User talk:Mwanner/Archive 6

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Rammed Earth 2 Saranac Lake 3 Swinging 4 "Ad-laced" link for the source on The Black Arrow 5 EL 6 Removal of link to "Micorirrigation Forum" 7 Re' Your Accusations of Spam: 8 Re Valet Parking External Links 9 Grokitbetter Visual semantic Network 10 British spelling 11 Triphop, et al. 12 List of online DVD rental companies 13 Removal of link 14 Prostatitis ext links 15 food allergy links 16 chaplin links 17 middleforkmaps 18 David Barnes 19 Human Papillomavirus and Herpes Simplex 20 CENTRAL PARK 21 Electoralgeography.com 22 Thanks 23 Hair Loss Advance 24 Body language 25 Options 26 Homelessness page

[edit] Rammed Earth

Curious as to why you removed one external link on the rammed earth page but left others.User:xxxmicrobexxx

thanks for the reply regading removing spam - good on you.

I started the rammed earth page and don't really regard that link as spam. David Easton is one of the leading proponents of rammed earth building.

But at least your edit made me have another look at the page and make a few updates :o) Xxxmicrobexxx 22:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saranac Lake

Are you sure that Ampersand Bay is not in the village limits? Gam3 15:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Swinging

I think the link you removed ( A Sociological Perspective on the Lifestyle ) is actually one of the good ones. I didn't revert, since it seems like you were editing in good faith, but you might want to put that one back in. Maybe. OscarTheCat 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You wrote:

I dunno-- seems weak to me. I tend to lean on WP:EL's "Sites with meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article". It's not clear to me that this site fits that criterion. If you want to put it back, though, I won't revert. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 01:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly about it. It's been in there since 07 August 2006, but the article doesn't suffer from not having it. At least it pointed to an article, and not to yet another swinger profile website. Thanks for responding, though! OscarTheCat3 01:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Ad-laced" link for the source on The Black Arrow

I followed the link, and the person looking at it can get free pdf e-books. I will not revert back, but why not give the reader a chance to have a better e-book than the meagre stuff that Gutenberg provides? I appreciate your work on an article that is of great importance to me.--Drboisclair 16:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you may have a point. In assuming that the ebook itself contained ads, I was relying on the discussion on User_talk:Riapress, where User:Ron g indicates that there is "hidden advertising" in the Riapress books, and User:Riapress doesn't refute the point. I just looked at the Riapress Black Arrow pdf, and it is certainly ad-free, so I'm going to revert myself. Personally, if I wanted to print from an online source, I would want plain text that I could dump into a word processor and format to my own tastes, but to each his own. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 17:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you do Wiki a helpful service in following up on the links. On the Pilgrim's Progress page, which I have edited, an editor linked to research that found that Pilgrim's Progress was considered the most boring book by readers. I followed it up: 1) he linked to "Highbeam," which charges those who go to that website to see their documents, and looking at the other "free" source of information I found that 2) the information was from one survey that was over 50 years old. I thought it fair to delete that dig at Pilgrim's Progress. Even though English students over 50 years ago may have been required to read it I was never required to read it in my English classes. The site I like best is the one put out by Google that posts pdfs of very early editions. --Drboisclair 15:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

do you have a better suggestion for this ?

[edit] EL

So, I think I'm learning this wikipedia thing. It's pretty cool so far. I will make sure to only put very relevant links (if any) on any of my future edits. Thanks! --Roadkillu 00:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice welcome! Neat. --Roadkillu 01:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link to "Micorirrigation Forum"

I guess you are somehow right as the link lead to the top level of that site. I believe it should have gone to http://www.microirrigationforum.com/new/archives/ which allows to access the "compiled" knowledge, and not just postings, in this area since 1994 related to:

• Chemical Use
• Cultural Practices
• Effects On Crops
• Engineering
• Landscaping
• New Ideas
• MIF Contributions
• Related Information Tables
• SDI
• Soil Moisture Instrumentation
• Water Problems
• Other

It is of course based on 'discussions' but it is manually compiled and quite unique worldwide that's why I believed it would add value to it. However, its up to you. Cheers Thomas

[edit] Re' Your Accusations of Spam:

"What should be linked to

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link. What should be linked to."

I wrote these pages based on material gained from the website CharterWorld. That site is a legitimate external reference which adds hundreds of pages of accurate material not in the articles and not elsewhere on the web, pursuant to the points above. Accordingly, I have added references to my work.

I expect you are removing that link and accusing me of spam in good faith but perhaps you would like to reconsider your position. --Turtleflipper

If these sites that you have readded aren't spam, then I have never seen spam, and clearly GraemeL agrees. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re Valet Parking External Links

The external links on the valet parking page are in compliance with Wikipedia's policy... "a small number of highly relevant external links to further information can enhance an article. This guideline assists editors in identifying what is and isn't a "highly relevant" link." ValetPark.net is the only place I've found that offers information on hiring a valet parking service... Also the article on the history of valet parking on valetparking.com is informative and well written. Valet Parking is a niche market and there's not a whole lot of good info out there... both of these links are valuable to the wiki user.

Also these links have already been approved by another wiki editor.. they've been up for months. Please explain why you removed them?

As the vast majority of your edits are devoted to adding this link to this article, and the closely related link (limofinder.net) to the Limosine article (also deleted as spam), these edits clearly violate the WP:EL sanction against adding one's own site to an article. They also add nothing of encyclopedic value to the article. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grokitbetter Visual semantic Network

I've read the wikipedia policy on externals links and I wonder if you were not a bit to hasty in removing the link to this site.

Wordnet is a semantic network. Grokitbetter is a visual semantic network based on Wordnet. It allows you to browse the semantic network by clicking on images.

Why is a visual semantic network not relevant to a page on semantic networks? Have you actually checked the contents of the site?

Please go http://grokitbetter.com and enter a word like 'peace'. Click on the images few times and convince your self that it is in reality a visual semantic network. What is the problem? Please explain why a visual semantic network based on wordnet is not relevant to the topic of semantic networks.

Perhaps you missed the part of the policy that specifies that you should never add a link to your own site? There's more to it than that, but that's a good starting point to my objections. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Fair enough.

[edit] British spelling

I'm very sorry about the mixup. I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with British spelling, so I mistook the spellings of those particular words I changed for misspellings. I'll try to be more aware next time. -- Thebanjohype

[edit] Triphop, et al.

Could you please explain why LoungeSyndicate, a trip-hop radio stream was removed from the triphop wiki, when Calmscape is effectively a similar type of site relating to triphop.

-oreonix

The difference is that I noticed you adding the same site to three different articles, which you have done twice, having been reverted previously. If you read Wikipedia's External links policy, you will see that adding a link to your own site is a no-no. When an editor's only edits consist of adding an external link to multiple articles, one tends to assume that they have a promotional interest in that site that precludes their having an unbiased opinion of its importance.

Should the link to Calmscape be deleted too? I don't know. Perhaps you could develop an interest in working to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, rather than just using it for your own ends? If so, your input on such questions would be valuable.

Incidentally, new posts go to the bottom of the page-- I have taken the liberty of rearranging this page. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Mwanner-

That sounds fair, initially I felt the change was malicious nature, but as i researched it more and went through the history I noticed the amount of self posting being added. Sorry for the annoyance.

No problem, thanks for understanding. With Wikipedia's open content and high traffic, we're kinda getting massively spammed. BTW, you can put a note on the article's talk page suggesting that someone might consider adding your site. Happy editing! -- Mwanner | Talk 19:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of online DVD rental companies

Hello, would you, please, explain me why the RussArt.com has been deleted from the List of online DVD rental companies? It did not contain a link as, say TigerCinema, which was left in the List. What's the difference between these two companies in terms of notability? I would either restore RussArt entry or delete the whole list. Sincerely. --Bakhteiarov 03:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link

• Which link did you remove? It would be helpful if you told me on my talk page rather than just issue a warning. Skoppensboer 21:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prostatitis ext links

I can see why one might view the addition of the same site (http://www.chronicprostatitis.com) to several articles as linkspam, or the site itself as a commercial endeavour we should not be promoting. However, looking beyond the ads, I personally think it has a lot of good information so IMO the link can stay even though I do not like the site's somewhat commercial aspects. I would go so far as to say that I think a limited number of other articles can also link to it (where relevant - as you have seen, it also covers a number of related conditions).

(I agree that two links to the same site in one article is too much, at least in this case.)

My two cents... AvB ÷ talk 00:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] food allergy links

Hi there. Hey, why did you remove the link to kidswithfoodallergies.org from the food allergy article? It's a very useful nonprofit site.... Would you please put it back? Asbruckman 03:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it offers direct retail sales-- it may or may not be non-profit, but it is a commercial site. Also, it requires registration to view its resources. If it were a truly extraordinary site, it might be OK even with these drawbacks, but it just doesn't look that valuable or unique to me. You might want to read through Wikipedia's External links policy. -- Mwanner | Talk 22:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chaplin links

Hi " Would you tell me, why did you remove the link to caius zip? i am a math teacher and I have a site about Caius Zip, the time traveller. At each lapse of time, Caius Zip will meet characters that made or will make history and will have to face challenges in the form of enigmas in critical moments of history and in battles of men and gods. I'd like to invite you to visit this site. It"s very informative and educational. Would you please help me and put it back? Profes001 21:15, 9 november 2006 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's External links policy, specifically the part about not adding links to your own site. Thanks, Mwanner | Talk 02:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] middleforkmaps

Thank you for making me aware of the 'external links - sites you own' policy. I will endeavor to avoid violating it in the future. If you have a chance you may wish to visit the map resources middleforkmaps is able to provide and decide objectively their relative merit. I would note that that the 'Maps and Aerial Photos' template included on 10s of thousands of Wikipedia locality pages automatically links to googlemaps, yahoomaps, terraserver, and topozone giving these large corporate providers a huge free benefit while locking out other providers as a matter of policy. Me: 5 pages; Google: 100,000 free links. I'll do my part to be fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by middleforkmaps (talk • contribs)

[edit] David Barnes

This is David John Barnes. Davidjohnbarnes I find your post about me to another editor inaccurate and very aggressive.

I am not a 'spammer'. I run an award-winning website www.retrosellers.com which has a great deal of valuable content and I am spending my Sunday trying to get relevant articles listed in appropriate areas of the Wikipedia enyclopdia. The rules for a newcomer are impossible to understand and the idea that I am involved in a 'duel' is outrageous. I wasn't aware that I was getting warnings because I didn't get any emails through telling me there was a problem. I had to stumble upon the notion that communication is via these page edits rather than email or online forms.

Why my articles are not relevant to you I do not know. They are very specific to the pages I have tried to associate them to.

Far from welcoming people to improve your encylopedia with their content, it seems that you assume we will understand all there is to know about your rules and procedures straight away and if we don't then we must be spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs)

Answered on your Talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This is David John Barnes. Davidjohnbarnes

How do I get my relevant and valuable content mentioned in your pages?

www.retrosellers.com

Special Features pages.......

Janet Leigh

Christine Keeler

Klaus Voormann —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs)

Responded on user's Talk page. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Am I able to link an article about Christine Keeler to the Chrstine Keeler page on Wikepedia?

Am I able to link an article about Janet Leigh to the Janet Leigh page on Wikepedia?

Am I able to link an article about Pete Best to the Pete Best page on Wikepedia?

They are all on www.retrosellers.com—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs) .

The short answer is no. Please read the policy pages I have provided. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:38, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Wikepedia needs to learn be more flexible and friendly (and easier to get involved with.) My articles are not bad or indifferent. They are quality award-winning articles and they cannot be edited to fit into your content, Far from trying to generate visitors, I was trying to add valuable and relevant links. But I have wasted three hours and won't be returning to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is so elitist and exclusive (in the sense of excluding people) that it really is your loss.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs) .

---

{{helpme}}

Wikipedia pretends to be a valuable resource, but the entries are often quite limited and sketchy, usually linking to other similarly limited and sketchy entries elsewhere in Wikipedia and thus creating a large cross-reference with basic content.

It discriminates against external sites that have more/better information on a topic on the basis that they might have opinions or be commercially based. I would say that rather than spend their time excluding people from Wikipedia and enforcing numerous elitist rules, the editors should be looking sympathetically at external sites that might add value to the Wikipedia knowledge base and to Wikipedia users.

It's also elitist in that it says it is looking for content from scientists and doctors and so on. There are lot of very knowledgeable and articulate people who aren't either of the above.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidjohnbarnes (talk • contribs) .

I removed both helpme tage on your page, I leave the one on his page, I don't really know what to do with it. Regards, -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Human Papillomavirus and Herpes Simplex

The link you removed accompanies an article I am adding to these sections on psychological and social effects in relation to social stigma and dating when you are a person who has either one of these common STI's. It is not a link directing or promoting the website, but rather part of the article. I was about to post the article when I got your message. Should I clear the article with you first? User:Pureimaginari

[edit] CENTRAL PARK

Hi there, I would like to know why you removed the link to my central park photos and left the other ones? Almost every single site listed there either sells photos or posters, bags, hats, etc. and many of them are just using the page for google ads. I don't have any Google ads on my site and am one of the most respected photographers in this genre (New York City photography) and have had my photos of NYC exhibited in the Museum of the City of NY. So, if you are going to disallow links to my site for whatever reason, then you should also remove almost every link that is already there or justify why you think they are valuable.

Thank you

Andrew Prokos

The answer is simple-- because of the Wikipedia toolset, it is easy to see spam coming in, and quick and easy to remove it on that basis. It is quite time consuming, on the other hand, to check every link on a number of pages; one hopes that there was no spam there before the new stuff hit.

As for the other photo sites in the Central Park article, you're about half right: I went back based on your suggestion, and removed just over half that were clearly selling prints. If I missed any (sometimes the offer is subtle) feel free... -- Mwanner | Talk 21:10, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You should take into account the quality of the images and whether they will inform your viewers in some way about the subject...and not worry about if the artist is making a living from their work or not. All good artists make a living from their work and shouldn't be punished for it. It's not what they sell, it's what they do. What you have going on now are links to sites with useless pictures that are simply depending on Google Adsense clicks from visitors to their sites. That should be considered SPAM long before the work of serious artists. Apparently what gets classified as SPAM depends on the editor and is highly subjective. I would like to know...If my link was removed immediately, how did all the others pass so easily?

Perhaps you should get more involved with Wikipedia before using us for free advertising or telling us how to run the place? Of course "what gets classified as SPAM depends on the editor and is highly subjective"-- Wikipedia is run by volunteer editors. What is not subjective, though, is the policy that says "thou shalt not link to our own site." But someone has to notice for the rule to be effective.

Come do some work on some of our articles, upload some of your photos under GFDL, edit our policy statements (take a look at our external links policy). You might find that you like the place. Cheers! -- Mwanner | Talk 14:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Electoralgeography.com

Someboudy added links to the site Electoral geography and you removed these links calling it spam. Why do you consider that site spam? Electionworld Talk? 11:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

When a user adds nothing to Wikipedia except external links to a single site (see [1]), it is pretty much a given that it is the site owner doing so, which constitutes spam. At least one other editor saw it the same way and asked the user to desist; seeUser Talk:71.227.197.41. Feel free to re-add the links: since you are not the site owner, your adding of the links would not amount to spamming. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Mwanner,

Thanks for your feedback on the external link for FindWebEvents.com. By looking at the history, I can see the enormous (and unfortunate) amount of spam that people try to stick into the external links.

It's just unfortunate that a "user built encyclopedia" (isn't that what a Wiki is?) has so many restrictions on what users can actually contribute.

Thanks again, Curtis Streamlogic 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hair Loss Advance

Unsure as to why a link to my non commercial link was removed from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldness

Possibly I have missed one of the criteria for adding external resource to Wikipedia? The website is all fact based information, not for profit. I was warned about spam but fail to see how this is spam. The website does not sell any products, ads and only provides current information. Please elaborate.

Thanks, Todd —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.15.147 (talk • contribs)

Well, the most one of the most fundamental of Wikipedia's external links policy is that thou shalt not add a link to your own site. Add to that the fact that the article you added to already has way too many external links, and the fact that your site is unlikely to be adding any new information, and that pretty well wraps it up. Why don't you look over the article and see if you can make some improvements to the text. That's what we really need. Thanks, -- Mwanner | Talk 20:49, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the reply, but if this is the case, why are there external links to websites from that exact page that host adsense ads and are not removed? Also content cannot be added to Wiki from my website as it was established and written by both doctors and dermatologists in my area.

From what I understood, copyrighted information is linked to 'if' it cannot be added to Wiki and adds to the article at hand.

Thanks, Todd

Please read what I said: you cannot add a link to your own site. And no, external links are not about copyrighted material-- please read WP:EL. The only thing in your site that cannot be put directly in our article is the language: facts are not copyrightable. If you would like to go through our article and add any missing facts, that would be great. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Body language

I wonder!!!

i wonder why is that site removed? http://www.2knowmyself.com/body_language/learn_body_language there is no better resource that could be added than this, whats the problem in here?!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 57.250.231.247 (talk • contribs)

Seems like a weak link to me, and as you added the same site to four different articles, it looks like spam. -- Mwanner | Talk 23:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Options

Mwanner,

I put http://www.secform4.com/stock-options.htm in the option page. The url contains a list of stock option exercise, award, grant, and conversion by company officers filed with SEC each day. The information can't be found on any other place. However, you said it is not needed. I am suprised to read it. I hope you spend a minute scaning through those SEC filings and see if it is useful. The page is very valuable to investors. Many analysts and investors read through the executive holding to determine the fundamental of a company.

Requirement by SEC to file stock/option transaction report has the reason: The mission of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission is to protect investors, maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets, and facilitate capital formation. ([2]) Thank to Enron's collapse for the law to be passed 3 years ago.

I hope you can add it back. Please let me know.

Regards User:Vicn12.

I'm sure it would be very valuable to investors. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia-- we want our articles to delineate and explain subjects, but we explicitly do not attempt to provide a link directory to every site that might be related to a given subject-- external links should contain explanatory text, which www.secform4.com clearly lacks. Thanks for understanding. -- Mwanner | Talk 03:20, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You delete a link that contains Bill Gates stock holding and his trading record, it is arguable. However, the stock option page contains absolutely best information available to help investors making wise decision in their investment, it is one of the purposes of this wiki - to provide information and help people, I am sure. You approved several links regarding how options can be used, yet you have no data. The link gives the real data in real world coming from SEC each and every day. I would strongly recommand you read this first: http://www.secform4.com/what-is-insider-trading.htm . Maybe you are not buying stocks, but the mini training perhap would help you to understand it.

After all, Bill Gates is a very successful person, many people follow successful people in buying stock (what else can we follow?), including myself, which profits me greatly, because they know what to buy. They are the leader. I just follow them. It is not possible for me to know more than they know, agree? Why would you deny such critical information that will benefit ordinary people? Won't it be nice that everybody make right decision? I am not claiming that all executives are correct, but most of the time, more than ordinary people.

A picture is worth a thousand words. Please review the information and see what you think. I hope after a while, you will benefit from the information yourself.

Thank you and sincerely vicn12

While it may be useful, in a moneymaking sort of way, it does not help explain the concept of options. This is an encyclopedia. We are not trying to help people make money, we are here to educate. -- Mwanner | Talk 13:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop saying other's links as spam while you take the entire page as educational link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Mwanner, what is it? What are those pictures you put in wiki? Educational? Give me a break! You need to delete them! This is not a place to be entertained by a particular group of people!

What is spam? Do you understand the site is free? You remove a link I put in Bill Gates, saying it spam, but there are others who recognize its value and add it back!

If I add anything that sell things while not helping others, it is spam.

If you continue to behave this way, I will have to bring judge in this disbute, and I will have to request you delete all the things you put in wiki. You are wasting the computer resouces! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

Go for it. Have a nice day. -- Mwanner | Talk 17:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to delete your stuffs, you understand that? Don't be a trouble maker, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

Don't make threats, please. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell me why your pictures are educational? We have limited computer space. Obviously you are using public resources as your personal entertainment, is this appropriate?

Tell me why you are so desperate to add this link to our articles? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Answer my question, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

Fine. Wikipedia does not have limied computer space. Every one of my photographs on Wikipedia is used to illustrate an article.

Now, please answer my question. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia does not have limied computer space..." do't make none sense statements just because you don't pay for it. You photographs illustrate nothing as fas as I can see. Please delete them yourself.

I add the link in the most relevant pages to let people know what is going in real world.

Do NOT take others contribution as garbage or so, and what is "our articles"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but why that particular link? And why not make some contributions to the contents of our articles, not just the external links? What is your relationship to the website you keep adding? -- Mwanner | Talk 18:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Wrong approach: Please delete those pictures yourself.

External links are there for "External links" purpose. Please tell me where it states that one should contribute to the contents in order to add external links.

We all try to contribute in different ways - you have your ways, I have my ways, others have other ways. You do not try to impose your way upon others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

This is pointless. If you want to dispute this, please take it to the Talk page of one of the articles, or the Talk page of WP:EL, or WP:RFC. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Before we go there, please delete your pictures. This is not a personal entertainment website. It is not designed to be a personal weblog. If you want to create a personal home page, please use GeoCity.com where it hosts free personal home page. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

That's not going to happen, and this is the end of this conversation. Thanks for your cooperation. -- Mwanner | Talk 19:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I respect your contribution. However, you need to recognize others controbutions and respect those contributions too. You look at me and see I am different, I also look at you and see you are different. This is a society of all sort of backgrounds. We all must learn to co-exist. I am not desperate of any sort, but please have an open mind. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicn12 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Homelessness page

I put up a link to my directory on the homelessness page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homelessness. I am building up the only resource that will cover all of the US Homeless and Emergency Shelters. Why would you remove it? This site is completely relevant and useful for people such as myself who was trying to find a homeless shelter to donate some good to. The Homeless Page currently has a link to http://www.ibiblio.org/rcip//shelters.html. Check out the list of Florida Homeless Shelters they provide. Then check my resource, http://www.homelessshelterdirectory.org/florida.html. This should speak for itself. Mike