User talk:JoeSmack

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

User Page | Talk Page | Sandbox1 2 3 | Toolbox1 2 3 | Bookmarks


Archive
Archives




Contents

[edit] "See also" links

Hi justin. I tried IceChat but got only "Host not found". Am new to IRc and must do something wrong. Anyways, you found my list of links silly in the See also section in the article Suffering, and looking at it from your point of view I found it silly too. I tried something else and would like to have your opinion if you please. Robert Daoust 00:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thats actually a really nice little template. You don't even need it in the See Also section, just put it at the end of the article. Again, great template, I'm impressed. :) JoeSmack Talk 00:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Thank you very much. Template is put at the end. Robert Daoust 02:45, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torrent

Please see User_talk:Nominaladversary#2007_Wikipedia_Selection

--BozMo talk 15:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

See my replies to your torrent link question. DuncanHarris 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Social Work

I notice you have contributed to the article Social work. I have created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Social Work. I have begun to work on this project and I would love to have your help. Please take a look at it and consider joining the project. Many thanks, Ursasapien (talk) 05:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi

ya i will remove it!(Sparrowman980 06:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

No problem (Sparrowman980 06:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Charles Ammi Cutter

Just popping by to let you know that the edits by User:Shangrilaista you reverted on Charles Ammi Cutter were constructive. I've restored them. — The Storm Surfer 00:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto for his edit on Cutter Expansive Classification. GUllman 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Apologies; just about every other edit of his reverted with spam link additions. I'll try to be more careful in the future. JoeSmack Talk 20:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, there are also all COI link additions as the user is the librarian in charge of promoting the digital works she is adding. JoeSmack Talk 16:49, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VRCOutreach

Hi Joe--be careful about using automated edit summaries when you're mass-reverting edits by new editors. While VRCOutreach may have had a conflict of interest, it's worth noting that that the links s/he added weren't spam or vandalism. (The NIH's Vaccine Research Center would seem to be at least relevant to the pages where the link was added, and it's a public agency.) It's important not to WP:BITE new editors by using edit summaries that imply that their good-faith edits are vandalism. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't think i was biting, and I would consider it spam even if it wasn't a clear COI (the links were being mass added to articles with very loose association in short amounts of time). Keep in mind spam doesn't need to be commercial to be spam. JoeSmack Talk 01:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I beg to differ—your heart was in the right place, and I agree that it's always suspicious when a new account starts adding lots of external links. Nevertheless, there's no indication of bad faith on the part of this new editor, so your automated edit summary indicating that you were reverting vandalism was indeed a (I presume unintentional) bite. I only ask that you take care with the automated edit summaries that you use in the future—how would you have liked being called a vandal after your very first edits to Wikipedia? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm, people do not like that don't they. Truth be told I used the vandalism rollback on WP:TWINKLE because it is a bit fast than the normal one, which requires a manual edit summary for each rollback. I'll be more careful next time, and maybe I'll hack up my monobook a bit too. Thanks. JoeSmack Talk 16:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi. This is VRCOutreach, and thank you both for the comments. Being a newbie to Wiki, I felt bad for inadvertently causing a COI to the links I had added. I only added the VRC link to pages that deal with vaccines, vaccine development, and the disease topics we are studying. I tried to be totally neutral in the way I described the links, thereby giving the visitor the decision on wether or not to visit our page for more information. Is that ok? It's awfully similar to the links other non-profits and causes are leaving on other pages, but please do let me know if there is a format that might work better. I'd love to be more involved in the Wiki community and we're really just trying to get information out to a wider audience. Thank you both again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VRCOutreach (talk • contribs)
Hi there! Don't feel bad, we were all new sometime. I can see that you tried to add them to topical articles, and that they we're described in such a way that was really balanced - and I thank you for considering both these things. It is still however a COI because your job (as I understand it) is to promote VRC. Let's see...think of it like this...I have a friend who is court videographer - he video tapes depositions. One time I asked him which law firm he worked under, and he gave me a weird face. He said, "oh, oh no, I work for an independent agency. You see, you can never really be quite sure how you could influence important evidence and records if you were a part of the defense or plaintiff - it is never done in-house for that reason"....You can never be sure how you might be influenced and therefor not neutral being so closely affiliated to VRC.
Anyways, if you see non-profits and causes sprinkling their links all over vaccines pages, remove them because Wikipedia is not a soapbox (WP:NOT) and those kind of links usually serve as promotion. I've seen your link, and while regional websites (we can't have every country's associated website in the EL section, it'd be hundreds long!) don't usually stick, the NIH is one of those stars that does (kind of like the NY Times of the news world). I'm sure if you use the talk page of each article asking for a neutral party to add it because you have a COI, someone would independently deem it valuable, or would discuss it with you or whatnot. It isn't as fast but it keeps everything neutral.
I hope I've been a help. We'd love if you could stay a while and be involved - perhaps by editing vaccine related articles with some of your specialized knowledge. It'd be extremely valuable. If you have any questions (related to this or not), don't hesitate to ask me here. I'd be glad to answer! :) JoeSmack Talk 15:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi again! Thanks very much! I totally understand what you're saying and appreciate the Wiki process lesson. I'm definitely looking forward to being more involved.  :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VRCOutreach (talk • contribs)


[edit] Question Regarding and Edit...

Hi,

A couple of months ago, I stuck in a link to the Athenian Robotics Collective's website under The Athenian School article. The history shows that you removed it because it was 'spammy.' Being a novice editor, I was wondering what would constitute that comment. I reinserted the link, but hopefully it is not 'spammy' this time. Thanks.

Autopilot37 05:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

PS-- Question of interest, are you an alum of Athenian? You seem to have visited and edited the entry a lot.

[edit] WikBack account created

Someone, perhaps you, recently created an account at the WikBack. If the account was created by an imposter, please let me know as soon as possible so that it can be disabled. Otherwise, welcome! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:56, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sadbook.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sadbook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 11:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Addressed. Thanks BCbot. JoeSmack Talk 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] steak Diane

Please stop fucking up my edits on steak diane. Thank you. --72.33.93.156 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, your edits are pretty clearly vandalism. JoeSmack Talk 01:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Nobody likes a narc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.93.156 (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Test of automated article selection for WP:1.0

Joe,

We've been testing out a bot to select articles based on WikiProject assessments (quality and importance, with more emphasis on the latter). The lists are incomplete but the aim is simply to get the articles ranked correctly. Please can you take a look at these data and leave comments? Thanks a lot! Walkerma (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bot activity

I was going over the list of bots and noticed that JoeBot (talk · contribs) has not edited in a very long time. Is this bot still active and if not, would you object to it being de-flagged? Please post your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Bots/Requests_for_approval#Dead_bots since this is a rather widely-posted message. MBisanz talk 06:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

De-flag. I've left comments there too. Thanks for the message! :) JoeSmack Talk 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AIDS

AIDS has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)