User talk:E/TalkArchive/2008/January
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
DELETED ARTICLE
You have most unkindly deleted jointhefamily.net, since YOU believe, it does not meet the relevans criteria.
I that case either: 1) Put the article back on, or 2) Explain to me why you have not deleted geni.com?
Morten Andersen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marloth2000 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
spam in the userspace
I am confused why you deleted User:Seoidol. There is not, to the best of my knowledge, a prohibition of advertising in the user space. The page announced a possible conflict of interest and linked to a website. What is wrong with that?. Jon513 (talk) 10:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The speedy deletion crtieria for spam, CSD G11, applies to all namespace. This can be seen as it is a General criterion, rather than (for example) CSD A1, which is an Article criterion, or CSD U1, which is a Userspace criterion. Daniel 10:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I know that technically it can be deleted, but that is just legalities not real thought.
- Spam pages are "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic" but userpage are meant to exclusively promote an entity (the user) and do not have to be encyclopedic! Aren't all userpages spam, by that criteria? It doesn't make sense that we encourage companies to declare an interest on their userpages, but we then delete them because they are about a company!
- And more fundamentally, why do we care to enforce this policy in the userspace at all. Does have any benefit? It seems to just annoy users without reason.
- I am not here to criticize or say that you did anything wrong, but we do need to have a thoughtful look at this issue. Jon513 (talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, having worked around this area for what seems to be an age, 90% of these creations are purely for Google hits — having a short blurb and a URL on Wikipedia, especially when they can't have an article themselves, is great for publicity and getting preferential indexing with search engines. As seen from Special:Contributions/Seoidol, this account has one purpose — the one mentioned above. The page was created on September 23, 2007, and the account never edited since. I agree that we shouldn't be deleting pages like this immediately (and assuming good faith of the author), but after four months it becomes a tad obvious. Daniel 10:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that google's problem, not our? Why are we spending our time and annoying our users (granted some weren't really interested in the encyclopedia - but a few were) to benefit google's optimization!? Jon513 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because we can't be seen as a linkfarm, or a promotional service, as it will tarnish our reputation to the outside world of being a neutral encyclopedia. The distinction between userspace and namespace may seem clear for us, but those outside the community can't. Daniel 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- how about just placing a {{Userpage}} above possble spam pages? Does this work for both of us? Jon513 (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, community consensus is that these pages should be killed off with haste after a period of time (when it becomes evident the account was single-purpose to advertise), and I really don't see the justification to compromise from that. Our integrity is paramount to what we're doing, and outside perceptions so critical. Daniel 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot find where this community consensus is and have found some discussion that says the opposite [1], [2], template needed?. Can you find where this community consensus is; there seems to be some confusion on the issue. Jon513 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- The sentiment is so pervasive that discussions aren't even held. It's like a bad pierogi sitting on the table: everybody knows it's there, everybody knows it's foul, but nobody wants to talk about it. east.718 at 10:50, January 1, 2008
- Community consensus? Here: Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. It's been agreed on that spam isn't accepted anywhere on Wikipedia, because we are an encyclopedia and do not wish to be seen as an advertising website. New criteria or other defining points of that page aren't added (and if they are, reverted fast) to that page without prior discussion, so I can assure you that there is a community consensus for this to be a definite agreed-on-by-the-community rule. Spebi 10:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I cannot find where this community consensus is and have found some discussion that says the opposite [1], [2], template needed?. Can you find where this community consensus is; there seems to be some confusion on the issue. Jon513 (talk) 10:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Well, community consensus is that these pages should be killed off with haste after a period of time (when it becomes evident the account was single-purpose to advertise), and I really don't see the justification to compromise from that. Our integrity is paramount to what we're doing, and outside perceptions so critical. Daniel 10:39, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- how about just placing a {{Userpage}} above possble spam pages? Does this work for both of us? Jon513 (talk) 10:36, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Because we can't be seen as a linkfarm, or a promotional service, as it will tarnish our reputation to the outside world of being a neutral encyclopedia. The distinction between userspace and namespace may seem clear for us, but those outside the community can't. Daniel 10:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that google's problem, not our? Why are we spending our time and annoying our users (granted some weren't really interested in the encyclopedia - but a few were) to benefit google's optimization!? Jon513 (talk) 10:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- With all due respect, having worked around this area for what seems to be an age, 90% of these creations are purely for Google hits — having a short blurb and a URL on Wikipedia, especially when they can't have an article themselves, is great for publicity and getting preferential indexing with search engines. As seen from Special:Contributions/Seoidol, this account has one purpose — the one mentioned above. The page was created on September 23, 2007, and the account never edited since. I agree that we shouldn't be deleting pages like this immediately (and assuming good faith of the author), but after four months it becomes a tad obvious. Daniel 10:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
← More than adequately covered by the long standing WP:NOT a free webhost. My usual practice is to userfy obvious personal or corporate vanity, and if there are no contributions after a month or so other than to the vanity pages, then nuke them. I don't think we need to waste too much angst on the finer feelings of people who are not here to build a neutral encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
(Unindent) Jon, I don't think you've done your homework. This deletion was routine and 100% correct. If this was a genuine userpage declaring a conflict of interests then that would be one thing, but the user had ZERO contributions, and had this linkspam up since September. Any sane admin would have nuked it on sight. The consensus is indicated in the fat that there's a CSD (which all have consenus) - I think you'd struggle to find a single admin who would support your rather strange position. But if you disagree, take the deletion to WP:DRV - although, I predict people may laugh at you.--Docg 10:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care so much about the particular pages. I don't understand why we are wasting our time to begin with. There is no clear line between a "spam" page and fine userpage. Why should we risk annoying a good editor. If we delete 100,000 spam pages and annoy one valued editor in the process that is a net loss for wikipedia because we did not gain anything by deleting the 100,000 pages! Jon513 (talk) 11:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- But this isn't a good editor, so I fail to understand you. Anyway, if you want to change the spam or userpage policy, you're free to try to do that (good luck). However, please don't chastise an admin who is correctly following it. That's a waste of everyone's time.--Docg 11:09, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Help with a user name, please!
Hello E,
Many months ago I originally registered under user name "GlobalWarmingSkeptic", and made a couple of edits to articles. I'm now ready to contribute more, but I have lost my original password and I did NOT record an email address when I originally registered. Today I created this new user name "GlobalWarmingSkeptic1", but I would like very much to get get my old user name back (i.e. without the "1" at the end). I'm not sure if this is considered "usurption". Can you help me or tell me what I should do? I'd like to continue using "GlobalWarmingSkeptic" and cancel "GlobalWarmingSkeptic1".
Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalWarmingSkeptic1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Australia newsletter
WikiProject Australia publishes a newsletter informing Australian Wikipedians of ongoing events and happenings within the community and the project. This month's newsletter has been published. If you wish to unsubscribe from these messages, or prefer to have the newsletter delivered in full to your talk page, see our subscription page. This notice delivered by BrownBot (talk), at 21:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC).
Bot
I would like your bot to send out a single one-time message. The message is here. Please substitute the template when placed, I would like this to be done as a favour from one BAG member to another. Dreamafter ⇔ 03:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
- If you don't want to, I can always try someone else... Dreamafter ⇔ 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Everyone in the Participants list. That is, everyone on the active and inactive lists. Dreamafter ⇔ 14:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps a little late, but no matter...
Congratulations on your recent acquisition of the mop. I offer to you a few words of wisdom:
- Start slowly and carefully. There's a huge temptation to start flying through your new duties as soon as the 'crat pushes the button - resist it. Avoid close calls for your first week or two, and leave it to those who happened to get their tools a little earlier than you.
- Be sure to connect in with other users on IRC, if you can. There's a whole pool of channels there where you can get assistance in your newly-acquired buttons, and get your new colleagues used to your name.
- Be ready for criticism in your first few weeks, but at the same time don't be a push-over. If you feel worried over a decision, get another user to take a look at it.
-
- That's code for let the Cabal deal with it :) Daniel 00:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Daniel! Somebody might hear you! Anthøny 13:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- When blocking, ask yourself if everything you've entered into that form will benefit Wikipedia: is the block length sufficiently long to prevent further disruption by a vandal, or is it so long that it will put them off ever returning? Is your protection just going to be a minor hiccup in the edit warrior's grand scheme of disruption, or will it hinder the growth of the encyclopedia?
Best of luck with your new buttons, and don't hesitate to get in touch if you have any queries.
Anthøny 20:31, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
EBot on Abuse reports archive
I am not sure why the bot only works sometimes. I archived a bunch myslef that were rejected, but weren't moved by the bot. Most recently Wikipedia:Abuse reports/IP/85.133.156.x was rejected, but not moved. Is this a problem with the bot, or is something missing from the page? - Rjd0060 (talk) 23:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see. I didn't realize those underscores were there. I don't know why people added them. Thanks for your help. - Rjd0060 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Deletion dictator
You deleted a page I made within a couple days of my producing it. I think, sir, you suggest yourself for the list of quite arrogant jerks in this kind of activity. It's anti-democratic and its amazingly disrespectful of the labor of other people. I've been away from this computer for days. How was I supposed to answer your "criticism" of the significance? You're a tin pot dictator online. You know nothing about the subject, yet in your ignorance you go ahead and delete items. Recklessly disrespectful of people around you. Very arrogant. PS: don't bother writing back unless it is to apologize and restore my work. I don't care what your response is otherwise. You're getting a small measure of your own medicine. I'm deleting you. You are forgotten already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesunkenroad (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Airbus A319-300
Hmm, why shouldn't the redirect page Airbus A319-300 be deleted? No articles point at it; the page was probably created by mistake by someone. Such plane model does not exist. Mstuomel (talk) 12:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, i am Mark .Can u tell me how 2 give barnstars?I'm a new admin. (PS. May I be your friend?)Mark Chung (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 1 | 2 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 2 | 7 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
You got Email...
Emailed you...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, forget the email I sent you, I am a Rollback...--Kushan I.A.K.J (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Spammage
 |
Brisbane Meetup Next: In Discussion Last: February 10, 2008 |
- Sending this to some people I know, a bot will do the rest tomorrow hopefully (unless you want to do it earlier). Dihydrogen Monoxide 11:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:FOWL
I need a second roll call sent out, that is different. It is still located here. This would be another great help! Thakns in advance! Dreamy § 23:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 3 | 14 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Meetup/Brisbane 2
Hey there. You've expressed an interest in attending this - please see the project page to confirm your attendance and the proposed date/time/place. Thanks, Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 07:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 4 | 21 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 has been released!
.mp3 and .ogg versions can be found at http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/01/24/episode-40-wikipedias-genetic-makeup/, and, as always, you can download past episodes and leave comments at http://wikipediaweekly.com/.
For Wikipedia Weekly — WODUP 05:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If you do not wish to receive such notifications, please remove yourself from the list.
Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 4, Issue 5 | 28 January 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
