User talk:Gladtohelp

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.


It sure would be a lot more useful if someone would sign these types of communiques. Anonymous deletions with rubber-stamped complaints are of very little value. I will simply ignore all similar messages from this point forward. Gladtohelp 17:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)Gladtohelp

Contents

[edit] WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)

Good afternoon Gladtohelp,

I just noticed that you joined WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) and wanted to welcome you to the group. If there's anything I can help you with please let me know. Also, if you've got suggestions on how to better the project, please drop them off at the talk page. Have a good one! Reb 17:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HI

I am a new user to wikipedia and I was wondering if I could get your input on an article that I have just posted. Any comments or feedback would be very helpful to me. Thanks. The article is titled Automated Quality control of meteorological observations. Or this should link to it Automated Quality control of meteorological observations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanrye (talk • contribs) 16:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Invitation

[edit] Invitation

I'd like to invite you to join the new task forces proposed in the Georgia WikiProject. We are currently looking for new members to join our proposed task forces and work groups. With your help we can make it one of the best WikiProjects. Remember cooperative works can do amazing things. Regards Absolon S. Kent (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Reb (talk) 13:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Summary Warning

Please do not use misleading edit summaries to disguise changes to the content of the article, to comment on the article or editors, or to disguise inappropriate content such as spam or personal attacks, as you did in Stoney Point Airfield. If you continue to post such misleading edit summaries, you may be blocked for disruption. Touchdown Turnaround (talk) 03:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Turnaround. You have repeatedly been asked not to revert edits without discussing them in the article's talk page. This is clear Wikipedia policy. Your obvious bias towards a particular external link should be replaced for a more objective rationale. Wikipedia is supposed to be a community-maintained forum. It is not intended to be the personal soapbox for a single individual. Your rights as an editor do not supercede mine. Now, having said that, I am perfectly willing to have a calm reasoned discussion with you about any subject that you wish.Gladtohelp (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)gladtohelp

[edit] Airport Template

I'd like to request that you remove the protection to the US Airports template. It was updated by a single user (Fletch) who is involved with one of the sites included. He is probably not aware of the admonition against these types of edits. Perhaps a simple warning to him would solve this issue. He has been open with his affiliation and candid with his comments during a protracted discussion in the template's talk page. I don't believe there has been any reason to believe that this link has been or may become a target of vandalism. We would like to continue our discussion about the future of this template.

I would like to bring a complaint of my own to your attention. It is my understanding of Wiki guidelines that affiliated users should not add their own sites to External Links. It IS suggested that these same users submit their sites for open consideration in the associated talk page. When such a discussion began for this particular page, two primary editors stuck their fingers in the ears and indicated they didn't want any change to the template. Rather than be a part of the discussion and objectively look at the pros and cons, both made knee-jerk decisions to oppose ANY changes. Their repeated comments universally ignored the merits of the points discussed - instead they openly and repeatedly tried to squelch the discussion with the prophetic implication that nothing would change, no matter what the discussion produced. Is this proper behaviour in Wikipedia? And is it possible to get objective standards established for inclusion in this template? Thanks for your consideration. Gladtohelp (talk) 13:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Just came in on my lunch hour. What you say has merit at prima facie. Let me look at it later from home as it requires some checking. I apologize for not having the time this issues deserves right now, but certainly will do later. If you cannot wait and need an immediate action please alert other admins at AN/I. Thanks for your understanding and for helping Wikipedia. -- Alexf42 17:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I would like to add a word here myself since it appears I'm the "guilty" party. While there is nothing that I found in the Wikipedia guidelines that I violated outright, I certainly did push the boundaries. That said, I think in this particular case, based on the actions and words of the incumbents, the boundaries need to be pushed. However, I am the wrong person to do that. I will refrain from this point forward in editing the template, but I'd like to continue the discussion with the other Wikipedians. I'm hoping that you'll read through the discussion on the Airport Template page and provide some truly neutral feedback. Fletch07 (talk) 19:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I spent some time going through the postings and the talk page. I see mainly editors Fletch07, Dual Freq and Gladtohelp involved in a discussion here. I am familiar with SkyVector, NOAA/NWS, and FAA. I am not familiar with NavMonster which may well be a case of spam, and I do not know if there is a WP:COI here also but I will AGF and assume not. It is preferred to keep external links to a minimum and provide relevant information that is not present on the page. Remember that Wikipedia is not a collection of links. Are that many sites needed? I will have to let the experts decide on that. You are all interested parties and I assume, experts on this subject to a certain degree. As the Talk page of the template is not protected, discussion can continue there to try to hammer out an agreement in an amicable way without having to go to dispute resolution. I see this has already started in the New_Template section. Once you all agree on something you can pop into RFPP and request unprotection. Good luck. -- Alexf42 02:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] manned spaceflight

Hey Gladtohelp, I didn't want to fill up JohnnyReb talk page with too talk between the two of us, so I'll response directly to you. Yes, I have a love (or is it an addiction?) to space related things. I mean, just look at my username. I even have the domain name rocketmaniac.com, but I haven't done anything with it in months. No I haven't been to www.collectspace.com. I might have to look into that website. I hope you are able to fix your on-going problems with the airport template. Admins need to be more involved in that issue. That is the only way a solution is going to be found. Later, Rocketmaniac RT 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)