'd want to get in on the AFD.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 22:12, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

thanks ... the discussion was closed while I was writing my comment. I removed it and posted it on the articles talk page, because I think it is relevant and important for other editors to know. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 03:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Btw. I just checked out your user page. I believe we like the same kind of music. Nothing special if I would still be in Germany, but here in the U.S. are not as much people into that stuff, not to mention a DJ. A friend of mine used to be a DJ and performed at some Techno parties. I was really into techno around 1991 to 1993, but it got too commercial after that. I got a lot of old tapes that were recorded right from the mixer converted to WAV files and MP3s. I am now more into EBM and industrial. I am a big fan of VNV Nation, Project Pitchfork and of course Depeche Mode. I bumped into Ronan and Mark from VNV when I was in Berlin/Germany in March. I blogged about it at my personal blog. I believe you will digg the story hehe[2]. They are on U.S. tour again btw. Cheers! --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 14:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Images listed for deletion

Some of your images or media files have been listed for deletion. Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion if you are interested in preserving them.

  • Image:Landingpage.png

Thank you.

This appears to be marketing the book and website rather than really contributing anything encyclopedic to the article. Comments welcome. ∴ here…♠ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC) ∴ here…♠ 19:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I commented at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_May_13#Image:Landingpage.png and re-added the image to the article it belongs to. I hope my comments make sense and clarify the situation. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Help needed with SEO article

I've nominated search engine optimization for featured article status. Could you possibly look at the references on the article and then leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Search engine optimization as to whether you think the blogs and forums cited as references qualify as reliable sources. In order to achieve featured article status we need community consensus that the references are reliable. If you know any other Wikipedians who have expertise in this area, we welcome their comments. Thank you! Jehochman ☎ / ✔ 17:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I sure will. Btw. did you see the changes I made to the affiliate marketing article? Let me know what you think. Thanks. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 18:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Xing openbc logo.gif)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Aksibot 03:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

it was replaced by a PNG version of it. Feel free to delete the gif version. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 10:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


PrimeQ

Cumbrowski, I think that your cleanup of PrimeQ violates the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest and no original research rule, because the primary source of information is from the company, not from reliable third party interests. This act compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole. --Simonay 07:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure how my cleanup of the article can violate WP:COI or WP:NOR. I removed content from the article (so much to WP:NOR). I am also not involved with that company. I know who they are, but that is about it (so much to WP:COI). And what is that "compromises the integrity of Wikipedia as a whole" about? What do you want to say, that stripping an article down to its basic facts (check out their website to see that they exist) is compromising the integrity of Wikipedia? Give me a break. I removed the "dated prod" template, because what you say does not make any sense. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see any evidence of notability on the article either. Eligible for speedy delete in fact. --BozMo talk 14:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
AfD would be more appropriate. The article was already reduced to the minimum, practically down to the simple fact that the compan exists and what they obviously do without going into great detail and makeing claims that would require better sources. Speedy deletion would not be appropriate in this case anymore. However, that was not the point regarding the comments for Simonay. He is a new Editor throwing stuff around, blanking article pages, uses the wrong templates and throws accusations around as if they are tennis balls. He is motivated what is fine, but going overboard and being too fast will only cause bad blood (often probably unintentionally).
Simonay was accusing me of WP:COI, WP:NOR and of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia. He did it also here. If he wouldn't be new, I would be mad, because those are strong accusations. Something you don't just use, because it sounds great. "Notability" was something he seems to have the least problem with, but it is the one thing where a challenge is very much justified. I mentioned that in my comment at the Editor review page where he started discussing too. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I added the "notability" and "primarysources" to the Primeq article, which are the appropriate ones in this case. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 08:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Makes sense. Personally I never generally speedy unless someone else has flagged (except really flagrant cases) so no risk from me. Yep, don't you love new editors! --BozMo talk 10:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I sure love them, because it brings up memories. I hope my Wikipedia resources page will help a little, that's where I sent all newbies to, who I bump into. Did you read my post about how I became a Wikipedian? I link to it from my user page, but here it is again to save you the time looking for it [3]. It was quite interesting to write it, especially at times when I was getting "it" from both sides. The marketers who hate Wikipedians and Wikipedians who hate Marketers :). See my own post at a prominent news blog in the affiliate marketing industry [4] and my comments at a well known SEO blog [5] (my name is Carsten Cumbrowski aka Roy/SAC btw. :) ). (Forgot to sign.) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 12:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


DRV

Deletion review is not a place to try and rerun the deletion debate, hence the close. It's interest is if the process of deletion was followed correctly, as you raise no suggestion it wasn't (you merely disagree with the outcome) there is nothing to review. I also suggest you use preview rather than save when entering longer comments. As it stands you signing of your initial comment makes it look like you've done. --pgk 21:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree with the time window. I just wanted to enter the debate to see that it was already deleted. Facts and Notability are independent from time. You can not use a stop watch to specify that a fact can be ignored or not. Also, the deletion review allows to bring in facts that were not considered in the deletion debate. That is what I was doing. I did not had everything spelled out yet and was writing it, when you closed the deletion review. Because I was writing up the new arguments and facts, did I not post the templates into the article, the deletion debate nor the admins talk page, to not draw the attention to it prior finishing my rather extensive arguments. Does this make sense? --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_June_11#DEViANCE_.28closed.29 (as reference) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
You don't raise any facts to change the outcome of the initial deletion, lack of independent reliable sources. You don't raise facts, you just offer opinions. I closed the debate since your posted the review including a rationale and signed it, I can't guess you might come back and write more, you should have completed all you wanted before submitting, that's what the preview button is for. There is no template to paste into the article, and you should discuss the issue with the closing admin before going to deletion review. --pgk 21:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
The guys are not in prison to cite FBI reports and the NFO files available at dedicated archives such as defacto2.net (no Wikipedia article -> add to to-do list) and also textfiles.com are sufficient evidence. Also pouet.net is like a Wikipedia for computer scene groups and Demoscene releases. Just collecting the facts, everybody can edit some of the information, but only a few can make substantial changes. They use often actual file evidence of one of the major demoscene file archives as verification. archives like scene.org, Hornet Archive and textfiles.com. I can add that to the comments too. The demoscene has fortunately a few such places, even before Wikipedia. Its driven by the same idea. Those insufficient "references" are the idealogical father of Wikipedia, but who trusts his parents, right? :) I bet you did not know that.--roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
They aren't independent reliable source, the reliable covering things such as fact checking etc. But what you present at DRV is not that the deletion was closed due to lack of verifiability and notability, but these can be demonstrated by x, y and z (where x,y and z are reliable sources, you merely present an opinion that you personally think we should have an article on them. If you have non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources then open another review and state them. But as I said, you need to discuss with the closing admin first before you take to review. --pgk 21:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
If you read my comments you will notice that I provided a bit more than just my personal opinion. I know what takes to do what those guys did and they have my utmost respect for this. [6] I have my own experiences with that kind of stuff myself, but much earlier than those guys who were at their heights years after I did retire already. The involved editors obviously don't. I hope that I was able to move things a little bit into perspective. A lot of things seem to be easy and not notable at the first glance, but once you take a closer look, things are quite different. If Wikipedia is to cover the subject of the underground computer scene, then they deserve to be in it, if not, remove all of it and get it over with. Other places existed before and will continue to exist, which will cover it, regardless if it will be part of Wikipedia or not. It would be a loss for Wikipedia and that is my personal opinion. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

eComXpo

The edit summary is not a place to debate. I addressed your vague statements in detail at the place where such things are supposed to be discussed...

The tags identified several problems. Your response was to attempt to rationalize them without actually dealing with them. Try actually dealing with instead of concocting excuses why you don't have to. Or would you prefer discussing this at WP:AFD?

As for the "3RR" insinuation -- well, it is to laugh. --Calton | Talk 23:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

placing a tag does not state a fact, but personal opinion. When asked for specifics did you fail to do so. Just because you add a tag does it not to be mean that it will become true. I can tag your user talk page with all kinds of things that are not nice, but those tags would not make you something else than you have been before already. Failure to backup my alleged claims with evidence would require the removal of the tags, don't you think?
I referred to WP:3RR, because I want to hear specific arguments and comments, stuff that can be addressed, corrected and improved upon, rather than start a stupid edit war. You have so far failed to provide any comments at the articles talk page, which does not help to support your claims very much.
Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated. Thank you. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 23:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

MobyGames

Roy, As a penance for voting to keep the MobyGames templates I suggest you agree to clean up say 10% (that would be 650) of the spammy links inserted by the site's owners users the template. Then when we have got rid of them we can leave the template in peace. --BozMo talk 06:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, what do you mean? the IMDb templates (see Wikipedia:IMDb also link out to imdb.com, to the details of the movie, actor/involved person, studio or TV show episode. That was my whole point. Thousands of links go out to IMDb and promote indirectly Amazon.com. IMDb is full of ads and commercial links to purchase the DVD or Video or signup for a pro account. MobyGames uses a very similar model to generate revenue to support the site. It is like IMDb prior the Amazon.com acquisition in 1998. I just say that the same rulez should be applied to the same thing and that I believe that the MobyGames project is a good thing and adds value to the reader of the Wikipedia article to a video game, game studio etc., just like IMDb does for movies. No double standards. Does that make sense? (p.s. I have less a problem with this, because of the implementation of nofollow at Wikipedia. This will reduce some of the other side effects that was so obvious happening to IMDb. See [7] and [8] and you will see what I mean. Just as SEO's hate to see Wikipedia rank high for every keyword on the planet do I not like to see IMDb and Answers.com rank on top for every crap, especially since IMDb is so aggressive with their ads and pop-ups etc. ) --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 07:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
The difference is that the owners of MG have personally spammed about 6000 of the 6500 links to pretty much empty pages on MG see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#mobygames.com and cited all sorts of spurious "official decision" around this template etc when they've done it. It is very easy to clear the 6000 links by deleting the template, and allowing proper editors to re-add the links when appropriate. Otherwise someone has to sort through a linkspam campaign of thousands of links manually and check which ones are valid. Most of the links would never have survived without the template to make them look official. Fine to keep the template if it saves people time but the people who want it (like you) should clean up some of the mess. --BozMo talk 09:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally on nofollow you are so wrong I hesitate even to start :). Answers.com and a million others give clean links to anyone linked to on Wikipedia and all nofollow is is a smoke screen to allow people to pretend spam is not tinned meat (because they "know" about nofollow). --BozMo talk 09:53, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
Regarding nofollow. It's a start. Not perfect, but a lot of gain for virtually no effort. The feature was already build in the MediaWiki. There are other things that would be much more helpful, but also take a lot more. Notes on Links (including references) for example and visible date stamps when the link was added for example. The current methods and tools are crude and ineffective. Well, different topic.
I checked a bunch of pages myself by using the "what links here" special page and then used the link from the Wikiepdia article. I must have been lucky, because all pages I ended up on were pretty detailed and not empty. Somebody asked who would go and add the template to hundreds of articles. Answer: somebody highly motivated and that does not necessarily imply COI, because by that standard are most of use guilty of COI here at Wikipedia :)
I know by name two of the guys listed. Trixter and Cromag. I also had email conversation with trixter who is the buy who ran the Hornet Archive btw. (there you can find his real name). Hornet had a bigger problem with fundings than Wikipedia has due to the financial status of most people Hornet was appealing to: Students, Want everything for free (never give but take) guys and Warez Scene guys. He also created the Mindcandy Demo DVDs.
Those guys are likeminded to people that contribute to Wikipedia. There is one big difference. They realized that you have to ensure funding to pay the bills, which does not necessarily means "sell out".
Regarding removing the links. If I come across an article with the template that links to page, other than what I would expect, I will remove it. Other than that is it a general issue that must be decided on. The question about templates for the article mainspace to 3rd party websites, including IMDB, Dmoz.org, Amazon.com etc. They don't make sense either, if you would look at every single link individually. Most are, but not all of them. --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 04:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)