User talk:Wmahan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to my talk page! Thanks, criticism, and other comments are welcome.

Notice
  • If you leave a message here, I will generally reply on this page unless you ask otherwise.
  • Likewise, if I leave a message on your talk page, I will watch for any reply you may want to put there.
  • Please don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~.

Contents

[edit] Archived versions of this page

Please leave your comments at the bottom of the page.

Regarding the check image, I looked at it. You can read the the extra fine print that is used to prevent check fraud. I don't know how aware you are, but these scammers will use anything they can to steal or cheat money from people. I am simply trying to keep this from happening. The image that was there, is the clearest, most realistic looking one I have ever found online. I made another change to it, that should make you happy. I don't think you realize how bad these scammers are, they will use anythig they can to pull off their scams.

What I tried to explain on the talk page is that changing the image doesn't really hurt the efforts of scammers. How bad they are is beside the point. Wmahan. 01:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Saga of Souls

Y'know what? I did forget to put in in the log. I was wondering why it was still out there. Thank you for the heads-up. Do I put it in today's log with an explanation, or do I put it in the one for Aug. 31? ... discospinster talk 15:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Livingtrust - Your deletion of our external links

The Living Trust Network provides good, unbiased information on living trusts and estate planning to consumers and professionals. We don't sell anything, we don't provide legal documents - we don't even receive any revenue from anyone other than a $1.00 or so a day from some google ads on our site. We are trying to combat all the erroneous information that exists out there by hucksters of all types.

Among other things, consumers want information on the types of wills and trusts they should have - that's why we provide good sample wills and trusts at no charge. That's also why we want to display wills of the rich and famous - so people can see what other notable people have done with their estate planning.

We provide links from these rich and famous people to wikipedia for more information because your site provides good information and there's no point in our duplicating it. Your articles on these rich and famous people don't provide access to their wills, yet your visitors want that information. I don't know what you consider spam, but I don't believe that providing good information that people want at no charge is spam. The more important question is whether the wills of these people are copyrighted or not. We've already gone over those issues in great detail and have concluded that they are not. See our discussions with Postdif. Most of the editors that have commented have questioned that issue and have concuded that these wills are in the public domain and are already available on numerous websites. Moreover, the consensus of opinion is that these wills are a good thing.

It should be noted, too, that Wikipedia has long permitted CourtTV, a very commercial site, to link to the last will and testament of several rich and famous individuals with articles on Wikipedia. See Doris Duke's article. I would suggest that you be consistent - if you don't want links of this nature, then remove them all, not just those to our site.

You indicated, also, that the decision to allow our external links was not made by the editors. Since most of the editors that we have conversed with about these issues have been in favor of our links, how do we get this consensus of opinion among the editors? What is the procedure?

We thought we were doing a good thing by giving people access to these wills. Sure, it brings visitors to our site but, if we're just providing good information that people should have, is that something that should be dismissed as "spam"? If the editors of Wikipedia would take a moment to understand the value of this, then we're sure that there would not be any hesitation on the part of Wikipedia to sanction them.

So, I would ask you to reexamine your deletion of our links and, instead, allow us to obtain the consent of the editors through whatever procedure exists for that purpose. Thanks. Livingtrust 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Ok, I broke my own rule - I posted the above before I read your note regarding deletions of links to a person's own website. I agree with the underlying principles regarding external links; however, I would say, first, that neither I nor anyone associated with our website added those links. That was done by unknown people who must have read our post in each discussion page. Those notes were put there based upon the recommendation of other editors. We have a total of 23 wills of rich and famous people on our website and we posted that note on the Wikipedia article for each of those people. Again, we thought that was the right thing to do. We're not trying to hide anything or deceive anyone. We follow the rules and we respect what Wikipedia does. I would only hope that we have a fair hearing on what we're tying to do and, if there is a procedure we should follow, that we be informed as to what that procedure is. Thanks again. Livingtrust 21:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to each of your points:

  • Your motives may be noble and pure, as you say, but you also stand to benefit financially when people view your site. This is a conflict of interest that goes against Wikipedia's neutrality policy, so you may not add the links yourself, as has already been explained.
  • You claim that "Wikipedia has long permitted CourtTV" to add links. I doubt that CourtTV or its employees added the links, and I doubt even more that there was ever a consensus on Wikipedia for something like that. I think it's more likely that the links were added by neutral editors. Regardless, saying "but other people do it!" is a common, yet seldom effective, excuse of spammers.
  • As has already been explained, the proper procedure is for neutral editors to add your links. I didn't do anything to prevent you from obtaining support from other editors; rather, I saw anonymous IPs adding links to your site as an attempt to circumvent that procedure. I didn't remove any of your solicitations from talk pages; I only ask that you be careful not to excessively post such requests.
  • If your links are as indispensable as you say, convincing neutral editors to add your links should not be a great obstacle.
  • I'm willing to take your word for it that you weren't behind the anonymous IPs, but in general any anonymous users adding many links to a site are subject to scrutiny. A consensus of clearly neutral editors is more transparent, and much less likely to raise an objection from someone like me. Wmahan. 21:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt response. Our motives are noble and pure, but we're not opposed to getting more traffic. If we could profit financialy, we certainly wouldn't be opposed to it.

But, that's not our goal. We realy do want to provide good information to consumers. Also, we really did not add the links ourselves. We posted those notes on the discussion pages so that others would read them and add the link for us - that's what we thought we were supposed to do. If I understand you, however, the link has to be added by a neutral editor, not just anyone visiting the site. Is that correct? If so, do you have any advice as to how we could accomplish that? And, how do we bring this to the editors as a whole? Thanks again. Livingtrust 21:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your understanding is correct. You've already taken the steps I would advise, namely asking on the talk pages of articles. The next step would be to be patient and respect the opinion of other editors. I'm honestly not sure how your links will be received; sometimes people suggesting links to their own site are listened to, and sometimes not. Wmahan. 23:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

  • There is a tremendous amount of interest in the wills of rich and famous people, people like Princess Diana and John F. Kennedy to name a few, and we have tried to make those wills available to people who view the biographies of these people on Wikipedia. However, the editors of Wikipedia don't seem to see the value of this information, they seem only to focus on the possibility that we are only looking to promote our site. Some have removed our links because we appeared to be spamming. Some have been critical because they believed the wills are not verified. Others have questioned potential copyright violations. While all seem to believe that this information is of interest to people, none are willing to say that this information should be available to Wikipedia visitors. It is easy to question, to criticize, and to simply delete. Anyone can do that. The real test of an editor's value is whether he or she can say yes. I have not found anyone at Wikipedia that is willing to do that, not only with respect to our requests but with others as well.
  • So, we at the Living Trust Network are about to give up on our attempt to make these wills available to Wikipedia visitors - but we have one last offer to make. If Wikipedia consents, we will post a copy of the Last Wills and Testaments of over 20 rich and famous individuals directly on their Wikipedia articles, with no reference to our website or our company. That way, visitors can have access to these wills without leaving the Wikipedia website and without the possibility of their being spammed in the process. If you - or any other editor will consent to this offer, then we will post the wills according to your specific instructions. Thanks. Livingtrust 15:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia generally doesn't host that kind of primary source material; however, our sister project Wikisource might accept it. Licensing is an important issue there too, so you would need to show that the material is in the public domain. I'm only somewhat familiar with Wikisource, but my guess is that they would welcome your contributions. Thanks, Wmahan. 15:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Movieland Directory

You left me a message/warning about links I'm leaving at various sites which link to our website. You refer to it as spam. Did you actually go to our site? It's a very well researched reference site. We, in fact, have a 500 page book directory published, and have taken the database and put it on-line. We're not adding editorial content. We're adding TO the editorial content. So, for example, if you are reading about the Black Dahlia, you come to the link which I put there (http://www.movielanddirectory.com/category-stars.cfm?category=34), you have lists of people and places, descriptions and links which pass those addresses to every major mapping engine. How is that spam? This directory, as well as my brother's other books - one of which is noted under Eddie Mannix (another link someone deleted) represents years of work. Scouring ancestry.com, reading virtually every book worth reading about Hollywood and the history of the movies. Certainly we're happy if we generate traffic to our site. But...we have no pop-up ads. No flashing banners. Nothing like that. And yet, I can point to many links in Wikipedia, on content tied to Hollywood and the movies, that are of this cheesier variety. Go take a look, and please help me understand.

Thank you.

Tony Fleming The Movieland Directory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieland (talk • contribs)

The issue is simple: you are not allowed to add links to your own website, since Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion. Wmahan. 02:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Just FYI I received the above posting as well. I have placed a response on his talk page advising that he take the blacklisting warning you posted seriously. 23skidoo 04:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, thank you for the backup. Wmahan. 04:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen (I'll send 23skidoo over here, also.) I read the spam rules. I did not interpret my healthy interest in having people come and visit our reference and travel site as "promotion" of some huckster-like variety. I'd appreciate it if you'd take the time to read through this and check my logic.
So, if someone ELSE posts a link to content on our site, you're OK with that. Is that right? But, you assume some sort of disingenuousness if we volunteer it. Right? I read the policy. I understand where the appearance of impropriety is an issue. Please take two minutes to inspect our site. Our information is an outstanding example of an excrutiatingly well researched database of Hollywood addresses dating back to the very dawn of the industry. E.J. Fleming, who compiled this information, has also written a Hollywood tour book, wrote the first biography of Carole Landis, was on the phone with New York Newsday film critic John Anderson two weeks ago discussing the film "Hollywoodland" as E.J. wrote "The Fixers" about Eddie Mannix and MGM's PR department. And, in December, his next book will be published, the first biography of Wally Reid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wallace_Reid). And, we're continuing to build on the Movieland Directory. It's roughly twice the size as when the Directory was first printed...the Internet lets us update it daily...like Wikipedia! It's an incredible resource for anyone wanting to either travel to that area, or simply to get a feel for what these famous places look like, today. Using the power of the Internet. We are continuing to chip away at including CAREFULLY VETTED sites tied to people and places. We know that's going to be a multi-year effort. But, we've started. This is not spam, even by Wikipedia's definition.
As I inspect links ALL OVER Wikipedia, there are links to sites which are OBVIOUSLY "promotion" - flat out e-commerce sites. Let's stick to the Hollywood page, for instance. I'll try and constrast with ours. A quick and easy run down of those links:
http://www.seeing-stars.com/ He's done a fine job with seeing-stars, and has obviously put in much work. We share a mutual friend in Scott Michaels at Find-A-Death, who links to both our sites. Note Scott's description of our site at http://www.findadeath.com/. Click on "Links", where Scott - a bit of a legend in LA touring and history circles - refers to our "STUNNING RESOURCE" (my emphasis added) Anyway, for all of Gary's fine work which went into seeing-stars, be sure and enable your pop-up blocker before opening. It's riddled with the worst sorts of advertising and promotion.
Moving on...http://www.newkerala.com/news.php?action=showcat&catid=31 ...Dead link http://www.nrbooks.com/hollywoodtour.htm. You've got Bill Gordon selling his book. Nice guy. Promoting his book. I did not put in any links to pages on our site that have EJ's books. In fact, we don't even HAVE them. We have small Amazon ads and some images. http://www.hollywoodmuseum.com/home/home_main.html ... This is ONLY a promotional site. http://www.hollywoodphotographs.com/ ... I love this guy's business. I've bookmarked this page long ago.. But, this is PURELY an ecommerce site! http://www.hollywoodtickets.com/ ... You're kidding, right? http://hollywoodimage.us/ ... More of the same, right?
I think I've made my point. Please don't block us. We are an excellent reference site, presented modestly - particularly when compared to other links. (And...there are others on other pages).
What do we need to do in order to add content (and, I consider a link to a valuable reference site "adding content"). Do we need to edit paragraphs? Embed links to, e.g., Black Dahlia addresses within paragraphs?
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards,
Tony Fleming —Preceding unsigned comment added by Movieland (talk • contribs)

Replying to your points in turn:

  • No one accused you of being a huckster or an evil spammer. I simply said that adding links to your own website goes against our neutrality guidelines.
  • Yes, it's OK if someone else adds links to your site, but not if you do it. Note that someone who doesn't have an interest in your site isn't likely to add many links to it, as you did. Anyone mass-adding links is likely to be viewed with suspicion. Also, it's not uncommon for spammers to try to use multiple accounts or IP addresses to add links, and that's not looked upon kindly; it's usually not difficult to detect the difference between someone trying to promote a site and someone who only wants to improve Wikipedia.
  • I didn't remove the reference to your brother's book because book citations are generally not scrutinized as closely as external links, and it could be useful. But even book references should not be added as promotion.
  • I'm not disputing that you worked hard on your site, but that's not the issue. If your site is really an indispensable resource, a neutral editor will add it without you needing to ask.
  • No, of course embedding links within paragraphs is not what is meant by adding content. There is no shortage of ways you can contribute that do not involve adding links to sites you have an interest in. You may even add a reasonable number of links to sites that you don't have any affiliation with, but it's better to add text and citations to articles.
  • Blocking is a last resort. I threatened it because you repeatedly added the links after being specifically warned not to, but I'd prefer to avoid such measures.
  • Your point that others use Wikipedia for promotion is a common, but seldom effective, argument among those seeking to add their own links. If there are other inappropriately self-promotional links they should be removed, but the fact that others may have violated our guidelines does not make it OK for you to do so. Wmahan. 17:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. I know this editing of an encyclopedia is a big job. Here's (I think) my last argument.
The fact that our information is "bite sized", i.e., we have individual pages for lots of famous (and not famous, at all) people associated with the movie business should not suggest that we are spamming because we are including multiple links. (Actually...I don't know what "alot" is. I think it's under 15) By the nature of our data, it's...one page of addresses per person, or in the case of something like the Black Dahlia case, one page per subject. It's akin to IMDB. There are all kinds of links to IMDB pages in Wikipedia. Again...because it's bite-sized in that way.
Maybe what ought to be done is for an editor such as yourself with an interest in the Hollywood page or any other page, to actually LOOK NOT at WHO posted it or how many were posted, and instead at the content itself. That's what I do at our site. See http://www.movielanddirectory.com/article.cfm?article=4. I don't include a zillion affiliate sites. Good lord, it would have been easy for me to simply include a zillion links and to solicit all of those sites to link back to ours. Though I think pages which have zillions of links have their place, and in fact I include an instance of one or two on that page to cover that need for our visitors, that's not what I want our site to be. I don't need to replicate or repackage what others have already done. My job is to pick the best of what I find. We want it to be a well-regarded information source for travelers and people interested in Movieland history.
In the time it's taken us to discuss this, a Wikipedia editor who was, say, interested in "the best" and opposed to including links that were patently ecommerce or promotional, could have deleted those links which I highlighted above. Or, if they really like them - and I love that Torrence fellow's historic pictures - INCLUDE IT. Maybe they'd delete mine, because they didn't find it interesting or valuable enough, and then we could have an honest discussion about the content on our site rather than a blind adherence to "process". And...I guess I'd feel alot better about the whole thing.
One last word on neutrality. That's not what an encyclopedia is, and that's not what's going on at Wikipedia, which prides itself on including all points of view. Hey...if Alan Greenspan wanted to contribute his thoughts and "favorite links" on the "monetary policy" page...you'd take it! There are not "points of view" about everything. Sometimes, it's plain, dull facts. Grand Canyon...you want a picture, for instance. In the case of Hollywood and Los Angeles, where people live(d) is a major aspect of what that culture is all about. Beverly Hills is what it is because...it's a PLACE populated by palm trees and the homes of famous people. Check it out. Type "Los Angeles" into your favorite search engine and check out all the local tour companies. NUMBER ONE on the list of canned tours - for every company...celebrity homes. Anyone editing the Hollywood page would appreciate that. To be able to see where George Reeves shot himself to death (to keep that theme going), and to see that it's right down the street from Valentino's Falcon's Lair, and right down the street from where Paul Bern lived and died. THAT is Hollywood history, and it's a history tied to places and maps and now you can see all that without having to fly there...that's what we have.
The AVERAGE visitor to our site visits 7-10 pages. And...there's really nothing but these person-specific address lists with maps and links to other mapping engines. It's addictive because it's so central to the whole LA-Hollywood-Southern California culture - whatever we might think of that notwithstanding.
And, you don't want that because...we volunteered it. But, you'll take a half dozen (I'm guessing) uninspected ecommerce sites because someone got their friend to put them in. Well, I guess...I'll need to get some friends with Wikipedia accounts! I'm sure I have them.
I hope you'll reconsider. But, I don't expect it. I hope you come and visit our site and like it. I'm happy to take recommendations for its improvement.
Thanks for your help.
Regards,
Tony

I recognize that you honestly think you are improving Wikipedia by adding links to your site. I hope you understand that not everyone agrees, and that others may have a different view of "what's going on at Wikipedia", as you put it.

I understand that you think I should focus on content and ignore your possible motives. I guess we'll have to disagree there. Suffice it to say that I'm not the only one to object to your additions of links, as you know from the messages on your talk page.

I advise you not to ask your friends to add your links. Rather, you can ask on the talk page of the relevant article for a neutral editor to consider the link. Wmahan. 06:35, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It all seems very arbitrary and bureaucratic. I am a project manager for a company with over 200,000 employees! All I do is deal in process change. I recognize slavish dedication to process absent using one's best faculties. This looks a lot like that, as I'm guessing you can imagine.

The long list of "others who agree with you"? Two people. One (Vivaldi) with a contentious history and a quick trigger finger. Take a look at his "my talk". Please. I'd love to know if his communications are normal. People are "escalating" on his editing practices right now. And, he's irritated people in the past. Maybe contention is the rule of the day when you are an editor. Not all of his postings are problematic. But, the tenor of maybe half the things on this talk page is...odd and contentious. 23skidoo seems to have some interest in "olde tyme Hollywood". He hasn't mentioned the content, so I'm guessing he hasn't visited. He was just relating the problem with how they were added.

On the flipside, in defense of the value of the Movieland Directory information (versus the process for its addition), I point to the way-more-than-two-people who clicked on my links. In the very short time I included those links, people came from Wikipedia to our site. Lots of them. Based only on a simple "addresses for person x" sort of link description. Drawn by that dinky description because, as I noted earlier, that is "LA". No one complained. I don't see any records of these hundreds of people reporting back to the "neutral party" that this was some awful, commercial site. None of them went in and deleted the links.

Hundreds of people actually checking content versus three (seemingly) concerned only with how it got there. Three people who don't even look at the content get to delete it. I don't believe there's a single sentence the three of you have typed to me which addresses the value or lack of value of the content.

Look at your answer to me immediately above: "...you think I should focus on content...I disagree". How can that be right? You seem like an intelligent, and certainly patient, person. It seems completely incongruous to me that anyone like that, who would endeavor to maintain something like this would not consider first and foremost the content.

You've told me I can't add them; I haven't and I won't. So...who passes muster as "neutral". The same so-called neutral people who put those ecommerce links on the Hollywood page? I'm serious. Did you look at those? How would I know whether someone is neutral AND that I'm getting a fair shake? If you would give me that advice, I'd appreciate it.

Thank you.

Tony

"When the facts change, I change my mind." John Maynard Keynes

You're right that Wikipedia's processes can be arbitrary and bureaucratic. And it's true that lots of promotional links get through. I don't have a good answer. Our primary goal isn't to be fair to everyone, but to make a free encyclopedia.
I believe the goal of providing the highest-quality free information is best served when judgments are made by disinterested, neutral editors. You may see my enforcement of that as "slavish dedication to process", but it's based on my own views, not blind adherence to the rules.
Your argument about content is persuasive. I couldn't approve your links on behalf of Wikipedia even if I wanted to, and to be honest I don't have the motivation or knowledge to fairly judge each of your links on its merits. Hence my suggestion to ask for opinions from the other neutral editors.
So I never meant to say you can't add the links under any circumstances. You just need to have some support from others. My opinion alone is pretty much irrelevant. Wmahan. 06:07, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope my sudden intrusion isn't unwelcome, but I want to make a couple of quick points from personal experience.

  1. Wmahan is doing a really great job of keeping WP clean from spam, and the fact that your actions may have resembled spam should give you pause.
  2. I help run a nonprofit website that relates very, very strongly to one or a couple of WP articles. I actually made a point of not adding any links to it. Indeed, I made a point of not touching the article at all for fear of striking concerns about propriety (there are several pages, including some having to do with my work, which I refuse to touch for similar reasons). You know what happened? Someone totally unaffiliated with the site added the links. If your site is really that important and relevant, the experts will find it, and add the link for you. The best thing for you is to STAY OUT!, except for maybe to add carefully considered information to talk pages.
  3. I'm quite open to the possibility that the edits being questioned are completely kosher and unbiased. I also believe that it's up to each person to decide how they go about maintaining an appearance of propriety. My choice is total abstinence. But another valid choice is to admit the possible conflict of interest, and maybe even put up some words on your userpage explaining who you work for, and what steps you take to ensure that your encyclopedic contributions comply with wikipedia policies. Openness is good.

Well, I hope my personal story helps, rather than hurts, this exceedingly long discussion! Snacky 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you both. When "The Movieland Directory" is a household name, you can look back and say, "I remember when those guys were just a pain in my ass!" Since we went live in late May, slowly but surely, we have people beginning to find us and to link back to us. We've been fortunate that a few established blogger-and-older-LA-sites were already familiar with EJ and our information. Nonetheless, developing the site with the features we want and getting the content to the place we want is a slower process than I'd planned on. But...can't give up the day job! Learning the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia? Priceless. Thanks. Tony

[edit] Alfred Hitchcock - external links

I'm curious about your decision to remove the link to the Alfred Hitchcock DVD Wiki (http://www.daveyp.com/hitchcock/), which is a well respected Hitchcock information site that has been running for a number of years, from the Alfred Hitchcock article. You state that the site is designed to sell DVDs, which I wouldn't agree with -- certainly when compared to the other links to the commercial Warner and Universal web sites, and also the "hitchcockfans" site which (although new) appears to be a straight copy of info from IMDB along with multiple Amazon links. Presumably you'd also regard a site like www.dvdbeaver.com as primarily designed to sell DVDs too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.4.244 (talk • contribs)

Basically, the site didn't appear to provide a unique resource as required by Wikipedia:External links, and the amazon store links made me more inclined to think that you had some interest in promoting the site. You are not allowed to add links to your own website or try to promote any website on Wikipedia. Promotion and relevance to the article are the issues I was concerned with, not necessarily commercialism. Wmahan. 20:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That's fair enough, although I still (personally) feel it's a relevant site to the article. Many thanks for your comments!
Thank you for understanding. Best of luck with the site, assuming it's yours. Also, if you think you can convince a neutral editor to add the link as a relevant resource, you can ask on the talk page of the article. Wmahan. 20:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not my site, but I have contributed material to it. I'll also follow your suggestion about the talk page. Keep up the good work -- I find Wikipedia an incredibly useful resource :-)


[edit] BMR versus Basal Metabolic Rate or RMR versus Resting Metabolic Rate

I was searching the Google engine and noticed that Wikipedia is not getting picked up as "BMR" or "RMR" but it is getting picked up for "Basal Metabolic Rate". How is that controlled? Does a webmaster handle it or is there another process? Thanks for your help with the citation for Celiac Disease. I was going to add a Glossary and see if that makes the site more accessible and less confusing with the terms. Have a great weekend! BRileyPTA 07:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)BRileyPTABRileyPTA 07:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I answered the question at Talk:Basal metabolic rate. Basically, there's no straightforward way to make "BMR" a keyword in the Basal metabolic rate article. One thing I didn't mention is that the "BMR" keyword is used in the redirect page.[1] So if other sites linked there instead of directly to the Basal metabolic rate article, that might increase our ranking for "BMR". Wmahan. 07:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Assume good faith' should not mean 'assume the position'

Sorry to keep disagreeing with you. You wrote, "It appears to me that Davkal made a thoughtless comment, thought better of it, and tried to remove it." No, that's not true. He made yet another personal attack after just being blocked for 7 days for personal attacks and warned that if he continues, he will be blocked for a whole month. Only when Karl complained about this and other personal attacks on WP:AN/I did Davkal "think better of it." "Assume Good Faith" should not mean "Assume the Position..." People who continue to disrupt Wikipedia should not be allowed to continue their disruptive conduct in naive belief that you can transform a miscreant into a good citizen by always giving them another chance. Askolnick 04:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of external links

Hi Will - I notice Digi Deli page has the "inline" links of the sort that were on Old time rad, not got time to sort it thoughtfully at pres. I'm sure you would pick it up anyway but ... Happy to help when I can - cheers --Nigel (Talk) 12:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Bit more - I am sure you will pick this one up but Talk:Logo#STRAW POLL on disputed link but otherwise we won't know your opinion <g> --Nigel (Talk) 17:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

you are more than welcome - now if we could just sort the other one out (end of day but does dynamite work on World Wide Wiki cos nothing else seems to?!) Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 19:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement Versus Soapbox

Please clear up your citation (prod?) on Digital Deli Online and cite your specific concerns on the article's discussion page for 'consensus'. Is it a 'soapbox' article or an advertisement or both? Please make a choice, and support it. Your observations are unsupported, inappropriate, and arbitrary without further amplification. The same issues you raised have already been reviewed and satisfied. Please show how your observations differ or hold more weight. The place for such discussions are supposed to be on the Article's Discussion page. Please justify your removal of the intro section title as well. And please indicate your expertise and background in establishing your assertions. I'd appreciate the answer on the article's discussion page, so others can comment. Thanks. Dnyhagen 06:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the {{advert}} template to the article because in some cases it is obvious that the article was written by the owner of the site. That can be fixed, and it's not an attack. I'm not sure what you're referring to about a "soapbox"; I never used that word in reference to you or the article. Please notice that I actually removed the {{prod}} template after it was placed by an IP address that had been spamming links to a commercial OTR site.
Section headings are not used before article leads. This is utterly standard Wikipedia style as explained at Wikipedia:Lead section, and I'm not sure why you saw it as some sort of attack.
I do not need to prove my expertise or background. You wrote an article about your own website, which is discouraged. Generally such articles are either edited to conform to a neutral point of view, or deleted. I am trying to take the former route, because I think the article might be valuable if edited according to Wikipedia's policies.
Please do not take my editing the article as an attack on you or your site. Again, I hope to improve the article about your website, and not only have I not suggested deleting it, I actively removed such a suggestion. Wmahan. 14:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Editor login, Dnyhagen, owner of DigitalDeliFtp.com (a commercial sites selling old time radio downloads) has started a removal campaign to remove and delete all other "commercial" links to other old time radio sites from Wikipedia. While deleting competing website's entries, User:Dnyhagenis expanding and slowly getting approval from other editors for his own 'article' for his commercial site. His self published article on Digital Deli Online is not publically valuable (despite his elaboration efforts) for public knowledge, but he is currently revising to thinly fit into Wikipedia's guidelines. Based on these guidelines, Wikipedia should remove this self published article and cease Dnyhagen's campaign to only create links to DigitalDeliFTP is regards to Old Time Radio. 16:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.126.42.87 (talk • contribs)
It looks like you may have some valid points. I might even support some of what you say, but before I can consider that, please:
  1. Stop spamming and otherwise disrupting Wikipedia. This is not negotiable.
  2. Create an account. You don't have to do this, but it's easy .
Then come back and I would be happy to consider what you say further. Thanks, Wmahan. 15:45, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your consideration - I will be glad to comply with both of your requirements; all 'spamming' will stop and my user account, WikiOTR is created. I'll respond below...

[edit] Digi Deli

Given the origin of this article should it be tested by peer review do you think? It would not worry me to deal with it at all. Regards --Nigel (Talk) 16:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of posting an RfC or similar request for opinions about it. Epecially given the anonymous accusation, unsupported by any evidence so far, that the site is actually commercial and that the owner is trying to favor his own site on Wikipedia. Wmahan. 16:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Happy to go with that - I was wondering AfD but you are more experienced than me by some way. I'd just like to get on with life! --Nigel (Talk) 16:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I would support an AFD discussion, I just wouldn't list it myself because I wouldn't want to reinforce the author's (untrue) impression that I am trying to attack him. Wmahan. 16:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Rare for me - going to think first! Understand your position fully - feel free to share if you want. I'll get back to you --Nigel (Talk) 16:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
I hope you don't mean this is the first time you've fully understood something I said. I'm afraid that would mean I'm not communicating clearly. But keep up the good work! Wmahan. 17:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Backing up previous allegations in above notation;
[long indictment snipped]
WikiOTR 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Glad to have you on board. It looks like you posted the same thing in several other places, including Talk:Digital Deli Online, so let's take all the discussion there. Also, you might want to fix your sig: it currently links to User:WikiOTR (with the last three letters capitalized), but your actual user name is Wikiotr. Wmahan. 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction; just slowly figuring my way around the editor! Wikiotr 01:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fodder for your anti-spam campaign

This guy should be of interest to you in your crusade to rid the WP world of spam: User:Jkatzen Vendormate Logo_extraction_puzzles I'll be very interested to see how you respond to this. Joe 17:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I supported deleting Vendormate and keeping Logo extraction puzzles, and I don't think either choice is inconsistent with the standard I applied to your links. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could keep your tone more civil. I'm not on a crusade and I hope that you can at least respect that I'm trying to improve Wikipedia, even if you don't agree with the fact that I opposed your links. Wmahan. 04:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You might be interested in the research I've done on Advameg (contained in the article). I know you have been instrumental in fighting their spam. Mjk2357 11:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by JSMorse

Hi, I just wanted to let you know that Jsmorse47 (talk • contribs) made a comment about you on my talk page. I'm tempted to write it off as retaliation for your opposition to Mr. Morse's link (copied from my talk page)

Eh, I don't think his comments necessitate a response. If anyone else is concerned about something, they can raise issues with me. Jkatzen 22:16, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, I tend to agree. I just didn't think it was fair for him to make insinuations about you on another person's talk page without you knowing about it. Wmahan. 22:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need help with new citations

I have several new The Digital Deli Online citations I need help with, but I can't figure out how you did the previous ones, or where they are. Dnyhagen 04:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, I converted some of the new ones. I admit the syntax can be confusing, but it's explained at at Wikipedia:Footnotes and {{cite web}}. You might be able to figure it out by looking at my examples. Wmahan. 06:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well I think I did, but I notice a variation in some of them. What are the difference between the ones that continue to show the external link icon, as compared to the ones that only result in a citation number? That's the part I seem stymied with at present. Thanks Dnyhagen 06:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Review & next?

Hi Will - nothing to do with not understanding you - no one will ever think to put "he was patience" in my epitaph!

So - to review. It seems possible that Logo may be sorted. I will certainly revert any instances I see of the link (or others) being placed again and then we should bear in mind 3RR on that I think.

Radio stuff. Despite the involvement of a number of outside editors it does not seem to me that either they or Wiki are really being treated with respect or properly "listened" to. Attempts to put positives and solutions seem met with lengthy negatives. The addition of a further editor who would like his site linked has done nothing to clear the waters (to say nothing of the "protestor").

Two issues here - the Radio page itself and any related ones (I note that the second item that comes up on my google search for Digi Deli is now the Wiki page). The whole of this generates far more heat than light and I think some external review from uninvolved editors is needed (I think I would only be borderline uninvolved now). I am unsure which way to go - I think RfC might be good but do you have any experience of/thoughts on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. We do have a couple of less involved editors who have some knowledge (Guy & Eagle), would it be worth asking for their views?

There's a point you overlooked. I don't promote the name 'The Digital Deli Online' in any of my page's metadata. I prominently include 'Golden Age Radio' on all of them, and that's how I'm crawled by Google, Yahoo, Alexa and MSN. If the insinuation here--yet again--is self promotion, here's some more representative examples to consider, if you truly aspire to act in good faith: 1.) Do a Google Search on Golden Age Radio and note The Digital Deli Online's ranking compared to the other 19 million to 23 million other Golden Age Radio sites. 2.) Do another Google search on the site's actual URL in the Google Images Tab. 3.) While you're at it, do a fair Alexa search, like this one. 4.) How about Yahoo? [2] 5.) And MSN shows this result. I can't agree more, that editors familiar with Golden Age Radio should be weighing in here, but to intentionially skew results to favor a specific insinuation against either me personally, or The Digital Deli Online, isn't exactly acting in good faith. I honestly don't question your motives, but some of these more unfounded insinuations simply must cease, as a simple matter of good faith, if for no other reason. I simply ask you to reconsider your position if it's based only on gut feelings or even a bad first impression from a sorely beleaguered contributor simply trying to jump through all the new hoops I've had to learn to navigate here. The most recent prod only highlights some of this insanity. The very guidance you, Wmahan and AbsolutDan provided me, are being used as a weapon against me by Guy now, sanctioning me for not deleting a possible spam link, due simply to the fact that I looked at the link, and determined it was on a GeoCities hosted page that the hosted article had no control whatsoever to avoid. All I'm asking is for fairness when all of you tell me one thing, then criticize me for doing precisely what you suggested I do. Dnyhagen 06:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
About the nomination of your article for deletion, if you'll excuse the cliche, AfD is a discussion, not a death sentence. To be honest I think someone was bound to nominiate it for deletion eventually, and it will be good to have a decision about the article before you put more work into it. I think Nigel was not trying to make insinuations about your site, but rather attempting to find a way to fairly evaluate the notability of the article by objective criteria.
Regarding Guy's comments, I think the issue is cleared up now. I see how I might have encouraged your actions, but he is right about the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you come under more criticism about the past removal of links, let me know and I'll try to put in a word on your behalf. Wmahan. 15:01, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

You have more experience than me, you have my support and I'm getting tired of this disruption and soapbox stuff now - hear from you, regards --Nigel (Talk) 12:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Logo, fully agree and support. I think there's more than enough community support for reverting the link on sight, as long as the current clear consensus against the link does not change. I just reverted the link again, so I'm afraid the situation is not settled yet.
Regarding radio, I think mediation is a great idea if you can get the editors to agree to it, but it would probably take time. I also like your idea of approaching other neutral editors. To be honest I find it very tiring as well, and I want to avoid being dragged into the current flame-fest. I think it may be best to see if emotions can cool on all sides before taking any action. Wmahan. 14:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Back to you later but avoid 3RR yourself please, I'll be watching for a while - cheers --Nigel (Talk) 14:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You have mail --Nigel (Talk) 16:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Descendent' correction by spelling script

'Descendent' and derivations is a valid though unpopular variation of 'descendant' and I've erroneously edited articles because of it, so can you take the descendents > descendants correction out please? Rjwilmsi 22:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm missing something, but I checked and it doesn't look like the script does any automatic correction of "descendents" or any variant. Wmahan. 14:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Okay, are both variants in the dictionary you use though? Thanks. Rjwilmsi 16:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I thought so, but I'll add it to the list of exceptions to make sure. By the way, there was recently a toolserver upgrade that I hope will make it easier for me to keep the script updated. I realize that the tool is less useful when the many of the corrections are out of date. Wmahan. 17:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hum - sockpuppet?

Not sure but ... User:Closercate1 cheers --Nigel (Talk) 08:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for reverting

Thank you for reverting vandalism on my user page! ... discospinster talk 17:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. :-) Wmahan. 17:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apostrophe showing as "?"

On some but not all pages, the your program reads an apostrophe as a question mark, and the word is then flagged as a possible error. See for example Differences between book and film versions of Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire where there are many such cases. Any idea why that should happen?--MichaelMaggs 18:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with the use of curly or "smart" quotes and apostrophes (’) rather than the more common straight apostrophes ('). I suppose I should work on fixing that, but the curly quotes have always bugged me, since there's no easy way to type them on a standard keyboard. By the way, I'm working on updating the database so more of the corrections work. Wmahan. 05:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

OK. Looking forward to it!--MichaelMaggs 16:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

It's ready now. Wmahan. 18:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops. The link now gives me "The requested URL /~wmahan/wpspell/go.php was not found on this server."

You probably need to clear the cache in your browser. Try holding down the shift key while refreshing a page. The new URL is http://hemlock.knams.wikimedia.org/~wmahan/wpspell/go.php rather than the old http://tools.wikimedia.de/~wmahan/wpspell/go.php. Wmahan. 06:52, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External watchlist

Hi Wil - had a day off - it rained! Looking at your list I see a number of the ones you list have quite a few link entries - how do you decide which are ok to leave and which are not? Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 16:21, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your day off was well deserved. I only removed links that were added under "suspicious" circumstances--meaning they were added by IPs or new accounts that added multiple links to one site. Most of the links I didn't remove were added by neutral users who happened to use them as a reference. I've gone through and checked all the entries that aren't highlighted in light red. The highlighted ones might still have links that need to be cleaned up. I'm still working on a way to keep track of new links being added. Wmahan. 17:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Helps - I am building some uk sites into a list. I confess the approach I've taken has been/become deletionist and "justify why it should be there". Ok if I look at yours and come back with some specifics if they puzzle me? Regards --Nigel (Talk) 17:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC) (& not sure about "deserved" but the edit count went up!)
I understand what you mean about being deletionist. That's why I try to keep a record of every IP and account used by persistent spammers, even though it adds more work. This way I have plenty of evidence to show that I'm not being arbitrary and removing links indiscriminately. Yes, please tell me if I can clear up anything else about the list. Wmahan. 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] link removal

Hi, a link I put up got removed yet there is another link similar to the one I put up that continues to be posted found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trading_card http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Aaron The card pricr link. This link has been spammed and removed on many pages. Please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TequilaShot (talk • contribs)

Thanks, I removed some of the links because membership-based sites are normally to be avoided, according to Wikipedia:External links. Wmahan. 17:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] some thoughts

I'll be honest--I don't think either TequilaShot's or your links meet the Wikipedia:External links guidelines. The cardpricer site appears to require membership for most of its content, and Wikipedia:External links discourages links to such sites, even if they meet some of the other guidelines.
Continuing to be honest, the fact that you've added several links to that one membership-based site might give the impression that you're trying to promote it. Trying to list price guides at Price guide is not practical. You can't list every topic and price guide, so such a list is necessarily incomplete and unencyclopedic. Why didn't you link to TequilaShot's site and your other competitors? And why choose baseball cards, coins, comics, and stamps out of the huge number of products that have price guides? Wmahan. 02:29, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


[ removed according to request ]

OK, I'll try to assume good faith and give you a chance to explain privately; I hope there really is a good explanation for all this. Please contact me by email. Wmahan. 05:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lucid dreaming

Hi Wmahan, given the discussion on the talk-page of Lucid Dreaming, could I put the link back (listed below)? Thanks in advance! Thanks, Paul. Eijkemans 11:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to ask another neutral editor to add the link, since I don't know much about lucid dreaming. ―Wmahan. 19:02, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] J.K.Rowling: Pay Chen Dowling

I do not consider what I did to be vandalism or nonsense. It is entirely true and If you want to delete it please prove me wrong. I cannot show you any official documents about this case as they were destroyed by the cult. 121.44.129.244 01:41, 1 October 2006 (UTC)That Guy who tells the truth.

As I said at User talk:121.44.88.37: Wikipedia:Verifiability is not negotiable. If you can't show evidence of your (outlandish) claims, they don't belong in Wikipedia. Wmahan. 01:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Would I be allowed to add this to the conspiracy page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.28.159.170 (talk • contribs)

Not without evidence. Verifiability applies to all articles, even ones discussing conspiracies. Wmahan. 02:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I can't show you evidence, as I already said the cult destroyed all evidence.121.44.83.224 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Then as I already said the information shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. ―Wmahan. 05:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

I opened a sockpuppetry case against Jmorse47. Since you've had a number of run-ins with him, you might want to add relevant info I might have missed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jsmorse47. Pascal.Tesson 00:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you did a thorough job; I don't have much to add. My main concern is that there's typically a laissez-faire attitude toward sockpuppets. If there isn't very recent, clearly abusive behavior, I'm not sure what can be done. But thank you for letting me know. ―Wmahan. 00:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I ended up adding more than I expected. Perhaps nothing will come of it, but it's worth laying out all the evidence available. ―Wmahan. 02:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your help

So I guess that story is over now. Thanks for your help with both the sockpuppetry case and the blacklisting case. I suppose we got a bit too hot under the collar at some point but in the end, hey, I think we handled that fairly well. Cheers. Pascal.Tesson 21:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Likewise, thank you for the continued support. I'm glad to see that Logo is unprotected, although I'm not certain that the situation is fully resolved yet. ―Wmahan. 23:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Muhammad- external links

Please can you explain why did you remove the external link. First of all it's not my site. Secondly, rich media is allowed when relevant. Please can you review the site before taking an action? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tahniyat (talk • contribs)

I strongly disagree with your view that a powerpoint link violates external link policy. Power Point show doesn't require any special software. It can be executed on an any windows PC and the majority of the world uses windows based PCs or OS that support running of a PowerPoint Show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.116.220.8 (talk • contribs)
I replied to both comments at User talk:Tahniyat. Please note that using more than one account to give the appearance of support for your position (or asking friends to come to Wikipedia solely to support your position) is not an acceptable way to gain a consensus for the link; see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. ―Wmahan. 23:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
I am able to run it on my Mac, just so you know. Maybe open-office on Linux. -Patstuart 23:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help needed in stoping spam

Hi I am the editor or the creator of some articles and a corporate information of a company. My pages a regularly being spamed or edited with wrong information about the company. Now what should I do the stop this furthur. The IP which is doing such activity is 59.144.1.150. Please help me in stoping such things.

[edit] Mjk2357

Wmahan - Based on your reponse on the talk page of this user, it appears that you fell for his personal vendetta against the site where he was banned. Mjk2357 is a former poster on city-data.com/forum/ (under username mjk1093) that was banned by the moderator for various rules infractions (worst messages are deleted) and now is using Wikipedia for a personal vendetta against the site's owners. There has been no spamming of Wikipedia on behalf of city-data.com - I'm sure you can check who added any references to the site to verify this. None of the other sites listed are spammy and in reality contain high-quality content (as you noted yourself). The attack article was deleted four times by different administrators (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Advameg) and against the rules Mjk2357 has restored the article three times. In addition, the company attacked by Mjk2357 is one of the first (if not the first) benefactors of the Wikimedia Foundation (http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Benefactors, August 2004, whois on fact-index.com).

Don't know who this guy is... he won't identify himself. Chances are he represents Advameg. Thanks for your support getting rid of their spam. Mjk2357 12:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Mjk2357 has admitted to knowingly disregarding at least four separate important Wikipedia rules and that he was a member of the forum who is now trying to get revenge by pushing your anti-spam hot button. 67.184.73.22 17:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Still you have not identified yourself or who you are associated with. If I was trying to hide my identity I wouldn't have chosen such similar names! And no, my messages were still visible to me but only when I was logged in. When I wasn't logged in - only then did my messages mysteriously dissapear. When I logged back in they were back. Obviously they were visible only to me so that I wouldn't know action had been taken against my posts. This is deceptive and borderline fraudulent.
If you are deleting racist messages now, I'm glad. You certainly weren't doing that before. The Google Cache will provide verifiability if anyone cares enough about this nonsense to check. You know that I am far from the only one with complaints about your company. There is a reason Advameg is listed in the Wikipedia anti-Spam campaign! I did not list it - it was listed longe before I knew who your company was. So if that was original research it wasn't by me. As for NPOV I tried to include the fact that not ALL of the sites held by Advameg appear to be racist. It tried to be balanced but frankly there is not much good to say about your company. If you have some good things to say it would have been better to add them to the article than engage in a deletion war which you have won because of clueless users who actually thought I worked for Advameg and was promoting your comapny and that the page should be deleted because your company's HQ is uncertain (??) Mjk2357 18:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
One last thought: If you would not treat your users so shabbily, I never would have done a WhoIs on city-data and I never would have found out about your (shabbily-received) sweepstakes and your spamming. A lesson in customer relations, perhaps. Because of, in my opinion, users ignorant of guidelines, you have won the delete war. But talk pages are for free discussion, as is my blog, as is Reddit, so don't think you can get away with deceptive behavior and spamming w/o someone calling you on it. Like I said, I'm far from the first person to complain about Advameg. You were listed on the anti-Spam campaign a long time before I found out who you were.
(Since your IP is Naperville, IL I assume you are Advameg or a rep of the company.) Mjk2357 18:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I won't take a position on the content of the article, which has been deleted again. However, the attempts to promote Advameg using Wikipedia are unacceptable and must stop. ―Wmahan. 17:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
I will let Zdrv get bored and wander off to spam other sites. Then I'll resume deleting his spam. He thinks I'm just on a vendetta but I delete all spam I see not just Advameg's! Also although I cannot recreate the article I think someone else should. Wikipedia users should know who is behind spam - and, actually, any company accused of spamming should be able to defend itself on an article as well. Thanks! Mjk2357 18:42, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From the Debatus.com guy

Hey, I'm not sure if you remember commenting on my talk page a while back about "spamming", but I just wanted to ask you a few questions if I could. For sure, your comments and actions were appropriate. What I'm wondering is whether you may have any advice for me as to how to spread the idea of Debatus.com among the wiki communities. Meatball wiki has not proven as useful as I had been led to expect, and myself and the other members of the Debatus team are trying to reach out in as many angles as possible to collect advice. Would you be willing to give me some? Thanks. Loudsirens 20:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I focus on removing inappropriate promotion from Wikipedia, so I'm not an expert on how to promote sites legitimately. If you haven't already, you could try submitting your site to the Open Directory Project, although that's not specific to wikis.
You could place a note about your site on talk pages of a few relevant articles, or on the user talk pages of contributors who you think might be interested in your site. Mass-posting is against Wikipedia's anti-canvassing rule, though.
A lot of people come to Wikipedia hoping to promote websites, and even those who try to do it honestly and legitimately are often disappointed with the results. There aren't any guarantees. Wikipedia's primary goal is to provide quality free content, not to help people find other websites, as interesting or useful as they may be. ―Wmahan. 06:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Asthma & House Prises

I have noticed that you are interested in both Asthma medication and Real estate bubbles. To you think here should be an article about housing suitable for asthmatics and the availabitity of it. Alec - U.K. 15:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like a fine topic for an article, if you have enough information. Unfortunately I don't know much about housing for asthmatics, but if you start an article I'll be happy to help with the editing. ―Wmahan. 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling correction database empty

Please fix. Thanks Rjwilmsi 09:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] BuddyTV spam

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=64.122.254.123

[edit] Unspecified source for Image:Heinrich lenz.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Heinrich lenz.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be a justification explaining why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 16:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling checker is stuck

Clicking on the 'Correct spelling' link always brings up List of ISO 639-3 codes, with no corrections possible and no way to move on. I have tried several times over the last few days. --MichaelMaggs 19:13, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it should be fixed now. ―Wmahan. 07:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --MichaelMaggs 09:26, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External link in OLED

Hello wMahan,

A while back we had a discussion about external links in OLED. My site (OLED-Info) has been removed. This was a few months ago... now there was a renewed discussion, the site was checked again, and Saxifrage said he thinks my site should be included (as it fills the wikipedia guidelines, I guess, for external sites).

Do you still have your objections for my link? (www.oled-info.com)

Thanks,

Ron. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.152.106.239 (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

As I already explained, I think it goes against Wikipedia's guidelines to continue adding links to your own site. However, since you appear to have some support from Saxifrage, I won't revert the link unless there is some more discussion. ―Wmahan. 06:19, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hi

I'm mostly on WB but having noticed an editor on there I thought I'd look here. You seem like a good person to mention it to. Hope you don't mind [3]. Don't think it is serious stuff but..? Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Herby. That user appears to have some positive contributions, and certainly doesn't appear to be engaged in any sort of massive spam campaign. But stay in touch if you have any other thoughts or comments. ―Wmahan. 06:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess the email explained it better <g> but I agree - however old habits die hard - all the best --Herby talk thyme 17:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Help Again with Intervention Regarding Repeated Link Spam Abuse and Reversions

Please note the PrinceAl record here. Not sure if AbsolutDan is currently available and the situation is becoming untenable, and requires resolution by a third party. Please let me know if either you or another moderator or editor are in a position to help. Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 00:49, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

Please note that the above user is an owner of a commercial OTR website (www.digitaldeliftp.com) who charges access to radio shows on his website. The sites he is removing are sites which offer people access to radio shows FOR FREE. Because the content is free, easily accessable and very relevent for the pages in question, they qualify for inclusion. What the above user is doing is simply trying to remove all links giving free access to the same type of OTR shows he CHARGES for. He is editing here in bad faith. The only things he is removing here are things given for FREE which he CHARGES for. His motive for the removals appears to be based totally on greed. If you see his Discussion page you will see that the majority of people disapprove of his selfish actions. PrinceAl 00:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Lie. Fact: As you well know Wmahan, I devote at least 60 of the pages of my website to free Golden Age Radio downloads. Indeed, I don't offer any pay services from my website itself, and never have. Ever. The sites I've removed as repeated spam link abuse sites are www.otrsite.com, libsyn.com, www.freeotrshows.com, and www.otr.net, for the most part. As is obvious, both www.otrsite.com and libsyn.com are commercial sites, pure and simple. Libsyn.com in particular is enjoying unfettered spam link abuse on Wikipedia, to the tune of over 270 gratuitious and self-promoting Wikipedia links--for free. At least those are the ones PrinceAl continues to revert without citing his rationale for violating Wikipedia Link Spam and External Linking guidelines. This is simply a revisiting of the issues raised over six months ago, which I'd assumed were resolved, by consensus. Apparently that's no longer the case. I repeat, I don't--and never have--charged one red cent for any of the Golden Age Radio episodes or historical content I've served from my website, for over 5 and a half years. Those are the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Nice choice of words! That is because your shows are on your FTP server, not your web server! PrinceAl 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. And I've never ever charged for any downloads from my website. You make my point perfectly. And you show yourself to be misrepresenting the facts by your own words--again. I have one--one and only one--page of the over 1900 pages of my website, devoted to promoting my sister ftp site. Nowhere else on my website, is there even the hint of promotion of any pay services whatsoever. And nowhere else on my website is one penny charged for the other 1 gigabyte of free Golden Age Radio episodes my site provides. You'll also note that neither is there one line of commercial banners, advertising, or even Google AdSense or Yahoo commercial links. None. Contrast that with any of the other websites you're promoting.
You are purposely missing the point. You are removing links to free websites offering downloads of shows that are directly related to the article in question. Where can I, for example, download from your servers episodes of "The Shadow" for free? I know where on OTR.net (in fact there are 190 of them) I can find them for free. And there is no request for payment, no ads, nothing there but FREE episodes. You think that this resource should be removed, why? You don't offer anything similar. PrinceAl 02:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Not missing the point whatsoever. www.otr.net proposed such links six months ago, and was shot down by consensus. Rightly so. The issue then, as now, is keeping Wikipedia free from being a link farm for gratuitous spam linking, whether commercial or not. It's fascinating that you continually sidestep your motives in continuing to promote commercial spam links, while focusing on only the 'free' sites. My site's a free site, in that regard as well. And it always has been. The prohibitions against gratuitous, self-promoting, or commercial link spamming on Wikipedia are self-evident. It was proposed to have Wikipedia itself, deliver such sample episodes, and I have no idea how that resolved itself, but the concept is self-evident. I repeat, Wikipedia is not a link farm. If it were, mine and hundreds of other free or commercial Golden Age Radio "Listen To", or "External Links" would make some of the Article pages of Wikipedia virtually unloadable. Perhaps you have a convenient explanation for your true motives in continually promoting commericial spam linking under the guise of promoting free OTR sites at the same time. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
Perhaps if you stopped removing the websites that offers the actual episodes for free you would not meet as much resistance. If you leave libsyn.com, archive.org, www.freeotrshows.com, and www.otr.net (and others that offer listenable shows for free) alone then I think we will have some sort of agreement. PrinceAl 02:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I won't clutter up Wmahan's page any further with this nonsense. Libsyn.com is a commercial site, as is www.otrsite.com, and equally, to a lesser degree, www.freeotrshows.com with it's multiple ads on every show page. If what you propose is free reign by any and all with static, free Golden Age Radio shows to offer, then you'll soon see hundreds of gratuitous, self-promoting commercial and non-commercial links on every Golden Age Radio related article on Wikipedia. The negative result of such a proposal is self-evident. Enough, already. The arguments pro and con are quite evident thus far. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
While libsyn.com is a commercial site, not all of the users there are commercial. Again, you are purposely missing the point. Your issue with otrsite.com is a sort of a grey area - they do sell stuff, but it isn't punted on the pages that wikipedia link to it and it's information not found elsewhere. I am not proposing free reign, and you know it. Why not try this... open up your FTP archives, for free, and see how quickly OTHER people will link to your site on Wikipedia! If nobody else does, I will. Promise. Deal? (btw: I know I will not get a reply to this!) PrinceAl 02:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
I've made my ftp site free for years to some Golden Age Radio research groups and academic groups. I have no axe to grind with that concept whatsoever. The 'point' is precluding Wikipedia from being a link farm. If someone's willing to pick up the tab for the cost of maintaining my server, nothing would please me more than offering all 141,000 episodes for free to one and all. Perhaps that might be possible in just the next few years. But that's not the point, either. The 'point' is Wikipedia not becoming a link farm filled with thousands of gratuitous self-promoting links that make every article unloadable. I provide links to over 500 other Golden Age Radio related and nostalgia related sites of my own accord, without receiving one penny in compensation. But I do that by design, to promote both Golden Age Radio and Nostalgia sites. That's my choice, and those are my favorite subjects. I don't make a penny from it. Never have, probably never will. But since I've pledged to refuse to post gratuitious spamming banners, Google AdSense, or Yahoo promoting ads on my site, I'm not in a position to ever benefit financially from such practices. That's my pledge and that was my choice to make. I stand by it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
In other words, no open OTR archives from you. Okay then, let others do it and don't get in their way. Just because you refuse to do it don't hinder others from doing so. And your pledge to not subject your customers to ads may seem noble, however I can safely assume that your customers would rather have a few ads to ignore rather than having to part with their money and pay you for what others are giving out for free.
I have seen your website and I admire it. I don't, however, admire what you are doing here. All you are doing here is trashing your name, reputation and making enemies. It's obvious you have spent a lot of time and money to build your site to where it is today. Why you risk damaging all that by going after the little (and free) guys and making yourself appear to be a greedy webmaster with a chip on his shoulder? 03:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
The only people here attempting to trash either me or my site are link spammers. I can live with that. They're known by the company they keep. Wikipedia is not a link farm for either Golden Age Radio fans, sports fans, political junkies, or any other proponent group. It's an Article encyclopedia. Enough said. I stand by my edits and my points. Let others decide if they're valid or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.170.239.56 (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC).
You don't care one bit about Wikipedia or the people who use it. All you care about is your own personal commercial OTR business. And you are doing all that you can to destroy those who offer for free what you charge for. I agree, let's let others decide what your true motive is here. PrinceAl 03:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey...

Hi, I'm ZB Fischer. Some fans of my writing made a Wiki page for me a while back, and it was deleted quickly. You voted for it, and all connected pages, to be deleted, but you were cool about it, and complimented me when you did it. I just wanted to thank you for you politeness. Thanks,

ZB Fischer —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.234.70.139 (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Spelling database empty

Hi, the spelling database is empty now. Please load more articles. Thanks Rjwilmsi 13:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Hi again. Still empty. --MichaelMaggs 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My access to the toolserver expired. I might renew it at some point, but at the moment I'm busy with other stuff. Sorry, I hope it doesn't cause any inconvenience.... ―Wmahan. 22:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I hope you find time soon as would like to test your script. STTW (talk) 15:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unwanted Facts

Lets see if facts stand or if the other author cannot leave them alone.


The alternative to drug therapy is natural medicine through the use of nature's spice called Curry. Drug companies are terrified of competing natural medicines and absolutely paranoid about cures.

Take a look at societies that do not suffer Alzheimer's. You will find natural products in their diets. Curry, Cumen, Soy Sauce, Olive Oil and Blueberries to mention a few.

You should be FORWARNED that pharmaceuticals do not encourage cures. Their products are constructed for INHIBITION of the diseases, requiring you to pay for a lifetime of temporary relief. The majority of their products that are considered 'billion doller silver bullets' are made for distribution through oral capsules or other pill form. They particularly like molecules that hover around 300 Molecular Weight, to be able to add 'shrubbery' to the molecules. Why? To assist the molecule in passing the cell wall. This may also include metabolizing the molecule in the presence of Calcium. They seek efficacy to affect inhibition of a target. Inhibiting but not curing the 'target' is the key to staying on the market. That's good business. Oral ingestion is the preferred method. Tests must be passed where only 8 people may be killed out of 100,000 people in order to pass the test for being a pill. That's worth around a billion dollars annually or more, for that pill. If more than 8 people die during the 'trials' they get really upset that they can't put the pill on the market. They have to have the hospitals and doctors give you a shot. You must sign a waiver saying that its ok to kill you if they give you the shot. Remember, these DRUGS are not CURES. Anything resembling a cure will be purchased and studied. The 'preferred' solution is to inhibit and not cure the disease and keep you buying drugs. The 'generous' donations to 'curing cancer' or other diseases are wasted. There may be a university or some small research group that will state they want to cure a disease. There may be legitimate researchers actually looking for a cure. But, that is not what is readily observable. Even if the researcher finds a cure does it have a real chance of being deployed? Something observable and verifiable is that pharmaceuticals provide 'GRANTS or FUNDS' to famous universities like Harvard and MIT, and 'UTILIZE' a laboratory that has a room number on it, to identify it, on the campus. The universities are compliant to put graduate students and post-grads into their laboratory on their campus, paid for by the pharmaceutical, and let them research their hearts out. The end product results, if any, go to the pharmaceutical, who can now take the 'hit' derived from an assay, and check it out, to see if it can be moved on to the next levels of testing. Drug Metabolism people will check it out and if they like it a senior researcher will take command and give it a go in an animal or two and hopefully, go first in human. (On a human note: If you wondered why some student who was inferior to you or someone you know is getting a degree from a name school, you might check the personnel rosters of pharmaceuticals to see if their parent works there). Remember, that DRUGS are not CURES and pharmaceuticals are huge businesses. Kids are great targets to start giving drugs under the auspices of attention deficit and the doctors involved with the pharmaceutical representatives are able to prescribe something to you. So what you finally say? Is the end goal of doctoring to be able to prescribe something? Today, that answer is most often yes. Recently, the psychology of the drug dealer, also known as a pharmaceutical representative, is to have a degree in cheerleading. This is not a joke and was in a recent article regarding the world of professional medicine. I am fascinated by your concept. I is wonderful, however there is room for improvement in the cultural awareness area.... I understand your business entry policy, however, it does discriminate against small mom and pop shops who are unique in their culture, business and form part of the non traditional non forbes fortune 500 american cultured way to do business... It sure is a one sided vision on how we do business in america and other countries, don't you think? Have you thought of another venue to qualify a corporation or product and services to have an entry into this encyclopedia. Otherwise you may not cater to minorities and culturally diverse and different populations..ah.

Maria Van Gelder newmexicohomes@aol.com mxvangelder@aol.com mxvangelder (log in name)

[edit] Drake equation

Hi - I'd be interested in your thoughts regarding my comment to Drake's Eq. at Talk:Drake_equation#Nitpick:_lower_bound_on_L - thanks! Gekritzl 22:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States housing bubble, featured article candidate, 28 June 2007

Please take a moment to enter your thoughts for this article as featured at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#United_States_housing_bubble. Frothy 13:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Buddhist polemics

An article that you have been involved in editing, Buddhist polemics, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buddhist polemics. Thank you. lincalinca 15:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)