User talk:Beetstra/Archive 4

drawing and searching chemical structures
Salut, I am glad to see your comments regarding searching chemical structures in Wiki's, I have had several comments on other forums about adding this type of functionality. Not sure if you know about ChemAxon's Marvin editor/viewer or the JChem Base chemical search technology but I believe that it is the most powerful and web ready technology currently available and this can be provided freely (under our FreeWeb Package) if you think this would be suitable. Examples back from the industry suggest that as a Java Applet rather than a plugin technology we do 'get under' usual 'administrator only' install issues and we are relevant for all operating systems. To have a look at examples please visit this implementation of MarvinSketch and this example of us as both editor and search engine at the RCSB Protein Data Bank. Do let me know if this is interesting and I can forward keys. Cheers and good work. aa_at_chemaxon_._com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex Allardyce (talk • contribs)
 * Salut,
 * I had a quick look, but I could not download (yet, probably, account seemed not to be active, I'll try again later). Let me say, it looks quite nifty, does this work on *nix type systems (and then I mean, can I create documents in a text-editor, and incorporate these images, and if I give that document to someone else can they then still see the images?  Would this work for documents that one sends for official publications (ACS, RSC, Wiley ..)?  But those questions are besides the point here.
 * Basically, I do like the possibility to incorporate chemical drawings in wikipedia, but I don't think that it is an application that is going to be accepted by the programmers of the mediawiki-software. I am trying to get a wikipedia based search engine to run (a special:chemicalsources, working like special:booksources), and they already think that that is too specific, to specialistic.  That does not mean, that such functionality should not be written (I have written the specialpage), an extension to the software might be very good for chemistry specific wikipedia.  The way to go would be to write the extension, find a way to store the data in the wikipedia database, and to upload a patch to bugzilla.  From that moment you will have to nag developers to incorporate you patch in svn (step 1), and after that try and see if the main developers (Brion and Tim) are willing to enable it on wikipedia (I don't know if you have a big chance there).  At that point the software is available to other users, and people running their own wiki (like me), or chemistry wiki's can choose to activate the extension, and use the software.  I guess you will have to start here
 * You could leave this message also at wikiproject Chemicals or wikiproject Chemistry and see how they respond. I guess there will be more that like that idea.
 * I saw that you created some documents on chemaxon. As a person working for a company, you have to be careful with that, wikipedia strictly adheres to WP:NPOV, and all the other policies and guidelines.  I don't know what the text was in the document, but either the document should not tell anything, and you should rely on others to expand (which may take quite some time, and until that, people might delete for lack of notability).  Another option is to put the page on a request-list (there is a link when you go to a non-existent page.  Hope this helps.  Now I am wondering if I should end this message with 'Pa'?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

again commercial links on chemical pages
It was discussed again and again. It was said some links might be permissible. see Mdwyer 05:50, 9 September 2006


 * Mdwyer, I did not remove the links, that was DrBird/71.245.157.18. There are problems with external links, there have been extensive discussions on that. A solution that is underway (though I still need a Wikipedia-programmer), would be a page like special:booksources, which would load Wikipedia:Chemical sources. For now, there is the template ChemicalSources, which enables to remove commercial links, but I do not remove links which directly link to the compounds property pages (I do remove links to companies homepages or similar, non-specific pages). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I knew you weren't removing them. I was actually replying to DrBird, and I hijacked your page for a discussion. Sorry about that. In any case, I'm not familiar enough with the guts of the code to do more than just keep manually reverting things when I find them. The link DrBird keeps adding doesn't look like it fits WP:EL. The Fermentek ones seem valid to me. In other cases where I'm not sure, I will often move them with a note in the talk pages so someone can put them back if they think they are valid. --Mdwyer 05:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * DrBird is adding links to his own site, these do not comply WP:EL, moreover, these links did not link to the chemical property page, but to a general page. Links to chemical property sheets on commercial websites are not necessarily wrong, they give extra info, which is still necessary on many chemical pages. I see DrBird is still pushing, I will revert all his edits when he only adds or removes links in the 'external links' section (but I am going on holiday). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I see you have launched a crusade against all of them. You contradict your own expressed opinion. Maybe reconsider?

In any case I will go on mentioning and linking to the pages that the data have been copied from (on permission of course). It is a matter of honesty. Please visit here:

Now also consider that: You might have noticed Fermentek does not offer its products to individuals, nor does it publish or compare prices.

In any case, I think you will not object to linking to corresponding MSDS pages from wiki chemical articles.

AbuAmir 14:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My support goes stronger and stronger towards removing all commercial links from chemical pages, there are many, non commercial sites available. The template ChemicalSources is available, and requests for enabling a special:chemicalsources has been made, and I have asked several times for support of that.  Note that the terms that are used are 'might', 'not necessarily wrong' .. I know that Fermentek is not offering to individuals, but there are many chemists using the site, and for them this can still be explained as advertisement.  Please consider WP:EL in that light.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to be sure, some of the MSDS's are also available from non-commercial sources, maybe these are a better EL?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Another sentence to reply to, it is indeed honest to mention the pages where you found the data, that is even very good, but in that case they should be mentioned as references, preferably using the WP:CITE mechanisms available. Just as a sidenote, many of the compounds would really benefit from a chembox or a drugbox (both provide the same functionality), these also link directly into the online databases (PubChem, CAS, MeSH, KEGG, ChEBI, eMolecules, etc.), where, probably (and for some I am sure because I did check whether the information was available non-commercial), more information can be found.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Note to self
Check for all fields in chembox new: Cadmium_oxide / Fluoroform and solve that NFPA --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts
I started a new and improved List of articles related to scientific skepticism. Now, I am afraid there may be a few editors that want to continue to make unproductive comments. There is serious problems with conflict of interest with a few editors that do not like the scientific list I created. If you have any suggestions that would be helpful. Thanks, --QuackGuru 00:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you give me a link to the page? In general, when there are such problems, make sure the data is backed up by reliable sources, and keeps a good neutral point-of-view.  For severe cases, you could request for a comment (RfC).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:00, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a new article named: List of criticisms about alternative medicine. Please help and monitor this stub. It deserves a chance to be a good article. The other article I created is already gone. I hope I can at least save this one. Thanks, --QuackGuru 20:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles are gone. Now, today I added an article to a List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and I was reverted. I cited 3 references and discussed it on the talk page. I fixed all the references in the article too and that was also reverted. Feel free to take a look at my edits to the article. I believe I was doing normal editing and another editor falsely accused me of being disruptive. Thanks, QuackGuru 22:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you are up against an established editor. I guess it is better if you keep low profile, and play their game.  I know it is not how it should be (I see he ignores all your questions on his talkpage), but if a straight approach does not work ... Just start a topic on the talkpage for every subject you want to change, explain the case, provide the references.  See how they react, and be patient with them.  The list is controversial, and that indeed means that things have to be discussed before a change is applied.  Hope that helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Update. I have commented on the talk page to save the list before it is essentially erased. The desires of a certain editor have been revealed. I hope you can vote before there is not much left of the article anymore. Thanks, --QuackGuru 16:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is all you can do. I am not knowledgeable enough in this field to make an educated oppose or support.  Remember, this version is always available in the history of the document (unless it gets deleted).  What you could do at this point is to list it at a RfC (Request for Comment).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Article: Periodic_table, external link removal
hello beetstra,

you removed the external link I added (www.dayah.com/periodic).

I added this link because dayah's periodic table is very well suited for printing it out.

This may not be encyclopedic information in its original sense, but Wikipedia has evolved beyond that, has it not? Pupils and students that want to have a nice print of a periodic table may try to find it on Wikipedia. It was so in my case.

I clicked all the other external links that were already on the article page, but none of them satisfied me. Maybe there is an alternative to dayah's table (equal amount of information, color-coded and printable), but then it was not immediately apparent. I never stay longer than about 5 seconds on a website when I am searching for something where there is a wide choice, and I think most people act as I do.

I read the (quite tedious) article about external linking. IMHO the link I added is not redundant. Please consider letting me reinsert it, or please tell me why this may not be.

Thank you -Thomas —The preceding unsigned comment was added by I2yu (talk • contribs) 20:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Sorry, you may be right that your link gives a nice, printable periodic table, but I am afraid, that many other pages also believe the same. If you read the WP:EL, you see that it is written in a style of 'external links can be added' (not must), 'things that should be linked' (again, not must), and 'links normally to avoid' (speaks for itself) .. Moreover, this guideline relies on a couple of policies (WP:NOT and WP:RS).  For this case, in short, the number of external links should be kept to a minimum, and if we allow one external link to be added, what keeps others from adding (though I will not listen to the argument 'but there is another link already' anyway, I still like WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but that redirect is up for deletion).  I am sorry, but the site is not in the list of 'what should be linked', and may be part of 'links normally to avoid', in top of 'not a linkfarm'.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. I understand the importance of keeping external links to a minimum.

The external link from Los Alamos National Laboratory, the flash table link from touchspin.com, as well as the external link from www.ceet.niu.edu do not appear to provide any information beyond what is already available from the webelements link, they merely present it in a different form (using Flash instead of html, for instance).

I'd also like to note that "my link giving a nice printable periodic table" is not solely personal preference. I am capable of objectively comparing the periodic tables that I print out. I know that webelements offers a very basic, simple printable periodic table (not color-coded, no electron configs, etc) as pdf, which will nonetheless suffice for any student, so I guess I can't argue. However, if you find the time to compare A4 prints of these two tables (and perhaps many other tables as well - I was thorough in my google search), I hope you will see my motivation to add the link. Best Regards, -Thomas —Preceding unsigned comment added by I2yu (talk • contribs)
 * There may indeed be links there that are superfluous. Seen the current setup of WP, pdf files cannot directly be incorporated in the system, they have to be external links, so I think it should stay with one or two periodic tables from respected sources (LANL, webelements would fit that at least).  Others .. maybe that part should be cleaned up.
 * If you really think the link adds info, and can be used to replace other links, or maybe is a good addition, please discuss its addition on the talkpage of Periodic table. That is probably also the place to talk about removal of some of the links (a link to a flash site should technically not be on the page ..).  It may be a lenghty discussion.
 * Could you please sign your posts on talkpages? Thank you.--Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Reference in taxobox
I was just curious if there were other non-substituted infoboxes that used references, and I found that taxobox has field for a reference (used in Yellow-shouldered Blackbird). I don't know enough about the inner workings of chembox new to know if this has any relevance or not though. Just thought you might be interested. --Ed (Edgar181) 21:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! I have solved the problem.  You can now add, in the top-level of the chembox new a parameter 'Reference' (I am not making it a standard reference).  If you give that parameter the value, all works out OK.  So all formatting haas to be done in that parameter, and then it works.  See o-Phenylenediamine!  Thanks, I've learned something new!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel a bit guilty for making suggestions that end up costing you more time than expected to make them happen.  --Ed (Edgar181) 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I spent an evening this week trying to get magic into melting points and boiling points .. and in the end I had to revert myself because I broke it. This was in total just 10-15 minutes, I guess.  And I did learn something, what may be of use later.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert
Thanks for the quick revert-and-report on User:Dinbogogo. Vandalism like that is really upsetting to me... doesn't he know I'm a dyke, not a fag? -FisherQueen (Talk) 20:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I don't think he knows, that would imply that he actually took the time to read .. and he did not read his warnings either.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:06, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
For reverting the vandalism on my userpage. My, I seem to be popular today... :) Fvasconcellos 19:54, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * A whole school! But you're welcome.  Quite some have been active on that job.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

lenntech.com
The lenntech pages pointed to are technical info only, and furnish extensive detail and history. They are not promotional for lenntech's products (I don't even know what their products are). I didn't realize that links to such pages were a Wikipedia policy problem. Before you judge the lenntech pages, please have a look and read one of them all the way through. If there is still a problem linking to them, please cite chapter and verse of the policy that is causing the problem. I just read the "links normally to be avoided" at external links. Perhaps my interpretation of these guidelines is not the same as yours. Please keep in touch with me with your further thoughts on this. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 23:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly do realize that posting links to commercial sites is treading closer to the edge than most of the other edits I've done. But in my opinion, lenntech's motives seem to be pure. Their informational pages appear to be just that -- an effort to impart technical and historical fact. Indeed I only found them because of other links to their pages on Wikipedia. In the case of the new "process detail" section I wrote for Leblanc process, I was summarizing the info at the lenntech page as well as at a few other pages I found (especially the 1911 version of Britanica, which is now on line). I didn't think it would be appropriate to post all of the info I found at external sites, because it would make the article too long. But I thought readers should have the opportunity to find out more if they were interested (there have to be a few other nerds like me who find chem-industrial processes, especially historical ones, fascinating). I think the reason that a number of other Wikipedians thought to link to lenntech is because of the quality and quantity of the material they find there. But on your advice, I will put more thought into striking a good balance between avoiding links when I can and providing the reader with further detail. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 23:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for WP:3RR
You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Diamond simulant. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Diamond simulant). The duration of the block is 12 hours and please don't use popups to revert contentious edits, it is considered disruption. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

unblock
removed unblock request, already unblocked — P ilotguy push to talk  15:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe the block is entirely justified, although I will not and cannot deny your request for an unblock. I see you have been actively contributing since the time you revert-warred. Please understand that revert-warring with another user is not productive at all, and the user was trying to discuss on his talk page. Even when you have consensus, you cannot revert more than three times in a single day and it is much better to follow WP:1RR. If you can promise to refrain yourself from committing this error again, I will unblock you assuming good faith. Regards, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I realise that I indeed also went over the 3RR, and I should have reported earlier to 3RR. I did report this person first to the AIV )http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism&diff=prev&oldid=107213618 diff), but that request was first not seen for 20 minutes, and by then reclined.  I am sorry that this went so far, and I think I have learned that lesson, and I promise to refrain from that from now on.
 * Re his discussion on his talkpage, that only started in the second half of his unilateral changes, and I did also reply to that. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You have been unblocked. Please remember not to use automated tools while in content disputes. Best wishes, &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. OK, I will take care with popups next time.  I hope I can convince the person to engage into a constructive discussion after this.  Thanks again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That and don't revert more than once. Let multiple other users do it and get him to discuss on the talk page of the article. As him to provide reliable sources for his contentions and claims. &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick  15:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you
Dirk: nice new chembox indeed (Also, I was thinking that "excretion" could present a new way of rating some articles!) Can you advise on the picture layout on TNT? --Smokefoot 04:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have repaired TNT, please have a look at this diff and the examples provided in chembox new (different images need different parameters, and you only need to provide the filename, not the whole image tag.
 * Do you suggest to use the chembx new for article rating? That would indeed be possible, but that is in general done via the talkpages.  Hope to hear more!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Article thallium halides
I have created the article. I hope/ expect that you will improve it. I plan to add similar articles for gallium indium & aluminium very soon, but I'll hold off until I get some feedback Axiosaurus 17:13, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I'll have a look later.  I hope it is not turning too much into a list (we have categories for the list).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your good work! I will add the template!!--Stone
 * You're welcome. Please let me know if there is something that goes wrong or needs being added.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Stop the Bleeding
Those links weren't spam, they are from the bands official site, I felt it would be apropriate to put them on the albums pages in their discography, if you feel they should be removed to make the articles more in line with a certain policy or something then please do so.--E tac 02:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw you adding the link to all the articles, which is why I addressed them as spam (mass addition of links to articles). Then I realised that it was the official page for the band, and reconsidered.  I think the links would comply with WP:EL, so then they can stay.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:33, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Peter Markus
You shoud not be rejecting my pages so quickly.

I am trying to start a page, for a VERY well known writer named Peter Markus. If you google him, you will see that he is quite the up-and-coming fiction-freak. Please call back your Knights of "Immediately Delete this article"

ARTICLE: Peter Markus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlaverty (talk • contribs)
 * Add the hangon, add the data, and add suitable and good references. By the way, a google test is not a real assertion of notability.  Just now the article is just a short bio with no assertion of his notability.  Please consider adding the ISBN's.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:21, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of interest?
Dirk, I appreciate your comments. However the links that Macrakis and now yourself are removing are useful non-commercial content-relevant links to traditional Mediterranean and Asian recipes, so there is no conflict of interest. These recipe links have been on Wikipedia since 2004 and have shown many Wikipedia users how to cook traditional ethnic dishes, so to suddenly remove them would be extremely unfair, and certainly not in keeping with the spirit of this encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foudel (talk • contribs)
 * There is a conflict of interest, you are involved in the website you are linking to. The links were removed with respect to WP:EL.  They may be right, but you have a WP:COI, consider discussing on the talkpage.  Also consider that wikipedia is not a linkfarm, adding these type of links just invites other people to add their links as well.  I am sorry, hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

urgent reply and query
Greetings Dirk, Thank you for your prompt reply, rather than put me at my ease it has made me very worried. My instinctive paranoia regarding all things technological tells me that something weird is going on here - I can assure you that I did not inadvertently include the external link or whatever appeared during the same edit I made. I hope your experience as a Wikipedian can resolve this matter - it's beyond me! Regards, --Technopat 17:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Greetings again, Dirk,

Thank you for trying to put me at ease regarding the weird things going on - as regards being branded as a spammer, you've more or less convinced me that I'm not condemned. However, the matter of the external link that appeared along with my edit still worries me and will continue to do so as the same might happen again on any other page I edit. Is there some technical help page I can go to in order to ensure that there isn't any kind of virus attached to my account? Regards, --Technopat 18:43, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Spam or not spam?
I think you must yourself expand wikipedia by an articles about trading and technical indicators.

Best regards. TechAnalyster 15:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Expansion is not the same as adding external links. Please read WP:SPAM and WP:EL.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks - I was replacing the FEC urls I had added earlier with the root one which I later found. I'm trying to add the best official and nonpartisan urls to the senators and representatives so the public can follow politics more easily and quickly. Do you know of anyone who might be interested in helping? I've done Illinois as an example. Flatterworld 15:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. No, I would not know.  I just saw your name coming by very ofen in the spam-IRC-channel.  I was wondering what you were doing.  If your work could be automated, you could have a look at WP:AWB, makes life easier.  Cheers!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 2
Good job on the archiving. Thanks! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Modifications to Template:Drugbox
Just so you know, I'm suggesting more work for you here. :) --Ed (Edgar181) 20:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I read that 15 seconds ago. Cheers! (kind of).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
For helping me clean up after it. Regards, Tuxide 21:03, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And I am glad you helped me, it is nice to see the feed, but it is killing me at some moments to revert it all. So thank you for helping me on this one!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:08, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks Dirk
For helping us improve the Michel Elefteriades page. Best. Bahaab
 * You are welcome, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reverting
Hi! I seem to run in to you quite often lately. Thanks for helping me reverting spammers! You feel like joining us on and ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My vandalism-detecting software isn't really intended for spam, though it does tend to show up, so I revert it when it does. I don't think there's any need for extra channels, though; it just uses the main channel that all the edits come through (#en.wikipedia). Unless of course you just want the company :) – Qxz 10:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Company is always nice, but I am already glad you are helping. I will ask to whitelist your name on the spam-channel, though, you have 'spammed' at least 174 pages now ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I have? Odd, I don't remember adding external links to anything, except as part of a much larger revert (of blanking or whatever). Does it count those as spam too? – Qxz 14:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It is purely your reverting, 'spamming' in this case is defined as 'adding an external link' (in whichever form) (our feed sees ALL external link additions in a handfull of wikis, that is, when LW is not down). So don't worry .. See you around!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Virtual Case File and other reverts...
The changes made to the Virtual Case File article included the name of the list, and the site that if you went to the listing there after this revert, not to mention the real date of the article Matthew Patton had sent to the list, and in the links section, the posting to that list got the FBI's attention, before you blindly flipped

It seems a little odd the links for internet security and computer security were considered spam, especially with a number of other sites offering security news listed there haven't updated any recent news for almost a quarter. (There are a number of links on both articles that are just outright spam) I would think having daily updated security information from a free site would be in the best interests of Wikipedia, or mediocrity is really par for the course around here. Shawn Fynn 09:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw this particular link being spammed by the IP (without edit summary) on the channel feed. I reverted because of that, and removed other additions by the same account as well.  I did not look closely to the other links, but having links in the list does not mean that more should be added; others may have to go as well.
 * I understand that there is an interest in having links on pages, but wikipedia is not a directory for links (per WP:NOT), and I am not sure if links to news-sites would be allowed per WP:EL. WP:EL clearly states that external links should be used when the information can not be included into the wikipedia; IMHO, news can be included into wikinews, and a link to wikinews can be used.  Some of these articles may also have dmoz entries.
 * If you think this link does add to the article, I suggest it is discussed on the talkpage and added by an established editor with an edit summary pointing to the talkpage discussion. Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you are working the spam detail, I don't suppose you want to step up to the plate and start deleting links in internet security and computer security that would obviously qualify as outright spam under WP:EL? Linking a non-commerical security site, Bad, keeping a paid security training company, Good?!? Shawn Fynn 09:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I am, just as many other people here, working here as a volunteer. I am reverting spam when I see it being added, and indeed sometimes clean up a page when there are links which are outright spam (when we recognise a link as being spam/spammed, we sometimes clean lists of pages that have that link, especially when we blacklist the link).  There are indeed many links on many pages which would not comply with WP:EL, and they should be removed as well, but there is only so much we can do (I also have a regular life, and am also doing other things on wikipedia).  Since you seem knowledgeable in the field, I think you would be better able to help recognising links which are on these specific pages that do not comply with WP:EL.  Care to help?  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I see that I may have overreverted a link added by 67.162.4.109, if the reference is to the same document as the original reference, than maybe that link should be changed. I am sorry for that, but in general, the account was adding a link to several external link sections, and did one change (?) of a link in a reference.  The author that added the reference in the first place was using the that link as the reference, not another url, so the change was controversial there, and might have needed some explanation.  When you confirm that the link in the reference should be to the same document on another server, please do change that (please provide an edit summary).  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Dirk,

I have read your messages and done some research on what is appropriate for links. Thanks for clarification, and I will be more careful.

Thanks,

Bardman6 16:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just know, wikipedia is not a linkfarm. External links are not really necessary, most of them can (and should) be used as a reference anyway, and we tend to revert a lot.  Hope this helps, and sorry I did not answer earlier (I thought I did .. ).  See you around, happy editing).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks 3
 It's been a week since my recent request for adminship passed, and since I haven't managed to delete the Main Page - yet - I figure it's safe to send these out. Thanks a lot for participating in my RfA; I hope to do a good job. If you see me doing something wrong, need help, or just want to have a chat, please don't hesitate to drop by :) – riana_dzasta 07:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Happy mopping!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Chembox new
Hi, thanks for adding chemboxes to articles, but may I ask you to have a look at chembox new, it offers some advanced properties, and gives cleaner and smaller documents (less table-gibberish). Some of us have started to use the new one, or replace old boxes. See you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm well aware of the chembox new, but I don't like to use it as I feel it's inferior to the other forms, like chembox. If you check, I wrote quite a lot of code for both the simple chemboxes to make them easier and clearer to use. Besides, the main reason I uses the 'obsolete' versions is because they're way more versatile. You can literally put any info you find in them, but you're limited to predesignated fields with the new version - Jack · talk · 11:00, Thursday, 22 February 2007
 * I still think that the whole table in the top of the document is a big list of gibberish, which may scare people to fill in other data. Also, fields are easily added to the chembox new, and can then be used in other chemboxes as well, without any trouble.  In that case it is only once that you have to do the addition.  One of the big advantages of the chembox new, IMHO, is that the chemboxes are similar all through, so that people know what to find where in the chembox, and they do not find chemboxes of different types in different pages.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Editing
Why ? How ? Some questionable editing is going on here. Terry's contributions have been called into question and I am simply providing further proof that contrary to some misguided beleifs he was a respected tech journalist. 70.49.180.3 21:11, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You are adding an external link, that is not providing proof. Providing proof is adding content and using the information you have as a reference.  Please see WP:RS, WP:CITE, WP:EL etc.  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Grapeflix
Hello Beetstra - -your comment about advertising and providing information is a thin line. I appreciate your desire to police the ranks. If you felt that the article was bordering on advertising, we would have appreciated it if you simply did not delete the entire article but warned us at least that you felt there were elements of advertising. We are willing to follow the rules. Anyway, we will edit our article to ensure if is just a source of information on the company. We will send a link to you once complete to check if you're fine with it. Please understand that it also took time to write the article and if there was a questionable section, it would be good if you let us know and we would either revise or remove it. But to delete the entire article is a bit too much. Thank you for understanding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeflix (talk • contribs)
 * I did not delete the article, that was done by an admin. I was busy writing that message to you in that time.  You are clearly violating WP:COI, and the article was a blatant advertisement.  If you think that the subject is suitable for a wikipedia entry, please put it on the request list (the link is visible when you visit a non-existent page).
 * Also, please do not redirect you userpage to the article, that is very confusing, and only makes it clearer you have a conflict of interest there. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 22:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

BAPTA
And other Ca2+ chelators... In group meeting the other day we were discussing this and apparently, I was wrong on the two thing even, and that most of these chelators will each only bind a single Ca2+ ion. I guess comparing it to EDTA is probably pretty valid... I guess in theory I'm fairly qualified to do the edit, but am a bit gunshy at this point. I'm also a chemist, though, and pretty good at poking my way around PERL scripts so if you're still looknig for help or advice or input on chemical pages, I'd be glad to help. Alkaloids 17:00, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Just be bold! Happy editing, and hope to see you around!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Werdnabot failure to archive
Werdnabot can fail to archive because: (1) the talk page or archive is page-protected; (2) it has an edit conflict with someone else who is trying to edit the talk page or the archive at that moment; (3) the archive is not a subpage of the talk page; (4) Werdnabot is aborted before it finishes its run; or (5) other unknown causes. #1, #3, and #4 do not appear to apply in your case. JRSpriggs 06:08, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like 2 was the case either, there is no edit to either page minutes around Werdnabot. I checked whether Werdnabot already moved on (archiving other talkpages) and that seemed to be the case.  But there is no harm done, everything is in the history anyway, just wanted Werdna(bot) to know.  Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The physics project talk page suffered the same fate as you, but the math project talk page and the others I have looked at seem OK. On the other hand, Werdnabot's own talk page was not transferred to Werdna's as it should have been. Weird. JRSpriggs 11:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * In yesterdays archival run it seems to be the only one (as far as I searched back in Special:Contributions/Werdnabot). Let's wait for this afternoon and see what happens.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the template
I want to thank you for helping me at User:Martinp23/NPWatcher/Approval template. Happy Editing by  Snowolf (talk)CONCOI on  09:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you for removing the pagename include from the Hydroxyzine page, it was there before i actually began to expand it, but thanks! James.Spudeman 21:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

adding links
Hi Dirk:

I've just been adding some links to pages that you've been rejecting as spam. They're not anything i'd consider spam -- i felt they're all relevant to the topics to which i'm posting.

If i've been doing something wrong, i'm sorry. What i thought i was doing was just adding more relevant information to the Wikipedia database.

Please let me know your thoughts...

Andy (Herm720) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herm720 (talk • contribs)
 * You are adding links in a mass-way, that is considered spam. The links may contain relevant information, but so do many links, please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a linkfarm.  Please contribute information to the articles, and when you think that your site gives reliable information (!) and you have used information from there for the article, add the link as a reference.  Thank you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

sorry
i just thought i'd add some relevant information on a few wiki topics. if adding relevant information to different wiki topics in a rather short amount of time is spamming, then i guess i've been judged a spammer and there's nothing i can do about that. i didn't mean any harm. sorry.

Herm720 12:16, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Answered on User talk:Herm720. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)