User talk:Dsarokin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] License tagging for Image:Chickencrosstheroad.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Chickencrosstheroad.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] June 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added to the page Dun & Bradstreet do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 02:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI and linkspam

Hello, Dsarokin ... Since you're a nugget, and no one else seems to have explained it to you, I'm taking the time to leave this message.

One of the most important guidelines here is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI) ... although it talks mainly about writing articles about yourself, close relations, or an enterprise with which you are affiliated, it also has to do with adding external links (ELs) to websites with which you are affiliated ... that is why JHunterJ (talk · contribs) has removed the links you recently added to Dun & Bradstreet, LexisNexis, and Nacelle ... quite simply, they are linkspam, because the pages on your website are designed to promote your business enterprise, XooxleAnswers Professional Research Service ... we even have a term for adding self-promotional articles, Vanispamcruftisement, that is also used in describing ELs (the shortcut is WP:VSCA, which you may see in an edit summary.)

Start your reading with Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided, and pay particular attention to the section Advertising and conflicts of interest, which directs you to both WP:COI and WP:SPAM.

I am currently involved with a case at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard that involves a member of the staff of the Victoria and Albert Museum who added ELs to over 40 articles that took readers to pages on their website; some were quite topical and appropriate, but the problem was that they had been added by a V&A employee in violation of WP:COI, while others were pages about current exhibitions that included links for purchasing tickets to them, which were viewed as advertising ... all of the links were reverted pending the outcome of the review, which decided that due to the value of V&A as a contributor to Wikipedia, an exception to COI could be made, BUT the editor would have to undergo a period of supervision to become familiar with what are considered appropriate and inappropriate links, after which they would hopefully be a responsible contributor who doesn't need someone reviewing their contributions before they are made, and now there is a special project page at User:VAwebteam/To do list for recovering the links and evaluating each of them as to their appropriateness for inclusion as part of the education process.

In your case, however, links to your own commercial website will never be appropriate for any article, regardless of who adds them ... please see WP:COI#Consequences of ignoring this guideline, and do not add any more links to XooxleAnswers.com, either in articles or on talk pages ... George Orwell was only half wrong in his predictions about life in the new millennium, because instead of Big Brother watching you, there are thousands of Little Brothers (such as myself) who are watching you, so play nice.

On a final note, you also need to put something on your User page so that it will not appear as a redlink, but don't talk about your business interests there, or post a "how to contact me" email link ... and as a point of etiquette, users do not usually place their real name in front of the ~~~~ for their signature; if you wanted to use it, then you should have made it a part of your user name when you created the account ... there's a procedure for changing it, but I'm too tired to find it right now, and I've already spent too much time composing this message. :-)

Happy Editing! —72.75.70.147 (talk · contribs) 09:49, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks to whoever added that note about the linkspam. I can't say I agree with the policy (it *is* possible for a link to serve a useful and relevant public function as well as serving the self interest of the provider). Nevertheless, I certainly respect it, and will link no more to any sites I am involved with. I much appreciate the effort that you took to help educate me, and I'm looking forward to learning more about the Wonderful World of Wiki.

<<signed>> He Who Must Not be Named


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cocacola-ad.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cocacola-ad.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Cocacola-ad.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Cocacola-ad.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:Bubblegum1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Bubblegum1.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:SUV1961.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:SUV1961.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 17:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate images uploaded

Thanks for uploading Image:Slicedbread.jpg. A machine-controlled robot account noticed that you also uploaded the same image under the name Image:Sliced bread mom.jpg. The copy called Image:Sliced bread mom.jpg has been marked for speedy deletion since it is redundant. If this sounds okay to you, there is no need for you to take any action.

This is an automated message- you have not upset or annoyed anyone, and you do not need to respond. In the future, you may save yourself some confusion if you supply a meaningful file name and refer to 'my contributions' to remind yourself exactly which name you chose (file names are case sensitive, including the extension) so that you won't lose track of your uploads. For tips on good file naming, see Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions about this notice, or feel that the deletion is inappropriate, please contact User:Staecker, who operates the robot account. Staeckerbot 03:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] August 2007

This is your last warning.
The next time you use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing. aliasd·U·T 02:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You sent me an email asking for clarification about this warning. You were previously warned about advertising by an IP user a bit further up this page. You continued disrupting Wikipedia, hence the final warning. The issue is this: Your contributions since you made your account do not seem to be about adding to Wikipedia, they are more about promoting a website, firstmention.com, I think it was. I have little doubt that you have a personal affiliation with this site, and therefore, you have a conflict of interest. Placing the domain to a website all over articles is spam, no matter which way you look at it. Even if you try and incorporate the spam within the body of the article text it is still spam. If your behavior were permitted on Wikipedia, the site would be of far less quality. Additionally, your contributions to Wikipedia have been degrading to the encyclopedia and cost the community a lot in quality control efforts, effort that could have been better spent improving this encyclopedia in ways that did not involve undoing your edits to self promote. If you want to come from this point and be a useful contributor here, I will support you, even help you, but if you intend to continue in your ways, apparently oblivious to the fact your edits have caused damage, I will see to it that you are banned from here, and your site is blacklisted. aliasd·U·T 12:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Emergency vehicle lighting. Thank you. --Bencomplain 07:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam

You are trying to redirect people back to your site from Wikipedia again. Patience is growing thin within the community. Fix your recent edits immediately or prepare to be reverted. aliasd·U·T 06:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Frisbee-uspto.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Frisbee-uspto.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Strothra 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Strothra 04:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Jessejames1869.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Jessejames1869.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Stainless steel nyt 1-31-1915.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Stainless steel nyt 1-31-1915.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Amex2.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Amex2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Jessejames headline 1873.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Jessejames headline 1873.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Red light dist.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Red light dist.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image source problem with Image:Slicedbread.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:Slicedbread.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Slicedbread.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Slicedbread.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI Warning

You have been warned for violating WP:COI before. Please stop adding material from firstmention.com - continued activity could land you a spot on the spam blacklist. However, useful public domain images such as newspaper clippings may still be uploaded as long as they are in compliance with free use policies. --Strothra 01:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to above

Thanks for the heads up. I'm not entirely clear about how one goes about conducting a dialogue on these issues, but I understand that if I post here, there's a high likelihood that you (and others) will see it, and respond.

I do, indeed, post information to Wikipedia from firstmention.com, which is a site of mine based on my own primary historical research. Though the site is a bit whimsical, the research is solid, and I am very skilled at historical research work.

All of my Wikipedia posts are (in my opinion) well-researched, highly relevant, neutral, credible, and quite in keeping with Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission. Some of my very first posts were apparently too indiscrete in mentioning my site by name in the text of the mainpage, but I have since discontinued that.

The COI write-up urges all editors to adhere to the primacy of this policy on maintaining quality:

  • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Primacy of basic content policies

All text created in the Wikipedia main namespace is subject to rules covering criteria for articles (what Wikipedia is not); encyclopedic quality (verifiability and original research); editorial approach (neutral point of view); as well as the Wikipedia copyright policy. All editors are expected to stick closely to these policies when creating and evaluating material, and to respect the good faith actions of others who edit content to ensure it complies with these policies.

Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to. The imputation of conflict of interest is not by itself a good reason to remove sound material from articles. However, an apparent conflict of interest is a good reason for close review by the community to identify any subtle bias.

  • * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Please, please, please. If anyone has any issues with what I am posting, please point out any problem or bias -- subtle or otherwise -- and I will correct it immediately.

I am new here. I very much do want the assistance and guidance of those with a wealth of experience to offer. Let me know how I can be a more effective contributor to Wikipedia.

Thanks.

David

The policy is pretty straightforward, but your activities also come under the WP:RS, WP:EL, and WP:LINKSPAM policies. Feel free to address the concern here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Jesse_James.--Strothra 03:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your addition of a link to firstmention.com from Condoleezza Rice

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Condoleezza Rice. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. . EdJohnston 19:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

[1] --Ronz 18:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
User:Dsarokin is participating in the discussions, both here and at WP:COIN, but he seems to be ignoring the responses he gets. His latest edit (8 October) is at Tempest in a teapot. The addition of these links is against policy. So far I haven't seen anyone but him arguing the opposite. It seems worth considering blacklisting this link or asking for a block. EdJohnston 19:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
You're not going to find anyone arguing the opposite. I think he needs to be blacklisted now because he's interrupting Wikipedia and other editors are having to go behind him and clean up this mess. ANI is probably the best forum? --Strothra 19:29, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I've reported him AIV due to his edit to Tempest_in_a_teapot. --Ronz 19:37, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
AIV denied due to the complexity of the situation. ANI started here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Dsarokin --Ronz 22:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A voice from the past

Hi David,

Barneca here (yes the same one). My time at GAAA has withered, but I've been spending quite a bit of time on Wikipedia lately. I noticed with some surprise a thread about you at the Administrator's noticeboard, and thought I'd pop over here and see if I could help.

First things first. I know it wasn't your intention, but you've got quite a few people annoyed with you, and there is some consideration of blacklisting your websites (i.e. making it technically impossible to link to them from Wikipedia), or blocking your user account, or both. To be honest, if I didn't know who you were, I'd be reading the situation the same way they are. So before we go any further, would you mind promising not to edit any articles by adding links to your websites, either as references, external links, or anything, until we resolve the dispute, even as an example of what you think should be OK, or as a question of whether something is OK or not? I believe you when you say you think you're linking is acceptable, and I know you aren't intentionally disrupting anything, but there are several people that think you're violating our conflict of interest policies, and to be honest I can see where they are coming from. I sort of think I can see where the confusion is occuring, but I'm trying to jump in the middle of this before it escalates, so I haven't had time to read all the backstory.

If you'll just say you won't try any more experiments like this until we're done talking, I think it will give us some breathing room. Once the sword isn't hanging over our heads anymore, there will be plenty of time to discuss whether the policy is right or wrong, what our varying interpretations of the policies are, if there are compromises, etc, etc.

It would be best to reply on this page, but once that's done, we can talk here, or at the conflict of interest noticeboard thread, or you can email me.

Regardless of how all this works out, hope all is well with you. Looking forward to a hearing from you. --barneca (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


Hey Barneca. Sure, I'd love to talk to you about this, here or in private...makes no matter to me. And tell you what. I'll take the rest of the month off from any posting while we talk things out. And if we need more time after that, we can talk about it then.
To start things off, I admit that I'm trying to push the Wikipedia envelope on this one. From the vantage point of the vast majority of Wikipedia users, the content I've posted is (I believe) adding significant value to the articles. Clearly, the editors who frequent the talk pages feel otherwise.
By the way, I noticed that an AIV (or something like that) was rejected by the admins due to the "complexity of the situation". Maybe you can start things off by letting me know what you think those compelxities are. Or maybe not...
Anyway, nice to hear from you. Dsarokin 23:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Great, David, thanks. Administrator Intervention against Vandalism (WP:AIV) is the place that ongoing vandalism and repeated, obvious spamming (among other things) are reported and dealt with by adminstrators, usually by blocking the account doing the vandalism/spamming and reverting all their edits. But it's kind of like triage; if a situation isn't crystal clear (inserting the word "poop" into dozens of articles is surprisingly popular, or adding literally dozens of links to www.isellcars.com to all the car-related articles), they will sometimes recommend reporting the situation to Administrators Noticeboard-Incidents (WP:ANI) instead, which is more suited to discussion and evaluation before action. So the admin who removed your report wasn't taking your side, but was simply saying that WP:ANI was the more appropriate place. But when people are reported in either place for stuff like this, the desired outcome from the reporter's view is ususally a block; in their mind, the discussion at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard (WP:COIN) wasn't productive anymore, mostly because you said some time ago (I'm not quite up to speed yet, so i can't find a quote right away, but you likely remember it) that you wouldn't add a link to your site anymore, but you did to two articles recently.
You know, I think this might be more productive by email, at least in the begining. I'm confident I know what people's objections are to your edits, but I'd like an unvarnished, uncensored view of what you think is going on, what you'd like to happen, etc. You don't have email enabled here, why not drop me a line here? Once I'm clear on that, we could continue the ongoing discussion more publicly at WP:COIN, where others can weigh in. --barneca (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I should mention I won't have access to my email until tomorrow morning. --barneca (talk) 00:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tiffany advertisement image

Hi Dsarokin. I am curious about the image of the late 19th century Tiffany ad. Is the color original to the ad, or did you add it? Thanks. CApitol3 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Color was added after the fact, but I was going for a Tiffany blue! Dsarokin (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)