User talk:Pjvg999

Welcome!

 * }

November 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page The Hum has been reverted. Your edit here to The Hum was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/humforum/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that external link is spam. First off, all external links go in the external links section, not the see also section. Second, links to any sort of forum are strictly prohibited, see our external linking policy. Don't add it again. Yworo (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, while I realize I am talking to a script, thanks anyway for the constructive feedback Xlinkbot. I understand and respect these policies. I did in fact add other relevant content to this page (noting reports of the Hum on Canada's West Coast) which I will re-insert as a seperate edit without the links. Yworo, I am a first-time Wikipedia poster. I am not sure whether this is considered part of acceptable Wikipedia culture, if so, my apologies for being a noob. Otherwise, my constructive criticsm to you is that you may want to tone down the stinging tone of your feedback to first-time posters. Fortunately, I can take it but I assume the spirit of Wikipedia is to attract, train and motivate brand new contributors, not to scold them. Pjvg999 19:58, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, The CTV journalist did not file the story in June 2010. It seems to be from around 20 September 2002. The other date may be when the copy was placed on the other website. On the net, you can find references to the old urls where it was on the CTV website, initially. Unfortunately, after ten years, it's not there anymore, not surprisingly. I did not find a saved copy on the web.archive site either. But there are copies on other sites. I don't know if any of them would satisfy Yworo's standards. The news story is fine and I don't see anything wrong with it. It should not be disqualified just because a bad website decided to reproduce it. The original source, CTV, should be considered reliable as any other major private media. I don't think that Wikipedia would have blacklisted them. But since the original copy on the television network's site is not available there anymore, I don't know what more can be done. Maybe just give the reference to the CTV story, with author and date, but without giving a link to the websites that still have a copy of it. A reference does not have to be on the internet to be valid. It is only unfortunate if a link can't be provided to future Wikipedia readers. I found that CTV report to be an interesting read and to be a very typical example of the dozens of reports and articles of the media from those years. Btw, thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Indeed the action of that bot was wrong when he removed all the edits of the day instead of removing only the forum link. Bots should not vandalize articles like that and should leave editorial judgments to humans. You'll get used to receiving all sort of messages. Don't take them too personally. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


 * A major problem with copies of articles or transcripts of TV reports on unreliable websites is that they are copyright violations. We are absolutely prohibited from linking to material that is not authorized by the copyright holder. This is in addition to the problem of being unable to tell whether such a post is real or a hoax, or whether the material was modified or altered from the original. Yworo (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Yworo and Asclepias for your time and thoughtful feedback. This is more like the power of Wikipedia I expected to see in action. Its comforting to note that others are dilligently monitoring policies and quality standards. While I agree with Asclepias' argument I will defer to Yworo's persistence and eye for detail and resist the urge to further touch up that CTV news reference. Be well.