User talk:Veinor/Archive 1

Confused
Hi

I'm unsure as to why you sent me the follwoing message:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル) 03:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"

I have never put up a link on Wikipedia, in fact, I don't even know how to put one up yet. I think you have me confused with someone else. Thanks.Primarch 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed I do. Removing message. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 05:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Tattoo
Advertising was not my intention. I just found this on the internet, and thought it would be interesting. --Jessica93 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * However, it is still simply an interesting fact. While it may not be advertising, it is still non-notable.

"ibm business partner awards"
Hi Veinor

You (?) decided that my entry on the IBM Business Partner Awards was advertising? May I assure you that I am not an employee of IBM or in their pay to any degree. You may be interested to know that these awards are an annual event here in NZ. There may well be Internet users who would like to know more about these and how to enter them.

I look forward to your response.

collardsx2

Google Video
Thank you for showing interest, but exactly why isn't Google Video an allowable external link? Provided relevant info on an public domain movie--Dudeman5685 05:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Bleh, was running on autopilot that minute. Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was wondering, because I link there all the time; break my heart to go back and delete all of them--Dudeman5685 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think my thought process was 'Another person linking to a non-notable google video. Baleeted.' Veinor (ヴエノル) 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You tagged the wrong user
Veinor, you posted something on my talk page but I think you tagged the wrong user. I did not link anything to Geocities. GuardianZ 08:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your repeated reversions did include a link to Geocities... so I counted that as linking to them.


 * Hmm. Maybe that was there all along. I was citing sources and another editor keeps reverting and removing all my citations and the content they support. I have tried to include some of his edits where they are fair and appropriate, but he refuses to cite anything. I rechecked and none of my sources point to Geocities. Most are print sources and one radio interview. I'll keep my eye on it though. GuardianZ 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I just found the link. Since the article in question is highly controversial given the edit war, I really think this reference is needed. The interview published there has been in place for several years (since 2002 I believe) and is even linked from the band's own site. So, it is completely verifiable for a fair amount of the info in the article, a good deal of which is being contested by another editor. Any chance we can leave it at least until the info is verified and voted upon by other editors? Thanks. GuardianZ 04:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also Confused
You sent me the following message:


 * Unfortunately, the commercial links/content you added to the page List of British butterflies were inappropriate, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should not be used for advertising or a collection of external links. See the welcome page if you'd like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thanks!

The external link I created was to the only British conservation organization dedicated to lepidoptera. It is a charity. They are not paying me and I am not in their employ... As a British butterfly lepidopterist who only got "stuck in" over the past 4 years, I believe that someone researching British lepidoptera via Wikipedia may well appreciate this link... Please advise--GRM 14:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The List of British Butterflies page is for just that: a list of British butterflies. Nothing else.
 * At the risk of coming dangerously close to alienating myself, and thereby robbing the global community of my input on subjects that others might find interesting, I think such an interpretation of open-source material and level of policing is a little strict. That said, what is your/WP view on including the Butterfly Conservation external link (i.e. their web-site) on the "Butterfly Conservation" WP entry page...? Thanks (oh yeah, and put my apparent arrogance down to ignorance if necessary! :-) We all have to live and learn.)--GRM 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since it's the entry for the actual organization itself, the link would be welcome there. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you

Tagged the wrong user
I did not make make the edit adding a blog reference on Enchanted (2007 film) that you say I did. Check the history again. It was a different user, made 10 days after my edit. Please correct. And thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Simon12 15:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Block message
Please don't add bogus block messages to user talk pages. Not only does it confuse other new page patrollers but it makes the vandal think that the blocks are ineffective leading to more vandalism.

Thanks

LittleOldMe 18:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Missing Page
Hi Veinor!

I'm a newbie to Wikipedia and I just added the charity for whom I volunteer last night. The page is missing today. I read the page you suggest, and I see my mistake (I think). Do I have to re-create the page from scratch?

Thanks,

Croi8
 * I'm not sure; try looking in the history and going from there. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Its completely gone, what a pain! Aragh, I'll type it again tonight, it'll be grand...
 * Btw I based the page on the Irish Charity Concern's page, they have a link to a myspace account?!
 * Not anymore. Myspace links are verboten unless they're relevant AND official AND the only official site. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:07, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

What's your beef with the MOVEit Freely page?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVEit_Freely

It's been there for a while, has been widely accepted (by other editors) as "not an advert"; and it looks like it's Wikified. So, can you give me some specific information about your complaint? (Contact me offline at jonathan.lampe@standardnetworks.com)
 * I see multiple editors re-adding the wikify tag. The issue is that it has way too many lists. And BTW, your e-mail address still counts as online. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, for version information, you need either a list or a table, so let me know what you like here. I took out most of the lists I could see - like that better?
 * I can still see two huge lists. You don't need version diff info for every version, just the major changes. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, now there's only one big list. As for the versions, I'm afraid those are the major changes; an Wiki editor with more experience in the software community chided us originally when we DIDN'T provide such a list.  I pulled the Wikify tag again...let me know if you think of anything else.
 * Really? Because I don't see anything like that in your talkpage or the page's talkpage. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Re. your "bad links" removal at Players page
Dear "High-schooler Veinor" (as you describe yourself), those links to published official public documents are to support (source) the text per. Wikipedia rules. Please explain why you removed them? If your explanation is not satisfactory, they should be restored. JohnClarknew 23:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not mean to rev the second link; it has been added back. The first link, however, requires registration and violates WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see that all 10 of your efforts to correct other people's work has taken place in the space of this one day, November 13th. Wow!  Is this taking away from your assigned homework? I hope your teachers/parents/guardians won't get mad at you!  I AM, however, because I am a registered user of the NY Times (if that's what you mean). Regardless, you will find loads of NY Times reviews and articles in Wickipedia that go unchallenged. I think the NY Times is quite happy to see this, as it leads readers to the NY Times as a good source. You do not show how WP:EL is violated.  My first link is what gives rise to the second link, and I think you should put it back, as you did the second link.  JohnClarknew 23:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:EL forbids links to pages that require payment to view unless the information is not available in similar quality elsewhere. I have added a link to a free abstract that contains all the necessary information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you are misreading. Here's why: To link to pages that require subscription payment before seeing it is obviously wrong. To extract content, which may be copyrighted, is obviously wrong. But to link to a page that is already on the internet, not to grab just a section, is simply to refer a user of Wikipedia to something searchable. And most all websites on search pages are looking for hits. It says "Hey, this is what I found on a search page, you should check it out."  Otherwise you are accusing the search company of stealing content, and of course they can't and don't do that.  I do not include the vast majority of webpages that are not available on search pages. If I am wrong about this, I would like to be enlightened.
 * Furthermore, a word in your ear. You would do better if you disapprove of somebody's work, in most cases, to go on their TALK PAGE and tell them about it, and maybe the result will be what you want, or maybe not, but a consensus will be reached. And you wouldn't have to restore something because of your "mistake" which is what you did with me. To ride roughshod through this site, and police it with your instant verdicts is, in my opinion, uncivil, and perhaps, even, an abuse of the spirit of Jimmy Wales's intention, and covered. JohnClarknew 01:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * In my view, the first link you added was a clear violation of WP:EL. Are you asking that I talk to everybody before I revert their adding of 'penis' to the end of every sentence just because it might not be the clear violation of the anti-vandalism policy that everybody claims it to be? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read what I said above. I said IN MOST CASES. I don't think the above 9 people are VANDALS. People who do what you just said, are, hopefully, the vast MINORITY, and s/b reported and BLOCKED as you know. Meanwhile, I observe you have merely confused the above 9 people and they are too intimidated to come back at you. Number 5 ("Also Confused") says he may stop contributing altogether, thanks to your efforts just TODAY (!), which, I repeat, appear on this talk page to be the sum of ALL of your efforts. Also, you have avoided answering my questions. JohnClarknew 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, so THAT'S why you thought I had only had "10 efforts to correct other people's work". You went by the complaints. I simply applied the standard 'advertising' tag to the talkpage, as their link was out of place on a list of British butterflies. I explained to them that they could put it on the page for the charity they were writing about, and all was well. And I do not see any questions here other than a request of explanation for the removal of your original links, which I have given, and a question about my homework, which I refuse to answer on the grounds that it is personal information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:48, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I forgive you because you restored my links. But you need to know that because I am a longtime member of the Players, I have to try and be sensitive to their concerns, so I reworded the first restored link away from the Times' headline. And because it is not an abstract, it is the full report as found on Google. Also, I have 4 kids older than you, so I am not unused to your, shall we say, enthusiasm and energy. Just use it wisely. And go back to your studies. Good luck in your future career. JohnClarknew 03:07, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Google "Franchione"
I actually am not associated with the http://www.firedennisfranchione.com/ website. I merely did not wish to post my ip address freely, so I decided to use the FireFran login. I am a fan of Texas A&M, but not the Coach. If you do a google search on his name you will see that that website comes up first when you search by his name. I just thought it was interesting that Wiki shows him to be this great coach, when he has a horrible record, and there is a good chance he will be fired at the end of the season. I also thought that of the numerous sites about him, this one used the least offensive language and pictures. FireFran
 * Nevertheless, posting a direct link to an attack site with no explanation is considered spam. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 05:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Firewerk
I began to add content and detail to the discussion page for Firewerk and not the article itself since I know it will take time in which to focus and to refine. http&#58;//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Berniethomas68 06:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It still violated WP:N, however. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

External links policy
Thank you for your help with the external links in Nativity of Jesus. But may I suggest you take a look at the link that you removed a few minutes ago and consider restoring it. You may find that it contains useful information, since (a) it refers to the other link (where, in fact, this chart is mentioned in part II but not printed), and (b) it is topical in view of the forthcoming film on the subject of this Wikipedia article. Thank you!
 * As a general rule, geocities links are not acceptable due to their unencyclopedic nature. If you can provide a better source, go ahead. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Vox Writing
Since the speedy is contested, I've heavily edited the article, but i still think it should go again - what do you think? jimfbleak 20:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

École St-Charles School
Hey Veinor, why revision? The link that I added to École St-Charles School was to a "Class of 1970" site that I started for the school and not meant as advertising. There is so little information on this school so I thought that it would be beneficial to link to it for references. Care to discuss? Bill Wrigley 05:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT a collection of external links, especially to one as oddly specific as a wiki for the class of 1970. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 05:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fred Hammond
I don't know why you just removed my changes to the Fred Hammond entry. Included in the changes I made were... A link to Fred's official website... A link to Fred's official myspace page... and a link to my website which links to relevent content including music of Fred's. I did not spam his page I don't know why you are threatening to blacklist me as a spammer. My page has relevant content. Loosen up and at least put back Fred's official links OK!? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.37.75 (talk • contribs) 06:23.
 * The official site stays; the myspace and the 'relevant content' doesn't per WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You also reverted my changes to Commisioned. I didn't even put any links there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.37.75 (talk • contribs) 06:24.
 * That's because you shouldn't remove a template unless it's been discussed on the talk page. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now tell me, how are all those links apropriate per WP:EL on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_music and mine is not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.19.37.75 (talk • contribs) 06:34.
 * They aren't. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You should put my links back... I am not selling anything on my site. I do not require payment for the relevant content. My site would be of interest to the readers of the articles I placed my links on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest "Self-promotion Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links in articles, personal or semi-personal photos, or any other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor adding the material, or of his associates.

Examples of these types of material include:

'''Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links). Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages (vanity links). Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.''' " My site is non of these.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:EL "Links normally to be avoided 5.Links intended to promote a site, especially if that site's primary purpose is to advertise or sell products or services, or if the site requires payment to view the relevant content. This is colloquially known as external link spamming."

And I am not "external link spamming" according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming "A few parties now appear to have a spambot capable of spamming wikis from several different wiki engines, analogous to the submitter scripts for guestbooks and blogs. They have a database of a few hundred wikis. Typically they insert external links. Like blog spam, their aim is to improve their search engine rankings, not to directly advertise their product.

If you see a bot inserting external links, please consider checking the other language wikis to see if the attack is widespread. If it is, please contact a sysop on the meta-wiki: they can put in a Wikimedia-wide text filter. Any meta sysop can edit the Wikimedia-wide spam blacklist to add or remove the patterns that are recognized by the filter, with the changes taking effect immediately. New links can also be added to the list if a new spammer should start making the rounds.

Sysops are authorised to block unauthorised bots on sight. Spam bots should be treated equivalently as vandalbots. Edits by spambots constitute unauthorised defacement of websites, which is against the law in many countries, and may result in complaints to ISPs and (ultimately) prosecution.

Sometimes, the way an article is phrased attracts spammers. For example,

Social networking has flourished with websites such as Friendster and Myspace, ... Examples of detergents include Tide, ... The most notable MLM companies are Amway, ... Many blogs arose discussing this, see Some blog, ... because it is far easier to add a link to the end of this sentence than to add encyclopedic content." - 75.19.37.75 11/14/2006 10:58p
 * I can quote policy too. WP:NOT a collection of external links. Generally, they are supposed to be kept to a minimum and be of good quality. From WP:SPAM: "There are certain stylistic behaviors that will say "spam!" loud and clear to anyone who's watching: ... Adding the same link to many articles.". From the 'Links to be avoided' section of WP:EL: "Certain kinds of pages should not be linked from Wikipedia articles... 3. A page you own or maintain...". Also, please try not to add so much stuff at once; it just obscures the debate. I've chosen to leave it so other people can see what I'm talking about, but next time you do it, I'll probably edit out the policy quotes and replace it with a link to the appropriate policy. However, I will take your long links and shorten them for you, so they don't clutter. Also, your wording implies that you think that the only reason people would visit the wikipages you edited is to find Gospel music. Maybe they just want to know the history, or they want to know whether I have the definition right. Furthermore, your site does not appear to be linked to much (searching for pages that link to christiangospelmusic.net on Google returns 0 results), so this definitely counts as an obscure site; many of those sites that I deleted from Gospel music after you informed me of them were probably large sites, yet I do not hear you asking me to re-add them (and in any case, I probably wouldn't, as they would also probably fail WP:EL due to being mostly advertising. Finally, it's not as if Christian gospel music is hard to find on the internet; why should we allow your site but not the other Christian gospel music sites? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Petroleum production in Canada
You deleted a link I added to Petroleum production in Canada because it was "not encyclopedic content." I am putting the link back in. It is a link to the complete manuscript of a book that is still authoritative in its field. It was a bestseller in Canada when it was published 10 years ago. I suggest you look at what you are deleting before you make your changes. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pmbcomm (talk • contribs) 15:02.

Messages script
I hope I found the right person! Here's the script for you:

// Script to alter new messages box + .usermessage { +   + background-color: #660000; + border: 1px solid black; + color: goldenrod; + font-weight: bold; + margin: 2em 0em 1em 0em; + padding: 0.5em 1em; + vertical-align: middle; + }

These are the settings I put in (they match my userpage), but for some reason I don't think they worked. Or maybe I got rid of them before I got any messages, as that was before I got popular... :-) (I had to archive my talk page 4 times already this month!) — E ditor at L arge  ( speak )  18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Nuçi's Space
I stand corrected. I'll remember that. Thank you. Aleta 19:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)Aleta

Tax lien sale
Tax lien sales have no reference material. Information needs to be backed up by books or links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.5.11.222 (talk • contribs) 19:24.
 * Provide specific references and then we'll talk. We have no way of knowing whether the info in the article can actually be found in the book/link. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Added, please review. 76.5.11.222 (talk • contribs) 19:33.
 * What I meant is, what facts were retrieved from that book? I doubt all of them are. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The following information are supported by the book:

In a tax lien state, the lien is offered to prospective investors at public auction. Most auctions are held in person; however, Internet-based auctions (especially within large counties having numerous liens) are becoming popular.

In the event that more than one investor seeks the same lien, depending on state law the winner will be determined by one of five methods:

1. Bid Down the Interest. Under this method, the stated rate of return offered by the government is the maximum rate of return allowed. However, investors can accept lower rates of return, including zero percent in some cases (though this is rare in practice). The investor accepting the lowest rate of return is the winner. In the event more than one investor will accept the same lower rate, a random or rotational method (see below) will be used to break ties. 2. Premium. Under this method, the investor willing to pay the highest "premium" (or excess above the lien amount) will be the winner. The premium may or may not earn interest, and may or may not be paid back to the investor upon redemption of the lien.

...

4. Rotational Selection. Under this method, the first lien will be offered to the investor holding number one, who has the right of first refusal. If the investor refuses, it is offered to number two, but will not be offered another lien until his number comes up again in the rotation. The next lien will go to the next number in line. Under this method, the investor has no control over which liens s/he will obtain in the bidding.

... Redemption Process

The investor must wait a specified period of time (referred to as the "redemption period"), during which time the property owner (or someone with an interest in the property) may repay the lien with interest. Usually the lien holder is not permitted during this period to contact the property owner (or anyone else having an interest in the property, such as the mortgage holder) to demand payment or threaten foreclosure.

In some jurisdictions, the lienholder must agree to pay subsequent unpaid property taxes during the redemption period in order to protest his/her interest. If the lienholder does not pay such taxes, a subsequent lienholder would "buy out" the prior lienholder's interest.

Once the redemption period is over, the lien holder may initiate foreclosure proceedings. The proceedings (the costs of which must be paid by the lien holder, though a redeeming property owner may be required to pay them as part of redemption) may result in either acquiring title to the property (normally this will be a quitclaim deed and not insurable title), or a tax deed sale of the property where the lien holder has the right of first bid (and may participate by making additional bids if s/he so chooses). During the period between the initiation of proceedings and actual foreclosure, the property owner still has the opportunity to repay the lien with interest plus the costs incurred to foreclose.

If the lien holder does not act within a specified period of time as defined by state law, the lien is forfeited and the holder does not receive a return of his investment. Also, a lien issued in error of state law is repaid, but usually at a far less interest rate than had the lien been valid. ...

There is also a problem with "(normally this will be a quitclaim deed and not insurable title)," -- it isn't true that quit claim/tax deeds are non-insurable titles. They can be through court action like a quiet title suit. Some title companies do specialize in tax deed / quitclaim insurance as well (quoted in the book on pg 17). 76.5.11.222 (talk • contribs) 19:39.
 * Add reference tags to the appropriate places, but don't remove the tag unless you can source ALL the facts. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok will do. I will use the Harvard template for the book citations and see if I can find other resources online to support the other parts of the article. 76.5.11.222 (talk • contribs) 20:01.

Do you happen to know who ARebour is? He just removed all of the citations.


 * I removed them as from the way the references are set (every single paragraf has that reference), from the history of the edits (e.g. link spam to a site selling that book by the same contributor) and the fact that this extremely basic information can be looked up nearly anywhere, I doubt that these references are of any value to this article. --ARebour 09:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the book? The references tag was not removed because not every paragraph was cited.
 * I have to agree with ARebour on this; basic information doesn't need citation, and it looks a LOT like reference linkspam to me. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

So we have a topic with no references? There are top three books on tax liens according to Amazon - by Loftis, Sausa, and Burrell. I've completed Sausa's and finishing the other two. It is inconceivable to me how random Wiki users consider anything they haven't read as spam and offer nothing better in supporting the material.
 * As a general rule, I believe references are only required for things that aren't easily findable. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hi Venior,

Thanks for pointing those problems out with my 'Welcome' template, and I think I might change the colour scheme too! Thanks again! - CrazySussexLad 19:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy
Looks like we unknowingly had a race to clean up the retirement communities after Mr. Otow. Good fun! --CliffC 21:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Beehive (beekeeping)
Venior,

I found the link for "Honeymoon Apiaries – A complete list of United States bee-culture patents. " on the beessource.com web site. Since there was a section regarding patents in this article I thought it would be appropriate to list the link. Apparently the patents are available free of charge. I think it should be restored.

Mike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.217.110.33 (talk • contribs) 21:46.
 * They're also available through the US patent office, which stores official versions of these patents. And your stated intent of listing patents was belied by the fact that you didn't link to the actual patent site. I'm restoring the link, but redirecting it to the page with the patent information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Venior, I think you should correct the site name. It is not "Honeymoon" but "Honeymoon Apiaries".

Thanks for restoring the link.

Mike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.217.110.33 (talk • contribs) 22:17.
 * Now that I think about it, I shouldn't have put the site name in at all, just the page title. Also, please try to spell my wikiname right and sign your comments with ~ . Just FYI.Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:21, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Mathematical formulae
what do you mean?Adasarathy 22:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * WP:NOT a link farm. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't read that page...Adasarathy 03:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, be more careful next time, OK? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not putting up links
Hi Venior, I am not putting up any unnecessary links on wikipedia. I understand the importance of the website, and respect the concept. I am just linking my website, which is a non-profit website on the appropirate sections. Thanks again for policing the website, am glad that someone does that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RoshanRameshPai (talk • contribs) 23:32.
 * So you admit to violation of WP:EL? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ash (band) Invalid Change
Ok, now why did you remove those links? Each link that was up is an official page endorsed or moderated by the band. None is a violation of copyright or any Wikipedia policies. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.188.226.234 (talk • contribs) 01:51.
 * WP:NOT a collection of external links. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't collecting external links... there are plenty of links that were not included. I am merely only including official links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.188.226.234 (talk • contribs) 01:59.
 * You don't understand. Official links can still be external links that should be reverted. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but it wasn't a collection... the policy allows 1 fansite and official sites only. Also, if you see other band's websites, they all have far more links... so why are u picking on Ash?
 * Well, yes, it does allow one fansite, which I will re-add. As for official sites... the policy is still to keep them to a minimum. And I'm not picking on Ash; I just happened to be around when your mega-link-addition showed up. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If you leave those 4, I'll be happy. Here are some details for you that may help. The Official Site is the website that the band pays for and is maintained by a 3rd party. The Official MySpace is actually updated almost daily by the bassist of the band himself. Ash Files is a website maintained by the band as well as fans that provide a resoruce for live recordings that the band posts. Walking Barefoot is the ONE fansite that you allow... That is the definition of a minimum to me considering that there are over 15 Ash fan sites around that are NOT linked to.
 * We both agree that the Official Site is allowable, as does Wikipedia policy. The MySpace, however, is not allowed; the general policy is to not allow MySpaces unless they are specifically worthy of mention. See WP:EL, #7 in the 'Links normally to be avoided' section. Also, please sign your comments with ~ . Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Lezginka mp3 link
The link provided is not the one which violates any copyright, because the file there was provided by the author.
 * Direct linking to MP3s is still frowned upon; link to the download page (not the actual file) instead. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cocoon site link
Hi Thanks for your concern. That particular site offers free programs on Apache Cocoon. No college teaches Cocoon, there are very few books available on Cocoon. So, I think, by offering free programs with source files, I am helping others. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bohemand22 (talk • contribs) 04:28.
 * Erm... what're you talking about? I do a lot of editing in a day, so you'll have to remind me. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:30, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The relevant page is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_Cocoon


 * I don't see any edits there by either you or I. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Phil Ochs page
Whoa, wait a second - I didn't add that item, I reverted an arbitrary edit made by an anonymous editor, who then went in and posted an inane reason for deleting it. Why are you coming in 2 seconds after I reinstated it with this? Did you even look at that source? Also, how about discussion on the talk page before coming in with a hammer? I'm reinstating it. Tvoz 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fails WP:EL on two counts: being a Myspace, and being a fansite. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We can't post the photos and music that are there, and they add to an understanding of this artist. This link has been there for a while, and I object to this. WP:EL clearly says these kinds of sites "normally" shouldn't be used, but that there are circumstances where it is ok - WP:EL is a guideline, not a hard and fast rule like WP:FU,** for example.  This site is not unencyclopedic, and as I said, it has information that is not available to use here, so I disagree with your judgment, and I want to see what other people who have been editing this page think. I have no connection to the link  and I am not the one who posted in the first place - and, it has been there for a long time.  So please back off and let's see what other editors think.  Thank you. Tvoz


 * Hey, cool it - I've asked for some other opinion - and I don't appreciate being threatened by your templates as if I didn't respond to your action. Tvoz 05:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

** I meant to say WP:NPOV, not WP:FU here Tvoz 05:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is obvious that this link is not in line with WP:EL, but it doesn't hurt anything to slow down and explain things carefully to people who are confused and asking questions. I support your actions, but it would be nice you would take back the second template at User talk:Tvoz and let him get some second opinions which can only futher support your actions. Thanks for all the grunt work you are doing cleaning these links up!--Birgitte§β ʈ  Talk  06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kinda agree. After a while, you just sort of get glassy-eyed. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I appreciate that you're doing a lot of this stuff and maybe were tired, so let's forget about that aspect and move on. Thanks for removing that 2nd template, and thanks, Birgitte, for  jumping in.    But actually I'm not "confused", I just disagree with the action.  I've read WP:EL and its discussion page, and I had no trouble understanding them.  Right, generally links to fansites and myspace are discouraged, but there are exceptions, and WP:EL, as I mentioned above, is a guideline not an official policy. Wikipedia does distinguish between the two, and I believe that's because guidelines can be subject to interpretation based on circumstances.  SOmeone else (whom I don't know) coincidentally asked a question on the WP:EL talk page today about Myspace Music sites - and I asked a follow-up question there, so would like to see what response I get.   As you may know, Myspace Music pages tend to be different from Myspace's personal pages, in that they are more like "official" websites which WP:EL allows (interestingly, even when they have non-factual info).  In this particular instance there is no non-factual info that I saw - it is a pretty straight-forward Myspace Music page for a dead musician, making his music and biographical info available to people.  Let's just say, he doesn't do concerts anymore, so sites like Myspace Music serve to bring him to a new audience 30 years after his death. ANd yes, he didn't post it himself for obvious reasons - it was likely a fan who did, but it's hardly a "fansite" in the usual sense.  As I've said elsewhere, we can't post his music or some of the photos here because of wikipedia rules, so linking to sites that can post them enhances the Wiki article.  This was one external link, and as I said, not a particularly important one - but it's the principle here that matters.   The wp:el guideline shouldn't be slavishly followed without looking into the specifics a bit - and this particular Myspace Music page is not an offender of wiki standards.   Furthermore, in order to satisfy even a strict interpretation of WP:EL, I've added some text to the page that talks about how  Ochs' legacy is being kept alive by a yahoo group, and listserv, and sites like the myspace music site - all of which are important parts of an encyclopedia entry about him - so in fact now the external link is not only peripherally relevant, it is now directly relevant to the page.  So, again, I think it should be reinstated.   I want to be clear - I wasn't the one to post it in the first place, and I don't think it's particularly central to the page - but I do think it belongs there, and I didn't appreciate its peremptory removal by an anonymous editor tonight (before you) without any rational reason given.  We actually try to reach consensus in editing this article, and that's why I asked for editors to discuss it - perhaps if you had the time to read the talk page on this item you wouldn't have been so peremptory, or maybe that's some advice I can give you for the future.  NOt all situations are the same, and it pays to check a little - certainly you should have after I responded to your first reversion.  So- I've gone on  a little long here for which I apologize, but I thought it worth a thorough explanation.  Tvoz 07:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

JAWS page
External links */ Veinor--I have added items of fact that are relevant to this page in the way of links and factual data. Please do not persist in deleting or reverting my added data without justifiable rationale. You claim my link is irrelevant but in fact it is quite relevant. I am new to Wikipedia but my data is accurate.

Thankyou. 221.220.244.245 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I have replied to the user at User talk:Dark Kubrick, and also about external links at the ex-anon's talk page at User talk:Fred-stine. The JPS talk to me  11:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

MySpace link
I recently added a band's official MySpace link into their article (The Prayers and Tears of Arthur Digby Sellers)and you deleted it. I have since posed this on the Wikipedia talk:External links talk page and it seems to be up in the air.

I am therefore going to revert to the version of the page that included the link and should the concensus end up running against me I'll remove it but I loathe to do so as I could site a number of examples where there is an unmolested MySpace link on a band/musician's page.
 * jk 10:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Compliment
Great job with new page patrol marking pages for speedy! Keep up the great work. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This is new. A compliment on my talkpage! Thanks! Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 17:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I Too Am Confused
You just sent this message to me: User talk:LastStageToDeadwood From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search I have added the copyright notice on the article I submitted.

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did in Whist. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:08, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LastStageToDeadwood"

The link I submitted as indicated gives historical articles as the the rise of the popularity of this card game in America beginning in 1882 with articles such as Whist club to be only for highly respected folks In regard to: Organizations Jan 04 1882

[ed. cut for lots of length]

How would knowing the roots of growth of this game be spam? I would appreciate a response so I do not include future items of this nature if you think it would not be of value.

Thank you LastStageToDeadwood
 * Repeatedly adding links to your blog on many different articles is considered spam. Also, links to Blogspot are generally considered un-encyclopedic under WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 21:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Pointlessweb
Why can't I simply put up a link for my sight. I have a sub-domain and people cannot remember the URL. I told them to look up pointless web in Wikipedia, but they can't if you keep deleting it!!! I understand it is against the rules, but it is still unnececary to delete it. http://home.comcast.net/~pointlessweb
 * Because it's non-notable. And if you do understand it's against the rules, then you'd understand that it is necessary to delete it. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

St. Andrews
Charlie 01:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I dont know what your on about this chuck red thing I only put a link to a new site that is for the local people of St Andrews www.standrews.tv but has been rejected (go and look at the site before you condem it)OR how much do I pay or do I know the right kind of people!!!Maby im wrong but I thought.............????!!??
 * Wikipedia does not require bribery or 'connections'. Your site was removed for being non-encyclopedic and a personal page. See the guidelines for external links. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ok fair but this is not a ad page this is a page about st andrews and has helpful information about st andrews so please could you put it back up or stop saying am spaming veinor!!!!!!!!
 * You added your site to several different articles at first; this is considered spamming. The fact that you only bothered to re-add it to one of them doesn't make it legitimate. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Veinor I have heard from my friend you refused the link www.standrews.tv to the st andrews page I would like to point out that I run the only auction in st andrews ,Macgregor Auction est 1927 ,and this site hosts my home page I would like you to reconsider your opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robert9 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 18 November 2006.
 * Your request has been declined; I still believe that standrews.tv, being a non-official site, is not allowable due to the fact that it is non-encyclopedic; among other things, it contains a large amount of advertising (see the external link policy). Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Advertising?
I've been making an effort too link articles to the FX Group article as requested. I do not feel this is advertising; there are many people out there who are interested in who designed each station's set and I am providing links to the FX site as a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newsstudio06 (talk • contribs) 02:01, 17 November 2006.
 * Still, this information is not necessary for Wikipedia and it is pretty spammish; even if your intentions are good, the overall appearance is really what matters when it comes down to whether the content should stay. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Link policy
You sent me this message: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Recordnet"

I merely updated the already existing media section for Stockton and added updated numbers to the demographics topic. I've read the policy, and I don't see how this is in violation. Please advise.
 * Adding the same link to 3 different pages looks spammish to me; see WP:SPAM. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How can I bring consistency to city pages in this region without adding the same link to multiple sites? I've read the Spam policies, and I don't see how this applies. An encyclopedia should have relevant information about a city, and each city should have information about what media cover the city. It's like calling me a spammer for adding the mayor's name to each city in a region. I appreciate your mission of keeping Wikipedia spam free, but how should I edit in a less spam-flagging fashion? Recordnet 03:51, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * First off, thank you for signing your comment; you're the first to do so in a long time. Second, I would probably just make a list on the page for the newspaper if I were you, as it would be viewed as legitimate and useful information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 04:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work
By the way, I would have used the spam templates for this one. Keep up the good work. :-) Regards.-- Hús  ö  nd  03:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Flippin, Arkansas
Hi, I've noticed you left a message on my girlfriend's userpage warning her about spam links. I looked over the history, and noticed that the only links added were simply for the homepages of a few of the companies that reside there. Considering that these aren't exactly advertisements, merely the homepages of businesses that employ people from the town, I don't exactly see how it's considered spam. I'm curious as to why you consider them as going against the Wikipedia link policy T1g4h 09:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * From my point of view, it is impossible to tell whether a user is acting in good faith or simply advertising for a company. WP:EL forbids links to sites have an asymmetric relationship with the subject of the article in question; in essence, while a significant number of people in Flippin may work for one of these companies, it is doubtful that a significant number of employees of these companies are from Flippin. Also, may I ask why your girlfriend didn't contact me directly? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, but I am sorry that I didn't contact you before my boyfriend did, but I am a new user on wikipedia. In fact, this entire experience is an assignment for my freshman college Making Connections course.  So, blatantly put, I have little to no idea what I'm doing, I am just learning how to edit pages, much less how to contact another user.  I suppose I also need to apologize for the links.  My reasoning was that one of the companies, Micro Plastics, had its link on the page and Ranger Boats did not.  So, I thought that it might be good to add the websites for the companies, since the one for micro plastics was already up.  You would be very correct in saying that "while a significant number of people in Flippin may work for these companies, not all of the employees are from Flippin; however, Ranger Boats, Micro Plastics, and Mar Tron are major companies that are centered in Flippin and have had significant impact of the community as a whole.  I apologize for re-adding the links after they were removed, but as I said before, I didn't know that you had sent me a warning, and I certainly couldn't make heads or tails of anything I was that I -did- read.  You can laugh, get angry with me, or disbelieve me all you want.  I'm only telling you the humilitating truth.  I want to try this again, but this time I will try without the links.  Will that be alright?  You can find all of these businesses on the link to Flippin's actual website that I posted in the section specifically marked "external links."  I would also greatly appreciate not being blocked this time.PandaRico 19:04, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

ASU Herald
What can I do to avoid having my article deleted? I thought it seemed relevent enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PandaRico (talk • contribs) 22:33, 17 November 2006.


 * Provide proof that it's well-known; see the notability guideline for details. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What's a Horror Train, and a Switchback?
They don't go anywhere. So, what's the point??? Wouldn't it be smarter to make it go to roller coasters-steel or wooden?
 * Just because a link doesn't go anywhere doesn't mean it should be deleted. Please discuss on the talk page first. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with useless links is that people think it's done, go there, and then you have these stupid links of nothing. Thus, people aren't going to do anything with these useless links. They just want to know what that ride is, and they never find out. The people that know the things are probably the people that made them there in the first place. It doesn't help anyone else.

Basically, if I kept on adding to the Roller Coaster Type, I could literally get 16 links underneath roller coaster. I just don't see the point if Horror Train and Switchback are two different types of roller coasters (I have never heard of these.). That's why Steel and Wooden would be more appropriately.

I'm not trying to make my point, but really what is a Horror Train? Is this a dark ride like Snow White at Walt Disney World??
 * If a knowledgeable person sees the red link, they could actually create the article, providing some information. Also, I'm not sure what a horror train is (and I've never been on that ride), but I'm guessing the intent isn't to scare people by fast motion and acceleration, but to scare them by images, sound, etc. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the deal
I'm unsure as to why you sent me the follwoing message:

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

This is your last warning. The next time you insert a spam link, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted from Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The links I added were entirely valuable and consistent with the other links on the web page. The links allowed people to view specific information relating to the page. Most of the other pages are promoting something, are directly selling products, or have advertisements on the page. The link is very appropriate for that page. Please do not delete the links I choose to add again. Unitemedia 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your link also has several advertisements and sells books and you added it to over 10 pages in a short amount o fotime. This sets off several alarms, so to speak. One addition to the central Myers-Briggs Type Indicator page might have been acceptable; however, even then it would be debatable due to the fact that the site clearly is very interested in selling its wares, considering the advertisements in the middle of the text. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Directly from the MetaWiki page: Although external links on content pages provide useful information, Wikimedia projects are not search engines or link repositories. They should be kept to a useful minimum, and provide relevant and non-trivial information that isn't present in the page. Where possible, consider using content in links to expand the page or create new pages. Supporting references or footnotes need not be kept to a minimum, but they should be separated from other external links.

Many sites are commercial in nature. Although this provides motive to spam them on wiki pages, there is no problem with commercial sites that are useful references. Many major newspaper websites contain heavy advertisement, but they are nonetheless good references. In the end, the best criteria to consider is the content and relevancy.


 * Note that it clearly states there is no problem with commercial sites and the link provided very useful information that is not available on any other web site. I am going to re-add the links and I would appreciate it if you did not remove them. Thank you for the dialogue.
 * The information your links provided were already available on two other links on the articles. If you add any more, you will be blocked. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to have examples of how our specific type description for a type (i.e.; ESTJ, ENFP) on the same page of that type? Please provide the link examples. Each page I changed went to a different page for a different type. Just because our site may be on another website it doesn't preclude us from being added to the Wiki so users have direct access to our unique content.
 * Correct; external links are allowed. However, these links are unnecessary, as links already exist that provide similar information. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I would propose that you aren't fully aware of what you are talking about. Each page provides a very different perspective about what an "ESTP" is. They are necessary because there are hundreds of books on the topic of personality type--all giving a different perspective. And the Socionics links have ads, the Keirsey site sells information. I would propose that the descriptions on bestfittype.com are unlike any type description on the internet and provide an enormous amount of value for the internet user. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Unitemedia (talk • contribs) 01:01, 18 November 2006.
 * WP:NOT a collection of external links. Also, do you work for or represent Unite Media Group, Inc.? Because if so, then the link is also not allowed due to your affiliation with bestfittype.com (see the Wikipedia external link guidelines). Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:12, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do you think the editor of this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keirsey_Temperament_Sorter#Myers-Briggs_Types_versus_Keirsey.27s_Temperaments

and pages associated with it are not directly linked? These pages contain copyrighted material that only a publisher or someone violating copyright would have, but no action is taken? Why?

This page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldmarshal_%28Role_Variant%29

directly links to: http://www.advisorteam.org/the_four-temperaments/temp_rational_fieldmarshal.html, a commercial site that clearly benefits from this page existing---even though the ENTJ is the more general and useful page. Can you explain the inconsistency in this decision-making process? Unitemedia 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What do you mean 'editor of this page'? There is no one editor. And can you provide proof that copyright violation is occurring? That would be a serious problem indeed, and accusations of it must be backed up with proof. Also, the ENTJ page descrbes only one system: the Myers-Briggs; the Fieldmarshal page describes a different one. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:41, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You clearly don't know what you are talking about because it is one system. An ENTJ is the same anywhere. Just because the pages says it is a different system doesn't mean it is accurate. It is in the interest of the person that wrote the page and they are the ones who are ignorant. The fact is that you are clearly unaware of the content and if you not taking action against others links, then I'm sending you a warning not to delete VALID external links.
 * The link removal was justified because of your affiliation with the site. If anybody else wants to add the link, that's fine. Also, I have removed your 'warning' since it is invalid. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Martyrs Mirror Online
The articles you site I'm not sure which contribution you are talking about some included text editing and I cited a reference the Martyrs Mirror Online which I manage that is not a commercial entity.

This: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 00:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Must therefore be well kind of silly. Mennogeorge 00:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Per the Wikipedia external link guidelines, you should not link to sites that you own or maintain. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

So you deleted the link from an official source before knowing that I managed it? Hmm sounds fishy what about the same IP different user who is in fact not a manager of the site who is fact a long term wikipedia user. I'm fine following the rules but I have an issue with your overzealous, and pompous attitude to educational resources.

You also deleted parts of an article it appears. That just seems innappopriate and overzealous.
 * I did not delete the link solely because you manage it. I deleted it because it seemed to be promotion; now that I know that you manage it, I can say for sure that you shouldn't have added the link. I know that you manage it because you said so yourself in your previous comment on my talk page, not because of your IP. Also, how is your site an official source? Finally, can you show me where I deleted parts of an article? I don't believe I've done so recently without justification. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually am only one person involved in maintaining the site. We have a team working on updating the online resources and college universities linking to other various resources. It's an official site because well Authority is determined by the anabaptist churches, and the Martyrs Mirror Historical Society, and the Mennonite Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Morrisville,PA.

I dont think it should be considered spam as we are working hard to provide a genuine free of charge always service non commercial sanctioned by the church in good spirit. Sorry you disagree with our utilization of our website. Mennogeorge 01:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The fact that you are only one of many still disqualifies you from adding the link. Also, can you provide proof that the Anabaptist church as a whole has named your site 'official'? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The anabaptist as a whole is neither a denomination or anything we have a yearly conference. And why should I send you the seal. I can post the documentation on the site if you so need to see it but since you took the links down does it really matter. I just hope you dont have this anti-mennonite bias going on in the future. Asking for any church group as a whole to verify something is like asking God to come down from heaven and tap dance for you. You know their are over 2000 branches of the Catholic Church, and over a hundred of the Anabaptist/Mennonite/Amish Churches ? Mennogeorge 01:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * So then how can you say that your site is official if you yourself admit that it's impossible? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Because we have sought out a great deal of support from a majority of conservative churches who pool resources. Also I can see now that you have edited out the Felix Manz portion. Man, you really do have an issue. Their were no innaccuracies or issues with that. It was all historical factual data that had no hyperlinks of any kind.

How do I report you for just being hard to deal with? Or appeal since the motive their was to add significant data from the Martyrs Mirror itself on the factual events of the martyrdom od Felix Manz.

Let me guess you aren't mennonite, nor do you have any interest in the topic matter. What you have in interet in is policing the wikipedia? Mennogeorge 01:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Correct. I am not treating this case specially due to your religious preferences, the articles' content, the links' content, or anything. Also, the information you have provided is NPOV for assuming that Christianity is true, since you use such phrases as "recognized truth of the gospel" and "sufferings of Christ." Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:55, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

That was a quote from The Martyrs Mirror and it was noted as such. Do you edit out the Jesus Christ article because his jewish names was Yeshua Ben Joseph, and he probably wasn't born of a virgin? I mean come on. Get a life dude.
 * It still states opinion as fact and is therefore not suitable for Wikipedia. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

HOW DO I REPORT YOU or question your SO CALLED AUTHORITY.

Please stop harassing me and sending me messages. ON my page unless you want to go to arbitration. Mennogeorge 02:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to report me, go to Administrator intervention against vandalism. As for questioning my 'so called authority', I think you're doing a fine job right now. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 02:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Unitemedia
Please see here, following on from this. I've been finding inappropriate Linda V Berens references appearing regularly in the MBTI article but I tend only to check it infrequently so I revert them en masse and don't check who is doing it. The article is a magnet for link spam (and I tend to take a fairly relaxed approach to it because the article is such a commercial topic) but it has got ridiculous recently (see the number of Linda V Berens links under references) --Coroebus 12:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is because Linda V Berens goes unknown all over the web for her contributions. For example, she wrote the passage in the MBTI Manual that is referenced to Keirsey--even though she has pioneered the applications of temperament in organizations and has since taken the theory beyond Keirsey. Dr. Berens was a student of Dr. Keirsey (who I would say has a tremendous amount of more commercial links that she does with his Keirsey Sorter--which is sold to millions of people every year). The theory she uses is one in the same and the perspective she brings is a unique contribution to the field--but for the same theory. So, when something is factually inaccurate (like giving David Keirsey credit for information contained in the MBTI Manual) it requires a change.   If you look at all of Dr. Keirsey type pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fieldmarshal_%28Role_Variant%29) it has only 2 links, 1 to Dr. Keirsey's promotional site and 1 to Dr. Keirsey's commercial site.  So, should these pages be taken down because of the reasoning? I would say so.  I'm sure that someone else did not take liberty to add Dr. Keirsey's copyrighted content and create pages for all of the types and then further provide links to his sites. Doesn't that seem sort of odd? Unitemedia 18 November 2006

FyiFoff 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

pop up happiness
hey tanks for ya help mate! just wondering, on this line though: Kinetic energy is pop-ups is created by opening a page, pulling a tab, or turning a wheel. should the first 'is' be an 'in'? I 99.99% certain, but you removed that weird "life force" <- i din't know how to remove it. And i don't want to step on your toes. thanks for the edit!-- Fyifoff01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

XPLANE
I am not sure that I am doing this right...

However I did not add a link to Wikipedia as you suggest. I did see an entry that mentioned my company (XPLANE) and added a link to my blog (I am the founder and CEO of the company). My edit was minor.

I then saw this on my "talk" page: "Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:33, 16 November 2006"

I assumed that if the company was relevant enough to be listed on Wikipedia, then a link to the founder's blog would be relevant -- although I could see how it might be considered self-promotion and would understand if it were deleted.

However I came back today and found THE ENTIRE ARTICLE marked for deletion. To my knowledge the link has been there since 2004 (I am sure you can check that). I do believe the company is notable and have added some new information to clarify.

To be clear -- I did not put the link up but I also do not believe it should be deleted.

In addition, I reviewed the Wikipedia deletion policy and did not see "notable" as a requisite criteria for inclusion. I believe that XPLANE IS notable, however I petition you to withdraw your vote for deletion as it does not appear to be supported by the Wikipedia policy. dgray_xplane

DaveDgray xplane 04:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See the notability guidelines and the corporate notability guidelines. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the guidelines and still believe your assertion is without merit. Moreover, you offer no credentials or expertise that would support your assertion.
 * I find that, generally, just because somebody is not an expert in a subject matter doesn't mean that they can't determine the notability of something in that area. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 19:11, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you think the opinions of non-experts should be considered more valid than industry experts?

Veinor, I want you to know that, although we have had our differences, I have no doubt that your heart is in the right place. This doesn't mean that I agree with your assessments, but I think it's important for you to know that I recognize your efforts and your contributions. Cheers, DaveDgray xplane 07:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Please help re Tibetan antelope
Dear Veinor: you are obviously an expert in these things, so... the page Tibetan Antelope seems to suffer an undue amount of vandalism (intentional or otherwise) -- I have restored it twice recently! May I suggest that page-editing be blocked to non-registered users? Thanks--GRM 11:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean. I don't think that the page warrants sprotection (and I couldn't if I wanted to, because I'm not an admin); however, I will keep an eye on it. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:36, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks--GRM 21:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mr Popular
Wow you sure have a knack for pissing people off judging from you talk page have you ever thought of backing off the hard working voluntary contributers of wikipedia?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tad102 (talk • contribs) 03:54 24 November 2006.
 * Please do not make personal attacks on my talk page; if you have an honest disagreement with me, you should try to be civil about it. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:10, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandal?
Hey, you just reverted a goodfaith revert of mine and it seems as though your summary characterizes it as vandalism. I'm not sure what VP2 is. If it's a robot you use, please make sure it doesn't revert me once I revert the revert. If it was you sans any artificial intelligence, I assure you that it is not vandalism. Æµ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi] 23:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that; VP2 didn't see the edit summary and so it looked like vandalism. You can find info about VP2 at WP:VP2. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Boots Group edit
My addition to the page of Boots Group PLC was an external link to Boots Manufacturing, a wholly own subsidiary of the company, just like Boots The Chemist. The manufacturing arm of the group is even mentioned in the main article, therefore your removal of this link is unjustified.

Regards, How it is 00:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

My article
Hello, can you tell me why my article was deleted? I spoke with another admin and he said it was fine. It took me awhile to link all those articles. So if you can reread I would appreciate it.

Thanks, Pavel


 * Your article was deleted because it read as basically an advertisement. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Veinor,

Can you tell me what I did wrong? I want to add more articles down the line as I'm becoming an English major and don't want to make the same mistakes.

I did some more searching around and you can see the rules are not enforced consistently. Thanks for your time.
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/roadfly
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VWvortex
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/focaljet
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda-Tech
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SoCalEuro

Pavelushakov
 * Thank you for bringing those to my attention. While we cannot be everywhere, we do try as hard as we can. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 06:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Divine Hiddenness Link
Hi Veinor. I am trying to figure out why my link was deleted. Under Divine Hiddenness, I linked to the best resource for the treatment of the subject by professional philosophers of religion on the internet. I'm still trying to understand all the rules here so I appreciate your patience. Also - I apologize that I kept on adding links to other pages! I did not realize I had been getting all the warnings until I saw them start to get deleted.

Sincerely, Alex Dalton 07:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The link was

Hi Veinor, would also like to know why a link was removed from Religious Experience as it was a useful link despite not having a reference in the main body of the article as yet. It was certainly not vandalism even though it was added by an anon user. Would value an explanation. Otherwise I shall restore it. Ammi 14:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because they added the link to over 30 pages in a short amount of time. Also, I think that Alex Dalton above is that IP. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * fair enough :) thanks. I will peruse the link and see if there is anything useful for that specific page. We're having a persistant problem with vandals and revert wars on the Religious Experience page, so I was concerned that this issue was more of the same. Ammi 15:26, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Veinor - I'm not sure why my correspondences here are being deleted. Am I not following the proper protocol for conversing here? Alex Dalton 19:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, none of your correspondences have been deleted. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Very strange. I think I'm just having trouble with the Wiki-software. I appreciate your patience. What I'm wondering is this - If I am putting up an external link to a database that has the most comprehensive treatments of a particular issue online, and I link to different pages of that database on different Wikipedia pages (like the Stanford Encyc. of Philosophy currently has), is this considered spam?Alex Dalton 02:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, yeah. You're adding the same link to 30+ pages, it sets off an alarm so to speak. Read WP:SPAM, near the bottom, under 'How not to be a spammer' #5. Even if you had only added it to one, it would still seem somewhat like spam; WP:NOT a collection of external links. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 05:30, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx Venoir. I read that page about external links. I didn't see anything that tells me what the criteria are for a good external link (e.g. when *is* it ok to post a relevant link). Can you point me to this or tell me what the criteria are?
 * There are criteria near the top of WP:EL. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Pepsi
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Veinor! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, and try to reinsert the link again. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 00:06, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (note: this is not vandalism, this is a bot goof; since I rv'd extensive vandalism, it thought I was linkspamming. Check the diff to see what I mean) Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Rengstorff House
why did you remove the link to http://members.aol.com/MVNick/mansion.htm from the Rengstorff House page? Is having a website on aol automatic grounds for link removal? the page in question is well regarded and informative. thanks, Wookipedia 07:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally, AOL Member sites are considered unencyclopedic. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 07:26, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can see why that generalization might exist, but this particular website is a good source of general information and history about the city of Mountain View. Their main page is linked to from the main Mountain View website (as guidemv.com). I'm going to reinstate the link. Wookipedia 07:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 07:46, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

WTH?
I received a message saying not to put up inappropriate linke, but I have only posted a couple and all to information directly relevent to my site! There is no information as to WHICH link is apparently inappropriate nor WHY it is seen to be. Hardly helpful information to prevent me from not complying with whatever spurious assessment process is being used...

Explain please!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ccc-media (talk • contribs) 19:47, 26 November 2006 (UTC).
 * I removed a link because it was a link to your own site. This is generally forbidden under the external links policy since it is a conflict of interest. Also, please do not vandalize my talkpage. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalize? By posting? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 00:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (talk • contribs).
 * No, by changing the vandalism counter at the top of the page to '0'. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 01:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? I wouldn't even know how to do something like that!?!?!

Well you can delete my account if you wish, it seems to me that referencing material that is relevant, whatever the address of the poster, is appropriate to expanding this service. Your all the equivalent of net-traffic wardens. Enjoy your power trips.
 * Well, you apparently did somehow. The material is also fairly irrelevant, as the site seems to be a conspiracy-theory sort of site, and rather unencyclopedic. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

well that shows how much you have checked! You didnt even read the preface on the home page! Non-partisan, no editorial and regarding the occult you prove to me how 1 view is any more "relevant" that another... De-facto non is proveable as it is a belief system like all religeous doctrine!!

And in the Library/Exconomics section check the links to Historical references, which includes a mass of relevant material fro all sources.

Again, demonstrates the slap happy decision making process you apply.

Read the green text in the home page before just assuming based on the logo. Look b4 you leap. Assumption is the mother of all *mistakes*.
 * Au contraire; I read the green text on the front as soon as I went to the site. As for your objection that all views of a belief system are equal (I think this is what you're trying to say; the improper grammar and spelling makes it somewhat hard to read), what if I were to propose that Christianity required members to eat babies and hasn't done anything good in human history? Clearly this viewpoint is lunacy; do you think it is equal with the viewpoint that Christianity has caused both great good and great evil? As for your claims that it's not a conspiracy cite, I invite you to look at the bold yellow 'Conspiracy?' at the top of the page. Finally, the fact remains that it is a link to your own site, and is therefore highly discouraged; one should instead mention it on the talkpage of the article.


 * Also, 'de facto' has no hyphen and is usually used to contrast with reality, e.g. 'The school supposedly did not discriminate, but de facto discrimination still took place.' Just thought you might like to know. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 22:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh that is the lamest, bad grammer, it was clearly stated and correctly phrased (ohh a typo, what a basis for an arguement lmao).

I said the references, it is within context so if you did say that you would be contradicted by other material and people can make their own assessment based on material provided and personal experience. TOTALLY fasciile pseudo-intellectual arguement!

As to the fact *you* say it IS a conspiracy site, precisely, it ends in "?" hence lending the individual the chance to make THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT based on the content, which provides multiple angles on all the subjects. Additionally you selectively hightlight the "?" and not the "Watch, Read, Think, Decide!". How convenient. So yet again you demonstrate not only an ignorance of the concept of self-determination but also punctuation!

Kill my account, like I said your a jumped up net-traffic warden on some kind of power trip with your censorship powers. Hope they keep you warm at night you sad mental munchkin.
 * Look, this entire song-and-dance is irrelevant. The fact remains that it is your OWN site, and that it therefore should not have been linked to because of conflicts of interest, regardless of its suitability. Even though WP:EL and WP:COI are only guidelines, this case is pretty cut-and-dried. Also, what's 'fasciile' supposed to be? Finally, I cannot delete an account. I'm not even sure if that's possible; however, you do have the 'right to vanish', i.e. to leave Wikipedia and never return. Would you settle for an infinite block? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The fascile statement was in response to your lame statement to not being able to understand my response due to "bad grammar" and a typo! Again, it was very clear. If there is no Wiki definition I suggest you look the word up, it's spelt correctly - "Fascile".

As you say, they are GUIDELINES, and as such requires some concidered thought, not a neo-nazi deletion policy you are applying by a self-imposed narscesist premise. My reasoning for the validity & relevance of the addition were not only simple they are very obvious, except your inability to realise that because a site has the word conspiracy with an "?" it may not actually be about that.

And yes, fine, u wanna perma-block me, knock yourself out, no doubt it will enhance your already over inflated ego trip.


 * Though I can't block users, I forwarded a request to an admin via IRC, and you have been perma-blocked per your request. Have a nice day! Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

???
You're nuts man, you are the poster child for everything that's wrong with wikipedia. You censor and delete at will on a site intended to facilite discussion and openness, the whole lot of you are mad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeremyrharrington (talk • contribs)
 * Er.... what? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

1337
What! i did not vandalise Leet! Hai2u is a prime example of 1337ness in a website!! Moh man742 03:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Er, no. Hai2u is a shock site. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * But it has 1337 in it's title! Moh man742 03:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not really; 'hai' isn't 1337, and the 'to' -> 2 and 'you' -> u is more text-speak than 1337. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Response appreciated please...
An answer to my question about your removal of a legitimate link in the Boots Group article would be appreciated please; preferably accompanied with a restoration of the aforementioned link.

Regards, How it is 11:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, my apologies. Wikipedia is not a collection of external links, although this is debatable due to the close relationship; perhaps you could bring it up on the talk page? Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice Guy
You have asked me to provide d=evidence of the fact that different women fancy different stuff. You are obviously part of the pro bully anti good guy agenda. I hate people like you. and this is not vandalims. Why do i need to provide a citation, to support the fact that different women fancy different stuff. The nice guy article is disgusting. It is suggesting every women fancies what type of man often abusive bulklying men. It is fact that not all women are the same. And only a rapist would dissagree with that. And do not delete this answer the point i am making. Be a man for once in your life, and face up to my argument. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iyouyou (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC).
 * First off, personal attacks, such as calling me a rapist, are not allowed on Wikipedia; you have been warned on your talkpage, and will be blocked if you make another. Second, I removed your link and subsequent description at the top of Nice guy because it was obvious advertising and vandalism as well. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 23:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey Veinor, just thought I'd say thank you for the "thankless" job your doing (I read profiles :P). My you have been under fire lately, sorry that you have had to gone through that.  Wishing you a nicer Wikipedia week!¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk)  03:49, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks; and thank you for reverting the edits on my Userpage! Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 03:52, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I Am Not Spamming
I am trying to add information to Wikipedia pages in New Jersey for locations I am familiar with. I am just trying to inform and improve the Wikipedia articles. I am not spamming links. Are you referring to something in particular? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rock nj (talk • contribs) 15:18, 28 November 2006 (UTC).
 * Yeah; it's really just one thing I'm talking about: this edit to List of rail trails in New Jersey. It seems kinda unneeded to me, as the link is presumably just to another list, which is what the article is supposed to be. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I'll return to the info in the linked document and add the proposed trails to the article. However, for now it is a very relevant document for those seeking information about proposed rail trails in New Jersey.  You are being a bit picky.  This is not spam, it is relevant and informative. Rock nj 16:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This looks better now. The issue was that the link was added to the top and in the wrong section; it looked rather spammish to me. I'm moving it to the 'External Links' section where it belongs, and am personally willing to keep it, as it does contain good information.
 * I probably should've done that in the first place, but you have to understand: spam reversion is often done at high speed due to the sheer volume of it (linkspam alone often occurs 10 times/minute). Therefore, one tends to develop a 'shoot first, ask questions later' sort of mentality. Also, if you do add the extra info and get it from that .pdf, be sure to cite it. Veinor (ヴエノル(talk)) 18:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Not Self Promoting!
Hello my name is John,14, and i have created the page Bomb&Smash. I created it to give alot of user insite of the Show and For people to see it might be self promting but i still feel you should let us keep it because we worked very hard on it and i've been a fan of wikipedia for a very long time. But there are alot of other things that people don't care about than our show. alot of people care about our show actually so we would reall appreciate if you kept it ther for atleast a month. Thank You.