User talk:Tom Hillstrom

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thank you

Hi, Tom. I am working with Susan on the Cambridge group project and just wanted to thank you for reviewing our draft. Susan is incorporating your suggested revisions now. We are still awaiting feedback from a professor in the UK, and when that is in, Susan will go ahead with the final draft. All of us appreciate your willingness to assist us and very much value your expertise. Thank you very much.

Jessica Maynard 18:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you have done to Climate change and many other articles. 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 attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. 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. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Raymond Arritt 16:23, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Please also be aware that removal of warnings tends to be frowned upon, especially when one persists in the same actions that were the subject of those warnings. Raymond Arritt 16:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi, Professor Arritt,
If you read the entire string from the previous "warning" you cite, you should see that the issues raised were resolved and I was simply trying to follow the suggestions that were made to me at that time from a long-time and respected Wiki editor/author. (Please read the string in full.)
In view of your concern, please drop my suggested link and I apologize for wasting your time.
I deleted the "warning" string out of the belief that the issues raised there had been settled. I have restored the string below.
Best to you,
Tom Hillstrom 14:08, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant to add my congratulations to you and other contributors for building a very informative and authoritative entry, which I had previously used in connection with my own work. Also, I notice now that there exists a series of "Global Warming" wiki entries (as opposed to "Climate Change"). One of these is "Politics of Global Warming," which would have been a more appropriate location for me to offer the link to global diplomatic and government documents involving climate change. I missed it.
Best...
Tom Hillstrom 14:15, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning

Tom, wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We are trying to write articles here. Adding links to the same website without adding actual content is considered spam an usually reverted on sight. You are welcome to write something informative into the articles. But as for other websites, sorry, people can use google themselves. Wikipedia is not a link farm. `'mikkanarxi 22:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Sorry, mikkalai. I was trying to add a link to Diplomacy Monitor, which is an educational research resource cited by univerisites and research institutions around the world. I had noticed external links to similar research resources from other universities over the past couple of years and thought adding one more related to the foreign affairs of the nation being described would be potentially helpful to readers of the section. If I violated Wiki policy, I missed it and apologize.Tom Hillstrom 22:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Tom, in the internet there are millions of websites that provide information not available in wikipedia, and not all possible information is stored in wikipedia. If we start adding links even to most notable websites, soon every wikipedia article will turn into an enormous list of links with a tiny text above. Therefore basically two types of links make sense. First, these are references links, the ones which corroborate the text of a wikipedia article. Second, the websites produced by the subject of the article or its immediate affiliates: offical portals, home pages, major fan sites, etc.

I have no doubt that DiplomacyMonitor is a convenient research tool. Even omitting the fact that is toes not provide information in an encyclopedic way, I have no possibility to establish whether this website is neutral (non-partisan), complete, up-to-date, reputable. For example, looking at the article Fiji, I see Fiji-related external links from CIA, Fiji itself, Wikitravel, Open Directory Project, and Diplomacy Monitor. Do you see the difference ? :-) the point is that neither I nor casual reader can reasonably judge what the heck DipMon is. And why readers in England have to believe a website affiliated with a Roman Catholic University.

In wikipedia there is only one way to establish notability of something: to write a wikipedia article which will not be deleted as a blatant vanity or shameless promotion. The major rules for this are wikipedia:Verifiability, wikipedia:Neutral point of view and finally Wikipedia:No original research. These, in part, imply that there should be 3-rd party reputable sources that confirm the notability of the subject. In other words, wikipedia cannot rely only on the words of a person or a company or a musical band written about. I quickly searched in google for "Diplomacy Monitor" / DiplomacyMonitor and failed to see any independed praise of the website. But I may well be mistaken. It is up to you to prove that it is indeed a valuable resoruce, not worse than CIA, basing on published opinions of known and independent experts. `'mikkanarxi 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

  • mikkalai,
Thanks for your response. I don't quarrel with anything you say and unterstand all of your points. Judging by your photo, I'm a bit older than you and although I have been a net programmer for many years, I am a newbie to wiki and basically didn't know what I was doing. My concern is that you or anyone else think I was trying to spam. As you can see, the linked site is not commercial. It runs no ads. Since it is reaching its audiences of diplomats, policymakers and academics, more traffic means nothing to them. My only thought was for the students who use the site and how maybe a link in wiki could possibly help others. I had some spare time and, to my regret, dropped the links. Again, I'm sorry.
About Diplomacy Monitor's neutrality and status in the international relations world, you might click in these two links I found quickly. (There are many others.)
Itute (a network of UK universities - this particular section is edited by faculty at the London School of Economics) - "Editor's choice"
http://www.intute.ac.uk/socialsciences/cgi-bin/fullrecord.pl?handle=sosig1061558795-9803
Michigan State University - "If you need to stay up-to-date on the latest in diplomatic news, look no further..."
http://www.msuglobalaccess.net/results.php?subConstID=a&subGeoID=a&GeoID=a&subGeoID=a&ThemeID=a&ConstID=a&RsrcID=a&LangID=999&keywords=diplomacy+monitor
The site has been linked by many of the world's major universities, as well as the UN, various websites of the U.S. State Dept., official government websites for several nations, including Belgium, France and Australia. It's been named "website of the week (or month)" by everything from ResourceShelf to the Carter Center in Atlanta. Out your way, Santa Clara University Library, in its review, said: "This is an INCREDIBLE [sic] tool…. a real example of the best of the web."
Again, thanks for your time. Let's drop this please. I won't post on wiki again. By the looks of things, you seem to be in the initial core group of magicians who made wiki happen. Hats off to you and keep up the great work.
Best...
Tom

I am not in an "initial core" group of magicians. In fact, I am very far from all these magicians who set policies in wikipedia. And I was not among the "fathers-founders". But I find some rules quite essential. I am sorry that your attemt to contribute to wikipedia sizzled. But this is it: wikipedia is 90% written by three categories of people: real enthusiasts who truly embraced the idea, graphomaniacs who don't really care what to write (this would probably be me :-), and bigots who want to enforce their worldview. Once again, I am sorry that you don't want to waste your time for proving your point. However you provided a sufficient proof and a starting point that I am willing to try and finish what you have started, if only out of respect towards you, . Namely, I will start an article about Diplomacy Monitor, link it into a number of visible places. If it will be met positively, I will re-add your links. `'mikkanarxi 17:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Geez, mikkalai. I can't say thank you enough for this.
I'm of retirement age and have tired eyes, and it's obvious that I still don't get it. I did not understand about creating an entry for DiplomacyMonitor itself. From what you have written, I gather either this entry and/or the links to it are exposed as "new" or "proposed" to members of the Wiki community? And they can then react to its appropriateness? And if the consesus is negative, it is reverted?
It is just a new article. I linked it into several related articles so that people will notice it. Articles may be deleted. There is a special process of doing this. You may take alook how it works and what is generally deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 December 19. `'mikkanarxi 03:51, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
I thought I had read the Wiki Q&A thoroughly but I must have missed something or I was in the wrong help section.
In any case, it's obvious you are busy so please don't put in any more time than you already have on our behalf. If there is something further that needs to be done, I would gladly -- and gratefully -- do it.
Tom Hillstrom 19:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)