User talk:Heathweaver

Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia, as you did in Gisele Bündchen. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks.

Gisele links list
Hi Abu. I would rather discuss with you about appropriate links for the Gisele article rather than having a link-off war. According to the guidelines for wikipedia it is appropriate to have a link to fan sites listing. The www.squidoo.com/giselebundchen Squidoo lense is not my personal site and does not promote me. It is an regularly updated, appropriate web site which is used to keep track of interesting links and information relating to the subject matter.

If the www.squidoo.com/giselebundchen Squidoo lense is not the best fan site listing then I encourage you to find a better one and let's use that. --User:Heathweaver


 * I object the incluision of the Squidoo link because it's a collection of links that, each one of them, would not be acceptable on Wikipedia (with the obvious exception of the official website link, already in the article). I've followed the links to check it up, and they are mostly image galleries that do no mention the image's copyright holder. There's even a link to a google search result page. If there is at least one link there you believe is worth mentioning in the article, go on and add it. But the link collection as a whole does not seems appropriate. There's just too many unusable links for wikipedia.
 * I do not have a suggestion for a better "fan site listing". Do we need one, by the way? --Abu Badali 14:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Heathweaver, are you in any way realted to Dr. Robert Young? And what's your connection with Sharpcast? Please, don't take me wrong. Best regards, --Abu Badali 14:58, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have to raise a point here. I haven't looked at the guidelines here, but images that do not mention the copyright holder are not inappropriate in and of themselves. It is more of an issue for the site. The value of an image is self-evident, it only becomes unusable because of legalities.


 * Another point of contention is in relating to the subject matter. Gisele is a fashion model, meaning that her entire occupation is involved in being the subject matter of images. Understanding that should make it more clear why links to image sites are MUCH more relevant than links to information sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathweaver (talk • contribs)


 * I see completely see where you are coming from (even though from your remarks and from the comments to you above I think you act as a bit of a purist and maybe go a little too far); but, after looking over the guidelines of Wikipedia links for fansites I think this issue is very gray. Quoting again: In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link. (Note: fanlistings are generally not informative and should not ordinarily be included.)


 * As the creator of the Squidoo lense I am, of course, bias; but, I don't see any really great fan sites that would be worth linking. Also, I believe that many people are served by a well maintained link list that keeps up-to-date with the subject matters life. Maybe we could request for a consensus of which additional site to list that would serve this purpose.


 * PS I have no relation to Dr. Young I have been researching his work and am a bit doubtful about a number of facts so I am submitting a page. Sharpcast is a new product that I am a huge fan of, I have contact with the company as one of its customers, but I have no other affiliations.


 * I just think that Squidoo is a good way to research a topic before submitting it to Wikipedia as you can put whatever and then as facts are researched they can be moved them to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathweaver (talk • contribs)


 * I'm confused. First you say "Squidoo] lense is not my personal site and does not promote me" and then you say "As the creator of the Squidoo lense I am, of course, bias". First you cite the guidelines, and them you say "I haven't looked at the guidelines"... yes, Heathweaver, the guidelines you cited do tell us to void copyright violating sites (see #5). I encourage you here to take the first step and remove yourself the link to your site from whichever article you had added it. Wikipedia has boilerplate messages for cases as this. I may tell you in advance that ignoring these warning may ultimately led to an acount blocking. Plese, keep cool and act wisely. --Abu Badali 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Help In Exposing Deceipt
Abu, I am entering an article on an author who, although he writes a best selling diet book, misrepresents his background and qualifications. How does one go about stating these types of facts in Wikipedia? --Heath Weaver 18:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * First, of course, make sure you have Reliable sources for these informations. In the article, you may write like "John Smith claims to be a phisician, and mathematician, etc.. [1], but, according to so-so-so [2], Smith had never been a phisician." --Abu Badali 18:25, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Gisele Bündchen
Excuse me, I was wondering if you were the one who keeps reverting the trivia on the Gisele Bündchen page. If you are can we please talk on the Gisele Bündchen talk page? Thank you. loulou 17:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Nomination of Robert O. Young for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Robert O. Young is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Robert O. Young until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.  Ron h jones (Talk) 19:47, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SugarSync


A tag has been placed on SugarSync, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)