User talk:Nposs/Archive 1

(Untitled discussion from 26 September 2006)
The term "Mong" is the main word and can be pronounce throughout the world. Some people come forth and argued that Hmong equals Mong Leng and Hmong Der. However, the nasal sound of an “H” does not and cannot represent both dialects because Mong Leng does use it. My childish argument would be that if you dropped the “H,” the “Mong” will be able to stand tall, but if you dropped the “M”, the “Hong” would not stand at all.

The word "Hmong" with the "H" is only known and used by the Mong Der only. Whenever I was asked how to pronounce the word "Hmong", I have to tell the non-Mong speaking to drop the "H" because it is only a nasal sound that only use by the Mong Der dialect.

The term "Hmong" is only known for a bit more or less than 30 years. My source told me that a western journalist interviewed Dr. Yang Dao after the fall of Laos and Dr. Yang Dao gave the journalist the name "Hmong" without considering the contradiction between dialects. The term "Hmong" is only used by the Mong Der and no one else uses the "H" for nasal sound to the name.

The addition of Mong to the current article in wikipedia only confuses the situation beyond what it is? What is so confusing about that? Is Hmong and Mong one and the same? We have minor differences between the two and both sides deserve explanation. Let’s take those photos in wikipedia for example, when you say “Mong girls playing a ball-throwing-game to get to know possible husband,” that is correct because those girls are Mong Leng. However, if you would say that “Hmong (noticed the “H?”) girls playing a ball-throwing-game to get to know possible husband.” That is wrong because those girls are not Mong Der. I can tell this because they are not wearing Mong Der skirts. Mong Der skirt is completely white. (from User:Gopherzoo)

I'm not really sure what you are suggesting. Could you clarify if there is something you want to change about the article? (BTW this quote: "The addition of Mong to the current article in wikipedia only confuses the situation beyond what is." is in reference to the old form of the article that repeated confused "Hmong" with "Miao." I actually spearheaded the creation of the new "Miao people" article which then left more space to discuss issues surrounding the use of Hmong and Mong to refer to the entire ethnic group. Read further down the talk page for [Hmong people] and you'll find that I am the one who added the information surrounding the current debate over Hmong and Mong in the U.S. I have advocated for the use of the inclusive term Hmong/Mong and actually suggest that the title of the article be change to "Hmong and Mong people." I believe we should be as inclusive as possible in the language of the article. As for the pictures on the Hmong people page, I don't know where they are from. Costume is no longer a reliable marker of group identity and the description placed by the photographer is all we have to go on for the time being.) [I'll post this to your talk page as well, since I'm not sure if you check back here.]--Nposs 19:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, I don't support the use of such terms as Mong Der or Hmong Leng. These are terms imposed on those dialect/culture groups and do not reflect how people refer to themselves. The problems surrounding Hmong/Mong/Miao nomenclature stem from the improper use of ethnonyms from outside of the group. The tendency of late has been to use specific, group appropriate terminology. While more complicated, this has the potential to neutralize some of the bad feelings generated when people feel like they are misrepresented through language.--Nposs 20:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmong
Replied on my user talk page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you know what you are doing on the Hmong people page, where I am basically out of my league on the sort of things that have recently been changing. Can I assume that you are watching it reasonably closely, so that I can take it off of my watchlist? - Jmabel | Talk 09:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Nposs

 * Umm, well, this user is an extreeeeemmmmeeeelllyyy obstinate person. :) He wages immortal wars against people who put external links to Applied Linguistics page, and removes whatever he doesn't like. He cannot, however, prove that those links are useless.  He just uses the power of anonymous editing that is available on Wkipedia; otherwise, he is a big nothing!  He does indeed seem to be a good person though! :) It would yet be better if he didn't delete every useful external page on Wikipedia! :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.10.141.254 (talk • contribs).


 * Nposs, I've just put the following comment on a page about you, upon seeing some negative remarks by you made for LingForum:

Nposs,

Whoever you are, STOP trying to bash Lingforum! Otherwise, we will have to SUE you. That site is a big contribution to the field of linguistics and is linked by many of the top linguistics websites worldwide.

Plus, I removed the link to appliedlinguistics... And that site has just been bought by us, LingForum!! And will soon be one of the authoritative websites in the field. I agree that it shouldnt be there on wikipedia right now. And whoever told you that page rank thing is WRONG! Or maybe that's something made up by YOU!!

This is a LAST warning! We might otherwise have to sue you... You can, of course, remove the links to appliedlinguistics, but cannot say anything like 'spam' for LingForum. We cannot control the links posted by others (who are supposedly trying to help) for our webpages, but we believe noone has the right to say anything negative about lingforum since it is the only authoritative academic site of its kind available on the Web. We agree, of course, with the removal of appliedlinguistics, which is not even yet ready (unlike LingForum). Lastly, we are all linguists in LingForum.

So please stop all those negative remarks! And yes, please feel free to remove anything that migt be posted for appliedlinguistics by anyone who is supposedly trying to "help." (It shouldn't also be categorized as spam though, since it will soon come as a big informative website on the area.)

~Lingforum Administration~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nposs"


 * I actually haven't said anything about the website itself - but thanks for the threat of a lawsuit anyway. It is the repeated linking of it in multiple articles that resembles spam - not the site itself. The reason the site should not be included in "external links" is that it violates the guidelines - links to forums are not appropriate (see WP:EL). There is more discussion going on here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Nposs 19:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said elsewhere several times, we cannot prevent people from linking to us, just as we cannot tell you not to remove those links. We do, however, have a say against whoever tries to harm the reputation of our site (LingForum) by associating its name with things such as spam and relating it with a spam site and categorizing it with other sites and saying that the site has no content other than adsense, which is what you said in a talk page. Linguist J 22:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * In regards to the comment about boosting the "PR" of the site - perhaps you couldn't find it because you ("Jane"/"Lingforum Administration") or someone with your same IP address (Special:Contributions/70.111.246.19) deleted the comments. The author did imply that they were an administrator of the site (or at least that they would be involved in giving it "huge content.") Nposs 19:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I did delete the comment since it is a comment talking on behalf of us - though it is in no way related to us, which is a clear indication of the violation of our rights! It should either be deleted or if we are not given the right to delete something posted on our behalf, we will have to take legal actions for sure - though I still believe the case could be resolved if you, or any other person involved, could seriously understand the situation we are in.  Please just check the IP of that poster and my IP, which are totally different countries.  I have just heard about all this posting links stuff today upon seeing a link from a Wikipedia talk page.  Linguist J 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe you will understand our point. Otherwise, for whoever does that, we will not let the person harm our site's reputation in illegal ways. Linguist J 21:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Chemical Forums Link Removed from Chemistry Article
The link that points to Chemical Forums is literally a website completely devoted to the discussion of all things Chemistry. The site would seem to fall well within Wikipedia's guideline#4 about what should be in the external links section "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content". Maybe the link wasn't phrased right, but its inclusion seems overall relevant. Mitchandre 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like a fine website. I have two concerns though: 1) forums/discussion boards should not be linked (see: WP:EL and 2) it appears that there might be a conflict of interest if you are the Mitch that runs the board (see WP:COI). If you really feel like it should still be linked, the best course of action is to make a post to the talk page of the article with your reasons for wanting to include the article. Then the other editors can discuss it and make the call. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a link repository and that means that a lot of good sites will end up not being linked (see:WP:NOT. I would recommend submitting to DMOZ, just such a edited content directory. Thanks for being willing to discuss it. Nposs 08:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess if it says forums shouldn't be linked you have me there :P Mitchandre 17:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Recommended Hurdy gurdy edits
Thanks for the notes on cleaning up the external links section of the Hurdy gurdy article. I have a question for you. I would like to replace the Hurdy gurdy mailing list link with a link to the FAQ on the (commercial) site of the hosts of that list. It is really the authoritative site, and it would be a shame not to link to it when most of the others in the list are really not very good. Is there any reason this would not work? Any suggestions?

Best, +Fenevad 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Linking to the FAQ seems like a good compromise. It does have a lot of good information and links, even if it is associated with a commercial site. Be sure the describe the link if you add. Thanks for being willing to discuss the issue. You might also leave a note on the Talk:Hurdy gurdy page explaining what you are doing. Nposs 21:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Your AMA case
Hi, Nposs. I'll be advocating for you. My advice would be to file at WP:AN and get an admin to look at this, post haste G  e  o. 01:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Did AN work? G  e  o . 22:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It did. Unfortunately, the user decided to use multiple sockpuppet accounts to continue posting the link and was unwilling to engage in meaningful discussion. I did appreciate the quick and thoughtful response from the many administrators. Thanks for following up. Nposs 23:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, do you still need help or should I close the case. (Sorry to have to ask) G  e  o . 20:29, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and close the case. It looks like I should then fill out the survey on the mediation page. Thanks again for the help. Nposs 21:12, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

BEANS
The basic idea is to exploit the way that google views identical pages (it collapses the data so it only sees one page, plus some location data and remembers all the links to one page). If you can persuade google that your page is the "master version" of two identical pages (a 301 hijack) then you can change it thereafter and "steal" the importance of the page you have "hijacked". Having the WP page linking to your page but your own page self linking is a way of making your page look like the master copy... but you have to do other things. It looks like they succeeded with the NL page and were using that redirect to try to get the UK one. --BozMo talk 20:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam on Landmark Education

 * Very interesting that you mentioned WikiProject_Spam as a warning to User:AJackl. There is some violations of Link Spamming going on right now at another article he is involved with, Landmark Education.  Another neutral uninvolved editor has already put up warning templates, and yet User:AJackl is steadfastly removing them, and restoring the Link Spam.  Perhaps you could chip in your two cents about this on the article's talk page?  Thank you for your time.  Smee 21:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC).


 * If you have space I would like you to weigh in on the Landmark Education talk page - Smee is using your name to justify a chain of argument regarding WP:COI that I, and at least one other editor on the page now consider to be a distraction. At his suggestion one of the editors archived the discussion and then Smee reverted it again claiming that your comments somehow validated it not being archived. It is all gaming the system and managing appearences so that is why I wanted to ask if you could just weigh in for yourself- whereever you are about - positive, negative or neutral.  If you are neutral just saying the Smee does not represent you would be  sufficient.  As for my WP:COI on the page I have now extensively reveiwed the policy and the fact that I am a volunteer and essentially do this as a hobby with no financial compensation makes me much less impactful from that point of view.  I recognize the fact that I still need to manage my point of view of course as does everyone who is a WIkipedia editor. Thanks! Alex Jackl 17:07, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read through the current discussion, and, if you like, the United States Department of Labor investigations that took place in Colorado, and in Texas with regard to the fact that the United States Government asserting that "volunteers" of Landmark Education actually being "employees". At any rate, the manner in which the other editor had previously archived the section was inappropriate.  It should be archived in date-format, to Archive 5 (Oct 2006-Jan 2007), or not at all.  Smee 17:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Just saw your comments - thank you! My last two lines still hold obviously - we all have to manage WP:COI Alex Jackl 17:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also- just so we are all on the same page- Smee has been presenting evidence like the links above all of which when you actually read the documents the Department of Labor consistently say "no violation" and "no action will be taken". The Colorodo exampleis particularly aggregious as a source because it is some firm that is trying to prove a case on an investigation that the DOL closed with a "no violation" tag. This is the worst of spin doctoring in my belief.  I am not asking you to take sides on this issue but just to be informed that there is another side.  As well, many of us believe that Smee is expressing an extreme minority view point to grind a particular point of view with this one.  All of these sources and many (if not most) of the citations on the Landmark article are from a site run by a Rick Ross with a definitive axe to grind against Landmark.  That is the source of my comments that I believe that is there were WP:COI issues it would not be on the positively inclined to Landmark side.   I won't clutter you talk page with this converstaion any more.  I just keep feeling compelled (perhaps foolishly) to counter the extreme position being presented bySmee here.  My pardon and thanks for weighing in! Alex Jackl 17:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read through the two investigations by the United States Department of Labor and draw your own conclusions as to what warranted 2 separate investigations into this company. Please also note that the Rick Ross site does not have an "axe to grind", and that most of the contents of the site itself is simply archived legal documents and news articles.  Please also note that perhaps due to User:AJackl's conflict of interest, it is the "positively inclined" that actually have the "extreme position".  Thank you for your time.  I would be most interested to note what you think if/when you read through the 2 different Federal Labor Investigations into Landmark Education's unpaid labor practices.  Smee 17:45, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Question about use of WP:EL
I am curious to know your reasoning behind removing links (and citing WP:EL) on the Suzuki TL1000R page? I am interested in hearing the views of others, as I am the writer who submitted the article to the Peer review process (I am starting to regret that decision). People have been picking that article apart without talking about the changes they are making to that page. The article now looks like a complete mess. Please let me know your specific reasoning behind removing the links. Much appreciated. . . -BMan1113VR 18:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a response on the article talk page. Thanks. Nposs 18:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

About the deletion of links:
Hi. Lately I have added a few links to a website that I owned. I have read the guidelines after receiving your(?) message. Although my site is designed as a commercial site, it is nonetheless an informative site(visually) that is relevant to the article. Copyrighted images are difficult to placed on a page, and on a wiki page does not look presentable: Wiki does not appear to be designed for images, and images on it cannot be navigated in a meaningful format. And this is a disadvantage for those wishing to contribute images, since it seems to be less on par with words. I believe it does not do full justice to the subject without a well-rounded viewpoint. Concerning the deletion of links: It sppears to be arbitrary. Many other links are obviously very commercial in nature, yet they are not deleted. Whether a link promotes a site is inescapable since all links promote a site by getting user there. I feel that I am not treated fairly. Please reply. Kingroygbiv 02:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. Your website really is very attractive and the pictures are great. Here were the problems that I found with the links:
 * 1) The manner in which they were linked. Adding several links to the same website (especially by a single user who appears to have a conflict of interest (see WP:COI)) is a form of spam (see Spam). That's what caught my attention and led me to investigate your links.
 * 2) WP:EL After taking a look, the website seem to violate 3 and 4:
 * Links mainly intended to promote a website.
 * Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.
 * There are already too many links to picture galleries on these articles to begin with (more on that in a moment).
 * 3) External linking usually benefits the linked website more than it benefits the content of the article. What would really help the article is for an editor to license their images properly, upload them to the Wiki, and post them on the relevant page. I would even go so far as to say that linking to picture galleries tends to discourage people from doing this - since it is evident that others can just post their pictures to a webpage, thrown in some Google adsense and make a few bucks from it. (I'm not saying that is what you are doing in any way.)
 * 4) Wikipedia is not a link directory WP:NOT. There are too many picture gallery links to begin with and adding more only encourages other people to do the same. One possible solution is to submit your website to Dmoz (an edited link directory) and then post the directory link to the article. In fact, I checked and there is a category for websites with pictures about China or even individual cities (e.g. Beijing).
 * 5) The existence of other bad links doesn't justify the addition of other inappropriate links. And I think that's what your links are. It seems like a great website - but there are a lot of great websites that really should not be linked in Wikipedia.


 * I'm actually in the process of gearing up to remove even more of the picture gallery links from these pages. Many of the sites have been linked to systematically, in many cases by people associated with the website. This is part of the WikiProject_Spam I'm involved with. Sorry for the long response, but I've been thinking about these issues lately. I'm happy to discuss the matter further if you care to. Nposs 07:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, and I appreciate your attention to the matter. And of course I do care to respond. Let me start by saying that the definition of spam is not understandable. Spam is normally done automatically, usually with software, and its links are sent out en masse to targets that are more or less random. For people who are sincere and serious in providing specific relevant information, the word carries a negative connotation. Of course I don't mean you intented this just by mentioning the word in a guideline that you have to follow. But I believe that things should be judged specifically rather than generally. And this goes the same concerning links--it ought to be judged by the relevancy of the links rather than the general idea of conflict of interest, which always exist when two things come together.

When I first realize my links are deleted. What bothered me was the contradiction where one commercial site that sells products and service are allowed a link while another similiar site is not. Specifically, some of the sites in articles I linked are very commercial with all the flashy advertising links on the sides, while mines have none of these and appear none too commercial, and my content is just as relevant. And here I must disagree with your judgement that my links are inappropiate. The statement "The existence of other bad links doesn't justify the addition of other inappropriate links." is unclear. Do you mean,"The existence of inappropriate links doesn't justify the addition of more inappropriate links."?

Indexing in Dmoz is good idea. Unfortunately, the volunteers there aren't as passionate, so it is a little slower. One problem with Dmoz is that its directories are not deep enough. So it is useless on articles that have subjects that are too tiny to be visible there, and the user will just be lost in a mess.

I don't see articles have too many links to pictures. 15-20 links ought to be fine. A user researching on a subject will very likely be willing to scroll down the page. If you are planning to delete some good pages, please rethink. Images are an integral part of knowledge and history, and ought to be use as a balance to the texts. One ought to think of externals links as complements to the article, and not as a selfish one-sided benefactor. Obviously Wiki anything is a big chunk of meat out in the open and many wolves are after it, but that's how things are sometimes, and it is better to be a little more flexible.

I have said enough. As it stands now it seems hopeless, so I will just let it go. Kingroygbiv 10:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel like your case is hopeless. In cases of "conflict of interest", the best course of action is to propose your link on the talk page of the article. If you really feel like your link is worth it, I'd suggest giving that a try. Also, just a followup to a couple of your points:


 * You are right that no matter the guidelines about spam, COI, or EL, the decision comes down to - is it an appropriate addition. In my opinion, it wasn't. There are pictures available from non-commercial sources and providing pictures on the page hopefully encourages people to submit more material to Wikimedia. (By the way, your pictures seem very nice.)
 * Your website is very classy and certainly a good website for stock photography - but again I don't find that it fits in with the spirit of [{WP:EL]]. The idea of not using other improper links to justify the inclusion of other ones can be found on a few guideline pages, including: WikiProject_Spam. (Although, please don't take the term "spammer" personally. The addition of several links to a single website is a form of linkspam - even when the links are to "good" websites.)
 * Some of the problems with Dmoz would be improved if moving links there really took off. It would be great to link to the Dmoz directory of Beijing pictures - where your website would clearly feature prominently. Just because the process is slow doesn't mean that in the meantime Wikipedia should be used as a link directory.
 * While there is no consensus (and certainly there are several articles even with more than 100 links), WP:EL states as policy that external links should be kept to a minimum. Being linked to WP can be a big boon to a website and really only the best and most relevant should be link. Both to make the article the best it can be, to encourage the development of appropriate places for external links (Dmoz or other web directories), and to discourage the inclusion of inappropriate links. 15-20 is actually quite a large number.
 * Images are great and their inclusion really improves an article. So why not relicense one or two of your best photos and upload them to Wikimedia? You still get credit and it would be an appropriate way of getting your name out there.

You are clearly knowledgeable and caring about Wikipedia. I would encourage you to think about joining one of the projects here like the [Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam]. Your knowledge could be an asset in assessing the best links to include. (For example, there are clearly a lot more that need to be deleted from Beijing as well as several of the other China related articles.) I'm just one editor, and these are just my opinions. I also started a conversation about these photo gallery links here if you are interested: [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#External_links_to_websites_with_pictures]. I hope you stick around. Nposs 19:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding again. I would like to contribute a piece in the future.  In the meantime I will try your idea of linking to Dmoz. Kingroygbiv 01:40, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Untitled discussion from User:AZhitman
Greetings, Nposs!

I've recently been alerted to the existence of a quite lengthy list of alleged "spam" links placed in Wikipedia, either by myself or members of our forums... It appears a lot of discussion ensued, and I even came across a comment that "someone" was given "a second chance" and "blew it" (quotes from the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam).

I've just finished reading through some other user's comments and discussions with you on similar members. Needless to say, I'm impressed with your dedication and motivation.

However, for what it's worth, our motivations are purely innocent. We are aware that Wikipedia incorporates "nofollow" tags to any and all external links, thereby nullifying any link passing, so it's clear we're not after additional "ranking". Further, a post (by me) on DigitalPoint forums is brought up as "evidence" of ill-intentions. My post simply states that contributing content (which we have) is the best way to keep one's links on Wikipedia. As the largest and most active Nissan / Infiniti resource on the internet, we're certainly not chasing the minimal traffic Wikipedia provides (per Google Analytics).

Our members have contributed the vast majority of information present on Wikipedia for the vehicles listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. For example, 240sx.org (in operation since July, 1997) organized the complete and total drafting of the Wikipedia page on the Nissan 240sx (which has since evolved into a book project, due for completion this Spring). My Q45 Moderator drafted the majority of the content on the Wikipedia Q45 page.

Our intentions were simple and respectful - To provide additional resources to folks seeking more detailed information on the vehicles they've accessed on Wikipedia. It is of particular interest that links to other, lesser automotive forums remain, while ours have been deleted. We are neither selling anything, nor seeking "cheap hits". We are dedicated to reaching Nissan and Infiniti owners and providing them with the best resource on the web, because there's far too much misinformation out there.

Feel free to contact me (I'm not hard to find, I wish someone had done so earlier).

Best wishes -

Greg (AZhitman)
 * Thanks for you note. I noticed your other note on the Nissan 240SX page, as well. I'm sorry if I have caused you any offense. It appears that you disagree with the removal of links to 240sx.org. I became aware of the links based on this notice: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jan. Persons associated with NICO club had been systematically adding the links to several articles. I removed your link not because the site itself is in anyway a form of spam, but because since it is fundamentally a forum, it violates the external link guidelines (WP:EL). Forums are non-encyclopedic and linking to them violates the guidelines. If you feel like this is unfair, I suggest taking it up on the discussion page for the external link guidelines. I am glad that you and your associates have been so generous in your contributions to several articles and I hope you continue to contribute in the future. Nposs 14:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you NP. I have posted on the discussion page as requested. Any assistance you can provide will be appreciated, as BOTH our time is better spent generating content.

Request for Help with Landmark Education
I know you probably don't want to be dragged in to this but Smee and I are in deep disagreement - possibly on the edge of calling for Mediation or Arbitration of the site. We need some neutral admins to weigh in I think. I don't want to be in an edit war and both Smee and I have strong POVs to manage in this article. I like to htink I mam angaing NPOV a lot better than he is - but I would wouldn't I? So I am trying to keep it as not perosnal and trying to keep the slant out.
 * Thanks for the invite. This really isn't my area of exptertise, though. I think you might be better served with mediation. I have checked in on progress a couple of times, and I give you credit for keeping a courteous tone in a contentious situation. Good luck. Nposs 04:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I totally understand that! I think we may need the luck! :-)  But seriously, we will work it out.  This is not about whether a child lives or dies, and I think we would all be well served to take a deep breath and remember that! :-) Thanks for your leadership- it has helped a lot!  Alex Jackl 07:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

removal of my link
please do look at contain of the page before deleting the same. My articles are having more information and infact the page was contributed by me from my article.

or this is my mistake my not putting the link into reference please do reply.

just checked venacontracta and manometer Achalmeena 12:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I double-checked the links you placed in those articles. The article linked from manometer is shorter, and less developed and as far as I can tell it does not contain significant extra information that makes it worth linking. The article linked from vena contracta does contain more information but it has many grammar and spelling mistakes and the article does not cite its sources or provide any references. For me, it does not pass the reliable source guidelines (WP:RS). External links tend the benefit the linked website more than the article. If you are knowledgeable about these subjects, and it appears that you are, why not contribute to the articles themselves? Nposs 15:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your deletion of an external link from the Flue gas stack article
Yesterday, you deleted one of the external links from the Flue gas stack articles because you considered it to be advertising spam. That article had two exernal links: (1) to the ASHRAE website where the ASHRAE Handbook could be purchased and (2) to the ASME website where ASME Codes sections could be purchased. You deleted the ASME link, but you did not delete the ASHRAE link. I would like to comment on that.

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) is a very prestigious professional society with about 120,000 members. The ASME (design) Codes are known and referred to worldwide. Virtually every city and state in the United States mandates the use of the ASME design codes in their building codes, safety codes and construction codes. Even the the codes of some other nations refer to the ASME design codes. The ASME Codes consist of twelve volumes and price of the full 12 volume set is currently about $13,000. Very few libraries carry the full set and most individuals and small companies cannot afford the full set. However, the ASME does sell affordable sections of their codes on their website. As far as I know, the code sections cannot be purchased other than from the ASME.

The American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) is also a prestigious professional society with about 55,000 members. The ASHRAE Handbook is also known and referred to worldwide. The ASHRAE Handbook consists of four volumes and the price of the full 4 volume set (in the print editions) is currently about $700. Again as far as I know, the handbook cannot be purchased other than from the ASHRAE.

I don't understand why you felt that a link to the ASME website bookstore was spam but a link to the ASHRAE website bookstore  was not spam. In my opinion, neither of those links are or were spam. Neither of the two organisations are a "for profit" commercial company and both organisations perform a vital function by developing and making available their technical publications. I request that you revert your deletion of the ASME website link. - mbeychok 18:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted the ASME link because it led directly to a page where a product was for sale. The page contained no information supplemental to the article and was a clear violation WP:EL. I left the ASHRAE link because it led to a website with news and information - content that could potentially supplment the article. The link does not lead directly to a page dedicated to the sale of a product. I have nothing against ASME - but the link was inappropriate. Maybe you can find a more appropriate link with information that supplements the article. Nposs 18:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have done as you suggested and changed to ASME link to another ASME page which is not dedicated to the sale of a product. However, I would like to say that, in my opinion, when you run across an external link like the one we are discussing, it would be much more helpful and in the spirit of Wikipedia to replace the link with another one yourself rather than just deleting the one that you think is inappropriate.
 * I would also like repeat the quote from the opening paragraph of the Manual of Style: Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity. Regards, - mbeychok 19:14, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled discussion about links on Linksys page)
I work for Linksys and adding the link to Kiss acquisition was informational to that paragraph that was edited, your reversal doesn't make sense to me and I don't appreciate it as I feel I better represent the company in this regard, linking to website was solely for persons seeking further information about the acquired companies. Sipura is smaller VOIP company which was acquired, I wanted to represent the total acquisitions to date. (Unsigned comment from User:NaranKPatel)

Bill Clark cable spamming report
Thanks, for the referral to COI, but that may not be the case here. User:Bill Clark says he was operating in good faith, and didn't realize he was violating any guideline. So, I still don't know where to report a situation like this one (apparent good faith spammer) to admins, so they can help the user clean up! Which noticeboard would be the right one?

Finally, your recent post on the WikiProject Spam discussion page has a typo - you put in a "|" (pipe symbol) when I think you intended to put a space. Right now only the word "boy" appears (instead of your intended "busy boy"), and the link doesn't direct to the user's contributions page.

Thanks for lending a hand on this! Spamreporter1 12:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Bill Clark has sent me a message that he doesn't understand that these "community pages" are just commercial sites slightly dressed up. They plainly are improper external links.  I've invited him to join the discussion on the WikiProject Spam page before adding any more of these external links.  Could you help him out in further explanation/oversight? Thanks! Spamreporter1 15:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the post from User:Bill Clark :


 * I don't think I've violated that guideline, so I'm not sure what the problem is. I only added external links in a few cases (and not in the example cited here), and those were to community websites (not commercial) for those cities. In most of the cases, I simply added a wikilink in the "Economy/Public utilities" section indicating that Northland was the cable provider for that city, and/or a reference/citation for that fact.


 * Since my intention was to do the same for a large number of other cable companies, I'd like to get this cleared up before I proceed further. Is the problem with the wikilinks in the "Economy/Public utilities" section, the few external links, the citations, or something else? I'll be happy to change my plans, but need to have a clear idea of what's expected. Is there a better (more inclusive) place to discuss this, where I might get more input?

Can you lend a hand? Spamreporter1 15:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Not sure why you found it necessary to remove my link from the All Terrain Vehicle section, or the Polaris Industries section. Our website is geared toward providing information related to this industry. I have seen others deal with this same insane mentality though and I am not about to get into a link war with someone who wants to play God in here.

Regarding your removal of external links
I am a powersports enthusiast and have made quite a few additions to powersports related pages on wikipedia. Before I suggest a link, I make sure that it is worthy and will help the community. I have no affiliation with any sites. Rather I am here to make the community better. The 2-3 links that I have added have been to a source that contains all the current models of motorcycles and would allow the user to research the specs of any new model. I thought this would be a an asset for any person interested in motorcycles. The external site was all free and did not appear to violate any Wikipedia rules. Should I just never suggest any sites that I believe would be beneficial to a visitor? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Matt.motorcycle (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

it was not written by me
I think you sent me a message by mistake. The message written on "About the Book: encountering Macau" with reference and site was written by me, however, the one who reply on it not politely without signuature is NOT me. 72.138.191.63 16:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I'll send the note in the right direction. Thanks for letting me know. Nposs 17:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed links
I understand that a few of the links I posted to articles were unwanted for one reason or another, however you appear to have gone through and removed all my posts without reguard to context or the other posts around it. If blindly pressing the delete key is the rule of wikipedia so be it, but I'm wondering if this gives me the freedom to remove all the links to other local websites similar to mine on wikipedia?
 * Thanks for your note. I'm sorry it appeared that I indiscriminately removed all links to your website. Please understand that the removal of the links does not reflect on the quality of your website (which appears to be very good) or the quality of your intentions (which also appear to be good.) In my opinion, and in the opinion of other editors, the links did not pass WP:External links and the way in which they were added suggested the work of a spammer (so they were reviewed quickly and deleted quickly.) Here are my reasons why I believe the links did not pass WP:EL:


 * The reviews the links led to seemed fine, but they were very short and limited in content. They really did not expand upon the content of the article significantly. They also did not have extensive additional images. In this sense, they were non-encyclopedic.
 * The addition of multiple links to the same url across multiple articles suggested that the links were being added in part to promote the website being linked (another violation of WP:EL).
 * You have noted that the website linked belonged to you. Linking to your own website is a violation of "conflict of interest" WP:COI, although there are ways around this (like suggesting the link on the article talk page and letting other editors decide if gets added). External links generally benefit the linked website more than Wikipedia. Adding content to the article itself is really the best way to contribute your expertise - and I hope you'll stick around to do just that. (And in regards to your closing rhetorical question - by all means feel free to remove links you feel violate WP:EL. In fact there is a project devoted to just such an endeavor: WikiProject_Spam Nposs 23:57, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

External links to fan pages
Hi there

Just wondering why you object to the addition of a fan page dedicated entirely to a topic?

Usually these are some of the best resources to link to as they remain up to date more reguarly then once off articles which are already linked to.

I think its wise to seek out fan pages as external resources because of this reason which is one thing I am personally doing across the Wikipedia.

Please reconsider your removal for the future

cheers :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wozzaofrare (talk • contribs) 05:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the note. I'd suggest proposing it on the talk page of the article. I took a look at the site and it didn't seem to have much content. Other editors might feel differently. Good luck. Nposs 05:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

All apologies
From what you pointed out to me on my talk page, you seem to be right about the link on the Lionel (radio) page. I will be removing the link as soon as I finish this posting. By the Way thanks for being so civil about it. It's rare finding people on wikipedia who are nice and are willing to back down from their stance a bit and actually point out their views on their edits. Good luck on your mission fighting link spam and keep up the good work. :)--M8v2 17:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

'''

Re links on Aquaponics Page:
'''

I am new to this so I am not sure if I am posting in the right place, so excuse my ignorance if it is wrong. I feel that my link just removed is a valuable contribution to the overall store of knowledge on the subject. My website as a whole is very information rich but does contain a commercial element, however my link to my knowledge Base, is very “Hands on” information rich, and does not seek to sell anything. I feel is very valuable to those seeking further information re Aquaponics from a practical application approach. If the Wikipedia is designed to be a more academic type of information source then I agree that my suggested link would possibly not be appropriate. I know well by the traffic we have to our Knowledge Base that it is very much appreciated by those seeking information on the practical application of Aquaponics. I appreciate your work and leave the decision in your hands. The link is as follows http://www.aquaponics.net.au/absolutefm/afmmain.asp?topicid=&faqid= --124.148.91.170 22:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Sorry, I neglected to log in before posting.--Muzza 22:59, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

reply
I added several external links to different sites.Take the Sri Lankan cuisine since there were none of Egyptian cuisine or Kazakh cuisine which had no external links to any website. I provided links to several websites.For the ones that already had external links,I added this one.

Where is the spam?I was not promoting or advertising anything.I strongly disagree with you.They provide excellent recipies and detailed paragrphs with a few "did you knows".What's the harm in that? I provided some good external links.

Okay tell me this:Articles on countries (ie India,Pakistan)have the same external link to the CIA world "factbook".Why not remove that link?

I removed that link not because it was the same site used as a link for several articles,but because the information on it was a bit misleading,plus htye get complaints for historical inaccuracies.--Nadirali نادرالی
 * I did not say it was spam. Rather, adding the same link to several articles can be viewed as a form of linkspam. I don't doubt your good intentions and I am certainly not implying that you are promoting or selling something. Simply consider the external link guidelines WP:EL: Links to be avoided 1) Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. The content (especially on the articles about cuisine) does not amplify what the article itself should eventually contain and all the ones I checked contained only one recipe. Adding links just because none are present is not the standard by which links should be judged. The links to the CIA factbook are somewhat different. The information is much more extensive and detailed (although, personally, I don't see the point of adding it to every country article - unless it is in the form of a reference - in fact, that would be the appropriate way to add the cuisine links rather than in the external link section.) My advice, don't look to other bad examples of linking - rather, make your links even better. Nposs 04:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That external link provides detailed information on cooking.It does not repeat the content of the article.It gives users a chance to add to the article and also gives readers a chance to see that the content of the article is not made up.--Nadirali نادرالی

Sorry but saying:"consider adding content to articles than external links" is not a good faith assumption.I have created articles with external links,and adding external links to unsourced articles by placing those links.You're telling me to add more unverified content to an unsourced article rather than adding Why do you think people don't trust wikipedia?No sources=article goes. I'm sorry but it is my duty as wikipedian to add external links to verify articles.Please do not move verified sources as it's Vandalism.Thankyou for your time.--Nadirali نادرالی
 * Thanks for a friendly conversation. Nposs 05:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry i got a bit upset back there.It's just when people remove good work,I get upset.You are absolutely right about not removing the links.if you have any probelms,just consult me about it first.I apologise if my tone sounded a little agressive.I did not mean to get upset.Thanks.--Nadirali نادرالی

i'm waiting....
you didn't respond to me yet. I left you a message on the talk page of special education. (209.177.21.6 - Talk )

Looking at WT:WPSPAM archives
Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb, I ran a linksearch which led me to these,, and. I'm not up to speed on either the topic or the background on the spam problem -- do you reckon all this is kosher? --A. B. (talk) 22:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC) PS Thanks for all you do for WPSPAM!
 * Thanks for the note. For the record - the qualitydigest link is legitimate (a reputable source). The qualityguru link appears to be a sort of blog that basically copies and pastes material from other sources into posts. Usually the link is provided as a citation, so tracking down and replacing the original isn't to difficult. I'll keep it on my radar. Nposs 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

respond to me, please
You didn't even respond under Special education in the talk page. Special education helps the special needs students to be a part of the mainstream....it says so in the first sentence...they get special help within or outside the regular classroom. Do you know why they get special help within or outside the regular classroom? It's so they can be a part of the mainstream of the school. That's what mainstreaming is all about. (209.177.21.6 - Talk )