User talk:KyraVixen/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Remorse[edit]

I'm sorry Kelly :( We were just so enthralled that there was a stadium in Idaho named after us. We will try to be more considerate in the future. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.118.113.110 (talk • contribs) 07:41, February 10, 2007 (UTC)

It's okay. You are more than forgiven, just please refrain from inserting commentary into articles, as that does not fit the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia has. Not that I mind being called Kelly, but just for future reference, my name is Kyra. ^.^ I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 07:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL image tag migration?[edit]

According to this, there is a plan to migrate all instances of {{GFDL}} to {{GFDL-with-disclaimers}} at which point it would be replaced with a no disclaimer version. Is that still what is going to happen? I am asking because I was planning on adding another task onto VixDaemon to do just that. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that someone can go around mass changing that. From what I understand, it's the uploader's responsibility to change it, because we can't just change the way they licensed their image. If it was OK to mass change them, I think we'd just redirect the template. I may be wrong though :-) —METS501 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squall's page[edit]

I only reverted it because it had wrong information, that is that Squall has blue eyes which isn't true, they are grey. 134.121.116.153 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Eileen134.121.116.153 19:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pywikipedia framework[edit]

A couple of quick questions about the pywikipedia framework which I just recently grabbed. I don't know how to actually code in python, but would Replace.py work as a standalone script? Main reason I am asking is because I am planning on submitting the next task for my bot using Pywikipedia instead of AWB to keep IE free for other uses, since I am quite certain that it will take at least ten days to finish at six edits per minute. Second, I don't see any edit rate variable/control specified in either login.py or replace.py, so even if I did get approved to use Python, I wouldn't know how to keep it in check.

And the last immediate question that comes to mind, is it possible to either test the script offline or use a separate account (or just use VixDaemon) to test within its own subpages for small scale testing? I can't find any policy that explicitly disallows it, but I'd like to make sure it is allowed before proceeding with that route, at least. I hope you have a most wonderful day, Mets. ^.^ Kyra~(talk) 04:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Kyra. Actually, I'm not great with python either, so a better person to ask about the framework would be Cyde, who wrote much of it. There is an edit rate control in config.py, by the way. As far as testing, making a few edits to a sandbox subpage with the bot account or a different account is no problem. :-) —METS501 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buraisu[edit]

User Buraisu is terrible at making edits to articles. For example, the hotboxing entry has been changed multiples to reflect that it is, in fact, not a term that has anything to do with running multiple instances of a game at the same time. Not now, not ever. Additionally, he thinks that it is possible for unicorns to have mulitple horns, and you should not be surprised if you see an edit to that article to fit "his definition."

<Personal attack against another editor removed> —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumaloo (talk • contribs) 08:11, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

Okay, first, please do not make personal attacks against other editors. Not only does can negative comments hurt their feelings, but it can drive editors away from Wikipedia, and that's not a good thing. Also, if you have an issue with Buraisu, why not cordially talk to him on his talk page and see if you can resolve your differences amicably? Sometimes a simple chat is all that is needed, other times further dispute resolution may be in order. I do hope you and Buraisu can resolve the problem you two are quarreling over. Have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 08:42, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I BE REPLYIN'
The time for talking cordially with Mr. Buraisu Albedo Naivedo Naruto Hand Seals McMulti-hornedunicorn has long passed. He has proven to be unreasonable, and as such, extreme measures have been taken. He also edited my page to show a picture of a pig, which I find offensive because my mom is a pig and she died to be made into bacon. Please take action against this user right away. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumaloo (talk • contribs) 08:45, February 15, 2007 (UTC)
You can change the contents of your userpage if you want you know; you aren't required to keep the picture of the sow on there. Also, I am unable take any actions upon the user in question as I am not an administrator; even if I were an admin at the moment, I am unable to clearly see what policies he is violating. I'd recommend at least attempting to try and talk with the user first. Since this appears to be a content dispute, it would be advisable detailed message about why you disagree that the information he wishes to include should not be included within the disambiguation page and post it on Buraisu's talk page. I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 09:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buraisu Responds[edit]

Hello, this is Buraisu. The person above is a internet troll from the World of Warcraft United States Deathwing server. The user followed me to the hotbox topic after I referred to the term hotbox as a person using more then one computer at a time. The internet troll then linked the topic hotbox on wikipedia where he went to point out that it said nothing about using more then one computer as hotboxing. The trolls point was to report me for using a drug term when I meant it as a computer term. Then, I signed up for wikipedia where, I a new user edited the page to reflect the term hotbox where it relates to using more the one computer at a time. This term is used by west coast nerds at events like Penny Arcade Expo and other things. I did not make up or create the term like they are saying. They think I magically made it up and am the only person that uses the term and they think it's some kind of game. It was not made up by me nor do I use more then one computer at the same time. I did though, point out that my roommate does.

The internet trolls followed me here and have been flaming and attacking everything I edit under the user:buraisu, including my user page, topics I edit and other things. I try to talk to them like a normal person but like the example above shows, it leads to them flaming me for no reason. The ONLY reason they have a problem with the topic hotbox which has been under major attack by them is to spite me. This also includes my userpage which has been under major attack from the internet trolls.

There arguments are pure hate and are out of spite for me. They have no base and are just here to flame. They should be reported and temp-banned ASAP. Though, I don't think they should be permi-banned because I believe, one day when they grow up they could be a great source on information for wikipedia. It saddens me that they followed me to wikipedia and are causing trouble.

I did edit their userpage when they first started flaming me just to get them back but I have stopped doing it because I don't wanna go down to there level anymore. Since I quit attacking back, they have still attacked me day after day. I did add a pig picture to there userpages when I attacked, I thought it was funny and anyways, they had nothing on their page anyways. I have taken the fight over the hotbox topic to their talk pages and my talk page but they still vandalize the other areas of wikipedia.

The only way I see this fight stopping is if someone steps in and stops the internet trolls from personally attacking me and undoing my edits. They have no creditability at all for there edits like I have pointed at before.

Thanks for reading what I have to say. --Buraisu 09:16, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, and salutations, Buraisu. Might I inquire if you have any reliable sources with which to verify that the term "hotbox" is used to refer to a user using more than one computer at once? I am pretty sure that a source or two (on the talk page as the page in question is a disambiguation page) as well as a friendly message to Sumaloo would be sufficient to end this small feud. Also, please keep the three-revert rule in mind when editing. I do hope that the two of you are able to come to an agreement over this issue. I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Sumaloo isn't wearing any pants right now[edit]

We're here to edit your made-up definitions. We were reasonable from the beginning, but you, for some reason, try to stick by your bizarre definitions and blatant misuse of the English language. Since you're insane and have to change your fake definition back the moment after it happens, we decided to have some fun with your user page. And fun we did have!

Oh, yeah. Obviously you didn't make up the term, but rather heard the term hotbox from some random place in a different context, and then mistakenly used it incorrectly. When called out on this, you proceeded to lie about the definition and where you got it from. Now you're trying even harder to save face on here, which at least is hilarious. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumaloo (talk • contribs) 09:29, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

Not that I mind my talk page being a place to converse with other editors or anything, but please remain civil and assume good faith. It is quite possible that the term is not made up, but merely unsourced. If either of you can find a reliable source to confirm that the term hotbox is correct in the definition of a user using multiple computers at the same time, that should bring an end to this. Again, as with Buraisu, I sincerely hope you both manage to come to an agreement over the issue. Kyra~(talk) 09:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you go out with me? I'm afraid that if I don't ask you first Buraisu will come after you. He has a thing for anthropomorphized animals.
Yours, SuMa-LoO the GREAT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumaloo (talk • contribs) 09:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No thanks, but thanks for the kind offer. ^_^ Kyra~(talk) 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
^_________^ --Sumaloo 10:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buraisu Responds[edit]

I made nothing up. You were not reasonable from the beginning, if I remember correct, the response I got for using the computer term for hotboxing was to say "We're going to report you for using a drug term," and then I said "No, hotboxig means to use more then one computer at the same time. Hot being that having more then one computer in the same room makes it hot and box being the computer case itself. This is used by nerds all the time and hotboxing does not have just one single usable." These internet trolls are only here to spite me. Sorry, I am not that great at the English language nor did I take any credit with coming up with the term. I first heard the term about 4 years ago and it was not a mistake or misuse. I asked them what they meant by hotboxing and they said they were going to use more then one computer at the same time to play some video games. Later, I heard a story about a guy using five computers to play a MMORPG and the people used the term hotboxing. The first source of this definition has never met the second source which lead me to believe that this is a term used all the time. The third time I heard the term used was just 3 months ago by my dorm roommate because he is a nerdy type that has 3 computers and plays in MMORPGs in parties fully made up of his own characters. The fourth source I have is 100 so called "Nerds" from the Penny Arcade Expo. They used the terms hotboxing, duel-boxing or just boxing. Also, when I was fighting with the internet trolls on the Deathwing forums, they said that what I think hotboxing is, is really called duel-boxing or boxing. Which is why I added them to the definition of the computer term hotboxing.

I have not lied once about this term nor is it made up. I don't even use the term, other people do. I don't "duel-box" or do anything like that. I am not trying to fight with these internet trolls, I am only helping out by adding the term to wikipedia. I don't understand why they three or more internet trolls are fighting with me over a one line definition under the hotbox topic. It doesn't even take up that much space nor matter at all. I don't really care what they think but I think it funny that I add something to wikipedia and they are trying to fight with me over it. Like it even matters at all. They are also pointing and laughing at me because I am undoing there edits.. undoing takes less time then editing, who is really wasting more of there life's in this fight?

Oh and I am sorry Kyra that we toke over your talk page. I think, we both want you use you as a judge on this fight. Personally whatever you judged, I wouldn't mind but I don't see a end to this fight anytime soon since they are only doing this to spite and make fun of me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buraisu (talk • contribs) 09:47, February 15, 2007 (UTC)

No, no, it's perfectly fine. Best to keep the discussion in one place if you are going to talk. Buraisu, can you provide a reliable source than mentions the term hotboxing in more than just a trivial fashion? That should bring an end to this, as the threshold for inclusion (as stated by Wikipedia:Verifiability) is verifiability, not truth (emphasis maintained); I am pretty sure that will bring this content dispute to a close. Kyra~(talk) 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We weren't reasonable? Someone joked about reporting you for using drug-related terms, you tried to define it, and everyone offered you the real term that fits your definition, you lashed out at everyone for being "no life loser retard idiot trolls" (paraphrased). When we showed you the lack of your definition on this site and UrbanDictionary, you added it somehow thinking that would make it an acceptable definition. We removed it, and here you can see a large amount of edits to the page on your part, and mulitple edits from several other different people.
It's amusing that you can apparently remember the 100 so-called "nerds" using the term. Your self-proclaimed status as some sort of mega nerd does not give you some sort of twisted authority regarding terms that may be connected in some way to nerds. It's also amusing that you claim you don't use the term yourself when you were the first person to mention "hotboxing" in that thread about level 70 BE pallies. We feel that your definition is erroneous, and that's all there is to it.
More edits!!! Hooray! Your first source was never stated by you to anyone, but it's interesting that the impressively specific time and who of "about 4 years ago" and "they" finally showed up. Then you heard a story? About some guy? These don't sound made-up in any way. No sir.
Eternally yours forever and ever, ~._.~*'SuMa-LoO-MaH-ZuMa the VERY VERY VERY GREAT GREATEST GREAT DUDE'*~._.~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sumaloo (talk • contribs) 09:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
If Buraisu finds a source, would that be satisfactory, Sumaloo? Kyra~(talk) 10:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Danza[edit]

the the whole "Cultural references" of Tony Danza's page is unreferenced so i feel it unfair you removed my edit. In the UK people do sing "hold my closer tony danza" when singing elton johns "tiny dancer". Hes not got much else going for him so i think this should be mentioned. J —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.10.102.61 (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It's been handled; I removed the entire section due to it being totally unreferenced. And if you can cite a reliable source that they do sing that, then feel free to add it back in, as the threshold for inclusion within Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I would like to let you know that I was not trying to discriminate against you by singling out your edit for removal, it's just I did not see that the other statements were unreferenced at the time. I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 01:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence...[edit]

Well, I've finished adding the fair use rationable to the image...By the way, I don't know if you're interested, but I want to invite you to join the WikiProject Evanescence. Bye!  Armando.O  (talk|contribs) 04:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Just a small note, and a kittenstar![edit]

Thanks! Just found my way into it on recent changes patrol. I couldn't figure out what set them off, either, but my, they liked to cause trouble. Glad to have been of any service -- feel free to let me know if you have any problems of that nature in the future. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user warnings, etc.[edit]

Hi. I'm not up on the user warning templates... I was going to add a "please-stop-it" message to a talk page and saw that mine wouldn't be the first... User_talk:Africkenbear. Could you please do me a favor and straighten me out on what should happen next? I'm going to go look for the template page. -- Ben 19:30, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found what I was looking for. I'll add it to the talk page... [1]. Thanks! -- Ben 19:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. I'm always willing to assist in any way I can. Kyra~(talk) 00:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grillionaire Nomination for Deletion[edit]

Thanks for your help on this. This was my first time going through the process. Could you let me know what I did wrong so I can perform this process better next time? Thanks, //BankingBum 00:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC) $$[reply]

No problem! We all make mistakes at times, and we learn from them. The tag that you did use {{prod}}, is used for proposed deletions. After a period of five days, the article is deleted, and there is no discussion as Articles for deletion process has. If the proposed deletion tag is removed, then it will not be deleted. In addtition, the article may not be put up for proposed deletion more than once. If the person who applies the proposed deletion tag still believes the article should be deleted, then the article is sent through AfD, or the Articles for Deletion process, which is where you created the deletion discussion page.
In the AfD process, editors form a consensus by voicing their opinion on whether or not the article should be deleted or not, by citing relevant policies that the article either meets or fails; this process is supposed to be based solely on the merits of the article in question, and not the opinions of the person commenting. After five days have passed, the discussion is closed, and if the consensus is to delete, then an administrator will delete the article.
As to what you specifically did incorrectly, you used the {{prod}} tag instead of the {{afd1}} tag. Just for future reference, you also substitute the afd1 template, which you did do with the prod tag. I hope this answers your question fully, although if there is anything you wish for me to clarify, please ask me and I will attempt to do so. I hope you have a wonderful day! Kyra~(talk) 01:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hanneman[edit]

Thanks for taking a look :) M3tal H3ad 01:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome. It was a pleasure to read it. ^.^ Kyra~(talk) 05:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fallen[edit]

Hi! I've nominated Fallen (album) for GA. I hope you can review it. Armando.Otalk • Ev 00:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic ticket[edit]

Before removing the "copyedit" template, it's important to make sure that you've done the required work. I've made some more corrections – mainly punctuation –and hope that I've caught everything.

Also, the "unreferenced" template goes at the end of an article, in a "sources" section. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ER[edit]

Hi, did you see WP:ER#KyraVixen? Do you have any response to the one real concern I brouht up? Peace, delldot talk 16:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user talk. Kyra~(talk) 13:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA[edit]

... is going to close very, very soon. It stands at (41/14/5). You might pass by the skin of your teeth, let me know if you do. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfA result[edit]

I am sorry to inform you that your Request for Adminship (RfA) has failed to reach sufficient consensus for promotion, and has now been delisted and archived. Please do not look upon this outcome as a discouragement, but rather as an opportunity to improve. Try to address the concerns raised during your RfA and, in a few months' time, resubmit your request. Thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia in this capacity! Redux 15:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfA[edit]

Hi Kyra, just wanted you to know that I think the closing bureaucrat in your RfA acted improperly in failing to promote you. 41 Support votes to 17 Oppose votes seems to me to indicate consensus for promotion. As far as I'm concerned, you deserve the admin tools (hence why I voted Support), and on the basis of your RfA you should have been given adminship. If you decide to apply again in a couple of months, I will strongly support you, and would also be prepared to write up a nomination for you (in a couple of months) if you don't want to self-nominate again. Anyway, don't be discouraged by the failed RfA; you're a great editor with tons of relevant experience, and will pass RfA easily the next time round. Walton Vivat Regina! 19:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA isn't a vote, it's a discussion. The vote count merely assists in determining concensus. I also hope KyraVixen isn't discouraged by the outcome, I would support her in the near future if she gains some article writing experience. Dionyseus 19:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry. Try again in a month or two, address the concerns of opposing users and I'm sure you'll have success next time. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 21:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add my own voice of support. I wouldn't say the closing bureaucrat acted improperly, but adminship has evolved from Jimbo's "no big deal" into something where you may have to jump through some arbitrarily-placed hoops. That's unfortunate in my view but it's just the way it is. Hope you don't get discouraged. I supported you this time and I'll support you again. Raymond Arritt 23:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to say that I believe the closing bureaucrat was just doing their job; the RfA process is based on consensus, not on raw support. Regardless of the fact that I did not pass this time around, I am not discouraged at all. I simply need to try again in the future, and resolve the issues raised at this RfA. It's a simple as that. I hope you all have a most wonderful day. ^.^ Kyra~(talk) 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive Index[edit]

Congratulations, you're officially the first person to create and use your own template for the HBC Archive Indexerbot! I've been developing the bot after HighInBC's original design, so I've been watching its runs pretty closely. If you don't mind my asking, where did you find out about the bot? Did you have any problems understanding or following the instructions? I haven't had a lot of outside feedback on them, and it's always hard to know if one's own instructions are easy for others to read and follow, so I'd appreciate any feedback you have. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 16:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I initially found the indexer through the page of another user, Alphachimp to be precise. Intrigued by this new bot, I decided to investigate, and that's how I came to use it. Overall, I would say that the ease of setup is extremely easy. There were no problems at all with the setup, so I would say your instructions are perfect. The only additional feature that I can think of is possibly adding functionality to declare an additional parameter to enable indexing of the main talk page if the template is used in a header or a different page, but otherwise I'd say the bot seems perfect as is. I hope you have a most wonderful day, Krellis. ^.^ (Sorry for not replying to this an hour or so ago, but I seemed to have missed this section.) Kyra~(talk) 19:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for the feedback, and no problem about the lack of immediate response. The point about indexing the main talk page if the opt-in is in a header is a good one, I'll have to put that on my todo list and see if there's an easy way to do it. Thanks again for the feedback, and feel free to let me know on my talk or the bot's talk if you have any problems with it in the future. —Krellis (Talk) 19:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking[edit]

Hi, I got your message about external links, however I reviewed Wikipedia's linking policy and I don't agree with your assesment that the links I added weren't in compliance. The links I added were on-topic, factual and added value. They were not added to gain "search engine ranking" or to advertise anything. Can you point out exactly *why* you feel my links were incorrect?RLMorgan, MT(AMT) 18:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fact that you run the website, seems to indicate a conflict of interest. While I am not saying that the links in question don't add value, the fact that you say on your user page that you run the site initially raised a few flags for me. I won't revert the additions should you choose to re-add them, as I believe that you have good intentions, but just note that since you do mention that you run OpenAddict.com other editors may think the same thing as I did. I hope this helps to clear up any confusion that you may have had, and I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 18:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I understand what you are saying and I respect your opinion, but I disagree. My job is to present information on Free/Open Source Software, review products and conduct interviews with industry leaders. I was just attempting to share with everyone that information - not advertise anything or promote my site over anyone else's. The links were pertinent which is why I added them. However, none of the links will be re-added due to your COI concerns. RLMorgan, MT(AMT) 18:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Food Links[edit]

Again, the links I am adding are legitmate links. I am not spamming. I have read all of the wikipedia articles on appropriate links and that is one. It has pictures of each step of how to make enchiladas and anyone making enchiladas for the first time would be able to see each step. There is nothing wrong with that link, and I am not the only one who thinks so. Mexicanfood 05:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but you added a raw link, in other words, just a link by itself; the purpose of using external links is to say where the source of information within the article came from, not to funnel our readers off to other sites. Adding text to the article and using the link as a reference is most certainly acceptable. If you do not know how to cite a source, you can look at our page on citing sources. You may also ask me if you wish. Wikipedia is also an encyclopedia, not a link farm, so if you wish to include a link, contribute some information to the article that you learned from the source, and then cite the source you used. I do hope you have a most wonderful day, and feel free to ask me any questions that you may have; I will do my best to answer them. Kyra~(talk) 05:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I will try it as a "citation" but I also found this on the citations page-
Further reading/External links
An ==External links== or ==Further reading== or ==Bibliography== section is placed near the end of an article and offers books, articles, and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader. The section "Further reading" may include both online material and material not available online. If all recommended material is online, the section may be titled "External links". Some editors may include both headings in articles, listing only material not available online in the "Further reading" section.
Where it says "and links to websites related to the topic that might be of interest to the reader." is what I was trying to add. Not Spam. Thanks. Mexicanfood 05:27, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking2[edit]

Hi, i feel that the link i have submitted it is 100% related to the page it has being submitted, so therefore i do not understand your position. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3strang3d (talk • contribs) 16:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The link may have been related to the article, but the primary purpose of external links is to add information that is not already on the page, but their purpose is not to funnel them off to other websites either. I am not saying that there is anything wrong with the link, however. You are more than welcome to contribute facts that you learned from the source link and then cite the source used. For more information, you may wish to read Wikipedia's guideline on external links and spam. I apologize for any confusion I may have caused you, and I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 17:08, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ok , thanks. This is what i am goind to do; "You are more than welcome to contribute facts that you learned from the source link and then cite the source used."
Can you please perhaps help me with something else? How can i add a page for the bands new record and write info such as releasing date , etc , as there are already pages for the rest of the albums except the latest. :)
I have done what you have said and i have cited the external website as a reference of the latest news with regards the latest release album. is now this eligible? --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3strang3d (talk • contribs) 18:26, March 9, 2007 (UTC)
Well, first you might want to check out information on creating your first article. You will also want to make sure that your article is attributed to the sources you draw your information from that the article uses. TO actually add a page, there are two ways of doing this. Either find a red link, like this one and click it, which will bring you to the editing window where you can begin editing, or if you look at the URL, you can enter the page you want to go to directly. For example, http://www.qudswiki.org/?query=Like this one.
Also, you can work in a sandbox in your userspace if you feel uncomfortable with editing in the main article space in a sandbox. If you would like, I can create one for you, or you can edit User:3strang3d/sandbox and begin writing the article. When you are done or you would like to move the article into the mainspace, you can use the [{WP:MOVE|move function]] to move it to mainspace. Keep in mind, this part is totally optional; you can work in your userspace first or the mainspace, the choice is yours.
And yes, the citation appears to be fine now; I'll try to remember to change it to use a citation template later. If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me, and I will be happy to help you the best I can. I hope you have a good day. Kyra~(talk) 18:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
you are a star! thanks! sorry to trouble you editing the links i ve added :/ i see now the different on what you say... i use wikipedia quite a lot. i ll keep this in mind :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 3strang3d (talk • contribs) 19:29, March 9, 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks[edit]

I'd just like to take a moment to thank everyone who participated in my recent Request for Adminship. I did not succeed with this request, but I am not discouraged; the community's consensus simply said I need more time before they are comfortable with me wielding the mop. Waiting for things makes the satisfaction of obtaining said thing that much better once it is finally achieved, in my opinion. As Jimbo said, adminship is no big deal, so I am not going to make this a big deal; rather I will use it to grow in areas that those who opposed my request said I needed to grow in. If anyone who participated (or anyone at all for that matter) has any additional advice, feel free to let me know if you wish. I am always open to improve. Again, thanks, and I hope everyone has a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 04:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paris[edit]

Thank you for the note on the Paris external links. Was unaware of the policies until today. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Demographia (talk • contribs) 17:49, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

No worries. We were all in the same shoes about being unaware of policies at one time or another. If you have any further questions feel free to ask and I will be happy to lend any assistance that I can. (Sorry it took me this long to reply!) Kyra~(talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Βar Flaubert[edit]

DEAR KYRA I AM WRITING ABOUT MY POST BAR FLAUBERT MY NAME IS ALEXIS STAMATIS , I AM A GREEK WRITER AND AUTHOR OF THE BOOK. THE TEXT I ADDED WAS FROM MY PUBLISHERS ARCADIA SITE PLEASE GIVE THE THE OK TO REPOST IT

ALL THE BEST! ALEXIS —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alexis1960 (talk • contribs) 14:30, March 13, 2007 (UTC)

Well, as you say you are the author of the book, the inclusion of information about the book by yourself would seem to indicate a conflict of interest. The guideline says that one should "avoid editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with"
In other words, the inclusion of information by the subject on who it is about is discouraged, however not prohibited, as it is hard to maintain a neutral point of view when writing about one's self or the accomplishments of themselves. Your best bet would be to work on articles that don't have a relationship to you, and let other editors create and update an article about the book. However, if you do choose to write an article about the book, I would advise reading and understanding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, make sure to maintain a neutral point of view, as well as attributing the sources with which you used to construct the article.
If you have any further questions, feel free to contact me again, and I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam[edit]

I AM NOT spamming. My external link keeps being deleted on the graffiti entry and i am being accused of spamming. i have stated my case on the discussion page and no one has replied. This site is run by control freaks with no knowledge on some of the subjects. (Meaowza 11:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, Meaowza. First off, since you own the blog in question, there is a conflict of interest here. In other words, since you own the blog, there is a good possibility that you are biased for the link's inclusion within the article. The third point in WP:COI says that one should avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)".
Second, blogs are not reliable sources, as anyone can write them, and on the Internet, anyone can use a pseudonymous identity.
Third, there is a paragraph from Wikipedia:External links that I would like to bring up.
In other words, if you believe that a link to your blog should be included, leave a note on the talk page, which you did do, and then wait for other editors to discuss the link to determine whether it should be added. This will allow a consensus, or a general agreement, to form on what should be done with the link. I hope this helps to alleviate any confusion that you might have experienced. I will be more than welcome to answer any other questions or concerns that you may have, and I hope you have a most wonderful day! Kyra~(talk) 12:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laugharne[edit]

Hello Kyra, or Whoever you think you are. You have deleted a link that I added on the Laugharne page, to my own website- The Laugharne War Memorial. This has quite a lot to do with the Town of Laugharne, as you can see from the name! It covers the whole County of Carmarthenshire also, and has a lot of historic interest on it, being of the men who died for freedom in the Great War. It is also being run voluntarily by myself-not for profit. Thanks a lot! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Little-dai (talk • contribs) 14:02, March 14, 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am Kyra. How are you today, Little-dai? Just to let you know, linking to one's own website is discouraged on Wikipedia, as that indicates a conflict of interest. In other words, since you own the website, it is possible that you are biased for the link's inclusion. Point number three on WP:COI states that one should avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)". While the link may be informative, I would like to draw your attention to a paragraph from Wikipedia:External links:
In other words, should you be biased towards the link's inclusion due to the website being one that you control or represent, inform the other editors on the talk page first so that non-biased editors may form a consensus on what should be done with the link. Additionally, the quote to the right may apply here as well, as even though the site is not a commercially oriented website, the fact that you own it could mean that you wish to draw more visitors to your website, either for donations, page rankings, or perhaps something else. To conclude, I would suggest that if you want the website link to be included to discuss the link on the article's talk page first, and let other editors decide on whether to add it or not. I hope this helps to dismiss any confusion that you may have experienced to to my removal of the link. If you have any further questions, you are free to ask and I will do my best to answer them. I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 14:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me guess...[edit]

Please note the talk pages before you immediately delete links: Ptolemy's world map

Thank you. Fleurstigter 17:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this edit, that is essentially just an addition of a raw link, which is considered spam. Contributing referenced information, or information that you learned from the source, is more than welcome, and encouraged. We have citation templates to help with the formatting of citations, which can be found here. However with the edits that you made seem to go against the policy of what Wikipedia is not, more specifically, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.
I also notice from the page's edit history that another user seems to think that a possible conflict of interest exists; in other words, there is a possibility that you are biased for the link's inclusion within the article in some way. As the quote to the right says, if you have some sort of personal interest towards the link's inclusion, you should leave a message that states that you believe that the link should be included on the article's talk page. After that, other editors will voice their opinions and form a consensus, or a general agreement, on whether to include the link or not.
To conclude, I am not trying to imply that the website to which the link led to does not have useful information, bust since you seem to have a conflict of interest, other editors should be involved with the addition of the link as well. I am sorry if I have caused you any confusion by my removal of the link. If you have any further questions, I will be more than happy to try and answer them. I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 18:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I guessed right!
Did you even open the link before deleting it?
A tip - take a look at the PageRank of The European Library. Still convinced that contributions are done to get a higher rank?Fleurstigter 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way....you wrote "you should leave a message that states that you believe that the link should be included on the article's talk page" Didn't I do this? And didn't you ignore my request to start a discussion if someone disagreed?
Hope you get some sun if you go out. Have a amazing day.Fleurstigter 14:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I had not looked at the web page the link points to. However, as another editor has pointed out that a conflict of interest might exist, you should have waited before re-adding the link. And yes, your notification on the talk page was the right thing to do, however you did not wait for a consensus to form before inserting the link into the article again. Also, initially I didn't see that you made a post to the talk page concerning the link; I am sorry if my silence from not seeing the message made it seem that I was ignoring you; it is not my intention to ignore any situation that may involves myself.
I did however just look at the link; the subject is the same as article, I will say that. However, I did not see any clear correlation between what is contained within the article, and what is listed in that one paragraph on The European Library's page that you linked. Now, regarding your request on the talk page to have the link put back; as the link seems to be just sitting there without referencing any specific portion of the article, my own opinion on what to do with it would be to leave it out for now. Again, I am not saying that the link does not contain useful information.
With regard to your comment about TEL's page rank, I did not say anything about that in my reply, so perhaps you are mixing my reply up with another person's reply? I did however say that "there is a possibility that you are biased for the link's inclusion within the article in some way".
Again, I am sorry if my removal of the link in question has caused you any confusion, but as another editor has pointed out that a conflict of interest might exist, consensus must be reached first before adding the link in question back into the article. If you have any further questions, feel free to ask. I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 16:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

St Catherine's[edit]

That link has way better pictures of the highly important icon collection than the others, or Commons. It is in line with the policy. Please restore. I don't mind it coming off Christ Pantocrater, which is how I saw it, as the article covers that particular icon much better.

Johnbod 04:06, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also please leave the European Library ones also - this is an official EU National Libraries site. I have raised this blacklisting on Meta-Wiki. Do you remove the Library of Congress also? How many links do we have to that? Johnbod 04:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS-when blacklisting are lifted, do you put all the links back, I wonder?? Johnbod 04:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to your initial message, I am sorry, but the link in question <*.touregypt.net> is primarily a commercial website. Alternative sources for pictures do exist somewhere; while the pictures may be of higher quality than ones available at the Wikimedia Commons, point number four of the links normally to be avoided section in the external links guideline, recommends avoiding "Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." As the primary nature of TourEgypt.net is commercial, the links should generally be avoided.
As for the second message, the removal to that particular domain was purely because the editor who added the links in question had a conflict of interest. You are free to re-add them, and I assure you I will not remove them; I believe the issue has been rectified with the editor in question. And no, I would not remove any LoC links, nor have I in the past. I am sorry for any confusion I may have caused you, and I hope you have a most wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 04:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You will have noticed I'm sure that the various phrasings of the policy, and yours above, stop well short of saying they cannot be used. I certainly don't use links to commercial sites when other pictures are available, and even disapprove of the hundreds of links we have to wwga.com, but in this case other versions of the pictures are not available. It seems from the many messages below that this is not the only article where this is the case. How are your promised (below) efforts to find replacements for the scores or hundreds of references you have deleted going?
As far as I am aware, I am not able to restore the European Libraries site because it is still blacklisted, which is astonishing for an official EU site. I can't imagine for a second this happening with an UN or US equivalent. I raised the matter at Metawiki as soon as I became aware of it, but have not had a sensible response yet. Johnbod 00:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have noticed that the policies and guidelines stop short of saying what cannot be linked; rather, they say what should not be linked, and I fully understand that. About the art gallery link, I am not sure, but I seem to recall reading somewhere that taking an image of an artwork that is two-dimensional does not automatically create a new copyright; as such, you might be able to upload the image to Wikipedia using {{PD-art}} or the Commons (not sure what tag they use for art there), however I am not a lawyer, so don't take my word on that.
The hunt for replacement references is coming along rather well. Out of 63 articles that I have removed *.touregypt.net links from, only 9 of such articles had references, and those references have been replaced. As for the TEL 'blacklist', the links can be added, but a bot will revert the edit, once. You are free to re-add them after that, and unless the bot is in 'angry' mode (which it rarely is) the subsequent edit will not be reverted. So while the bot will warn you, you are free to disregard it. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Touregypt.net[edit]

I'd like to know why you've removed dozens of links fom the above site from Wikipedia. Touregypt is a highly-regarded tourism information site that contains invaluable, fully-referenced data on hundreds of subjects of broad historic interest to people accessing Wikipedia. It is an invaluable and frequently unique online data source concerning these subjects. It is fully compliant with Wikipedia's external links policy, and unless you can show good cause, I intend restoring the majority of the deleted links. --Gene_poole 05:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to speak up on this subject myself: how did a website, though it is commercial and sounds ("touregypt") like one of those villas-for-rent spamlinks, become "blacklisted"? What is the process for "blacklisting' websites? What are the criteria? And, most importantly, since you say "I will make other edits if needed, such as... finding references if they are needed", what references will you be competent to find, to replace the articles you've deleted, many of which furnish information that is used in the relative Wikipedia article? --Wetman 05:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The webpage you removed from Toureqypt that was being used as a reference on Timeline of chemistry was not spam. It did not advertise ANY PRODUCT OR SERVICE and was a link to an honest-to-god scholarly work that contained honest-to-god academic information relevent to facts in that article. Please remove the website from the spam blacklist, since it is not actually spam, and please allow me to retore the page, since it contained a reference vital to the article in question. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 08:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Gene_poole) I removed them because an administrator within the IRC spam channel mentioned that they found a domain that was spammed; I was free, and felt like helping out at the time, as I had time to burn, so I did. Had I not done it, another user would most likely have done so, if not the admin themselves. I was just trying to help out the project by removing the spammed links. At the time, that domain was prolific within the other language Wikipedias. Also, the site is commercially oriented, and it would seem to be a tertiary source for information; in other words, that website would have taken secondary sources and reworded the information within them. As the policy on attribution says, Wikipedia articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible.
Also, as the website is currently on the spam blacklist, the links cannot be readded; an error message appears when trying to save the page. If the domain name is removed, then the links can be added once again.
--
(To Wetman) To get a page blacklisted, you would need to head over to Meta-wiki, and request protection on the talk page of the spam blacklist. The requirements for a site to be added to a blacklist require proof, using diffs, that demonstrates widespread spamming by multiple users. Eagle 101, the admin on meta who blacklisted the website, did so on his/her own accord; perhaps s/he saw that the site was spamming multiple wikis, when the information was only written in English (as this edit summary seems to suggest), or perhaps for some other reason. I am not Eagle 101, so I do not know why s/he decided to blacklist it. You will need to ask him/her.
And yes, I will try to find references to the material that is now no longer referenced if the website stays blacklisted. I will admit however, that my knowledge of Egyptians is extremely limited. However, if the domain is removed from the blacklist, I will be more than happy to revert the removal of the links should consensus dictate that, as I believe one should clean up after one's own mistakes. We are human, we make mistakes; we deal with them. Happened with my bot once, I never complained about it.
--
(To Jayron32) Yes, it did not advertise any product or service; that was not the reason it was removed, nor did I ever mention that in my edit summary. The information available to me at the time labled *.touregypt.com as a domain that was being spammed, so I removed the offending links. I am sorry if I have caused you any turmoil with the removal, but I have supplied a journal article to reference that material to replace the old reference. Granted, the database needs a subscription to view the journal article in its entirety, but I do believe it fits the information that is conveyed within the article.
Also, since I am not an administrator on meta, I cannot remove the blacklist status myself. You will need to go here to request that the blacklisting be removed.
Again, I am sorry if I have caused any confusion with the removal of these links, however with the information I had at the time it seemed like the domain was being spammed. As I said to Wetman, I would be willing to restore the links if the domain is unblacklisted and consensus determines that they should be re-added. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 10:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so nice about it. Deletions from Wikipedia should be made perhaps even more cautiously than additions: I have made many mistakes in my vandal-deleting. But we fix it up in the end. The blacklisting process is faulty. we can express our reasons to remove an article from the blacklist here. --Wetman 11:30, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed - and (for pictures in particular) we could comment on the blocking of libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org - the EU's official National Libraries site - three sections above touregypt. Johnbod 12:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been opened more publicly at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy), with KyraVixen's name very carefully left out. But KyraVixen must understand that she is at fault for executing mass deletions without carefully vetting the situation. IRC chatters are not, as a group, among the more knowledgable segment of Wikipedia editors. It would ordinarily be unwise to take a tip from an IRC chatter and run with it, in areas where one has no personal expertise. --Wetman 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have been unable to revert Statue of Ramesses II (Mit Rahina) to its pre-touregypt-deletion version. Can the prior version be restored? Ekem 03:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra, thank you for finding a new reference. The reference you gave is more than adequate, and I appreciate the work you have done in replacing the references for the one you removed. Do not take this next statement personally; I mean it as a systemic criticism, not a personal one. I understand that you removed the link in good faith, and I appreciate the work you do in keeping wikipedia spam-free... Now my criticism: If the spam-removal-and-blacklisting process is blocking pages like the one you removed, then the process has some flaws that SERIOUSLY need to be reevaluated. Sometimes, if a domain appears in MANY wikipedia articles, it isn't because it is spammed, it is because it contains a wealth of information that is being used in many places in wikipedia. Also, some domains are much "larger" in the pages they contain. It is quite possible that some pages found at a domain are indeed "spam" and others are perfectly legitimate scholarly work, or otherwise useful and valid resources for wikipedia. There should be no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater, and there is a real potential here for problems. For one, and this may be a WP:BEANS kind of issue, it could be quite possible, understanding how the spam blacklisting system works, to make a non-spam website appear to be spam, get it blacklisted, and then massively disrupt all of wikipedia as valid references are removed and links are disrupted all over the place. If the spam-blacklisting system allows this, it is a huge system vulnerability and needs to be carefully fixed. Again, please indulge me my rant, and it is not personal. I want to validate the work that you do here, and wish you the best. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(To Ekem) I have added a different reference to replace the one I have removed. I hope it is satisfactory, and I wish you a pleasant day! Kyra~(talk) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--
(To Jayron32) Don't worry, I did not take anything you said personally, and I understand your concern. Beans aside, normally the blacklisting process is discussed on Meta first with diffs of the spamming supplied as evidence. The reason it was not discussed on Meta first is beyond me; you'd have to ask the admin who did it for their reason. I do understand that a few users could possibly take advantage of that by spamming a single domain on a widespread scale, which could possibly result in a legitimate domain being blacklisted. As of right now, I cannot come up with any good ideas on how to fix loophole, but I will agree, it is an issue. I would imagine that the majority of such cases would be caught, but I can certainly understand where you are coming from.
On a better note, I have been working to replace the references that have been removed. Out of 63 articles I have checked so far, only 9 of them actually had references; the rest were just links. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar![edit]

The Working Man's Barnstar
Thank you for helping us with cleaning up after spammers and removing all those external links that are blacklisted on meta! You are doing a valuable task. Keep up the good work, and again, thank you! Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link removal question...[edit]

For my own edification, why did you remove the following link:

http://www.tour egypt.net/featurestories/pyramidinch.htm [N.B. In trying to save this note, I noticed that TourEgypt is on a blacklist as a spam site. (Thus the space in the url above.) How is this site on a blacklist for spam?]

from the Charles Piazzi Smyth page? I added the link when I did a major overhaul of the page back in September. Is it because TourEgypt is a commercial site or there are ads on the page? I really feel that the article attached to the page is informative and I'd like to put the link back up.

TuckerResearch 17:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the link because I was informed by an administrator in the IRC spam channel that the *.touregypt.net domain was being spammed throughout the different language Wikipedias, despite being only in the English language, and I was free and wanted to assist; also, about a third of the links (a rough guess) I removed was after the blacklisting on meta, so I also wished to prevent other editors from encountering the spam filter. So that is what I did. The administrator who added the link to the blacklist mentioned the fact that it was cross-wiki and only in English in their edit summary when the link was added. If I had passed over the individual page, any editor who attempted to edit the page after it was added would be presented with an error message saying what link triggered the spam filter.
And yes, the website is commercially oriented. In the discussion on meta which is proposing the domain's removal, one editor chose a page and determined that 49.503% of that page was either advertising or navigation. As the external links guideline says, links to websites which exist to primarily sell a product or service should generally be avoided. I am sorry if the removal of that link caused you any confusion, and I hope that this explanation helps to alleviate your concerns. I hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 19:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you dare[edit]

Don't you dare revert any of those edits to train station articles without discussing it with me first. I have excellent, well-thought-out reasons for these additions, and they are absolutely pertinent to each and every article. Revert back any edits you have already made. If you do not discuss this with me first, I will start a formal complaint. Noroton 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this discussion, in which I gave the reasons why I wanted to add links to the council's main web page. When it was suggested to me that a better alternative would be to create the article on the commuter council, I decided that was best and that I could accomplish the purpose of informing people about where to go with complaints about each station by adding a sentence with a link to the Wikipedia article.

Wikipedia Talk:External links#talkAdding links to organizations to articles about related things Noroton 21:38, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this extensive discussion, and if you scroll down to the last paragraph of the discussion, you'll see that I took up the other editor's suggestion by linking the station articles to the commuter council. But look at my arguments for the usefulness of the commuter council to the station articles. It is essentially the official Ombudsman for each individual station in the New Haven and Shore Line East lines. My argument in a nutshell is that anyone interested in reading about the station is extremely likely to be interested in knowing that the commuter council exists since it's the agency to go to if there are complaints, and there are many, many problems with stations along the lines.

User talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org Noroton 21:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page. Kyra~(talk) 22:09, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your reply. Rather than cross posting, would you rather discuss this on your page or mine? That way everything would be in one place. I'm happy with either page, but I'd rather not have to look back from one to the other to follow the thread.
The only reason I asked you to go to the External links discussion was that I gave many of the reasons there that I would give you here about the usefulness of some information about the commuter council on the station articles. I've given up on trying to put links directly on the External links sections of those articles. That's what the EL discussion was all about. As an alternative I took Beetsra's suggestion (quoted above) to instead create the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article and put in the sentences at each individual station's article that you have been deleting. This way I don't violate a Wikipedia policy and still accomplish my goal of adding that information to the articles. I thought about a "See also" link to the Connecticut Rail Commuter Council article, but I thought it would be better to provide a little information about the connection between the council and the station, so I did it in the form of a sentence. I thought a "See also" section was a bit much in such tiny articles that hardly have any text anyway, and it would be the only item in that section.
The Commuter Council, as I explain near the bottom of the External links talk page discussion, takes up nitty gritty details about problems at each of the stations. You can see the long list of small items I found from the council's minutes. I don't think those details are usually worth including in the station articles, but they demonstrate how the council acts in an ombudsman role. I don't think anyone can really understand the individual train stations without knowing that the council has something to do with them, which makes some mention of the council necessary in each of the articles. And I footnoted the sentences I added, per very strong Wikipedia policy. That's my reasoning, and I'm ready to answer any questions you have about it and consider any objections. Noroton 22:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, I didn't quote it. Here's the quote from the last paragraph of the discussion here -- User talk:Noroton#Trainweb.org:
Let me try and provide a solution (though I have not reviewed if it is really possible). I would suggest to write an article about the Connecticut Railway Commuter Council (here is the caveat; I hope the page would pass wikipedias notability rules). The external link would be directly and symmetrically linked to that page, and you would only add it once. The addition of a sentence linking to the Council-page might be considered canvassing when performed on a set of articles, but you could do that in a consideration of really adding more content to the article. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is fine, I'll merge the discussion from your page in here in a bit to keep everything in one spot.
The alternative that Beetstra suggested was a rather good one, and I agree with that. I still think that a see also section would be best, perhaps with a few words next to it, eg, "Connecticut Rail Commuter Council - Represents commuter interests" (or something to that effect). Even though it may seem a bit much in practice, it is a way to keep the information located in a central place so that it can be updated as needed. In addition, this would let the readers know that the council represents the commuters concerns, as well as providing a link to an article with more information on the council without conveying tangentially related information within the article.
With regard to how you mention that you believe the article cannot be understood without the mention of the council that acts in the ombudsman role, do you think that the small mention next to the see also entry I mentioned above would satisfy the issue? To be honest, I have no strong feeling as to what outcome we decide upon, however the see also section appears to be the most logical solution, to me at least. I hope this makes sense, however if it doesn't, I will try to expand on it if you wish. Kyra~(talk) 23:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you change each article that you edited by adding a "See also" section with the link to the commuter council and the phrase (no hyphen needed) "is a state board representing commuter interests", I'd be satisfied. Noroton 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion now comes up on several pages (WT:EL, WT:WPSPAM etc.). I am going to disagree with the addition of see-also sections only and reiterate my suggestion, add content to the articles. As I have earlier suggested: when was the station built, a picture, passenger numbers per year, interesting facts about the building, what interesting sightings would there be in the vicinity of the station. That is more the information that wikipedia readers might expect. That there is a council for the station is tangential information, and even unnecessery, since the commuters use the station and I am sure the council has a pamphlet mounted somewhere near or on the station. Commuters surely don't use wikipedia to find thát information. I hope this helps, see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now, I will wait until an overall consensus is reached before proceeding further; this seems to be the logical way to proceed, as this will eliminate the need to double the work made, and this way, hopefully the optimal outcome can be reached. Feel free to inquire further if needed, and I hope you both have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 00:03, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a consensus on adding links to the Connecticut railroad station "See also" sections. Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam‎#Citation Spamming of http://www.trainweb.org. Although other editors involved in this have contributed to the WikiProject Spam talk page, they have refrained from saying anything further on this topic, and Dirk Beetstra has agreed as we have. My preferred addition would be:
That shows the connection between the train station and the commuter council, which I think makes the link more useful. (I've shown the strong link between the individual stations and the commuter council here: Wikipedia talk:External links#Adding links to organizations to articles about related things (scroll up from the bottom until you see the boldface blue link for "From minutes of the May 2006 meeting", the beginning of a bulleted list of numerous council discussions on individual train stations, taken from council minutes at its Web site). Thanks, Noroton 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The see also section has been added to the articles that I have modified, and I have used your exact wording. I hope that this is satisfactory, and I wish you a most wonderful day, Noroton. Kyra~(talk) 00:20, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much! Noroton 00:30, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mouse Detective[edit]

Why did you remove my link <*.freewebs.com/greatmousedetective The Game's Afoot!> from The Great Mouse Detective, Basil of Baker Street, and Professor Ratigan pages? They related directly to all of these pages and is the most up-to-date, fresh source for this film and characters. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.69.224 (talk • contribs) 03:18, March 19, 2007 (UTC)

Good evening! The reason I removed the link is primarily because you were adding the link to multiple pages, which would seem to fall under the definition of spamming. Point number two under what links that should generally be avoided says that a site that misleads the user by providing factually inaccurate or unverifiable research should generally be avoided. Since you claim that it is a 'fresh' source, then this would seem to imply that the material is unreliable; at least that is my original impression by that term.
Also, as stated by the external links guideline, links to personal websites should be avoided, except those written by a recognized authority. This one point that the guideline gives complies with our policy on attribution, which along with neutral point of view, compose Wikipedia's core content policies. So in other words, since we have no direct method of knowing where the information on your webpage comes from, such a link should generally be avoided.
Finally, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. I hope this helps to alleviate any questions that may have surrounded my removal of the links; if you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. Thanks, and I hope you have a most wonderful day! Kyra~(talk) 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should have actually checked out the website before just deleting it from the pages I added it to. When I say "fresh", I mean it's a *new* website. But it still complys with the Wikipedia guidelines. It is, infact, a reliable resource of information on both the film and its characters, which is why I added it to those Wikipedia pages. You have plenty of other "personal" websites listed on Wikipedia (including virtually all the provided Great Mouse Detective links, with the exception of IMDB), so your so-called guidelines/rules regarding this matter are both hypocritical and, well, unfounded. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs) 02:12, March 21, 2007 (UTC)
Freewebs accounts/webpages are not reliable sources as we cannot confirm who created them. Anyone can register an account with freewebs, and as such, anything can be posted on them. As for your point as we have multiple fansite links on the pages, I cannot seem to locate anything in the external links guideline that mentions fansites, although I do recall (somewhere) that says there should only be one fansite link on a page, so I would suggest opening a discussion on the article's talk page to determine which should be kept. Of course, you could just supply a {{dmoz}} template and eliminate all of them; that would make the external link section much cleaner as well. I am not saying that your website isn't good, but per Wikipedia:External links, personal websites should normally be avoided, except those authored by a recognized authority. Also, a relevant paragraph frpm WP:EL is below (emphasis mine):
In other words, please mention your proposed inclusion of the link on the talk page of the pages in question to that other editors may form a consensus on whether your link should be included or not. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire. I hope you have an exceedingly wonderful day, and happy editing! Kyra~(talk) 04:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You say "anyone can create/own a Freewebs account", well, that's interesting because anyone can also own a GeoCities account (which, by the way, makes up virtually all of your listed Great Mouse Detective sites!).Again, almost all of the sites you have listed on the pages I added my site to are ALSO fansites. How do you get off with a guideline that says links to fansites shouldn't be used, yet, there are LOTS of fansites listed on MANY Wikipedia pages?? Perhaps I'm a little slow, but it seems pretty unfair to include *some* fansite listings and not others. It also seems pretty biased that one Wikipedia user gets to decide what links are kept and what ones get deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiweaves (talk • contribs) 14:25, March 21, 2007
If we have articles that have more than one fansite link, you are more than welcome to be bold and remove them until one fansite remains, discuss the fansite links on the talk pages so that others can weigh in on the decision, or attempt to find an entry on dmoz for the subject and replace the fansite links with a {{dmoz}} template. As for this issue, I have replaced the fansite links with a dmoz template.
Also, just because there are links to fansites located within articles, does not mean every such link needs to be included. It is better to link to web directories, such as dmoz, so Wikipedia does not become a web directory itself, or keep such links down to a minimum. I hope this issue has been resolved satisfactorily, and I do hope you have a wonderful day. Kyra~(talk) 00:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NIAP CCEVS link changes[edit]

I'm not sure why you reverted all of the NIAP CCEVS link changes. The domain name was officially changed to niap-ccevs.org on January 31st, 2007 -- follow the convoluted trail from niap.nist.gov to nsa.gov to niap-ccevs.org and see for yourself. The existing links were updated to reflect the new domain name and provide a more direct route for our users. No new links were added. I'm not sure how providing a direct route to the sites falls under advertising, promotion, search engine ranking rules. NIAP CCEVS T

Initially I thought that a conflict of interest existed because your username matches the domain name, so I thought (now I realize, wrongly, and for that I am sorry) you were trying to promote the website in some way; also, the change of the link without any indication as to why you overwrote the link in the edit summary box struck me as slightly odd. I now realize that I was mistaken with my original thought, and I thank you for bringing this to my attention. All of the links that I have reverted have been restored, and I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience or confusion that my reversions have caused you. If you have any further questions, feel free to inquire, and I will be more than happy to assist you to the best of my ability. I do hope you have a most wonderful day, and happy editing. Kyra~(talk) 14:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kyra, thanks for restoring the updated links. We don't typically fiddle with Wikipedia, but I ran across a few outdated links and took the opportunity to update them. Our users have had to jump through hoops to reach us for the past year due to hosting changes, so I wanted to provide current links. Things should be a bit more permanent now that we're not beholden to NIST and BAH for hosting. Thanks again. NIAP CCEVS T 15:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KyraVixen/Archive_2&oldid=1143124881"