User talk:Nposs/Archive 3

Orange Order in Canada
Just out of curiousity, what policy concern made you remove the link to The Shamrock and the Maple Leaf: Irish-Canadian Documentary Heritage at Library and Archives Canada from Orange Order in Canada ? The content of the link isn't directly focused on the orange order, but it doesn't seem like that's what you were worried about.. --TheMightyQuill 03:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was concerned about the relationship between the link and the article. It's a good website, but was adding it to multiple articles to which it was only indirectly related. WP:EL is pretty clear about the relationship between links and articles. The link probably belongs on the Irish Canadian article - and I left it in place there (out of the 10 or so articles it was added to in quick succession.) It could be that there is a deep link on the site that is specific enough to warrant linking on Orange Order in Canada page, but a top level link doesn't provide a direct relationship. (BTW, I left a note on Smobri's page and since then, no more links have been added.) Nposs 05:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Nposs. Thanks for the heads-up about the guidelines for linking -- I'll keep the links directly and symmetrically related and add "deep links" where more appropriate... Smobri 09:41, 10 April 2007

Irish Diaspora
Hi, Nposs. I wanted to ask your opinion: I'm re-adding the external link to "The Shamrock and the Maple Leaf" on the "Irish diaspora" article -- there are loads of other external links there that suggest mine is equally appropriate. Do you really think a link to a good website on Irish-Canadian heritage is less suitable than "The Irish in New Jersey" or "Irish Surnames in Argentina," for example? Please let me know your thoughts on this. Thanks so much. Smobri 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Warning
Yup, I just got your warning. Yeah, I'm sort of new to Wikipedia, so thanks for the heads up. Much appreciated.

(On second thought, I probably shouldn't sign with my IP address.)

SMS Short message Service
Hello, Before you say what i did was spamming, did you visited the particular webpage? http://www.smssrilanka.com/smssrilanka/Worlds_%20Fastest_Text_Messenger.php I did add a webpage link to the SMS page from a SMS website where it teaches people hoew to become a SMS shooting world champion.This is correct link to the correct page.And all this web pages are about sending free sms and guiding people to send sms.The information is free and totally true And 100% i am sure i didn't spam our wikipedia. Thanks for reading this note.

I hope you will add back my link if you see the below links.

By the way i checked all the Reference links and found out Reference Links - Je ne texte rien, The Economist, July 10, 2004 (page 65 UK edition) THIS LINK TAKE ME TO THIS PAGE,WHICH ASK ME TO BECOME A MEMBER.THIS IS REAL SPAM http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=2908047

Nokia files patent for Morse Code-generating cellphone, March 12, 2005, Engadget. TOOK ME TO http://www.engadget.com/2005/03/12/nokia-files-patent-for-morse-code-generating-cellphone/ WHICH IS WITH 1000 WORDS AND MORE ADVTS

A race to the wire as old hand at Morse code beats txt msgrs, April 16, 2005, The Times Online. Took me to http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article381748.ece Had article and advts and competition also to my surprise

Nokia app lets you key SMSes in Morse Code, June 1, 2005 Boing Boing. TOOK ME TO http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/01/nokia_app_lets_you_k.html WITH JUST 21 WORD ARTICLE AND 18 BANNER ADVTS AND SPONSORED LINKS

Back to the Future - Morse Code and Cellular Phones, June 28, 2005 O'Reilly Network. TOOK ME TO http://www.oreillynet.com/etel/blog/2005/06/back_to_the_future_morse_code.html HERE WAS A BIG ARTICLE,AND MENTIONED 3 TIMES ONLY SMS

2500 People Fired by Text Message, May 30, 2003, The Inquirer TOOK ME TO http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=9769 WHERE I FOUND AN ARTICLE WITH LESS THAN 100 WORDS AND SPONSORED LINK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bbsnetting (talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the note. However, the link does not conform to the external link guidelines for a number of reasons - WP:EL. Links should be directly related to the topic of the article. The article in question is a general article about SMS - your link is about a sending SMS messages very quickly. There is not a direct relationship there. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a directory of links - WP:NOT. Even if it was directly related to the article, the content on the linked page is only a couple of paragraphs - low content links are to be avoided under WP:EL. Furthermore, the content makes assertions without proper references, thus it is in violation of WP:RS - "reliable sources." Finally, the ratio of advertising to content on the page is completely skewed toward advertising. Another reason to avoid linking under WP:EL.
 * As for the other links - references have different guidelines than external links (as long as they constitute a reliable source WP:RS). The Economist is a reliable source and simply because the content is not availble without registering, it does not diminish the fact that the article was used as a reference. Someone could easily go to a library to double check the reference if they were interested. The rest of the links pretty much fall under the "reliable source" category - well-respected blogs that back up their information with citations. You are right to question their validty and if you can find better sources for the information - I would encourage you to replace the links. More information about references can be found at Citing_sources. If you still feel like the references are inappropriate, you are welcome to bring it up on the talk pages of WP:EL.

"The Shamrock and the Maple Leaf" external links
Hi, Nposs. Thanks for the heads-up about the guidelines for linking. I'll keep my links directly and symmetrically related to the article and add "deep links" instead, where more suitable! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smobri (talk • contribs) 13:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Happy Hour
What is wrong with the link to happy hour search? It allows users to search for Happy Hours in certain areas...is this bad? If all searches are put on this page, would that keep the links up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rhino34 (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Thanks for the note. Linking to search engines is discouraged under the external link guidelines WP:EL - Links to avoid #9: Links to search engine and aggregated results pages. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a directory of links - WP:NOT. Nposs 02:00, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Interview on Sid Haig Page
Just curious - why delete the link to one interview and leave the other? Is one more qualifying than the other for inclusion on a Wiki page? Let me know, because I'm honestly wondering. Spirot 04:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. The link was added as part of the spam campaign by . I didn't check every link added - but most of them were very low content and of dubious provenance. A link to a video interview is pretty weak (according to the external link guidelines WP:EL) and it isn't clear to me that the content is actually owned by the website. If you feel like it is an encyclopedic source and that the interview really improves the article - I leave it up to you to add the link again. Nposs 04:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Not really, I don't see interviews really adding much to an encyclopaedia entry, so don't worry about it. I'm going to go ahead and axe the other one as well. I never really saw the point of it anyway. I just didn't want to be penalized for removing the other one. Thanks! (Also didn't know about the spam - bummer) Spirot 04:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Deleting very valid External Links at File Format
Please stop removing a number of very valid and to-the-point links at the File Format page. You've removed wotsit.org and Xentax wiki, which are highly regarded as the ultimate databases in their respective fields (file formats in general, and game related file formats respectively, both addressing thousands of file formats). Please, get your information straight. That is not spam, but are very useful and relevant sites used by many people. Anyone wanting to know more about file formats should be pointed to those sites for more detailed information.

--Zuurman 10:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia and thanks for your note. You might want to review WP:CIVILITY for future communications with editors. The links were not removed without reason. Not so long ago (18 January), the list of external links on the article had become very long and many of the links did not pass the external link guidelines - WP:EL. I made some removals and added the "spam cleanup" tag. That tag has remained in place since that time. It basically means that the external link section of that article is a prime target for spammers and should be watched closely. Undiscussed link additions (especially to sites with advertising) were removed. Keep in mind, as helpful as the links are to some people - Wikipedia is not a directory of links - WP:NOT. Rather than reverting the edits of multiple editors using terse edit summaries, I suggest that you take the issue to the talk page of the article where you can articulate why these links are worth keeping (keeping in mind WP:EL and WP:NOT.) Nposs 02:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Advertising on Wikipedia
Is advertising allowed on wikipedia???? I think not so why is there a whole catalog on this page. It is blatant. Miss use and a betrayal of trust. It could make wikipedia exposed to royalty issue etc. How is it ok to add and sell catalogue information on the nusrat fateh ali khan page and not external links

discograpy
even if it is a discography it represents a catalogue of one distributor do you work for them is it ok for commercial catalogues to be on wikipedia at least you admit that you are operating double standards careful next you admitt harassing me. It is not a discography because it contained no albums he recorded before osa do you work for them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.248.184 (talk) 16:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry you feel like I am harassing you, but I don't see how you could interpret my actions in that way. I am simply trying to mediate a discussion about the inclusion of a list of recordings of a musician. I haven't reverted any of your mass deletions of content from the article. I have simply informed you of the rules regarding making the same edits repeatedly. I don't work for any related company, nor have I ever even heard the music of the artist in question. My concern is for the proper inclusion of useful information. A discography is list of recordings of a musician. For example: John_Coltrane_discography is a list of recordings made by John Coltrane. Notice that after each album title, the name of the record label is listed. This helps to keep track of his employment and the time frame of the recording history. It has nothing to do with the commercial promotion of the record labels. Could be more clear about why you feel this list is different from the listing of recordings on Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan is different from a normal discography (since that seems to be the main point of contention)? (Also, you might want to take some time to learn about how to use talk pages: Talk_page. For example, new messages should be placed at the bottom of the page and comments signed with four tildes (which is rendered as your signature. Nposs 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

So nposs you work in the industry we will one day meet I am sure and after what you have done setting a. b. on me who published links to my address that was wrong. You and he stalked everything I did on wikipedia and I am not even a money making site. So you and A. B. are from birmgingham england. You know he traced other things I was involved in that have nothing to do with wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newfan (talk • contribs)
 * To clarify: I don't live in England. I am not in the music industry. I don't know who you are and I don't have any contact with user A.B. I have not stalked you. Registered users can select to "watch" pages. Then when any changes are made to the watched pages, it shows up on a list - called the "watchlist." You made the same changes repeatedly to the same articles despite warnings from myself and other editors that these edits did not conform to the Wikipedia guidelines. If you recall, I even tried to help you unblock one of your blocked IP addresses by explaining where to place the unblock message. I did not propose your site for blacklisting and I have nothing against you or your website. Your account was blocked for making legal threats - one of the most important rules on Wikipedia. Now, I am simply trying to resolve the ongoing dispute about the inclusion of recordings and videos on the Ali Khan article. You can engage in this process constructively, but I encourage to desist with accusations and constant interruptions of the process with off topic messages. Thanks. Nposs 15:06, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mountain bike links
Well if you think the Whistler Outfitters site full of bike videos, bike trails, discussions, biking photos and more about the hottest trend in mountain biking is not relevant and appropriate then you have more links on that mountain bike (ing) pages to delete my friend. Fair is fair. I am not a spammer and was only adding a link similar to others and according to the Wiki guidelines. Whistler Outfitters is not a commercial site out looking to spam. It is run by local mountain bikers, You seem much to quick to delete only my link and to allow others. Why is this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.226 (talk • contribs)
 * There are a number of problems with the link according to WP:EL. First, links should be directly related to the article. Your link is about mountain biking in one particular area - while the article is about mountain biking in general. Second, most of the links on the page lead to purchasing choices for a mountain bike outfitter (commercial links should be avoided.). Finally, I'm sure the site is very useful for people in the area, but, keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a directory of links WP:NOT. The presence of other inappropriate links does not justify the addition of other inappropriate links. If you feel like other links do not meet the guidelines - you are welcome to delete them as you see fit. Everyone is welcome to edit. Nposs 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for alert me
Thank you for your message. I understand. (i am new for wikipedia) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hellocsrini (talk • contribs) 02:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

I want to know about "hellocsrini using popups" in tamil calendar history page. One more thing, i use discussion page but no reply anybody (no response) what can i do. Hellocsrini 01:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When you see this message: "(Revert to the revision prior to revision XXXXX dated XXXX by XXXX using popups) it means that an edit has been reverted using a javascript tool called Popups. It basically allows editors to make changes more quickly. I reverted your addition of the link because there has been a history of editors placing inappropriate links on the page. You did the appropriate thing by suggesting the link on the talk page. You may find that it takes some time for other editors to respond. These conversations do not always happen quickly. I noticed that another editor placed a new link on the page after I reverted your edit. This link has problems as well, but I've decided to let it stand for the time being. It might be worth discussing it further.
 * Some things to keep in mind when you want to add links: You shouldn't add links to your own website - WP:COI. You shouldn't add links that violate the external link guidelines - WP:EL. Wikipedia is not a directory of links (WP:NOT), which means that even some very good websites should not really be linked to seemingly relevant articles. Nposs 03:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

??
In the alternative school article, it says however, even the narrower usage of the term may refer to a range of school type such as a school with an innovative and flexible cirriculum aimed at bright, self-motivated students; a school for students with behavioral problems; or a school with special remedial programs. (Angelina - talk)
 * But where is the definition of magnet or special school in the reference? That is the issue - not your personal interpretation of what these words mean. Please carefully read about "no original research" - WP:OR. This is what your assertions amount to. Please take a less disruptive approach to editing and working with other editors. Nposs 20:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It says right there!!! school with an innovative and flexible cirriculum aimed at bright, self-motivated students that's magnet schools...special schools are a school for students with behavioral problems; or a school with special remedial programs.

(Angelina - talk)

A little something you might want to be aware of
You might be intrigued to know that the recent user you have been talking to has been the same person all along!. Anyway, just wanted to make you aware. MrMacMan Talk  20:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah she's gaming the system big time. I mean once I filed my checkuser and they only blocked her registered account I knew there was a rather big problem still out there, but its getting really idiotic now. Signing different names from the same IP on the same articles with the same viewpoints? That might be the thinest way to obscure your identity on wikipedia ever. I really don't know what else we all can do about it either, its a rather long occurring problem. I tried to get another problem to be addressed by WP:ANI this week already and I couldn't even get a simple response. I'm unsure of what other action we can take. Goodluck, MrMacMan  Talk  20:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. So much of my time on wikipedia is spent monitoring her edits and reverting them, fighting with her and searching for unnecesary references to refutre her ridiculous ascertations. it really gets my back up and is a total waste of time and resources. i strongly feel that registration should be required to edit. --Brideshead 20:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm entirely for only registered members can make edits for example we have one great anon. editor User talk:68.39.174.238, but I mean after the checkuser on Jessica that blocked her registered account they should have blocked the account from making edits and allowing only registered accounts to make edits from the IP, i think that was what they failed in doing, and now we just have to watch the IP like a hawk and hope that she makes non-controversial, sourced edits. MrMacMan  Talk  20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Your reason for reverting an innocent edit?
There is nothing wrong with archiving past vandalism. It already happened..so it's in the past...why not archive it? You didn't provide any reason for reverting it. Here's proof: This IP address can do it: ...if they can do it, so can this IP address. Why did you revert? It already says on the talk page? Why do you always ignore me? You are always wrong anyway. It's not vandalism...how is it vandalism...i didn't do it intentionally...i gave you a reason and you completely ignored it...I thought Wikipedia was a nice place....you guys are so mean....

please leave record of warnings in place...i did that...i put archive of older vandalism warnings....you don't make any sense at all... (Angelina - talk)
 * Please read WP:VAND - "Talk page vandalism: Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism." You are editing the talk page for an anonymous IP address. This does not constitute your "own" page. If you would like your "own" page that you can edit at will, register for a free and anonymous account. You removed discussions about ongoing issues were potentially unresolved. Nposs 01:24, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

OpsMan.org
Hiya,

Wanted to discuss my link for OpsMan.org on the Operations Management external links page.

I can totally understand why it was removed which is fine, but let me see if I can structure a case to get it re-instated.

The website it links to is a fast growing FREE resource for Operations Management. Its content is edited by Prof. Nigel Slack, a leading authority on Operations Management (see: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_ss_w_h_/202-4165395-7582207?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=operations+management&Go.x=13&Go.y=17&Go=Go). It's information will be highly relevant to the community and should add well to the basic outlines provided by the Wiki.

The topic is so huge that Wikipedia could never hope to hold all the information that this website will.

Thanks for your time.

Ben
 * Seems like an okay website and I'm sure it is very useful for certain groups of people. The main problem is that registration is required to view almost all of the content. Even if the registration is free, linking to a site that requires registration is pretty much a non-starter under WP:EL - the external link guidelines. (Even the free registration doesn't give you access to all the content.) Nposs 14:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

8thSin
I did "exercise great caution". I did not include any links to the company's website, which would be a violation of accepted standards. I merely included it in the list, which, as the top of the article stated, was incomplete and we could help by expanding it. 8th Sin Coffee is a rapidly growing, woman-owned company whose brand is carried by retailers such as Whole Foods Markets and Fresh Market. Yes, I am involved in the company, but adding the company name to an open list of companies, without including a link, does not seem to violate COI to me.
 * That's why I didn't remove it. I did check over your contribution history, however, and almost all of you edits have to do with the company (including the addition of external links). These are the type of edits you want to be careful of. Nposs 18:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Miao/Hmong
At first glance, the two articles appear to be talking about the same topic. The Miao article indicates that their name in some languages is "Hmong". If these two are different topics, they should be clear at the beginning. The interwikies for the two articles are also pointing to the same articles in other languages. Neither seems to be a subset of the other, since the number of Hmong in Vietnam outnumber the number of Miaos, yet the number of Miaos in China outnumber the number of Hmongs?!!! DHN 02:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think these are good points you've brought up and I'd like to discuss some of them further with you. You note that at the beginning of the Miao article, "Hmong" (or variants) appears as how Miao is spoken in other languages. The situation is rather tricky here: both Vietnamese and Thai use "Meo" (a variant of the borrowed term "Miao") to refer to highland peoples - basically, Hmong people who emigrated from South China. The Hmong people there resent this term, so there are Thai and Vietnamese versions of the ethnonym "Hmong." Both "Meo" and "Hmong" are given in both Vietnamese and Thai - in a sense because they use Meo to refer to "Miao" people who are basically "Hmong" (and who don't like to be called "Meo"). This is a very complicated situation and if you believe you can clarify that opening sentence, I'd encourage you to do so.
 * I'll take a look at the interwikis, but I honestly don't understand very well how those links work. It might be something that is easily fixed.
 * As for the population data, I can only speak for the veracity of the Hmong people data. I don't know where the population data in the Miao people article came from - so I haven't changed it. It does appear whoever put it in originally basically used the total Miao population in China and then used the Hmong population for "Miao" people in other countries. If that is the case, I could easily move the numbers from the Hmong article into the Miao people article. However, I don't have any numbers on how many Hmu or A Hmao people (who are Miao, but not Hmong) live outside of China. As for the differences in population you cite in your last sentences: "Miao" population is listed at 10-12 million in the Miao article, and Hmong population is listed as 4 to 5 million in the Hmong article. The Vietnam population is a problem, and the Miao people page should be updated to reflect at least the current number of Hmong in Vietnam - but again, "Miao" is really a very specific term used mainly in China and to get accurate population data for "Miao" in Southeas Asia, we probably have to include more than just the Hmong population figures. Nposs 03:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

hi
Hi I've added a book literature source with authors to comment about traditional historic punjabi culture --Indian50 03:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

List of mind mapping software
See the talk page for my reply: Talk:List of mind mapping software. --Timeshifter 12:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It is common to copy relevant discussion from wikipedia guideline/policy talk pages to the relevant article talk pages, so that unnecessary time is not wasted duplicating previous discussions. The discussion on the guideline/policy talk page will eventually be buried in an archive anyway, and the link to it would have to be updated. Since I am the one copying over the talk it is not a burden on anyone else. I asked people not to comment inside the copied material. This usually works. --Timeshifter 13:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking for help from WikiProjects is not canvassing. There is no vote going on at Comparison of time tracking software. And you have not commented on that talk page. --Timeshifter 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly why I asked for help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists. I don't know anyone there, so it is not like I am asking only people who agree with me. I am a member of several wikipedia projects. They are great for resolving problems. They are specialists. Saves a lot of time. --Timeshifter 06:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

(Untitled discussion 06/06/07)
Hi Nposs:

As a security industry analyst with a portal that educates security professionals on secure access usage and technology. I am pointing to FREE in-depth analysis that complements the Network Access Control wWikipedia page. This is beneficial to readers and appears well within the guidelines for external links displayed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked. So I do not understand your objection to my addition of this link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resilientone (talk • contribs)
 * My main objection is that the links to the articles don't work. The links for items 1-3 just reload the current page and item doesn't have a link. External links should provide extensive information beyond the scope of the article. From what I see, that is not what this page offers. Also, linking to your own website or a website with which you are affiliated is a violation of the "conflict of interest guidelines" (WP:COI). In such cases, it is recommended that you propose the link on the talk page of the article where other editors can decide if it is appropriate to add. Nposs 16:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually links 1-3 DO work and #4 has been deleted as it refers to a future article. And I do not see how the link violates COI guidline. I am providing selective, comprehensive and related content without promoting myself or my portal.

Actually links 1-3 DO work and #4 has been deleted as it refers to a future article. And I do not see how the link violates COI guidline. I am providing selective, comprehensive and related content without promoting myself or my portal.
 * The links violate the guideline because you (being associated with the website) should not link to it, but rather allow other editors to decide if it should be linked to. Also, I tried again and each of the three pages (which do have different urls) are exactly the same as the index page. Nposs 17:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

External Link Acceptance
I just discovered the problem with the links, the external link to the portal page should have read http://sslvpn.breakawaymg.com/nac/NACindex.php but I included a "/" at the end of the URL (my error). If authorship is in itself a violation, one of the thousands of portal users will recommend the link. Thanks.
 * Yep, it's working now. The info looks fine and my guess is that other editors will approve of it. Nposs 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vang Pao 王寳
The Hmong/Miao is indeed a nation that derived its surnames from the Han Chinese surnames, just like the Vietnamese. Therefore most Hmong surnames can be transcribed back to its Hanzi forms. The same can be said about the Mien/Yao. Vang Pao's surname is Vang (as I gather it is not Pao, as the general's name is not rendered in the Western order). The Vietnamese version of his name is therefore Oang Bao. You can probably find out through Vietnamese sources. If his name can be transcribed, it can therefore be rendered in the Chinese script. Hanzi is one of the scripts that the Hmong has used throughout history, and is therefore not necessarily a "property of the Han Chinese". —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your note. You are correct that Vang is his clan name and Pao his given name. My reason for removing it is that there is no tradition of using these characters in the Hmong Lao community. It might be something useful for one of the Wikipedias in a different language, but I see no reason to do it in the English language article. Nposs 13:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the support
Thanks for the support regarding the gobacolod.com thingy. Much appreciated. =) -- • Kurt Guirnela •  ‡ Talk  03:29, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Nposs - why do you delete my site and protect business sites
Dear Nposs

since a few weeks my site is listed at wiki, and 2 times it was deleted. With the first deleter i spoke about this and everything was ok. Now You also take off my site and protect real commercial sites. If You believe that 10 daily visits make me rich using adsense You are very wrong. But one visit to the botanical gardens is about 5 USD also, one booking using the booking portal of expedia ( last site in listng ) about 20 to 50 USD.

And please, I live here and I am very well informed, a independent site ( still growing o.k.) makes many sense because most provided information on all the commercial sites is incomplete or wrong. Why do You protect them ?

There is one, only one offical site, and this is the government site. If You talk to me about the Fidetur site, just try to call the listed hotels using the phonenumbers and You will see. Beside their are missing many other hotels. Yes, they receive money from the government, but that is all the offical they have. Do You want to have all sites, which are receiving money from the governement in wikipedia ? I can help You on that matter.

So, please be so kind, and protect the noncommercial ones which try to collect free and complete information, I think this is whats the wiki about, at least I am the onliest one who links back to wiki and the university link i also put in.

One of them who You are protecting did so anytime in the past ? No, and there You can see their interest !!

Thank You

C.G.
 * Thanks for your note. The link is inappropriate for a number of reasons. I for one do not have a problem with the "commercial" or "non-commercial" nature of the link. That is another editor. First of all, there is the problem of "conflict of interest" - see WP:COI. This is a guideline basically says that you should never add a link to a website your own, operate, or are affiliated with. Based on you above statement, you should not have added the link. Being that there is a "conflict of interest," you are also not in a position to judge whether the link should be added or not. The appropriate course of action is to propose the link on the talk page of the article where other editors can discuss it and add it if they feel it is appropriate. The external link guidelines - see WP:EL strongly discourage against linking to directory websites. I believe your website falls into this category. I'm sure it is a good website in its own right, but in this case, it doesn't pass the external link guidelines. Continuing to add the same link without proper discussion will probably be viewed as a form of spam and will be removed on site. If you disagree, bring it up on the talk page of the article. Let other editors decide if the link is appropriate to add. Nposs 02:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Dear Nposs,

thanks for Your answer, and thank You to be tolerant with the commercial or noncommercial character of my Million Dollar site. I came to Puerto Vallarta a time ago and was impressed how bad is the available information. I respect a lot wiki what is the reason why i did not change the whole information using my bad english language. Thatfor I began to build up a independent site in hope to help the tourism and the citizens out of the low cultural level promoted by all the industrial tourism information. Just see that during the last year the last authentic mexican parks was destroyed to build parkings, the two real pyramids, not mentioned at wiki and nowhere else, are going to be destroyed also.

On the searchengines I have no chance to provide more then the commercial tourism information, because I do not have 70.000 USD for a SEO company. So I thought, ok, wikipedia is the right place to begin, they are interested in information. And yes, I received a few but very valuable comments. Now I see, and I understand the rules, that it is a conflict of interest in MY case. ( Do You believe that the other pages are not promoted by their owners ? Do You really think so ? )

I dont understand where my site is a directory site ? I just have one link to a travel directory, which I will take off right now. So, the onliest thing I can do, is to wait if any day anyone decides to put back my site. What surely never will happen because nobody will find it. I am to old to play around these things, the last deletion wasnt You, but any one else. But believe me, what You are doing affects more then just my site. You are actively protecting the commercial lobby and deleting free information, this is a mayor problem in our world and also wiki I believe. Money makes information, I thought wikipedia is free of this dilemma, but I see I was wrong. Just tell me where the government site links to the "offical" fidetur site, which you are defending so hard.

Please dont forget to delete the University link, this is also a conflict of interest as I put it there and I am hardly invovlved with the University. ( It seems very rare to me that no one else had put the University there, as all the editors obviously so engaged to build an informativ wiki.)

Thank You a lot and please call back the police dog, I am from Germany as You know using all Your tools, and I know that nothing will change THIS KIND of mentality, the reason why i left Germany.

Good luck with "cleaning up" information.

C.G.

Post scriptum: I added a discussion to the articles talk, describing the situation.

Vang Pao and Free Vietnam
Hi, the reason I put that on there is because it seems a parallel movement in a neighbor country, with exiles based in California. Like a "hey, if you like Robin Cook, you may like Michael Crichton" idea. Chris 21:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that is the case, I'd rather not have it linked since it might be seen to reflect poorly on Vang Pao or make him seem more guilty by association. It is interesting, though. Nposs 22:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work! Sincerely, Rusty Dr. B. R. Lang (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Primary school
Why did you reverted my edit? That article is not even neutral. In the US and many countries they use elementary schools. (MrsMacMan 20:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC))


 * The above user is indeed a sock of User:Jessica Liao and has been indefblocked. If you ever suspect a new incarnation, feel free to drop me a line and I'll look into it. Her stuff is usually easy to sort out. Regards, --Fire Star 火星 22:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about appropriate links
Nposs --

Some weeks ago you advised me to reconsider the links I was adding to various literary pages. You suggested that the links I was adding might amount to link spam, because they were links to lesson plan pages and didn't really add information. I stopped adding those links. I am confused, however, by something I saw today. At this page, [], I see links to different lesson plans and even to a list of vocabulary words. Can you help me understand the difference between those links and the ones I was adding? Many thanks.

Msariel 23:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)MsAriel
 * Thanks for your note. I'm not sure exactly what you are referring to. I think you mean the list of SAT words (in pdf form) that is linked. It appears that the link was already present and that it was recently updated by someone who appears to be a reputable editor. I would suggest that the link is inappropriate. Not as spam or a bad website, but because it is not an encyclopedic resource about the subject of the article. You might want to look into it some more, but I support the removal of the link. Nposs 12:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

sensors link
Hello Nposs,

It seems like we're discussing this topic again. You deleted the link because it's linked under "load cell" but there exists no link from the Sensors Wiki article to the Load Cell wiki article, so I still consider this link valuable for the user. As you know, a load cell is also referred to as a a load or mechanical sensor so i think the link is very appropriate and again, I have posted a page that is downplaying any commercial opportunity.
 * Since there is a conflict of interest on your part (WP:COI), the best course of action is to propose it on the talk page of the article. That said, I still don't think it makes a good link. The article is about sensors in general. The linked page is about one type of sensor in particular. Links should be directly related to the article - thus the link is appropriate on load cell but not on the general sensor article (see WP:EL for more information on this). A url should only be linked once from the most appropriate article. While load cell doesn't appear on the page (another reason not to link), there are links to other sensor pages where load cell might be added. For example: List of sensors. Maybe load cell should be added on the sensor page under pressure sensors. Nposs 21:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the input.

I apologize for link use on wikipedia -- i made a mass change over a period of 15 minutes, but felt that they were important to each topic. it was not intended to be a link repository, and will abide by the rules from here on out... (wireless access point)

Question about appropriate links
Hello Nposs You recently deleted a link I added to the MVNO page, yet the link above contained exactly the same content; perhaps you could explain what I've missed?

Thanks .... PP
 * Thanks for the note. I removed the link for two reasons. 1) Links should lead to encyclopedic resources about the article (see WP:EL). Your link led to a commercial company. 2) The link title was the same as the username who added it. This is considered to be a "conflict of interest" (see WP:COI). I did not see the other link at the time. It to leads to a commercial website without encyclopedic content. I will remove it as well. Nposs 14:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Nposs - thanks for that. I of course have no objection to playing along with the rules in an orderly fashion - provided they are applied fairly and evenly. Would I therefore be correct in assuming that the way to proceed is to create a seperate entry fully describing the nature of the commercial enterprise - in the way others seem to have - and then link its relevance to other articles? I will create a new WIKI identity. Thanks ... PP
 * In general, creating an article about the company you work for (if that is the case) is not a good idea. Again, there is the problem of conflict of interest. Also, there is the issue of notability - see WP:NOTABILITY. This is really the fundamental point of Wikipedia - articles should be about notable subjects. There are specific guidelines for the notability of the companies that are worth looking into in this case - see WP:ORG. Keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion or advertising - see WP:NOT. On the other hand, people create such articles all the time. Some of them are deleted for not meeting the notability guidelines. Others slip by. Others are great articles. Hope that helps. Nposs 23:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nposs
You recently posted a message on my user page regarding contributing for the purpose of advertising. Why am I not allowed to do this? I see links to external sites in many areas of this site. If you do a search for 'Lesson Plans', under the 'See Also' section you will see external links. My purpose is not to spam. I want to contribute to the community by providing a link to primary-resource.com that provides free lesson plans, worksheets, and other useful resources for teachers and parents. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B1saini (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your note. There are guidelines that govern which links are appropriate to add to articles - see WP:External links. Also, keep in mind, Wikipedia is not a directory of links (even good ones) - see WP:NOT. Perhaps your link falls into this category: a good website that does not make a good link. What is a good link? An encyclopedic resource that provides unique content not appropriate for inclusion in the article. Also, adding the link to several articles (even when it well intentioned) is often viewed as a form of spam (not in the evil, commercial sense). If you do have an appropriate link, find the best article and post it there. If you find other inappropriate links, feel free to remove them as well. I did check your website, and it looks like it could one day be a good resource for teachers (although at the moment, I could not find any lesson plans or worksheets in the subjects I searched). However, the Wikipedia article is about "lesson plans" and links from the articles should really lead to encyclopedic resources "about" lesson plans - not directories of lessons plans themselves. Let me know if you have any further questions. Nposs 20:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User User talk:Grantrowe spam repeated
You posted a warning on this user's talkpage, I do not know how to proceed with further administrative action.--Gregalton 12:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I've reported the user to Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism for being a spam-only account and continuing to add the spam link even after multiple warnings (including final warning). That's the usual course of action. If it is really large scale, you can also report it on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. Nposs 16:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparison of Time Tracking Software
Hi Npross, I am a new user to Wikipedia. Although I have read many guidelines for using Wikipedia, there might still be things that I am not doing well. For some reason, I created a new article under "Comparison of Time Tracking Software" but it keeps getting deleted. Please let me know what I am doing wrong, I would greatly appreciate it :) I am still editing the article, but I think I've been working on it long enough for today, so I'll finish it up tommorow. Thanks in advance! — Lilellieyo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Comment: ClickTime was previously deleted per Articles for deletion/ClickTime, and appears the same IP range is involved as in the past (67.102.228.200 and 67.102.228.206). All of which, including user Lilellieyo, have made similar/identicle edits to the same articles. It's hard to believe in the amount of time (since 2005), that no attempt has been made (other than promotion) to adhere to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, other than claim "I am new", which the IP edits on Comparison of time tracking software clearly contradict. For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see Business' FAQ. For more details about what constitutes a conflict of interest, please see Conflict of Interest.--Hu12 03:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your usepage
Someone seems to dislike you, so I've protected your userpage.-Wafulz 15:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:MrMacMan
I was archiving his page. How is that vandalism? Don't be a tattletale. No one likes people who tattle. (Sinep 00:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC))

Good job
Thanks for the heads up! --Fire Star 火星 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"The Spirit Catches You..."
...is not just about cultural and religious differences, but sociolinguistic as well, which is why I added the language category. And since the book is about Hmong Americans (the Lee family) wouldn't it naturally follow that this should be listed under that category as well? Or does there need to be a new category created for Hmong culture/sociology, instead of just an article about it? --Procrastinatrix 21:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the best solution would be to create a new category. However, I can't think of what that could be. Like I said on your talk page, the best solution at the moment is to add it in the body of the related article or list in as a See also or Further reading. At this point, I don't think there are enough related articles (e.g. Hmong culture, Hmong sociology, etc.) to warrant the creation of a new category. Maybe in the future. Nposs 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Recent revisions to external links on gravure idol pages
Hello, Nposs.

Regarding your deleting of the the external links on Yoko Matsugane and others (check your history for the others - about 7 in total I believe). I'd just like to know your reasoning behind the re-deletion of the links: if compared to the other links provided, the site in question actually provides information about the idols, including recent news, reviews and bibliographical information: in other words, actual content just opposed to picture galleries. There is scant information in English about this subject aside from niche message boards and communities. Did you check the other links or just undo the revisions? If you did indeed check the links I must say I'm at a loss and am very curious to hear your reasoning.

Note: I'm posting here as opposed to each page as the material would be redundant.222.229.215.86 04:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I deleted them for a couple of reasons: 1) The presence of other inappropriate links does not justify the addition of new inappropriate links. That is not to say that the site itself is not a greatfine site -- it just doesn't meet WP:EL, the external link guidelines. The pictures (from what I can tell) are of uncertain copyright (does the site have permission to display them?) Plus, some of the content appears to require registration (another thing to avoid in ELs). The bibliographies appear to be sets of links to Amazon with a ref code, creating a commercial conflict of interest for the site. The "recent news" appears to be funneled from Google news or a similar service (rather than produced by the site). Aggregators should be avoided as well. 2) The links were added in a "spammy" fashion -- in the sense that the url was added to multiple articles by a single user in a rapid manner (including several to upper level domains that did not relate directly to the content of the article.) Even with deep links however, I don't see how these links would pass WP:EL. Feel free to delete any other links you feel do not meet these standards as well. Nposs 05:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Just FYI, there is no registration on the site - users are not required to give any personal information to access any part of the site nor is any kind of monetary exchange required. The recent news section is not generated by Google, nor is it part of any aggregator - it is produced by the site. If you can prove otherwise, please do so (burden of proof and all). Further, if you look at the history of the pages, the site was generally added to the majority of the pages a long time ago, but recently a user Gronik (I think?) deleted them, so I simply readded them - no intention of spamming was intended by myself (although I cannot vouch for others).


 * Further, the site actually predates many of the link on the pages in some cases - I'm just pointing this out because your "The presence of other inappropriate links does not justify the addition of new inappropriate links" seems to indicate that it was a sudden rash of inclusions.


 * I do honestly believe that the site is appropriate with the derth of information in English on the subjects in question. 222.229.215.86 05:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your concern over the dearth of information, but it does not improve the site in terms of the external link guidelines. From the "disclaimer" on the site: "The bottom line is that this is a fan site ..." Unofficial fan sites rarely pass WP:EL. As mentioned above, the problems of WP:COPYVIO (who owns the copyright to the photos?) and registration still apply ("Please enter the gallery user name and password to continue" - even if it does not cost anything, it still requires registration.) My mistake about the feed, but it highlights the point that this is basically a "personal site" with aspects of a "blog" -- two types of sites discouraged under WP:EL. I would suggest two possible courses of action: 1) bring up the specific links on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Let other editors decide if they feel the links are worth keeping. 2) Remove the other links you feel are not as good as the link you want to include. Nposs 05:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be pedantic, but as mentioned above there is no registration required for anything. If you had checked a little more carefully (specifically the FAQ),everything is quantified clearly: no registration.


 * Your remaing objection seems to be point 12 (personal sites, guidelines) on the What Not To Link Guidelines (possibly 14 as well, although I don't believe that applies in this case). As I'm sure you're aware, although discouraged, it is not forbidden. Further, considering the points in the What to Link and Links to be Consider sections (specifically 3 and 4 for the former, 4 for the latter) this would be an appropriate link.


 * Finally, if I were to delete the external links which were not appropriate or as "not as good", there would very few links left on any of the pages, if not none (for example Harumi Nemoto) - it is better to have some links than an isolated wiki article with no sources. If links are to be evaluated, they should be evaluated equally across the board, rather than just singling our a single source. Personally, I don't want to remove anything which could be valuable to a user, so I will not be touching the links on any of the pages.


 * I was hoping to resolve this without having to go to the talk pages on each article, but you seem to be inflexible in your stance and I have no wish to go into an editor/revert war over something relatively minor like this. I will do as you suggest and mention it on the talk pages. Thank you for your time. 222.229.215.86 08:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You might also try bringing it up on the talk page of WP:EL if you didn't want to bring it up for each article. Keep in mind, the copyright issue is still problematic as is the unofficial fan site quality of the site. If this is your own site, adding links to it is in violation of WP:COI. Good luck. Nposs 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Jessica
I agree. Although it seems Jessica thinks she is trying to be cautious now (not signing, not compulsively using her trademark three periods ... in edit summaries) there has been enough interaction now to clinch it for me as well. Blocked. --Fire Star 火星 04:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, we have a User:Satactetc who may be another sock. Not enough info yet. I think Jessica creates accounts and occasionally forgets the passwords for them, which may explain this one. --Fire Star 火星 05:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: External Linking (Neuorsurgery)
I apologize that you deemed the link I placed to be unacceptable. I am from Pittsburgh (as is Children's Hospital) and I have to admit that while I am not affiliated with them, my child is under their care. I have been spending a lot of time on their website (for obvious reasons) and have found so many of their resources useful. I did not realize that I wasn't allowed to add multiple external links (no matter how useful they are) to their website. In my opinion the Neurology link was very useful. Regardless, my apologies. PrattTA1 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

why?
it's not a spam? why you did this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.95.218.219 (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the external link guidelines: WP:EL. The website you repeatedly added fails in a number of respects. It is not an official webiste (as claimed in the original edits) and it appears to be a direct copy of another website (ielts-exam.net, another non-official ad-supported site). The external links section of the IELTS article is quite clear: "DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A COLLECTION OF LINKS. If you think that your link might be useful, do not add it here, but put it on this article's discussion page first or submit your link to the appropriate category at the Open Directory Project (www.dmoz.org) and link back to that category using the template. Links that have not been verified WILL BE DELETED. See External links and Spam for details."  Nposs 18:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Social shopping redirects
Do you still need assistance with this, and if so, what? (By the way, nice rewrite on the article, way better than the state it was in before.) -- SiobhanHansa 00:59, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I did figure out how to redirect. Thanks for checking. Nposs 01:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

thanks for removing external spam
Thanks for keeping your eye on English language teaching and related articles. They perennially attract linkspam from private providers of training. BrainyBabe 06:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Article on Dental Tourism
Hi - as regards your comments on the Dental Tourism page: I agree with them. I'm fairly new to wikipedia entries and have confined myself to grammer and language edits in the past. I'll try and improve the article and reduce the appearance of original research by adding references. I contacted the WikiProject Dentistry group when I edited the page and was hoping for edits from dentists to modify my point of view to a broader range of contributors. I'm slightly confused as to how articles are marked - The Medical Tourism article seems to me to have a lot of sections that are there because medical tourism companies are concentrating on specific region: there is a long section which comments on individual countries but with no indication of relative importance of sectors from an independant point of view. So is the Medical Tourism article more encyclopedic or should I place pov and original research tags on it? Basically I would be happy if you could give me a few pointers to make the Dental Tourism page a bit better - I am painfully aware of its shortcomings... Also one more point - I am working for a company in the dental tourism field - I'm not a slave to them or anything - but should I attach something indicating my bias or what is the appropriate forum for such disclaimers? cheers

Revatim 15:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I give you a great deal of credit for trying to improve the article. You clearly are knowledgeable about the subject and interested in sharing your knowledge. While there is a potential conflict of interest (see WP:COI), I think you avoid the main problems by not mentioning any companies in particular. The larger problem is tone. It is currently written like a personal essay, not an encyclopedia article. For instance, using rhetorical questions to begin sections. Also, much of it appears to be original research: WP:OR -- that is to say, your take on the subject without recourse to reliable sources. Encyclopedia articles also shouldn't include speculation about the future. Unfortunately, none of the other tourism articles really provide a good template for how this article might be structured. For the moment, it would probably be best to remove several of the sections that are highly speculative and unsourced. Nposs 15:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Great - thanks for your comments. I'll try and remove speculation etc... There is a real dirth of good referenceable sources on the subject but where possible I'll add them in and remove sections I cannot find enough peer-reviewed support for: again I'll try and get/motivate input from dentists and those with knowledge of this type of thing from a development perspective. I just read the WP:COI section and I can see I'll have to be careful! Are there sections for discussing how to develop good templates for the tourism articles in general? Also do you know how multiply relevant pages should be overseen? - My main interest and focus at the moment is in aid work and development (Dental Tourism is not my life, except to make a bit of money while I am home) and it seems to me this sector could fall under any or all of: Dentistry; Tourism; Development. Sorry to ask so many questions... Revatim 16:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done a preliminary reworking of your text (which, by the way, was very well written - just not encyclopedic in tone.) I also reworked the organization (hopefully encouraging further development.) I think the main thing is to think about avoiding original research WP:OR, which is especially tempting when you are knowledgeable about the subject. Good luck. Nposs 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

OK I looked through your changes: I think I'm beginning to get an idea of the right voice for wikipedia entries - I'll work from here (sometime... now I'll go and play my fiddle instead). Thanks again Revatim 16:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical Tourism Talk
Since it appears you provide oversight for the Medical Tourism article, please take a look at the comments I made on the talk page and the accompanying links to the documentation. Since I am involved in the industry I do not want to edit with prior consultation. Thanks NYerkes 02:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I actually have very little to do with the article and certainly don't "oversee" it (anyone is welcome to edit any article on Wikipedia). I basically stop by once in a while to clean up external link spam. Nposs 02:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

confused about citation
Hello Nposs,

You keep removing our detailed discussion on the history of medical tourism. our submission to wikipedia is taken from the relevant pages of www.healthmedicaltourism.org. if you click on "What Is Medical Tourism" there is a 10 page section that discusses medical tourism through the ages. we added this because the extant 79 word "history" was lacking. although wikipedia and google use no-follow for links, we still feel that our contribution deserves the proper citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whonors1 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for leaving a note. I'm glad you are eager to contribute to Wikipedia but there are some important guidelines to keep in mind.

Nposs (talk) 09:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * References must be based on reliable sources (see WP:RS and WP:SOURCES). The website you link to does not constitute a reliable source and should be linked as a reference.
 * References for statements that are likely to be challenged must be referenced - see WP:CITE - and these references should follow the guidelines in terms of format.
 * Linking to your own website is considered a conflict of interest - see WP:COI - and is strongly discouraged.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or promotion - WP:SOAPBOX.

OK
i understand your concerns. in that case, can you kindly remove the history of medical tourism that we added (Molly and WHonors1). if the information is not "reliable" then we don't feel like it should be included at all. can you kindly revert it back to the 79-word version that was up before we condensed our online history and submitted it to wikipedia. we would like to use this version elsewhere on the site.

(i tried reverting it about an hour ago, but i see that you have reposted it). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whonors1 (talk • contribs) 09:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Adsense spammer
I opend a proposal based on your info Administrators%27_noticeboard. --Hu12 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much. That's some amazing work. Nposs (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Beijing
Hey ! I'm currently planning the launch of the WikiProject Beijing, depending on if enough other editors would be interested in such a project. I saw you have edited the main Beijing page recently or in several times in the past and therefor might be interested. If you are, please sign: User:Poeloq/WikiProject_Beijing. As I am posting this to quite a few editors, I am not watching your page and would ask you to reply with any comment or questions on my talk page. Cheers, Poeloq (talk) 21:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmong
go ahead and add it back if you feel it should be. Wikipedia tells us to be Wp:Bold. We can discuss it in the meanwhile to see if it should stay or go. Your edit would be to restore the original while under debate. Lihaas (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)