User talk:SubSeven/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, SubSeven, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Pavel Vozenilek 00:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Deleting the Mike Matusow Fan blog
Hi,

I'd like to discuss with you why you feel that my Matusow blog is affiliate spam. That site has over 40 content rich, relevant articles on Mike Matusow. Yes I have affiliate programs on the blog page, so do Poker Babes and the Card Player.com links that you have allowed. Somehow I'm to be singled out?

I'd like to hear your rationale behind this before I take the next step to ensure that my blog is included in the links section.

You may contact me at twascom@gmail.com

Regards,

Todd


 * Hi Todd,


 * Please refer to WP:EL, and in particular the section Links to normally avoid


 * Item 9 on the list of links of avoid is particularly applicable in your case: "A website that you own or maintain (unless it is the official site of the subject of the article). If it is relevant and informative, mention it as a possible link on the talk page and wait for someone else to include it, or include the information directly in the article."


 * Rather than nominating your site on the talk page, you have added your site to the article at least SIX times, undoing deletions by three different people. If you plan on taking the "next step" I don't think you are helping your case by doing this.


 * Also, take note of item #10: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. Although there are exceptions, such as when the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or if the website is of particularly high standard." Your blog is not of high standard.  Here are some reasons:


 * Saying you have forty content-rich articles is a bit generous. Several of your articles are nothing more than roundabout ways to plug a poker site.
 * There is a staggering amount of affiliate links. I find at least one disguised affiliate link at the end of every article, even when it has nothing to do with the preceding text, not to mention many more in the main text of the articles.  This is another criterion where you fail when referring to the list of links to avoid. (item #5 - "objectionable amounts of advertising")
 * One of your articles well down the page contains an embedded video in which a kid is having some kind of conniption fit. Anyone who visits your blog is subjected to these horrible noises without knowing where it is coming from or how to stop it.


 * What it boils down to is, it is not your place to be adding your own site to the external links. If it is an important enough reference, someone will add it and it will retain its place.  If you want to persue this further, in my opinion you should STOP re-adding your link, and instead state your case on the Mike Matusow talk page. SubSeven 00:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

37th Chess Olympiad
As you will have appreciated from the edit history, I decided on several different occasions to expand the page; each time I intended to remove the stub tag, and each time I forgot. Thanks, then, for taking care of that; that was surely a page about which WP:AWB would have remarked, Long stub, although we might have been on our way to producing the largest article tagged as a stub (when Stubsensor last updated Computer help desk/wpfsck, the largest identified "long stub" was only 30 KB. In any event, thanks for cleaning up after me... :) Joe 05:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did tremendous work on the article. I thought you were really selling yourself short by retaining the stub tag ;)    See you around.. SubSeven 06:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

David Abbott
Hi,

I reverted the blurb about Tank Abbott back to my version. But you had a point that maybe people who aren't familiar with pro wrestling terms would know what jobbing meant, so I linked "jobbed" to the Wikipedia entry for jobbing. My rationale for this is that wording it as "Abbott lost to Arquette" makes it sound like a legit competition, like he actually was defeated. Pro Wrestling is scripted entertainment, and I feel it should reflect that. Thanks. Greg 00:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hingus quotes
They seem to be planted by a reverse fan. Bona Fides 21:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyway, in removing it, you also removed the last parts of the article. I reverted them back, with the exception of the quotes section of course. --Joey80 06:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I just took a look and, wow, you're right. I nuked a ton of stuff and have no idea how I did that, heh. Sorry about that... SubSeven 07:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

UFC pages/links
Hello, this is Ivan Trembow of MMAWeekly. I noticed that you (or someone else around the same timeframe) posted links to my recent article about the UFC's 2006 pay-per-view buyrates. Even if you weren't the one who added that link, this message still applies to you because you appear to have a semi-regular role in maintaining the UFC event pages on Wikipedia.

The only problem with the links to the PPV article is that they pointed to the article on MMAWeekly, and the links on MMAWeekly expire after a certain number of weeks. Everything that I write about mixed martial arts is published on both MMAWeekly and on my own personal web site. So, I have replaced the links to the PPV article on MMAWeekly with links to the same article on my own site. It is the same exact article from the same exact author (me), but at a permanent URL that won't expire.

On some other UFC event pages, I have also added other links to specific articles that I have written, in cases where I felt it was appropriate. For example, on the pages for the live TV events that the UFC has held, I added information about the TV ratings for those events and linked to the full articles if people want more information.

The same goes for the Fighter Salaries for every UFC event starting in April 2005, although I wasn't sure where to put those particular links because they do not necessarily fall under the "Sources" section for any given UFC event page on Wikipedia, but they do contain relevant information that a very large percentage of MMA fans are interested in reading. You may have a better idea of where to put those links on any given "UFC event page," so please feel free to move them to a different spot on the page if you feel that there's a more appropriate spot.

Also, please note that I made the vast majority of these changes without using my account, which I just created in the last few hours, so the majority of my edits will show up as just being from the IP address 69.175.88.28

Any feedback/comments/questions on any of the changes I've made would be much appreciated.

ALSO: I wanted to ask you this since you are a regular Wikipedia contributor and probably know the answer. When adding relevant information that is fully relevant to a page, such as the TV ratings for a UFC TV event, or the fighter salaries for a UFC PPV event (or TV event), what is the proper way of doing so? Would it be to include the information and a link (with just the "1" or "2" external link notation) in the body of the page along with the rest of the description? Or would it be to include something in the "External Links" section of the page that links to an article with the relevant information? Or is it both? The info on TV ratings and fighter salaries is very relevant information, but I'm not 100% sure how to properly implement it.
 * Hi, Ivan.


 * As you may have seen, I actually reverted a lot of your edits today. Coming from an anonymous editor, and replacing legitimate MMAWeekly.com links with links to a blog chock full of Google Adsense ads, it looked like typical behavior of a spammer.  It now looks like you were making the edits in good faith, so I will restore the edits you made, but only if your blog is determined by consensus to be usable as a reliable source.  Generally, blogs are not accepted as reliable sources on Wikipedia (you can review the guidelines HERE).  I will pose the question to the people at WikiProject Mixed martial arts and we will try and figure out the best course of action.


 * Regarding the addition of TV rating and fighter salary data to the event articles: Generally the best way to do it is to include the information in the article itself, and have an inline link to the source just like you described.


 * Thank you for leaving this message and giving us the scoop on MMAWeekly. SubSeven 23:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * response:
 * --Ivantrembow 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi SubSeven, thank you, I appreciate your response. I apologize for not clarifying what I was doing earlier; I wasn't sure ::exactly who to contact or how to contact them at the time (and I'm not even sure if I'm posting this response in the correct ::way).


 * I understand your initial concern regarding MMAWeekly vs. my own site, but the articles in question are all the same work ::from the same author, and the amount of ads on my own site is pretty much the same as the amount of ads on MMAWeekly (and I ::don't do my site for the minimal ad intake, it's more to have a constant, permanent collection of all of my work).


 * MMAWeekly is the #2 English-language MMA news web site in existence in terms of readership; only Sherdog.com has more ::traffic as an independent MMA news web site. From a content standpoint, the main difference between the two sites is that ::MMAWeekly features all of my work as an MMA journalist and also features the work of other MMA journalists, while my site ::only features my own work, but also has pages that never expire.  MMAWeekly's URLs can produce error message instead of ::loading the way they're supposed to after a certain period of time when the "zoneid" part of the URL expires.


 * Also, I saw the guideline about blogs in the Wikipedia help section, but I hoped that I fit into the exception as a ::"reliable source," though that's ultimately not up for me to decide. I appreciate the fact that you stuck up for me about ::that on the WikiProjects page, and all I can add in my own defense is that if the same exact articles were deemed to be a ::reliable source on MMAWeekly with me as the author, then I believe they should be deemed to be a reliable source if it's the ::same exact article, but published as a permalink on my own blog instead.


 * I will be sure to keep your words in mind when adding ratings information for any of the UFC TV shows, or fighter payroll ::information for any of the PPV or TV events. I will change those so that the text itself in the article is not the external ::link (for example, the words "the show drew a 1.5 overall rating" would be plain text, not a hyperlink), and instead there ::would be a little 1 or 2 add the end of the sentence that acts as an external link.


 * I'm still not 100% sure if I am then supposed to include something at the bottom of the article to reference what the 1 and ::the 2 are referring to, so please let me know about that and I would be happy to change anything that needs to be changed in ::order to fit Wikipedia's standards. --Ivantrembow 03:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Either way is fine. SubSeven 00:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

status?
Hi, this is Ivan Trembow and I just wanted to ask what the general timeframe is for questions posed on the WikiProjects pages. So far, there hasn't been any objections to changing the specified links to my own site, but then again, there have only been three people who have responded (not counting myself). I'm not sure how this works... at what point is it decided that a consensus has been reached and the links are okay to be changed back (or kept the same if a consensus is reached in the other direction)? How exactly does the process work now that a couple of days have gone by? --Ivantrembow 07:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's no hard and fast rule.  I would give it at least a week, unless there's some kind of rush, like the articles are expiring in the very near future or something. SubSeven 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh crap, I didn't see what you wrote above until just now, when I was getting on your talk page to send you the message below about finishing a bunch of additions and changes to the pages. I had been checking the WikiProjects page and my own "Talk" page regularly to check for responses from anyone who objected, and I didn't know that I should also be looking on other people's "Talk" pages for responses.  In terms of the pages expiring, there was nothing time-sensitive about whether it was now or five days from now, other than the fact that I just wanted to get it over with so that I didn't have to worry about changing those links in the future, and I haven't checked your "Talk" page since the last time I left a message on your Talk page.  Also, did you read my previous response on the WikiProjects page?  That's where I responded to the posts from you and Hateless.  I apologize if I jumped the gun with that.  --Ivantrembow 10:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

attendance/live gate/fighter payroll information
Hi, I am posting this message on both the WikiProject page and oyour Talk page because I wasn't sure whether I should post it on one or the other, or both.

I wanted to let you know that in addition changing the link URLs that we previously discussed, I also added links in the articles (I believe they would be called inline links, but I'm not 100% sure on that because I'm still fairly new to this) to the UFC attendance, live gate, and fighter salary information. I added the salary breakdowns for all the events that I have, and in doing so I noticed that many events (especially those in the UFC 45 to UFC 49 range) did not have any attendance information whatsoever, so I added the attendance information and created inline links to the Nevada State Athletic Commission web site on those pages.

Also, from the period of UFC 51 and on, there were a few pages that had incorrect attendance numbers, which appeared to be the numbers that Zuffa announced. Those numbers are often exaggerated, and the legit numbers are released by the athletic commissions. In any case where I changed anything attendance-related, I made sure to include an inline link to the NSAC web site. Actually, even on most of the pages, where the attendance was correct, I still added inline links to the NSAC web site on the pages that didn't have them before. Also, a few of the pages had the info in the infobox on the right-side column, but not in the body text as well, so in those cases I added a brief sentence to the body text with the attendance and live gate figures.

The total combination of this is that I think the pages have a lot more business information in the body text, between the attendance numbers, live gate figures, fighter payrolls, and TV ratings for the Spike TV shows, and all of the aforementioned things have inline links to the appropriate places for more information.

The only thing now is that I could have added the attendance and fighter payroll info for UFC 43 and UFC 44, but there have been no event pages created for those events. I don't know anywhere near enough about Wikipedia to be able to create new pages and list the results and all of that, but if you or anyone else does that stuff at some point, then I could add in the fighter payroll and attendance info for those events. As for UFC 40, UFC 41, and UFC 42, it might be good to create little pages for those events, but the only info I have for those events is the attendance and live gate for UFC 40. --Ivantrembow 10:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, SubSeven! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego talk  01:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Flags
Thanks for sharing. I'll give your thoughts every bit of attention they deserve. Otto4711 16:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the dose of reality. SubSeven 02:14, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Poker Superstars
Please stop auto reverting the poker superstars page before reading it. I'm trying to add things about the poker game I play from the show and you are reverting it before even reading what I have put in. I'm trying to learn what is and what is not exceptable to wiki and think I have it right now. Dave635 01:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I do indeed read everything you have added to the article, and I have reviewed all your edits on Wikipedia, and all of them are attempts at promoting "Funkitron". Wikipedia is not your personal advertising vehicle.  SubSeven 03:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Spamming?
Hi, You've reverted a link Ive added to arbitrage betting about sport bonus arbitraging, []. Probably because you consider it spamming? It is my opinion that the link is a usefull source of information about this subject since the 2 remaining links only consider regular sports arbitraging. So maybe you could reconsider removing the link?

Bestregards starkodder.


 * You seem to be a productive contributor to Wikipedia so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Go ahead and re-add the link; I won't remove it again. SubSeven 05:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Stop reverting me?
Hi, please don't revert my contribution to the Jeff Gordon article, I've gone over this with an admin, changed the weasel words, and am now changing it to be correct. It clearly states that it is a rumor, perhaps you made a mistake? =)--Kyle 02:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make a mistake. I don't know which admin you talked to, but I'd be shocked if there were any who would sign off on the text you added.  It is a rumor, it is unsourced, and is written in an extremely weasely tone.  Information that is added to articles should always be verifiable. SubSeven 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, technically what he said was ture - he has "gone over this with an admin", but it is hardly the case that I sanctioned the addition. Quite the opposite, in fact.  If you check User talk:Hitman000 you will see that I have left him several messages about the need for a specific, citable, notable, reliable source.  Johntex\talk 19:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that part of the information I left, which originally contained links to relevant policies, has now been removed. If you want to see exactly what I said, you'll now have to go to the history.  The user does seem to be trying to learn. We should provide encouragement but remain watchful. Johntex\talk 23:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I assure you, I'll be making no more mistakes like that. -Kyle 23:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Spamming the Bill Elliott page?
The link I added was very useful and is an actual ezboard message board with over 500 members. Registration and posting there is free. I do not understand how this could be considered SPAM. You can check out the link yourself and see that it is legitimate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.140.202.200 (talk • contribs).
 * I don't doubt the fact that the link you posted is indeed a forum, but forums are not considered to be acceptable external links. Read WP:External Links if you'd like to know more.  SubSeven 15:36, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Magicianlordbox.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Magicianlordbox.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

ChessWorld links
OK, I'm not saying that, by definition, this type of activity is not link spamming, but answer this if you can. Why were hundreds of edits, reviewed by hundreds of new page patrollers, allowed to stand untouched for over a week? Surely this is consensus that the editor was contributing positively and not spamming! LittleOldMe 12:22, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And as far as his newcomer status goes, he may be an efficient editor because of his interests and activities, but as far as his experience of Wikipedia, he is a newcomer. Check his talk page and my talk page if you are in doubt.
 * LittleOldMe 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of on the fence as to whether the links should be kept, if they had been added by someone impartial.   It's a close call.  I do kind of doubt that hundreds of people are patrolling those specific chess pages though.


 * I didn't really mean to comment on the merit of the links one way or the other. I just wanted to say that, maybe technically this user has only been registered on Wikipedia for a short time, but you can't assume good faith when someone comes here with the singular purpose of spamming the site with hundreds of links.  There's no way that happens by accident.  They are a spammer, not a newbie who needs to be nurtured.  (And as I look around, I am starting to see that this is not the first time that a Chessworld representative has launched a spam attack here)  SubSeven 20:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Mixed martial arts article improvement drive
WikiProject Mixed martial arts is now taking suggestions for the new MMA article improvement drive! Please add your input to decide what our first collaboration should be. VegaDark 21:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

ROTTEN TOMATOES
If you erase it again, you have to leave the link up to doesrtmattsuckatlife.blogspot.com. That was the agreement with the previous moderator. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.94.5.96 (talk) 02:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
 * LOL. right.. SubSeven 06:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)